Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on November 03, 2011, 02:22:PM
-
(1) Two contrasting Photographs which show Sheila on the bed exist, in one she has two entry wounds to her neck, yet other one only shows one
(2) Black bible was photographed on bed
(3) Blood dripped onto kitchen floor from arm of person who left bloodied finger marks, and that person was non other than Ralph Bamber...
-
(3) Blood dripped onto kitchen floor from arm of person who left bloodied finger marks, and that person was non other than Ralph Bamber...
Do you now suspect Ralph of being one of the killers then Mike?
-
Very exciting new information (not that I have assimilated it into my thinking yet).
But on the basis of your trip this morning(no copies/photos, etc.) is it evidence which is likely to be produced at any future stage? I have no doubts about what you have seen today and in the past, but in doesn't progress things much until it is in the public domain, or aat least in the hands of JB's solicitors.
-
I am gobsmacked by what I have been told today, and after being shown three Photographs which I had not seen before. - I am flabbergasted...
-
I am gobsmacked by what I have been told today, and after being shown three Photographs which I had not seen before. - I am flabbergasted...
Are you not going to tell us then?
-
(1) Two contrasting Photographs which show Sheila on the bed exist, in one she has two entry wounds to her neck, yet other one only shows one
(2) Black bible was photographed on bed
(3) Blood dripped onto kitchen floor from arm of person who left bloodied finger marks, and that person was non other than Ralph Bamber...
So the photographs mentioned would lend to the view that one shot at least was delivered by a police officer...and
the x ray fragments....of the first bullet...hmmm by my reckoning the fragments are from a bullet larger than a .22 calibre... something closer to a diameter of 10 mm would fit better....so who's weapon fired that?...and if of a larger calibre it explains why the fragmented bullet had to be swapped !
-
I am gobsmacked by what I have been told today, and after being shown three Photographs which I had not seen before. - I am flabbergasted...
I've always suspected that 'Shaw' was given a sanitised version of what took place at WHF.
-
If what you say is true then these photographs are vital evidence and hope on the strength of this that person who showed them to you has the decency to give them to the appropriate authorities. I would have been much more underhanded when dealing with this informant. I would have gone there wired and with a secret camera. I wonder why he contacted you Mike?
-
Good afternoon all
Mike, please may I ask the following.....
The three photographs that you have viewed, have they been kept by your informant since the tragedy?
I am assuming that they are part of the batch of photographs currently withheld under PII?
Thankyou.
-
(3) Blood dripped onto kitchen floor from arm of person who left bloodied finger marks, and that person was non other than Ralph Bamber...
Do you now suspect Ralph of being one of the killers then Mike?
More likely he was shot after/during making phone call.
Presumably, these are the fingermarks on edge of worktop?
-
(1) Two contrasting Photographs which show Sheila on the bed exist, in one she has two entry wounds to her neck, yet other one only shows one
(2) Black bible was photographed on bed
(3) Blood dripped onto kitchen floor from arm of person who left bloodied finger marks, and that person was non other than Ralph Bamber...
Mike, in the photograph showing only one bullet wound to Sheila's neck. Which bullet wound is it, the top one or the lower one?
-
(1) Two contrasting Photographs which show Sheila on the bed exist, in one she has two entry wounds to her neck, yet other one only shows one
(2) Black bible was photographed on bed
(3) Blood dripped onto kitchen floor from arm of person who left bloodied finger marks, and that person was non other than Ralph Bamber...
Mike, in the photograph showing only one bullet wound to Sheila's neck. Which bullet wound is it, the top one or the lower one?
Black Bible? ....I'm intrigued! Mike, look forward to more on this x
-
(1) Two contrasting Photographs which show Sheila on the bed exist, in one she has two entry wounds to her neck, yet other one only shows one
(2) Black bible was photographed on bed
(3) Blood dripped onto kitchen floor from arm of person who left bloodied finger marks, and that person was non other than Ralph Bamber...
Mike, in the photograph showing only one bullet wound to Sheila's neck. Which bullet wound is it, the top one or the lower one?
The lower one, with what I believe to be a silencers mark around it, one under chin is missing in the picture (Z) showed me this afternoon. I couldn't believe it when (Z) showed it to me, there was just the lower neck wound, the one under the chin was inflicted after this photograph was taken (this is what (Z) told me today)...
This was why Dr Craig (police surgeon) and PI "Bob" Miller, referred to Sheila only having one wound at the time they first viewed her body in the bedroom. Also, why Miller told the deputy coroner, Mr Thompkin that Sheila shot and killed the others and that she had then taken her own life with a solitary shot...
I am flabbergasted by what I have been shown today...
-
(1) Two contrasting Photographs which show Sheila on the bed exist, in one she has two entry wounds to her neck, yet other one only shows one
(2) Black bible was photographed on bed
(3) Blood dripped onto kitchen floor from arm of person who left bloodied finger marks, and that person was non other than Ralph Bamber...
Mike, in the photograph showing only one bullet wound to Sheila's neck. Which bullet wound is it, the top one or the lower one?
The lower one, with what I believe to be a silencers mark around it, one under chin is missing in the picture (Z) showed me this afternoon. I couldn't believe it when (Z) showed it to me, there was just the lower neck wound, the one under the chin was inflicted after this photograph was taken (this is what (Z) told me today)...
This was why Dr Craig (police surgeon) and PI "Bob" Miller, referred to Sheila only having one wound at the time they first viewed her body in the bedroom. Also, why Miller told the deputy coroner, Mr Thompkin that Sheila shot and killed the others and that she had then taken her own life with a solitary shot...
I am flabbergasted by what I have been shown today...
It has been asked on here by my self and others if Sheila could have 'played dead' downstairs? She may not be not significantly injured if no shot was received downstairs and therefore not hampered in any subsequent movements, as the raid team sweep through the farmhouse rooms. Where do these alleged photographs leave both the circular blood pattern on the master bedroom carpet and report 1612*?
*(Not that it is known exactly what this report refers to).
-
Why has this former police person not come forward earlier if he/she is in possession of such explosive evidence as photographs of Sheila with one bullet hole to her neck?
-
Good afternoon all
Mike, please may I ask the following.....
The three photographs that you have viewed, have they been kept by your informant since the tragedy?
I am assuming that they are part of the batch of photographs currently withheld under PII?
Thankyou.
Yes, (Z) told me that several officers kept copies of some of the photographs and other material, after they were ordered to give a false account about finding Sheila's body on the bedroom floor by the side of the bed with the gun atop it and a blue bible nearby. (Z) says they were given these specific instructions after being ordered to attend a special debriefing on 19th September 1985. (Z) says that statements were prepared for almost all of the officers by one of the seniors, and dated, 19th and some 20th September 1985 and that many of the firearms officers refused to sign the prepared statements because the contents were not true...
(Z) only brought three photographs to show me today, there are five others, eight in total - photographs which correspond to the missing negatives which were cut out and kept by one of the disgruntled officers as insurance should there come a time when they might be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice, and perjury. (Z) says but for the removal of these eight negatives from the reel of film, the corresponding eight pictures would have been withheld under pii, but because they do not form part of the official evidence, they are not covered by pii...
-
If what you say is true then these photographs are vital evidence and hope on the strength of this that person who showed them to you has the decency to give them to the appropriate authorities. I would have been much more underhanded when dealing with this informant. I would have gone there wired and with a secret . I wonder why he contacted you Mike?
If the photographs I was shown today were officially disclosed to the CCRC the case would almost certainly be referred back to the court of appeal, and the convictions would be quashed. (Z) is a member/guest of the forum...
-
So is Z prepared to give these to J's team, or go public or what? Why didn't he bring all 8? I hate to say this (sorry if he's reading) but is he asking for payment?
-
(3) Blood dripped onto kitchen floor from arm of person who left bloodied finger marks, and that person was non other than Ralph Bamber...
Do you now suspect Ralph of being one of the killers then Mike?
(Z) told me that the police were originally working on the assumption that although Sheila was primarily responsible for instigating the events that sparked off all the shootings, that Ralph and June were at one stage suspected of taking possession of a weapon with a view to using it to defend themselves. This was why the press got into a bit of a mix up by originally declaring that JUNE Bamber had shot and killed everyone...
It now seems clear to me that when Ralph made the call to Jeremy, to try and lure him to the farm so that Sheila could shoot him as well, that Ralph was already wounded in his arm. (Z) told me that blood from this injury dripped onto the floor directly beneath where Ralphs bloodied fingermarks were left/found on the edge of the worktop in the kitchen. I was show a photograph today, which pinpoints the dripped blood from an injury to Ralph Bambers arm, on the floor beneath where the bloodied finger marks are situated on the edge of the worktop near to the box of ammunition and the telephone hand set off its cradle. (Z) says that Ralph picked up the handset of the telephone using his uninjured/uncontaminated hand/arm...
-
So is Z prepared to give these to J's team, or go public or what? Why didn't he bring all 8? I hate to say this (sorry if he's reading) but is he asking for payment?
(Z) has taken a massive step forward by doing what got done today, we will have to wait and see whether or not (Z) and the others do the right thing and come forward, and declare this missing evidence, and own up to what senior officers ordered them to do, to cover up for Sheila getting shot for the second time after the police surgeon, Dr Craig, had already confirmed her as being dead, from an injury which the pathologist says elsewhere was not instantaneously fatal? (Z) says Sheila was not dead when Dr Craig confirmed her as being dead, she did not die until the second shot went off under her chin at a time when police were trying to fathom out how she had shot herself in the side of the neck? (Z) says whilst a loaded gun was being presented upon her body with a view of trying to determine the angle at which it must have been offered into position to fire the shot to the side of the neck (lower wound), how rifle was still loaded with a bullet in the breach, which went off and shot Sheila under the chin and killed her, instantaneously...
This was what the clover up was all about - the infliction of the second shot under the chin, that occurred because of a massive police blunder, at a time when the police surgeon, Dr Craig had already declared her to be dead...
-
(1) Two contrasting Photographs which show Sheila on the bed exist, in one she has two entry wounds to her neck, yet other one only shows one
Mike,
Did your informant cast any light on why the police took a photo of Sheila with only one wound?
i.e. when he was presumably still alive?
This is completely illogical to me :-\
-
(1) Two contrasting Photographs which show Sheila on the bed exist, in one she has two entry wounds to her neck, yet other one only shows one
Mike,
Did your informant cast any light on why the police took a photo of Sheila with only one wound?
i.e. when he was presumably still alive?
This is completely illogical to me :-\
photograph taken of the solitary wound to Sheila's neck must have been taken at a time when they thought she was dead in keeping with the pronouncement made by Dr Craig who verified or confirmed death in her case at around 8:44am. Second photograph showing both wounds was obviously taken after the accident when the gun had gone off during mishandling of the rife and the body there afterwards...
-
(Z) says it was not until after second shot went off accidentally and caused the fatal shot under the chin, that police at the scene realized that shiela had not been dead after all, but by that stage Dr Craig had left the scene, and (Z) says this was when another doctor named HARRIS was requested to attend the scene and he verified Sheila as being dead for a second time...
-
(1) Two contrasting Photographs which show Sheila on the bed exist, in one she has two entry wounds to her neck, yet other one only shows one
Mike,
Did your informant cast any light on why the police took a photo of Sheila with only one wound?
i.e. when he was presumably still alive?
This is completely illogical to me :-\
photograph taken of the solitary wound to Sheila's neck must have been taken at a time when they thought she was dead in keeping with the pronouncement made by Dr Craig who verified or confirmed death in her case at around 8:44am. Second photograph showing both wounds was obviously taken after the accident when the gun had gone off during mishandling of the rife and the body there afterwards...
So how does this fit in with the one-dead-male-one-dead-female theory of Sheila being in the kitchen on entry and then recovering from one shot and running up the back stairs? By the time the one-shot photo was taken the house would have been crawling with police, soco etc. so no way could she have done the runner after that surely?
-
If second shot under the chin was inflicted accidentally by mishandling of the rifle and body by the police, why did they feel it was necessary to substitute the original fragmented bullet, PV/20, for a whole one?
(Z) says this was done to try and make this into a one gun crime, where Sheila was shot twice in quick succession by use of the same gun, but that in reality Sheila was shot twice by use of two different weapons, with a delay between both shots being fired...
-
(Z) says it was not until after second shot went off accidentally and caused the fatal shot under the chin, that police at the scene realized that shiela had not been dead after all, but by that stage Dr Craig had left the scene, and (Z) says this was when another doctor named HARRIS was requested to attend the scene and he verified Sheila as being dead for a second time...
Why did they realise she hadn't been dead, how did they know they hadn't just shot a dead body? Sorry, I realise you would probably need to ask Z that.
I don't recall seeing anything about a Dr Harris before, is there anything about him on the forum already?
-
(1) Two contrasting Photographs which show Sheila on the bed exist, in one she has two entry wounds to her neck, yet other one only shows one
Mike,
Did your informant cast any light on why the police took a photo of Sheila with only one wound?
i.e. when he was presumably still alive?
This is completely illogical to me :-\
photograph taken of the solitary wound to Sheila's neck must have been taken at a time when they thought she was dead in keeping with the pronouncement made by Dr Craig who verified or confirmed death in her case at around 8:44am. Second photograph showing both wounds was obviously taken after the accident when the gun had gone off during mishandling of the rife and the body there afterwards...
So how does this fit in with the one-dead-male-one-dead-female theory of Sheila being in the kitchen on entry and then recovering from one shot and running up the back stairs? By the time the one-shot photo was taken the house would have been crawling with police, soco etc. so no way could she have done the runner after that surely?
Wait until you hear what (Z) had to say about that?
-
(1) Two contrasting Photographs which show Sheila on the bed exist, in one she has two entry wounds to her neck, yet other one only shows one
Mike,
Did your informant cast any light on why the police took a photo of Sheila with only one wound?
i.e. when he was presumably still alive?
This is completely illogical to me :-\
photograph taken of the solitary wound to Sheila's neck must have been taken at a time when they thought she was dead in keeping with the pronouncement made by Dr Craig who verified or confirmed death in her case at around 8:44am. Second photograph showing both wounds was obviously taken after the accident when the gun had gone off during mishandling of the rife and the body there afterwards...
So how does this fit in with the one-dead-male-one-dead-female theory of Sheila being in the kitchen on entry and then recovering from one shot and running up the back stairs? By the time the one-shot photo was taken the house would have been crawling with police, soco etc. so no way could she have done the runner after that surely?
Wait until you hear what (Z) had to say about that?
Do tell...
-
(Z) says it was not until after second shot went off accidentally and caused the fatal shot under the chin, that police at the scene realized that shiela had not been dead after all, but by that stage Dr Craig had left the scene, and (Z) says this was when another doctor named HARRIS was requested to attend the scene and he verified Sheila as being dead for a second time...
Why did they realise she hadn't been dead, how did they know they hadn't just shot a dead body? Sorry, I realise you would probably need to ask Z that.
I don't recall seeing anything about a Dr Harris before, is there anything about him on the forum already?
Blood, the way it started to run out of the wound and aspirated blood that forced onto the top part of her nightdress at the material time/moment...
-
Mike,
Are you able to give an opinion on post number 13?
What's the chance that Z will break cover on the forum? Probably highly unlikely I would have thought.
Z - any chance of a pm?
-
(1) Two contrasting Photographs which show Sheila on the bed exist, in one she has two entry wounds to her neck, yet other one only shows one
Mike,
Did your informant cast any light on why the police took a photo of Sheila with only one wound?
i.e. when he was presumably still alive?
This is completely illogical to me :-\
He's just told you that. Read it again.
-
Some random thoughts I am mulling over.
Z has kept photos for 25+ years, with a strong inference this is in "self-defence" in case the real story of WHF ever comes to light.
Z offers to show these to Mike Tesko, but with no duplication allowed. However, Mike is allowed to tell us what he has seen.
Z has not given these photos to CCRC or the JB appeal team (we assume).
Therefore, either:-
Z wants to see justice done, but does not trust someone somewhere to use the information correctly; this can be discounted as if the photo gets into the public domain such as publishing on the internet here, it can no longer be denied, or stolen, or lost (etc.)
or
Z is wanting to discredit MT by giving him further info he can speak about but not produce.
or
Z is confused about what course to take. If Z was a police officer, it is difficult to "grass" on an organisation like that, especially where possibly long term colleagues, and maybe Z himself (or herself) may be implicated. Perhaps the thought that it will become clear to others involved that the missing evidence is still around may lead to others coming forward, meaning Z doesn't fear 'outing' this new evidence alone.
Any other ideas on the reasson forr todays revelations?
-
(1) Two contrasting Photographs which show Sheila on the bed exist, in one she has two entry wounds to her neck, yet other one only shows one
Mike,
Did your informant cast any light on why the police took a photo of Sheila with only one wound?
i.e. when he was presumably still alive?
This is completely illogical to me :-\
photograph taken of the solitary wound to Sheila's neck must have been taken at a time when they thought she was dead in keeping with the pronouncement made by Dr Craig who verified or confirmed death in her case at around 8:44am. Second photograph showing both wounds was obviously taken after the accident when the gun had gone off during mishandling of the rife and the body there afterwards...
So how does this fit in with the one-dead-male-one-dead-female theory of Sheila being in the kitchen on entry and then recovering from one shot and running up the back stairs? By the time the one-shot photo was taken the house would have been crawling with police, soco etc. so no way could she have done the runner after that surely?
Wait until you hear what (Z) had to say about that?
Do tell...
(Z) says that those logs are false, they were invented to try and accommodate for the fact that Sheila had been shot twice, once downstairs during a purported struggle with Ralph, and secondly upstairs when she had succeeded in taking her own life? (Z) says the officers report about a shooting incident downstairs was also part of the same false scenario, all designed to try to explain how Sheila had been shot twice?
When relatives started to poke their noses into the shootings, it was too late for the police to start telling the truth about what they had been responsible for, because the bodies had been disposed of, and lies told at the opening of the inquest, and so other measures were taken which included the substitution of the original fragmented bullet, PV/20, by replacing it with a whole control bullet, so that the two different scenarios where Sheila had been shot once downstairs and once upstairs by use of different weapons could be merged into9 a one gun crime scenario...
-
(Z) says it was not until after second shot went off accidentally and caused the fatal shot under the chin, that police at the scene realized that shiela had not been dead after all, but by that stage Dr Craig had left the scene, and (Z) says this was when another doctor named HARRIS was requested to attend the scene and he verified Sheila as being dead for a second time...
Which also explains the still wet blood from the wound.
-
What guarantee's did they ask of you , over what they told and showed you ?
-
Sorry, I was typing as relevent info was being posted and did not read the updates.
Lots explained there, thanks.
Although I still have a concern MT might be being set up with more evidence that will never be released, which will only feed to 'JB guilty' side of the argument.
-
(1) Two contrasting Photographs which show Sheila on the bed exist, in one she has two entry wounds to her neck, yet other one only shows one
(2) Black bible was photographed on bed
(3) Blood dripped onto kitchen floor from arm of person who left bloodied finger marks, and that person was non other than Ralph Bamber...
Sorry I cannot buy into this. Shiela on the bed with one gunshot wound, and then later with two,[on the bed]
Lets look at this.Past posts have suggested that Sheila shot herself once downstairs, and after the raid team entered she legged it up the stairs, and shot herself again, So one shot downstairs, and one shot upstairs. On past post Sheila was downstairs with a wound to her neck, and woke up skidadled upstairs. laid on the bed with June, and blew her brains out.
Are we now implying that Sheila was photographed once on the bed with one wound, and a second time with two?
I may be missing something here, but if I am not this is bollocks. IMO.
-
May I urge this ex police officer to have the courage to come forward and do the right thing? To save the life of an innocent man who has spent over 26 years in prison. Not only that but has been condemned and vilified by many and unjustly so. This information will not only free him, but also vindicate him. This police officer will be considered a hero by many for once and for all declaring the truth.
-
Grahame it will all go quiet soon ???
-
(Z) says it was not until after second shot went off accidentally and caused the fatal shot under the chin, that police at the scene realized that shiela had not been dead after all, but by that stage Dr Craig had left the scene, and (Z) says this was when another doctor named HARRIS was requested to attend the scene and he verified Sheila as being dead for a second time...
Which also explains the still wet blood from the wound.
(Z) also says that there was some sort of a big internal enquiry regarding the actions of the ambulance crews, and a senior member of the ambulance service who attended the scene, but who were all turned away without them setting eyes on any of the victims. (Z) says the mistake made by Dr Craig when he wrongly confirmed Sheila's death at 8;44am, was further compounded by the sending away or the withdrawal of the ambulances and their crews from the scene, at a time when they might have been able to save Sheila's life?
-
(Z) says this was/is why the photographic album has been tampered with, and why PC Bird created a false MASTER COPY ALBUM pertaining to contain 223 pictures, when all along there were 581 photographs in the top secret album we now know to be called THE SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM...
The correct sequence of all photographs that were taken at the scene were capable of exposing the cover up, this is what (Z) told me today...
-
It will all come down to whether the alleged photos shown today are genuine.
-
Tell you what I want to know Mike. Why were TWO firearms units sent to WHF
I will try and dig out the story and post it.
It appears that the first group were in conversation withy someone inside the house, so more backup was requested.
Do you know anything of this Mike?
-
(Z) showed me three photographs today which I have never seen before, (Z) says the negatives for these were cut out from the strip of negatives not as part of a cover up, but taken by officers who have been caught up in this conspiracy after they were ordered by senior officers to make false statements (which most officers refused to sign). (Z) says that most of the officers concerned refused to attend the trial to give the false testimony that was put into their statements by senior officers and later by the editing of those same statements by the DPP's office...
-
Tell you what I want to know Mike. Why were TWO firearms units sent to WHF
I will try and dig out the story and post it.
It appears that the first group were in conversation withy someone inside the house, so more backup was requested.
Do you know anything of this Mike?
yes, I know more about that after meeting (Z) today for the second time in as many days...
-
Have you been able to verify that this informant is who he says he is Mike?
-
(Z) showed me three photographs today which I have never seen before, (Z) says the negatives for these were cut out from the strip of negatives not as part of a cover up, but taken by officers who have been caught up in this conspiracy after they were ordered by senior officers to make false statements (which most officers refused to sign). (Z) says that most of the officers concerned refused to attend the trial to give the false testimony that was put into their statements by senior officers and later by the editing of those same statements by the DPP's office...
Mike, did Z tell you what he intends to do with these photos? Can he guarantee to keep them safe?
-
Have you been able to verify that this informant is who he says he is Mike?
Yes, I know who (Z) is/was - I understand one other is also keen to come forward and tell the truth, but (Z) won't tell me this persons identity yet. (Z) says forum is being monitored by Essex police, and CPS, and CCRC, and relatives...
Everyone is welcome, don't be shy speak up and have your say...
-
(Z) showed me three photographs today which I have never seen before, (Z) says the negatives for these were cut out from the strip of negatives not as part of a cover up, but taken by officers who have been caught up in this conspiracy after they were ordered by senior officers to make false statements (which most officers refused to sign). (Z) says that most of the officers concerned refused to attend the trial to give the false testimony that was put into their statements by senior officers and later by the editing of those same statements by the DPP's office...
Mike, did Z tell you what he intends to do with these photos? Can he guarantee to keep them safe?
The photographs exist, and (Z) told me where to find information to confirm they exist, (Z) says there is mention of these pictures and others, and a great deal of evidence to help Jeremy's cause, contained in the handwritten version of the SCENES OF CRIME REGISTER, which is currently being deliberately withheld under pii...
(Z) says everything that was found or seized from the scene as part of the investigation is recorded in that register, and that Jeremy's legal team should do everything and anything they can to try and get their hands upon that register, because there is mention in it of the fact that Sheila was still very much alive at the scene long after Dr Criag the police surgeon confirmed her as being dead at 8:44am...
-
Why has it taken 26 long years for them to have a conscious Mike?
-
Why has it taken 26 long years for them to have a conscious Mike?
That's true. Why now? Why not even when you started the forum, and people could see your intent?
Why wouldn't he give you those photos, Mike, or at least copies? What good are they, hidden away?
-
(Z) also confirmed that David Boutflour found silencer at whf on 11th September 1985, and that Ann Eaton handed it over to the police on that same day...
-
(Z) also confirmed that David Boutflour found silencer at whf on 11th September 1985, and that Ann Eaton handed it over to the police on that same day...
Did he say , how he believed silencer got there ?
-
Well, like it or not Mike, now that you have seen these alleged photographs you are a material witness. I also see no reason why this person didn't give you a copy of the photographs. That way he/she would not be implicated in any way. Something aint quite right here?
-
Why has it taken 26 long years for them to have a conscious Mike?
That's true. Why now? Why not even when you started the forum, and people could see your intent?
Why wouldn't he give you those photos, Mike, or at least copies? What good are they, hidden away?
those photos mean nothing, because only mike and z can say they exist, its like the photo of hseila on the bed all over again. I would have smacked z in the mouth and nicked his pictures, handed them straight to jb's legal team, no i wouldnt really!
seriously, the pics are meaningless while kept away from the people that matter.
-
(Z) says forum is being monitored by Essex police, and CPS, and CCRC, and relatives...
I bet it is....the irony!
-
(Z) also confirmed that David Boutflour found silencer at whf on 11th September 1985, and that Ann Eaton handed it over to the police on that same day...
Did he say , how he believed silencer got there ?
(Z) tells me that the silencer found by the relatives was not used in the shootings, (Z) says it was the other silencer which was used on the other .22 Rifle...
-
You´d need to see the negatives - anyone can alter photos these days. If I had used more time on this, I could have made it look exactly as if there was only one bullet hole.
-
good work abs, you could have been "done" mike?
-
Why has it taken 26 long years for them to have a conscious Mike?
That's true. Why now? Why not even when you started the forum, and people could see your intent?
Why wouldn't he give you those photos, Mike, or at least copies? What good are they, hidden away?
those photos mean nothing, because only mike and z can say they exist, its like the photo of hseila on the bed all over again. I would have smacked z in the mouth and nicked his pictures, handed them straight to jb's legal team, no i wouldnt really!
seriously, the pics are meaningless while kept away from the people that matter.
It's all too cloak and dagger for me. If someone has photos what the use of just showing them to Mike. They should give them either to Mike or J's legal team. By holding onto them and the information is probably a criminal offence. This person should at least clear his conscience, if he has one knowing for over 26 years an innocent man has been in prison.
-
why would an ex copper involved in the case suddenly develop a sudden case of guilt, and decides to arrange a meet with jb's biggest supporter, with photos that mike cant take copies of? whats the point ? its not going to help is it? Was he for definate an ex copper mike, can you confirm, is it a copper we are familiar with on this forum, a familiar name within ep at the time?
-
I also was shown a photograph of a black covered bible on the bed, which to all intents and purposes has gone missing from the crime scene altogether, and not officially seen, or seized by the police in connection with their inquiries into these five deaths...
-
You´d need to see the negatives - anyone can alter photos these days. If I had used more time on this, I could have made it look exactly as if there was only one bullet hole.
Yes it can be done easily in photoshop. For all we know this person could be telling Mike some really big porky pies? We could be a plant and a big wind up? I wanna see some proof of these photos.
-
why would an ex copper involved in the case suddenly develop a sudden case of guilt, and decides to arrange a meet with jb's biggest supporter, with photos that mike cant take copies of? whats the point ? its not going to help is it? Was he for definate an ex copper mike, can you confirm, is it a copper we are familiar with on this forum, a familiar name within ep at the time?
yes...
-
why would an ex copper involved in the case suddenly develop a sudden case of guilt, and decides to arrange a meet with jb's biggest supporter, with photos that mike cant take copies of? whats the point ? its not going to help is it? Was he for definate an ex copper mike, can you confirm, is it a copper we are familiar with on this forum, a familiar name within ep at the time?
yes...
What did he do to prove it to you ?
-
You´d need to see the negatives - anyone can alter photos these days. If I had used more time on this, I could have made it look exactly as if there was only one bullet hole.
Yes it can be done easilty in photoshop. For all we know this person could be telling Mike some really big porky pies? We could be a plant and a big wind up? I wanna see some proof of these photos.
thankyou graham, my thoughts exactly
-
why would an ex copper involved in the case suddenly develop a sudden case of guilt, and decides to arrange a meet with jb's biggest supporter, with photos that mike cant take copies of? whats the point ? its not going to help is it? Was he for definate an ex copper mike, can you confirm, is it a copper we are familiar with on this forum, a familiar name within ep at the time?
yes...
What did he do to prove it to you ?
-
I also was shown a photograph of a black covered bible on the bed, which to all intents and purposes has gone missing from the crime scene altogether, and not officially seen, or seized by the police in connection with their inquiries into these five deaths...
It would be useful to know what kind and colour Bible June used in church?
-
why would an ex copper involved in the case suddenly develop a sudden case of guilt, and decides to arrange a meet with jb's biggest supporter, with photos that mike cant take copies of? whats the point ? its not going to help is it? Was he for definate an ex copper mike, can you confirm, is it a copper we are familiar with on this forum, a familiar name within ep at the time?
yes...
and you recognised him at once mike, he is a genuine copper from ep at the time of the killings?
-
why would an ex copper involved in the case suddenly develop a sudden case of guilt, and decides to arrange a meet with jb's biggest supporter, with photos that mike cant take copies of? whats the point ? its not going to help is it? Was he for definate an ex copper mike, can you confirm, is it a copper we are familiar with on this forum, a familiar name within ep at the time?
yes...
and you recognised him at once mike, he is a genuine copper from ep at the time of the killings?
(Z) is genuine...
-
just tell us who it is mike, if z is that bothered he can always deny he ever set eyes on you.
-
lets face it that what they have done for 26 yrs isnt it?
-
For some reason I smell a rat. Not saying that you didn't meet this person Mike. But it all seems too slick for some reason. This ex cop may be who he/she says they are. But are they playing you for a fool I wonder. Sorry Mike, but I've been in this world a long time and have seen many things. Something about this does not ring true for some reason. Not you but this character who you met. Watch your back Mike.
-
I am off to look for a document that (Z) asked me to find out and publish on the forum regarding when the police were summoned to attend a debriefing by senior officers on 19th September 1985, and given information in statements attributed to themselves...
I will post this as soon as I lay my hands upon it...
-
Why has it taken 26 long years for them to have a conscious Mike?
That's true. Why now? Why not even when you started the forum, and people could see your intent?
Why wouldn't he give you those photos, Mike, or at least copies? What good are they, hidden away?
those photos mean nothing, because only mike and z can say they exist, its like the photo of hseila on the bed all over again. I would have smacked z in the mouth and nicked his pictures, handed them straight to jb's legal team, no i wouldnt really!
seriously, the pics are meaningless while kept away from the people that matter.
I'm sorry, everyone, but this just sums it all up. Mike, at the risk of losing a contact, you should have grabbed those photos and run like bugger.
-
just tell us who it is mike, if z is that bothered he can always deny he ever set eyes on you.
Hmmm, we could go through all the names. I'll start - Hammersley?
-
I am off to look for a document that (Z) asked me to find out and publish on the forum regarding when the police were summoned to attend a debriefing by senior officers on 19th September 1985, and given information in statements attributed to themselves...
I will post this as soon as I lay my hands upon it...
Make sure you aint following scotch mist Mike. Could turn out to be a big time waster. If my conscience troubled me in a matter as monumental as this. I wouldn't tell someone who ran a forum. I'd go to a police officer who I would trust and then send this "evidence" to the correct people. Something isn't right?
Why is it being discussed here on a forum? Why isn't it in the right hands. It's all arse upwards.
-
For some reason I smell a rat. Not saying that you didn't meet this person Mike. But it all seems too slick for some reason. This ex cop may be who he/she says they are. But are they playing you for a fool I wonder. Sorry Mike, but I've been in this world a long time and have seen many things. Something about this does not ring true for some reason. Not you but this character who you met. Watch your back Mike.
Funny you should say that because for the past three days or so I have had the distinct feeling that I am being followed, I feel like I am under survelance...
-
For some reason I smell a rat. Not saying that you didn't meet this person Mike. But it all seems too slick for some reason. This ex cop may be who he/she says they are. But are they playing you for a fool I wonder. Sorry Mike, but I've been in this world a long time and have seen many things. Something about this does not ring true for some reason. Not you but this character who you met. Watch your back Mike.
Funny you should say that because for the past three days or so I have had the distinct feeling that I am being followed, I feel like I am under survelance...
Somethings going on Mike. Be careful.
-
For some reason I smell a rat. Not saying that you didn't meet this person Mike. But it all seems too slick for some reason. This ex cop may be who he/she says they are. But are they playing you for a fool I wonder. Sorry Mike, but I've been in this world a long time and have seen many things. Something about this does not ring true for some reason. Not you but this character who you met. Watch your back Mike.
Funny you should say that because for the past three days or so I have had the distinct feeling that I am being followed, I feel like I am under survelance...
That is sinister.
-
probably that lot from Yorkshire police Mike
-
There needs to be caution here, i for one would never meet someone in such an area, my 1st thoughts if my mobile phone does not get a signal im out, its unlikely the photos Mike saw were 1st generation ones they will be copies ,
the negatives are the key here.
-
There needs to be caution here, i for one would never meet someone in such an area, my 1st thoughts if my mobile phone does not get a signal im out, its unlikely the photos Mike saw were 1st generation ones they will be copies ,
the negatives are the key here.
What not even a 6 foot blond. I would throw my phone in the nearest ditch, lay down and take my punishment ;D ;D
-
There needs to be caution here, i for one would never meet someone in such an area, my 1st thoughts if my mobile phone does not get a signal im out, its unlikely the photos Mike saw were 1st generation ones they will be copies ,
the negatives are the key here.
What not even a 6 foot blond. I would throw my phone in the nearest ditch, lay down and take my punishment ;D ;D
The Blonde i will allow Cliff, the phone can have a use still...
-
There needs to be caution here, i for one would never meet someone in such an area, my 1st thoughts if my mobile phone does not get a signal im out, its unlikely the photos Mike saw were 1st generation ones they will be copies ,
the negatives are the key here.
negatives are the key, I agree...
-
Z is it hartley mike he seems quite?
-
Z is it hartley mike he seems quite?
If it is, Harters is def lying about his age. 8)
-
There needs to be caution here, i for one would never meet someone in such an area, my 1st thoughts if my mobile phone does not get a signal im out, its unlikely the photos Mike saw were 1st generation ones they will be copies ,
the negatives are the key here.
negatives are the key, I agree...
Mike those negatives will have a shooting or taking order they have to have a number these pictures .
-
Better scrap those two videos, if the logs were faked. That's a big if mind. But they were faxed. No sight of the originals for ESDA etc.
-
Z is it hartley mike he seems quite?
Now, that would be funny...
We'll be here all night guessing.
Perhaps we should begin by a process of elimination - it isn't me!
-
(Z) - is this the document you were talking about this afternoon?
-
Z is it hartley mike he seems quite?
Now, that would be funny...
We'll be here all night guessing.
Perhaps we should begin by a process of elimination - it isn't me!
All this secrecy.... IT DRIVES ME NUTS!!! LOL
-
Me too. I have ultimate faith in Mike, whatever people think, but this all sounds too dodgy. Why would someone go to such great lengths to show Mike hugely important images, then snatch them away?
-
are the well built walls of lies at last coming down like the berlin wall ? its looking that way.
-
are the well built walls of lies at last coming down like the berlin wall ? its looking that way.
Or is it a set-up? Mike needs these photos. How does it help if he's not allowed to use them?
-
(Z) - I see what you mean about the footprints, I found the schedule you spoke about...
-
Mike i think you have been set up, someone sicko is giving you the runaround.
-
(Z) - is this the document you were talking about this afternoon?
Can 'Z' reply without revealing himself?!
-
Mike i think you have been set up, someone sicko is giving you the runaround.
If it is Andrea it would have not been done without damm good reason
the fact the meeting took place is telling me something somewhere is available.
-
Sorry, but I agree. And before you start on me, Jack, this is not a pop. Mike must spend most of his life wondering who he can trust.
-
are the well built walls of lies at last coming down like the berlin wall ? its looking that way.
Or is it a set-up? Mike needs these photos. How does it help if he's not allowed to use them?
For a moment there Shona i thought you crossed the fence!
-
Mike i think you have been set up, someone sicko is giving you the runaround.
But something is similar and proves in a way that Mike wasn't lying about what he saw before. The body of Sheila on the bed.
-
Mike i think you have been set up, someone sicko is giving you the runaround.
But something is similar and proves in a way that Mike wasn't lying about what he saw before. The body of Sheila on the bed.
This is one part of the jigsaw that needs to be confirmed in pictoral form to see by all.
-
Mike i think you have been set up, someone sicko is giving you the runaround.
But something is similar and proves in a way that Mike wasn't lying about what he saw before. The body of Sheila on the bed.
This is one part of the jigsaw that needs to be confirmed in pictoral form to see by all.
But that alone if seen will be enough to send Jeremy to the court of appeal.
-
You would need someone good , real good with a computer and you might just obtain these pictures they will have a file somewhere.
-
(Z) - is this the document you were talking about this afternoon?
Can 'Z' reply without revealing himself?!
(Z) can...
-
(Z) - I will post COLPS photographic schedule in full tomorrow, next time we meet up can you bring the other photographs for the corresponding missing negatives I just need to see what's in them?
-
If any of this is true I will never get over the wickedness of people setting someone up for a lifetime in prison
How could anyone
If it happened to me I would have committed suicide I couldn't have handled it
-
Mike, is your informant able to confirm that Nevill did indeed call Jeremy?
Thankyou.
-
If any of this is true I will never get over the wickedness of people setting someone up for a lifetime in prison
How could anyone
If it happened to me I would have committed suicide I couldn't have handled it
Jackie you have chosen words with thought, your last sentence contains perhaps the answer why in 26 years has Jeremy gone only forward never back and keep going forward to seek justice !, i have utmost respect for Jeremy and total disdain for EP.
-
Mike, is your informant able to confirm that Neville did indeed call Jeremy?
Thankyou.
Yes, (Z) says police were satisfied Ralph made the call, and that the blood found on the kitchen floor immediately in front of where the bloodied fingermarks were made on the edge of the kitchen worktop, close to where the phones handset was off its cradle was linked to Ralph Bamber...
DCI Jones was convinced that Sheila forced Ralph to make the call to Jeremy to try and lure him to the farm so that she could kill him as well...
-
How has your informant been able to live with this secret all these years? They must have had many a sleepless night.....
-
(Z) - yes, is this the lab' diagram you asked me about today? I can see the point you made, this silencer in this diagram does not appear to have been dismantled by this stage (25th September 1985), yet the blood group activity (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) was already found and identified by 19th September 1985? This can't therefore be the silencer inside which was found the crucial blood group evidence...
Thanks for that...
I can see what you mean now, by referring to this diagram to help show that there was more than just the one silencer, since as you told me blood was found in the other silencer which was dismantled before 12th September 1985...
-
Seems to me, that as of 25th September 1985, when this silencer was received at the Lab' and checked, all it had upon it was some paint, not any blood?
-
Most of what " Z" has shown and said to Mike makes sense to me...
The little problems are clear to me and are no obstacle.
The truth is emerging in a fragmentary way.
The cover up seems to be collapsing as the lies and deceptions dont stack up and become exposed bit by bit.
-
Conspirators never banked on disclosure/access of all available photographs to Jeremy`s legal team, nor on the expertise of Mr Sutherst, who is able to establish true order all the available photographs were taken, and even the stage at which the missing eight negatives were taken and cut from the negative strip. I should think it obvious therefore that the time for the police to confess to what they did wrong is looming large. I am expecting others in addition to 'Z` to come forward in due course, particularly so, because police officers were given reassurances from the DPP`s office that they would not be prosecuted, so I think the ones who own up will not appear in the dock at peril of being convicted and being sent to prison...
-
I'm Sorry Mike, but this is all rather silly.
You can not 'encourage' ex-policemen to come forward with this silly game.
-
I'm Sorry Mike, but this is all rather silly.
You can not 'encourage' ex-policemen to come forward with this silly game.
can you elaborate on what you mean here...do you believe there has been a cover up, whether of a small scale or a large scale?
Have you a special skill that allows you to detect when people are messing about and lying...hmm maybe you have...did you develop it from monitoring the Eatons and Boutflours concoctions...please tell.
I think we all recognise the relatives lied their heads off....but with your accusations you dont seem to have anything of substance to found your accusations upon.
-
particularly so, because police officers were given reassurances from the DPP`s office that they would not be prosecuted, so I think the ones who own up will not appear in the dock at peril of being convicted and being sent to prison...
I have thought this for a long time now. For me it helps explain Bews and Miller's forays in to the world of television and Stan Jones piping up via local newspapers. If the police officers were told this then where does that leave any relatives regarding the silencer issue? Were they not also 'protected' by default, in light of reassurances given to police?
Any police officer wishing to come forward is in the unenviable position of contemplating dobbing his former colleagues in the proverbial. This in my view has also hampered the truth from coming out. I would like to see the poster 'Ron Cook' add to this thread.
-
I'm Sorry Mike, but this is all rather silly.
You can not 'encourage' ex-policemen to come forward with this silly game.
But he's placed the validity of the logs at risk. Since the logs have represented a very strong line of defence argument, it seems odd that Mike would then pursue a 'game' which potentially undermines those very logs.
The jury is out for me on (Z) though, until I get more info.
-
Smiffy,
I don't believe a word of this whole 'prosecution witness' story from Mike.
And please, show me something of 'substance' to prove that any of this story is anything more than a figment of Mike's imagination.
-
If any of this is true I will never get over the wickedness of people setting someone up for a lifetime in prison
How could anyone
If it happened to me I would have committed suicide I couldn't have handled it
I would have arranged to kill THEM if it happened to me.
-
I'm Sorry Mike, but this is all rather silly.
You can not 'encourage' ex-policemen to come forward with this silly game.
You appear to be calling Mike a lier Vic?
-
particularly so, because police officers were given reassurances from the DPP`s office that they would not be prosecuted, so I think the ones who own up will not appear in the dock at peril of being convicted and being sent to prison...
I have thought this for a long time now. For me it helps explain Bews and Miller's forays in to the world of television and Stan Jones piping up via local newspapers. If the police officers were told this then where does that leave any relatives regarding the silencer issue? Were they not also 'protected' by default, in light of reassurances given to police?
Any police officer wishing to come forward is in the unenviable position of contemplating dobbing his former colleagues in the proverbial. This in my view has also hampered the truth from coming out. I would like to see the poster 'Ron Cook' add to this thread.
If all this is true then it threatens the way people will view the whole British justice system. Because it is a direct threat to the confidence that people have in our legal organisation and needs to be dealt with and investigated at Government level, not on this forum.
-
When I say if this is true I don't mean that I doubt Mike like Vidvic apparently does? I mean that I think Mike might be taken for a ride by this "Z" character. I rather feel that he is being lead up the garden path by this man. If this "z" is for real and watches the forum as Mike said he does, then what has he got to lose by posting just one of these photographs on the forum? Will he be found out? Of course not. Why? Because he has already said that several of the officers have kept copies and one has the negatives. Is he afraid for his coleagues? He doesn't have to be. It might even flush the beggars out of hiding so that they own up to this whole rats nest of lies. So I challenge him/her to do the right thing and come out of the closet. If thats the right word?
-
If this "Z" (probably from Z cars TV cops) does not post something in his favour, then I can only think that his whole story to Mike is a wind up and must be binned like a lot of other silly stories that have been posted on this forum.
-
No Grahame, Mike is on a 'fishing trip'. He believes ex police officers read the forum and he believes they have things to hide. He hopes that one of them, if they think an ex colleague is about to break ranks, may come forward with information. It's a tactic.
Of course, why did no one come forward with any information when Bamber was offering a million pound reward?
Why show Mike pictures which they were not prepared to be given to the defence, when those pictures would lead to almost instant CCRC action?
Why communicate in a bizarre one sided conversation in open forum?
Do you really believe Sheila could be pronounced dead at the scene, whilst still alive?
-
No Grahame, Mike is on a 'fishing trip'. He believes ex police officers read the forum and he believes they have things to hide. He hopes that one of them, if they think an ex colleague is about to break ranks, may come forward with information. It's a tactic.
Of course, why did no one come forward with any information when Bamber was offering a million pound reward?
Why show Mike pictures which they were not prepared to be given to the defence, when those pictures would lead to almost instant CCRC action?
Why communicate in a bizarre one sided conversation in open forum?
Do you really believe Sheila could be pronounced dead at the scene, whilst still alive?
Let me put it another way. So you think Mike is making it up and trying to deceive us all then?
-
No Grahame, Mike is on a 'fishing trip'. He believes ex police officers read the forum and he believes they have things to hide. He hopes that one of them, if they think an ex colleague is about to break ranks, may come forward with information. It's a tactic.
Of course, why did no one come forward with any information when Bamber was offering a million pound reward?
Why show Mike pictures which they were not prepared to be given to the defence, when those pictures would lead to almost instant CCRC action?
Why communicate in a bizarre one sided conversation in open forum?
Do you really believe Sheila could be pronounced dead at the scene, whilst still alive?
Vic, you're not the only forum member who holds reservations about (Z). However with the number of police blunders that the defence and supporters are expected (by your side) to simply write-off as mistakes but nothing sinister... It's a bit rich if your side then dismisses out of hand, the potential for additional, previously unknown blunders coming to light. That said, I respect your right to post up your views.
-
No Grahame, Mike is on a 'fishing trip'. He believes ex police officers read the forum and he believes they have things to hide. He hopes that one of them, if they think an ex colleague is about to break ranks, may come forward with information. It's a tactic.
Of course, why did no one come forward with any information when Bamber was offering a million pound reward?
Why show Mike pictures which they were not prepared to be given to the defence, when those pictures would lead to almost instant CCRC action?
Why communicate in a bizarre one sided conversation in open forum?
Do you really believe Sheila could be pronounced dead at the scene, whilst still alive?
Vic, I havn't bought into Z yet, but could the reason no one came forward for a million pounds was because at the time they thought nothing would be uncovered, but maybe, just maybe the cracks are starting to show.
-
I'm Sorry Mike, but this is all rather silly.
You can not 'encourage' ex-policemen to come forward with this silly game.
I`m encouraging no-one, those who decide to do anything will do it of their own accord, for my part I am happy enough to know what I now know, there was/is a cover up regarding an accidental shooting of Sheila in the bedroom after dr Craig had already declared her to be dead at 8:44am. Let's get the facts right, Dr Craig refers to Sheila having a solitary shot to the neck, and so does PI Miller who accompanied him at the material time. You then have PI Miller attending the opening of the inquest on 14th August, and he telling Deputy Coroner Mr Thompkin that Sheila killed the others before taking her own life by way of a solitary shot...
Add to this the photographic evidence which exists, where Sheila has only one wound on her neck whilst her body was on the bed, and another which was taken later which shows two entry wounds to her neck whilst her body is still on the bed, and it becomes clear that the second shot which according to the pathologist was the shot which killed her instantaneously was inflicted long after Dr Craig had already pronounced her as being dead? How could the second shot be the shot that killed her, if she was already dead?
-
Yes Mike, I understand that you are finding information from all the documents you hold and are trying to make a story from them that makes sense to you. I also understand that you will use whatever tactics you see fit to try to encourage further information 'from out of the woodwork', so to speak, but why the drama?
Any chance of seeing the transcripts from the police interviews with Jeremy AFTER he was arrested? As opposed to the ones when he wasn't a suspect?
-
just tell us the coppers name mike, like i said last night, he can always deny it?
-
So let me get this straight in my mind.
At 7.30 police break in and find Sheila and Nevill in the kitchen.
At some point whilst Police are searching the house Sheila rises from unconciousness (or playing dead with no wounds) and makes her way to the front bedroom where she shoots herself.
She remains there for over an hour where she is declared dead at the scene.
There is then an accidental shooting of Sheila again, on the bed, more photos taken.
Body is then moved to create the scene of a suicide (which it was initially anyway).
This is what you believe happened?
-
So let me get this straight in my mind.
At 7.30 police break in and find Sheila and Nevill in the kitchen.
At some point whilst Police are searching the house Sheila rises from unconciousness (or playing dead with no wounds) and makes her way to the front bedroom where she shoots herself.
She remains there for over an hour where she is declared dead at the scene.
There is then an accidental shooting of Sheila again, on the bed, more photos taken.
Body is then moved to create the scene of a suicide (which it was initially anyway).
This is what you believe happened?
I think something very different.
-
lets have it then.
-
i know what i think, its all BOLLOCKS.
-
I'm Sorry Mike, but this is all rather silly.
You can not 'encourage' ex-policemen to come forward with this silly game.
I`m encouraging no-one, those who decide to do anything will do it of their own accord, for my part I am happy enough to know what I now know, there was/is a cover up regarding an accidental shooting of Sheila in the bedroom after dr Craig had already declared her to be dead at 8:44am. Let's get the facts right, Dr Craig refers to Sheila having a solitary shot to the neck, and so does PI Miller who accompanied him at the material time. You then have PI Miller attending the opening of the inquest on 14th August, and he telling Deputy Coroner Mr Thompkin that Sheila killed the others before taking her own life by way of a solitary shot...
Add to this the photographic evidence which exists, where Sheila has only one wound on her neck whilst her body was on the bed, and another which was taken later which shows two entry wounds to her neck whilst her body is still on the bed, and it becomes clear that the second shot which according to the pathologist was the shot which killed her instantaneously was inflicted long after Dr Craig had already pronounced her as being dead? How could the second shot be the shot that killed her, if she was already dead?
Mike. If Dr. Craig had already pronounced her dead, to all intents and purposes the police believed her to be dead. Therefore if they did accidentally shoot her how did they know they had killed her?
-
So let me get this straight in my mind.
At 7.30 police break in and find Sheila and Nevill in the kitchen.
At some point whilst Police are searching the house Sheila rises from unconciousness (or playing dead with no wounds) and makes her way to the front bedroom where she shoots herself.
She remains there for over an hour where she is declared dead at the scene.
There is then an accidental shooting of Sheila again, on the bed, more photos taken.
Body is then moved to create the scene of a suicide (which it was initially anyway).
This is what you believe happened?
David Bird who took the photographs didn't arrive at whf until 9:20am and didn't start taking photographs until 10am.
A police officer was issued with a .237 centrefire Ruger Mini-14, a high powered weapon, a shot from this weapon would cause much more damage and would have exit wounds, it would be immediately recognisable in comparison to a .22 rimfire. It would also have been heard for miles around, by Jeremy himself perhaps.
Mike also hates the police, by his own admissions and ranting and ravings on this forum, taking the piss out of them with cartoon sketches, calling them 'f****** lying scumbags' and accusing them of pretty much everything from editing witness statements right up to committing the murders themselves. Yet now we are expected to believe that a police officer has ignored all of that and approached Mike in the manner he describes? It's utter fantasy.
Remember "psychic-gate" anyone? ::)
-
c'mon mike/smiffy you are the same person, why are you insulting the posters intelligence?
do you really think we are that stupid? i dont think any meeting between an ex cop and yourself happened, i know the forum has gone down the pan lately, but jesus this is stupid beyond words.
decent people post on here and they want the truth, not a load of tosh dreamt up in someones mind.
2 six year old boys had their heads blown off that day, has that been forgotten?
i havent forgotten, so stop the bullshit.
-
Sorry Mike we need something tangible or this whole thread is useless even if Vidvic is wrong about you. Because he has put it into any potential police eye witness' mind that you are making it all up. I don't think you are, but that is neither here nor there. Get this Z cars copper to post something here.
-
z the copper doesnt exist grahame.
i used to believe the pic of sheila on the bed, at least that story was plausible
-
we are being shit on from a fucking great height. >:(
-
So let me get this straight in my mind.
At 7.30 police break in and find Sheila and Nevill in the kitchen.
At some point whilst Police are searching the house Sheila rises from unconciousness (or playing dead with no wounds) and makes her way to the front bedroom where she shoots herself.
She remains there for over an hour where she is declared dead at the scene.
There is then an accidental shooting of Sheila again, on the bed, more photos taken.
Body is then moved to create the scene of a suicide (which it was initially anyway).
This is what you believe happened?
David Bird who took the photographs didn't arrive at whf until 9:20am and didn't start taking photographs until 10am.
A police officer was issued with a .237 centrefire Ruger Mini-14, a high powered weapon, a shot from this weapon would cause much more damage and would have exit wounds, it would be immediately recognisable in comparison to a .22 rimfire. It would also have been heard for miles around, by Jeremy himself perhaps.
Mike also hates the police, by his own admissions and ranting and ravings on this forum, taking the piss out of them with cartoon sketches, calling them 'f****** lying scumbags' and accusing them of pretty much everything from editing witness statements right up to committing the murders themselves. Yet now we are expected to believe that a police officer has ignored all of that and approached Mike in the manner he describes? It's utter fantasy.
Remember "psychic-gate" anyone? ::)
What Bird claimed is just that so is open to question as to being correct or not.
the rifle mentioned was described as .223 calibre in Mildenhalls statement. The person who had it was an officer who supposedly never entered the house. We have no details about weapons used in the house other than the very dodgy claims by Hall that he was armed with a shotgun. The actions he claimed in his statement do not tally with him being armed with a shotgun.
careful about claiming others posts are utter fantasy ....eh .... "steve" aka Hartley....
-
oh shut the fuck up smiffy you stupid great bore
-
c'mon mike/smiffy you are the same person, why are you insulting the posters intelligence?
do you really think we are that stupid? i dont think any meeting between an ex cop and yourself happened, i know the forum has gone down the pan lately, but jesus this is stupid beyond words.
decent people post on here and they want the truth, not a load of tosh dreamt up in someones mind.
2 six year old boys had their heads blown off that day, has that been forgotten?
i havent forgotten, so stop the bullshit.
Poor andrea....wrong on your wild suggestion that I and Mike are the same person.
I have my own thoughts on this case ...and on the actions of Z as reported by Mike but am not going to divulge as it needs sensitive treatment.
-
oh shut the fuck up smiffy you stupid great bore
aww showing yourself in your true colours now ...long suspected and now confirmed.
why swear...I don't need to.
-
Blimey smiffy! You have a sensitive side.......
-
i have always said what i think smiffy, nowt wrong with a bit of bad language, gets the point across quite effectively. 8)
-
Do not forget that Z (whether it be Mike or a former member of EP linked to the case) has trashed the validity of the logs.
If Z is indeed a just another forum game, then there would be no need to trash the validity of the logs. There is a scenario left open for Sheila to play dead or even be unconscious as police sweep through the farmhouse. Z has removed that option outright, thereby trashing one of the main defence arguments. You have to ask why a forum game instigated by Mike would go to those lengths, imo.
-
i have always said what i think smiffy, nowt wrong with a bit of bad language, gets the point across quite effectively. 8)
No it does not...It has not worked as proven by this post.
It shows an inability to make a point effectively.
Why expect someone to shut up...are you against freedom of speech when what may be said goes against your views?
-
i made my point smiffy end of.
-
oh shut the fuck up smiffy you stupid great bore
Careful Andrea. ::)
-
sorry grahame :(
-
I can confirm that smiffy is not the same person as Mike. They are both online at the same time. Unless of course Mike has the power of teleportation?
-
Think about it all seriously for a second here. Photographs were not taken until 10am.
That would mean that Sheila and apparently June were on the bed up until that point, so it's no longer just a cock up by the firearms team, they would have been on the bed after all but two of the firearms unit vacated the premises and scene of crimes entered along with other senior officers, the alleged movement of the bodies would have involved so many people, and as Rochy says, makes the logs completely incompatible.
Yes Mike is lying his head off, contrary to the apparent popular belief, this is not a game.
It is however somewhat refreshing to see other people questioning these ridiculous claims, even those in the pro camp. Perhaps people aren't quite so gullible after all. :-\
-
The logs claim seems a bit iffy.
Something triggered radio messages and calls being made shortly afterwards following the 7.37 message of 1 male and 1 female. These phone calls and call outs went beyond essex police and as info spreads it would be very hard to contain and later alter all the details....ie the situation gets out of control from any person/persons originating it.
A murder and a suicide....puts both as dead and backtracking will be problematical if its not correct.
-
I can confirm that smiffy is not the same person as Mike. They are both online at the same time. Unless of course Mike has the power of teleportation?
That's not necessarily the case either, anybody could log on in seperate browser windows as different user names, add that to a proxy IP address server and you could even make each browser appear as a different IP address.
Although for what it's worth I don't believe they are the same person.
-
Think about it all seriously for a second here. Photographs were not taken until 10am.
That would mean that Sheila and apparently June were on the bed up until that point, so it's no longer just a cock up by the firearms team, they would have been on the bed after all but two of the firearms unit vacated the premises and scene of crimes entered along with other senior officers, the alleged movement of the bodies would have involved so many people, and as Rochy says, makes the logs completely incompatible.
Yes Mike is lying his head off, contrary to the apparent popular belief, this is not a game.
It is however somewhat refreshing to see other people questioning these ridiculous claims, even those in the pro camp. Perhaps people aren't quite so gullible after all. :-\
Not "quite so gullibe"? Does that imply that we are still gullible then? ::)
-
i have always made my position on this clear, undecided, but lean toward innocence.
but im not gullible and wont just swallow anything fed to me, i question things first.
but what i dont want is fantasy, what good is it doing? who is it serving?
-
Think about it all seriously for a second here. Photographs were not taken until 10am.
That would mean that Sheila and apparently June were on the bed up until that point, so it's no longer just a cock up by the firearms team, they would have been on the bed after all but two of the firearms unit vacated the premises and scene of crimes entered along with other senior officers, the alleged movement of the bodies would have involved so many people, and as Rochy says, makes the logs completely incompatible.
Yes Mike is lying his head off, contrary to the apparent popular belief, this is not a game.
It is however somewhat refreshing to see other people questioning these ridiculous claims, even those in the pro camp. Perhaps people aren't quite so gullible after all. :-\
Not "quite so gullibe"? Does that imply that we are still gullible then? ::)
Yes it does, very much so. Although some more than others.
-
Hartley, I'm not sure you understand the point I'm making about the logs.
-
Just to put you all out of your agony here is the fucking picture you don't believe exists.
I told you not to tell them Tesko!!
(http://i.imgur.com/4N4SY.jpg)
-
I have challenged Mike before on seemingly contradictory theories. He explained that sometimes he does this to 'encourage debate'.
Unfortunately, it is becoming harder to work out what exactly Mike actually believes is true.
-
Unless I've missed something we still haven't been told what (Z) is supposed to have said about the first shot. Who fired it and where, and if Sheila wasn't on the bed or didn't fall on the bed, how did she get there?
-
Just to put you all out of your agony here is the fucking picture you don't believe exists.
I told you not to tell them Tesko!!
good work, you must show me how to use photoshop.
-
This photo is photoshopped and has been lifted from Lamby's forum. I think there are few people who need their heads examined. ::)
Just to put you all out of your agony here is the fucking picture you don't believe exists.
I told you not to tell them Tesko!!
-
you forgot to put a bed underneath too, tut tut.
-
Yes Hartley you and your mate John know all about multiple user names and how to get around using different ip addresses
In my own opinion you are one of the most deceitful people on this forum
I am very clear in my mind who you are and I am fully entitled to have my opinion and I am still waiting for a genuine person to join this forum who thinks JB is guilty but not connected to the family or the police
I don't believe anyone would believe Jeremyis guilty if they knew the actual facts in the case
-
I have challenged Mike before on seemingly contradictory theories. He explained that sometimes he does this to 'encourage debate'.
Unfortunately, it is becoming harder to work out what exactly Mike actually believes is true.
He posts his findings which have altered over the course of time. He has also expressed that there are several truths. Maybe it's a bit like Roshomon?
-
Check out this link.
http://miscarriageofjustice.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=bamber&thread=183&page=1 (http://miscarriageofjustice.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=bamber&thread=183&page=1)
This photo is photoshopped and has been lifted from Lamby's forum. I think there are few people who need their heads examined. ::)
Just to put you all out of your agony here is the fucking picture you don't believe exists.
I told you not to tell them Tesko!!
-
Grahame. Is there any way we can keep the number of picture postings to a minimum? We've just had repeated viewings of Sheila and the first instance proved the point being made.
-
Grahame. Is there any way we can keep the number of picture postings to a minimum? We've just had repeated viewings of Sheila and the first instance proved the point being made.
I'll delete it from my posts.
-
Message log has Dr Craig en route with an ETA of 10 minutes at 8.10 am .
So if correct about the eta we have him at scene by 8.20 am and is feasible he had viewed all the bodies, especially Sheila's, prior to 8.30 am.
Hmm lets see a body with one bullet wound only...
Now massive focus will be on this single wound and the bullet found within the body.....
Fair enough if it was from a rifle that had been on scene and used in the killings of the other 4...but what if it was known, or became known, that this was a bullet from a police weapon.
What to do to remove focus from this single bullet wound....
I know..lets fire another bullet into her...so straight away we have halved the focus on that bullet...a bit of evidence manipulation ..swap bullet with one also fired from the weapon used to fire the second bullet and hey presto...we might get away with it.
-
Yes Hartley you and your mate John know all about multiple user names and how to get around using different ip addresses
In my own opinion you are one of the most deceitful people on this forum
I am very clear in my mind who you are and I am fully entitled to have my opinion and I am still waiting for a genuine person to join this forum who thinks JB is guilty but not connected to the family or the police
I don't believe anyone would believe Jeremyis guilty if they knew the actual facts in the case
I think there are many people on this forum who believe him to be guilty and are not connected to the family.
-
Message log has Dr Craig en route with an ETA of 10 minutes at 8.10 am .
So if correct about the eta we have him at scene by 8.20 am and is feasible he had viewed all the bodies, especially Sheila's, prior to 8.30 am.
Hmm lets see a body with one bullet wound only...
Now massive focus will be on this single wound and the bullet found within the body.....
Fair enough if it was from a rifle that had been on scene and used in the killings of the other 4...but what if it was known, or became known, that this was a bullet from a police weapon.
What to do to remove focus from this single bullet wound....
I know..lets fire another bullet into her...so straight away we have halved the focus on that bullet...a bit of evidence manipulation ..swap bullet with one also fired from the weapon used to fire the second bullet and hey presto...we might get away with it.
So, she wasn't already shot and lying on the kitchen floor when the raid team entered the house.....
-
I am completely unconnected to the family or the case in anyway but I am afraid I have, as yet, seen nothing that convinces me that the original jury decision should be interfered with... but then Jackie will just label me as 'not genuine'. I read some of the stuff on this forum with great interest but this current thread is insulting people's intelligence.
With respect.
-
Message log has Dr Craig en route with an ETA of 10 minutes at 8.10 am .
So if correct about the eta we have him at scene by 8.20 am and is feasible he had viewed all the bodies, especially Sheila's, prior to 8.30 am.
Hmm lets see a body with one bullet wound only...
Now massive focus will be on this single wound and the bullet found within the body.....
Fair enough if it was from a rifle that had been on scene and used in the killings of the other 4...but what if it was known, or became known, that this was a bullet from a police weapon.
What to do to remove focus from this single bullet wound....
I know..lets fire another bullet into her...so straight away we have halved the focus on that bullet...a bit of evidence manipulation ..swap bullet with one also fired from the weapon used to fire the second bullet and hey presto...we might get away with it.
So, she wasn't already shot and lying on the kitchen floor when the raid team entered the house.....
Who says she was....The claims about the womens body in the kitchen are noticeable for the lack of specifying any detail...even as much as that she was on the floor or even shot. A body is just that...it does not say alive or dead or shot or not shot. Be careful not to alter the claims made!
-
Smiffy,
I don't believe a word of this whole 'prosecution witness' story from Mike.
And please, show me something of 'substance' to prove that any of this story is anything more than a figment of Mike's imagination.
Vidvic! You should be ashamed of yourself. There was I, thinking you were one of the good guys among the antis, like Shona, and you go and do a 'rest my case' Hartley style personal attack on Mike. What grounds do you have for the above character assassination? None - or you would have detailed these. So what does your objection boil down to - the gut feeling of an anti who is intent on keeping Jeremy in prison at all costs? One who isn't too fussed whether Jeremy is guilty or not as long as he stays in the slammer?
-
But apparantly, according to Mike, this sighting led to Police logging 2 bodies downstairs, and moving through the kitchen with Sheila lying on the floor, after which, she got up and made her way to the bedroom.....but it's fair enough if you don't place any importance to the logs.....
-
Smiffy,
I don't believe a word of this whole 'prosecution witness' story from Mike.
And please, show me something of 'substance' to prove that any of this story is anything more than a figment of Mike's imagination.
Vidvic! You should be ashamed of yourself. There was I, thinking you were one of the good guys among the antis, like Shona, and you go and do a 'rest my case' Hartley style personal attack on Mike. What grounds do you have for the above character assassination? None - or you would have detailed these. So what does your objection boil down to - the gut feeling of an anti who is intent on keeping Jeremy in prison at all costs? One who isn't too fussed whether Jeremy is guilty or not as long as he stays in the slammer?
Keira. If I don't believe what Mike is posting, then I have every right to say so. As I said further in the thread, Mike sometimes posts theories for discussion.
-
Think about it all seriously for a second here. Photographs were not taken until 10am.
That would mean that Sheila and apparently June were on the bed up until that point, so it's no longer just a cock up by the firearms team, they would have been on the bed after all but two of the firearms unit vacated the premises and scene of crimes entered along with other senior officers, the alleged movement of the bodies would have involved so many people, and as Rochy says, makes the logs completely incompatible.
Yes Mike is lying his head off, contrary to the apparent popular belief, this is not a game.
It is however somewhat refreshing to see other people questioning these ridiculous claims, even those in the pro camp. Perhaps people aren't quite so gullible after all. :-\
Not "quite so gullibe"? Does that imply that we are still gullible then? ::)
Yes it does, very much so. Although some more than others.
The word gullible comes from the seagulls. They swallow anything that comes there way. So you cannot have degrees of gullibility. I resent that accusation. Just because we have different views than you that doesn't make us gullible. If you want to make accusations like that can I remind you that it works both ways? Icould say that the antis are gullible because they swallow everything the police tell them or thathey they are too trusting of the relatives. That is gullibility. To trust someone unflinchingly and without question. On that reading then I could say that the antis are in fact gullible. Because they question nothing from their side and believe unflinchingly the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses. At least the pros Bambers question EVERYTHING. Something that the antis do not because they are still stuck in the past.
-
You´d need to see the negatives - anyone can alter photos these days. If I had used more time on this, I could have made it look exactly as if there was only one bullet hole.
Photograph you tampered with was one taken of Sheila on the floor, but two photographs I have been shown and seen were when Sheila`s body was on bed, you forgot to erase barrel of gun against neck which would have alerted me as to the possibility of the picture having been doctored. There is also the excessive amount of blood on the nightdress which is exactly the same from two wounds...
The two different photographs which I have been shown and seen have not been tampered with in the same way as your example...
-
Just to put you all out of your agony here is the fucking picture you don't believe exists.
I told you not to tell them Tesko!!
(http://i.imgur.com/4N4SY.jpg)
That picture is falsified. Why is it? Because Mike said that he saw 2 photographs of Sheila "on the bed" one with one bullet hole and the other with two bullet holes. This photograph shows Sheila with one bullet hole on the floor, meaningthat it is a mock up of the original photograph and proves nothing.
-
you forgot to put a bed underneath too, tut tut.
::), i agree.
-
you forgot to put a bed underneath too, tut tut.
::), i agree.
Yes I noticed your post after I posted. Great minds think alike. Or as Hartley has it great "gullible minds" think alike. ;D
-
So Mike, Please explain how these photos you've seen, fit in with the female body in the kitchen theory?
-
But apparantly, according to Mike, this sighting led to Police logging 2 bodies downstairs, and moving through the kitchen with Sheila lying on the floor, after which, she got up and made her way to the bedroom.....but it's fair enough if you don't place any importance to the logs.....
I don't know what lies behind all of this, Vidvic, and neither do you. What I do know is that I do not believe that Mike has fabricated this account. You have no grounds to suggest that Mike is a liar and I believe you owe him and apology for suggesting that.
-
But apparantly, according to Mike, this sighting led to Police logging 2 bodies downstairs, and moving through the kitchen with Sheila lying on the floor, after which, she got up and made her way to the bedroom.....but it's fair enough if you don't place any importance to the logs.....
I don't know what lies behind all of this, Vidvic, and neither do you. What I do know is that I do not believe that Mike has fabricated this account. You have no grounds to suggest that Mike is a liar and I believe you owe him and apology for suggesting that.
Yes I agree. None of this proves that Mike is lying. Rather that he is being lied to.
-
Just to put you all out of your agony here is the fucking picture you don't believe exists.
I told you not to tell them Tesko!!
(http://i.imgur.com/4N4SY.jpg)
Z. Please go to the foyer and introduce yourself before you post again. Thank you.
-
perhaps its time to raise the debate to a new level, if i had been one of the undertakers that morning removing the deceased my 1st thoughts would have been location of deceased , ease of access, as to the length of time the family had been dead though not my concern the smell in the rooms i promise you i would have had a good idea, fresh blood has its own smell, factors would have played a part as to the condition of the deceased , heating on ect, no windows open, contained heat, Sheila died later than the rest of the family, even make up smells if a body is still warm.
-
Mike is an inteligent man. If he was being lied to he would smell it a mile off and not post it on the forum. I repeat. I believe this is a tactic to draw information from unknown policemen who Mike believes are witholding information. Its a 'fishing trip'.
This is from only 3 pages back on this forum....
"There was absolutely no doubt at all in the minds of senior police officers who attended the scene - that Sheila had fired the rifle which killed the others, and herself. But now I can reveal for the first time in 26 years the evidence the police obtained, and how this evidence, verified Sheila`s involvement and the role she played in the shootings. At long last the myth that Sheila could not have fired the rifle can now be exposed as nothing but a damning lie, since she did fire the rifle, its 100% certain that she didi..."
So, that thread is out the window then......
-
perhaps its time to raise the debate to a new level, if i had been one of the undertakers that morning removing the deceased my 1st thoughts would have been location of deceased , ease of access, as to the length of time the family had been dead though not my concern the smell in the rooms i promise you i would have had a good idea, fresh blood has its own smell, factors would have played a part as to the condition of the deceased , heating on ect, no windows open, contained heat, Sheila died later than the rest of the family, even make up smells if a body is still warm.
eeew, how long was you an undertaker mertol? was the job in yorks?
-
No Grahame, Mike is on a 'fishing trip'. He believes ex police officers read the forum and he believes they have things to hide. He hopes that one of them, if they think an ex colleague is about to break ranks, may come forward with information. It's a tactic.
Of course, why did no one come forward with any information when Bamber was offering a million pound reward?
Why show Mike pictures which they were not prepared to be given to the defence, when those pictures would lead to almost instant CCRC action?
Why communicate in a bizarre one sided conversation in open forum?
Do you really believe Sheila could be pronounced dead at the scene, whilst still alive?
Vic, you're not the only forum member who holds reservations about (Z). However with the number of police blunders that the defence and supporters are expected (by your side) to simply write-off as mistakes but nothing sinister... It's a bit rich if your side then dismisses out of hand, the potential for additional, previously unknown blunders coming to light. That said, I respect your right to post up your views.
Well said, Rocky +1
-
perhaps its time to raise the debate to a new level, if i had been one of the undertakers that morning removing the deceased my 1st thoughts would have been location of deceased , ease of access, as to the length of time the family had been dead though not my concern the smell in the rooms i promise you i would have had a good idea, fresh blood has its own smell, factors would have played a part as to the condition of the deceased , heating on ect, no windows open, contained heat, Sheila died later than the rest of the family, even make up smells if a body is still warm.
eeew, how long was you an undertaker mertol? was the job in yorks?
I had to go to an undertakers in Colchester in connection with my work a few years back. I went into the room there the cold store was where they also prepared the bodies. There was this man on his tea break holding a currant bun and a bottle of milk from which he was drinking. Well I suppose it is something they get used to? But I'm afraid it's not the job for me. ???
-
perhaps its time to raise the debate to a new level, if i had been one of the undertakers that morning removing the deceased my 1st thoughts would have been location of deceased , ease of access, as to the length of time the family had been dead though not my concern the smell in the rooms i promise you i would have had a good idea, fresh blood has its own smell, factors would have played a part as to the condition of the deceased , heating on ect, no windows open, contained heat, Sheila died later than the rest of the family, even make up smells if a body is still warm.
eeew, how long was you an undertaker mertol? was the job in yorks?
18 years lined my 1st coffin at 15 on weeks work expierience from school, carried a coffin on a chrome trolley at local crematorium at 15 borrowed then my dads pub suit.
-
i saw a lot of dead people when i was senior in a rehab and nursing home, we had to sit with the bodies sometimes until family arrived or the undertakers, we also had to wash them ready for families to view.
a bit freaky sometimes, i never had to see children thankfully, i couldnt have coped with that.
-
Here is my BTEC pass of 97, if i had been there at WHF that morning much i would have known about the time of the deaths.
-
i saw a lot of dead people when i was senior in a rehab and nursing home, we had to sit with the bodies sometimes until family arrived or the undertakers, we also had to wash them ready for families to view.
a bit freaky sometimes, i never had to see children thankfully, i couldnt have coped with that.
Andrea i have dressed children under 5 in clothes believe me it tests your soul to the limits.
-
those edexcel certs have changed!! mine are totally different
-
i still have my work books , i dont think they would talk now but the undertakers on that morning should still remember quite well should they still be around
-
Mike is an inteligent man. If he was being lied to he would smell it a mile off and not post it on the forum. I repeat. I believe this is a tactic to draw information from unknown policemen who Mike believes are witholding information. Its a 'fishing trip'.
This is from only 3 pages back on this forum....
"There was absolutely no doubt at all in the minds of senior police officers who attended the scene - that Sheila had fired the rifle which killed the others, and herself. But now I can reveal for the first time in 26 years the evidence the police obtained, and how this evidence, verified Sheila`s involvement and the role she played in the shootings. At long last the myth that Sheila could not have fired the rifle can now be exposed as nothing but a damning lie, since she did fire the rifle, its 100% certain that she didi..."
So, that thread is out the window then......
If somebody threw it out of the window, somebody needs to bring it back inside for further debate since Sheila did handle and use that rifle. What's more, police photographed the position of her right hand on strategic locations upon the rifle that it would almost certainly have become coated in the sooty FDR and be contaminated with significantly higher levels of LEAD DEPOSITS than examination of the hand swabs produced, no matter who had fired the gun, so as you can see, hand swab evidence was worthless and meaningless...
-
Just because the hand swab results don't match your theory, does not make them worthless. In fact they are compelling as the lab were concerned with contamination. If the result had been positive then indeed they would be worthless, but as they were negative, provided very powerful evidence that Sheila did not fire any rifle.
Maybe you could answer my question?
How is it possible for Sheila to be presumed dead on the kitchen floor, make her way to the bedroom, shoot herself, be presumed dead again, only to be shot again sometime later?
-
Smiffy,
I don't believe a word of this whole 'prosecution witness' story from Mike.
And please, show me something of 'substance' to prove that any of this story is anything more than a figment of Mike's imagination.
Vidvic! You should be ashamed of yourself. There was I, thinking you were one of the good guys among the antis, like Shona, and you go and do a 'rest my case' Hartley style personal attack on Mike. What grounds do you have for the above character assassination? None - or you would have detailed these. So what does your objection boil down to - the gut feeling of an anti who is intent on keeping Jeremy in prison at all costs? One who isn't too fussed whether Jeremy is guilty or not as long as he stays in the slammer?
Keira. If I don't believe what Mike is posting, then I have every right to say so. As I said further in the thread, Mike sometimes posts theories for discussion.
On any other forum, a member who suggests the forum owner is a liar would be banned. It's solely thanks to Mike's exemplary tolerance that you are not in that position, Vidvic. I don't believe you remain on here for your knowledge of the family, as you know precious little.
-
Just because the hand swab results don't match your theory, does not make them worthless. In fact they are compelling as the lab were concerned with contamination. If the result had been positive then indeed they would be worthless, but as they were negative, provided very powerful evidence that Sheila did not fire any rifle.
Maybe you could answer my question?
How is it possible for Sheila to be presumed dead on the kitchen floor, make her way to the bedroom, shoot herself, be presumed dead again, only to be shot again sometime later?
See what Hartley means by gullible? Someone who never ever questions the anti Bamber side. You would do well to question your own beliefs here Vic. For there may be a chance that Mike is right and his contact is genuine whatever theories or doubts that we ourselves may have. Remember good investigation is to question all sides of an argument. Your spectrum is too narrow.
-
i still have my work books , i dont think they would talk now but the undertakers on that morning should still remember quite well should they still be around
Eeeeeeeeeeeeek!
-
Keira. Is that not a personal attack?
I suspect that Mike has not banned me because he understands the English language.
As I have said on at least two occasions, Mike isn't fibbing, it's a tactic.
Which bit of this post do you not understand?
-
Keira. Is that not a personal attack?
I suspect that Mike has not banned me because he understands the English language.
As I have said on at least two occasions, Mike isn't fibbing, it's a tactic.
Which bit of this post do you not understand?
Vic can I please ask your opinion on this:
How would it work as a tactic (to draw out former officers etc) if there was no truth in it? They would just read it and be baffled surely?
-
(Z) says it was not until after second shot went off accidentally and caused the fatal shot under the chin, that police at the scene realized that shiela had not been dead after all, but by that stage Dr Craig had left the scene, and (Z) says this was when another doctor named HARRIS was requested to attend the scene and he verified Sheila as being dead for a second time...
The surname HARRIS crops up a lot and can be confusing in this case.
We have DCS Harris......Divisional Chief Superintendant
We also have DCI Harris..... Detective Chief Inspector (or is it divisional)....though the radio log has him down as Div DCI Harris.
Seems odd that DCI Harris gives an ETA to arrive at Chelmsford (CD)at 8.15 am...
and then there is a message for a landline call to be made between ACC Simpson and DCI Harris AT 8.20am.
-
Keira. Is that not a personal attack?
I suspect that Mike has not banned me because he understands the English language.
As I have said on at least two occasions, Mike isn't fibbing, it's a tactic.
Which bit of this post do you not understand?
Vic can I please ask your opinion on this:
How would it work as a tactic (to draw out former officers etc) if there was no truth in it? They would just read it and be baffled surely?
Sure Roch, I'll do my best.
Mike believes that various police officers have things to hide from that morning.
Mike believes that various ex police officers read the forum.
If Mike can make these officers believe that one of them is about to go public with new information then just maybe they might blink and come forward themselves....
That's what I believe he has just tried.
That is why I believe it's a tactic, not a lie.
That is why I believe it to be complete and utter horlicks......
-
(Z) says it was not until after second shot went off accidentally and caused the fatal shot under the chin, that police at the scene realized that shiela had not been dead after all, but by that stage Dr Craig had left the scene, and (Z) says this was when another doctor named HARRIS was requested to attend the scene and he verified Sheila as being dead for a second time...
The surname HARRIS crops up a lot and can be confusing in this case.
We have DCS Harris......Divisional Chief Superintendant
We also have DCI Harris..... Detective Chief Inspector (or is it divisional)....though the radio log has him down as Div DCI Harris.
Seems odd that DCI Harris gives an ETA to arrive at Chelmsford (CD)at 8.15 am...
and then there is a message for a landline call to be made between ACC Simpson and DCI Harris AT 8.20am.
another log though has another DCI giving an ETA to arrive at Chelmsford at 8.15 am that is not on the other log... entries at same basic time of 7.42 though... hmm...and this is DCI Jones (taff....the one who had a fatal "accident").
Looking through the various radio logs on the forum there does appear to be a sound case that some fabrication has gone on ...now why would the police want to do that.
-
Keira. Is that not a personal attack?
I suspect that Mike has not banned me because he understands the English language.
As I have said on at least two occasions, Mike isn't fibbing, it's a tactic.
Which bit of this post do you not understand?
Vic can I please ask your opinion on this:
How would it work as a tactic (to draw out former officers etc) if there was no truth in it? They would just read it and be baffled surely?
Sure Roch, I'll do my best.
Mike believes that various police officers have things to hide from that morning.
Mike believes that various ex police officers read the forum.
If Mike can make these officers believe that one of them is about to go public with new information then just maybe they might blink and come forward themselves....
That's what I believe he has just tried.
That is why I believe it's a tactic, not a lie.
That is why I believe it to be complete and utter horlicks......
Thanks Vic.
Can I ask if it is your belief though, that there is nothing for those former officers to come forward with?
Do you agree that it is an extremely odd thing to do for a person with 23 years experience of case research, to employ such specific info (black bible / bed / single shot etc) as a means to pressurise or coax out these former officers?
I mean if the whole thing is a load of tosh, then it doesn't even work as a bluff for Mike Tesko. It achieves nothing.
Those eight negatives allegedly cut from the strip, now appear very important. Surely Mike Tesko couldn't successfully pull off a bluff by way of pretending about the content of those 8 negatives, if that supposed content does not match the memories of what actually took place, in the minds of the former officers present?
Does this make sense?
-
You make perfect sense Roch. :D
I took it that these photos shown to Mike are not from the official set. That these police officers luckily had a camera available to shoot some of their own snaps?
-
Because Dr Craig pronounced Sheila as being dead at 8.44am, and she only had one wound at that time, and because I have now seen a photograph of Sheila on the bed with the lower entry wound on her throat and no other entry wound present, it begs an explanation as to how the shot under the chin killed Sheila, if she was already dead, and had been dead since Dr Craig had pronounced her as being dead from a much earlier occasion?
I now have no doubt at all that Dr Craig erred when he declared Sheila to be dead at 8.44 am...
Police are responsible for causing Sheila's death in the bedroom...
-
Keira. Is that not a personal attack?
I suspect that Mike has not banned me because he understands the English language.
As I have said on at least two occasions, Mike isn't fibbing, it's a tactic.
Which bit of this post do you not understand?
Vic can I please ask your opinion on this:
How would it work as a tactic (to draw out former officers etc) if there was no truth in it? They would just read it and be baffled surely?
Sure Roch, I'll do my best.
Mike believes that various police officers have things to hide from that morning.
Mike believes that various ex police officers read the forum.
If Mike can make these officers believe that one of them is about to go public with new information then just maybe they might blink and come forward themselves....
That's what I believe he has just tried.
That is why I believe it's a tactic, not a lie.
That is why I believe it to be complete and utter horlicks......
Forgive me for being thick here Vic. But what you just said however you may dress it up is accusing Mike of not being truthful' In other words he is lying. I'm just wondering if that is how you dress up your stories, by calling less than truthful things "tactics"?
-
You make perfect sense Roch. :D
I took it that these photos shown to Mike are not from the official set. That these police officers luckily had a camera available to shoot some of their own snaps?
Well as you've seen, he seems to be alleging that raid team members refused to fully comply with what was being asked of them by their superiors and for security, in the event of the s**t ever hitting the fan, cut these 8 negs from the strip. Practically, quite how they would be able to do this is unknown to me ??? The raid team were not after all, crime scene photographers. If it is true then their superiors certainly seem to have slipped up in allowing this to happen. Also if true, there must also have been one mighty disagreement between officers / ranks?
-
Because Dr Craig pronounced Sheila as being dead at 8.44am, and she only had one wound at that time, and because I have now seen a photograph of Sheila on the bed with the lower entry wound on her throat and no other entry wound present, it begs an explanation as to how the shot under the chin killed Sheila, if she was already dead, and had been dead since Dr Craig had pronounced her as being dead from a much earlier occasion?
I now have no doubt at all that Dr Craig erred when he declared Sheila to be dead at 8.44 am...
Police are responsible for causing Sheila's death in the bedroom...
But Mike please can you explain the photograph posted by "Z"? Because this photo shows Sheila "on the floor" with just "one" bullet hole in her neck. Yet you said you saw her on the bed with just one bullet hole in her neck. AND then you saw a photo with her "one the bed" with two bullet holes in her neck? Why then does the photo that "Z" posted shows Sheila on the floor with just "one" bullet hole in her neck? Did the police move her onto the floor, take a photo with one bullet hole in her neck and then move her back to the bed and take a photo with two bullet holes in her neck and then move her back to the floor again?
-
Grahame mate, 'Z' in that post is Lamby. The photo was altered.
-
You make perfect sense Roch. :D
I took it that these photos shown to Mike are not from the official set. That these police officers luckily had a camera available to shoot some of their own snaps?
So, who took the video tape footage of the scene, since none of SOCO at the scene refer to taking video footage, there is no witness statement stating this and no corresponding notes contained in their respective pocketbooks mentioning who performed this duty?
If no named P/O took the video tape footage of the scene, how did such a video tape come into existence?
-
Grahame mate, 'Z' in that post is Lamby. The photo was altered.
Oh right...doh! :o
-
Grahame mate, 'Z' in that post is Lamby. The photo was altered.
Oh right...doh! :o
Gullible? ::)
-
Grahame mate, 'Z' in that post is Lamby. The photo was altered.
Oh right...doh! :o
Gullible? ::)
Yes yes I know Iknow. Don't rub it in. ::)
-
Sheila was only shot once in the throat at the time police took the photograph of Sheila on the bed. She was not dead at this stage, despite the police surgeon Dr Craig claiming that she died or was dead from 8.44am onwards...
-
Think about it all seriously for a second here. Photographs were not taken until 10am.
That would mean that Sheila and apparently June were on the bed up until that point, so it's no longer just a cock up by the firearms team, they would have been on the bed after all but two of the firearms unit vacated the premises and scene of crimes entered along with other senior officers, the alleged movement of the bodies would have involved so many people, and as Rochy says, makes the logs completely incompatible.
Yes Mike is lying his head off, contrary to the apparent popular belief, this is not a game.
It is however somewhat refreshing to see other people questioning these ridiculous claims, even those in the pro camp. Perhaps people aren't quite so gullible after all. :-\
I never have been gullable harts, and have trust in my judgement, but I find this latest claim a tad to far, even for my imagination.
Who the f*** meets in a wood to talk about a mans life. Bit too much of Miss Marples here, and I resent having the piss taken out of me. I refuse to grasp at straws, and TBH I think this is a piss take too far.
Whilst I respect Mikes hard work he should not think that the pro Bambers will follow blindly. Bluntly Bollocks is bollocks, and this is bollocks.
-
Sheila was only shot once in the throat at the time police took the photograph of Sheila on the bed. She was not dead at this stage, despite the police surgeon Dr Craig claiming that she died or was dead from 8.44am onwards...
But how if she had been pronounced dead by the doctor, how did they know that they killed her?
-
Ok... I'll bite...
So the police were busy staging Sheila's body for the suicide when the gun they were putting in place went off. She was alive when they were doing this, even though she had been certified dead, but the gun went off and she was finally dead.
And further evidence to support this is that the fatal bullet was of a different calibre to the first, so then they had to fake the reconstitution of the fragmented bullet etc.
So...
Why on Earth would the police be busy staging her suicide with a gun that wasn't the one used for the rest of the murders and the first of Sheila's wounds? It's not even self-consistent, let alone consistent with any of the other theories the pro- posters have used to support JBs innocence so far ::)
-
Keira. Is that not a personal attack?
I suspect that Mike has not banned me because he understands the English language.
As I have said on at least two occasions, Mike isn't fibbing, it's a tactic.
Which bit of this post do you not understand?
The end of the last sentence could be construed as mild ad homonym, you're right. It was entirely unnecessary too, so I apologise for that. There is no excuse for personal attacks - with perhaps the exception of retaliatory attacks on the rudest of the trolls. You might now like to apologise for the above personal attack on me.
-
Keira. Is that not a personal attack?
I suspect that Mike has not banned me because he understands the English language.
As I have said on at least two occasions, Mike isn't fibbing, it's a tactic.
Which bit of this post do you not understand?
Also, I don't accept this distinction you make between lies and tactics. A tactical lie is still a lie. One who lies for tactical reasons is still a liar.
-
Ok... I'll bite...
So the police were busy staging Sheila's body for the suicide when the gun they were putting in place went off. She was alive when they were doing this, even though she had been certified dead, but the gun went off and she was finally dead.
And further evidence to support this is that the fatal bullet was of a different calibre to the first, so then they had to fake the reconstitution of the fragmented bullet etc.
So...
Why on Earth would the police be busy staging her suicide with a gun that wasn't the one used for the rest of the murders and the first of Sheila's wounds? It's not even self-consistent, let alone consistent with any of the other theories the pro- posters have used to support JBs innocence so far ::)
If two or more weapons were used by one party or another in these shootings, police could not very well stage manage Sheila`s suicide with or by use of both guns, they would have to decide on the spur of the moment, or with use of reasoned logic, which weapon they would be using in the re-arrangement of her body. Any discrepancies in the batch of crime scene bullets recovered from the scene, or from the bodies of victims, could be sorted out later, which is precisely what happened with bullet PV/20...
-
Mike,
Until now the main Sheila-did-it scenario has involved Sheila shooting herself in the kitchen but not fatally, the police mistakenly assuming her dead, and Sheila escaping upstairs to shoot herself a second time in the main bedroom.
What you are now telling us contradicts this, but you still haven't told us what was supposed to have happened before the police accidently shot Sheila on the bed. If (Z) knows about the accidental shot, then he presumably knows what happened before that, and would surely have told you.
So, once again, I'm asking how Sheila sustained the first shot to the neck. Did she simply shoot herself on the bed? or does the first-shot-in-the-kitchen claim still apply? or does neither of these apply?
If you don't tell us the full story, how are we supposed to decide whether it holds water or not?
-
Keira. Is that not a personal attack?
I suspect that Mike has not banned me because he understands the English language.
As I have said on at least two occasions, Mike isn't fibbing, it's a tactic.
Which bit of this post do you not understand?
Also, I don't accept this distinction you make between lies and tactics. A tactical lie is still a lie. One who lies for tactical reasons is still a liar.
Surely the relevant point here though Choch, is that Mike has form for this with the Ali Bongo saga? So regardless of whether you call it tactical or a lie it is still not some kind of sacred no-no to accuse Mike of it, given that he has done something very similar in the past?
The same is also true of the Smiffy-Mike dual profile subterfuge if that proves to be true.
-
Ok... I'll bite...
So the police were busy staging Sheila's body for the suicide when the gun they were putting in place went off. She was alive when they were doing this, even though she had been certified dead, but the gun went off and she was finally dead.
And further evidence to support this is that the fatal bullet was of a different calibre to the first, so then they had to fake the reconstitution of the fragmented bullet etc.
So...
Why on Earth would the police be busy staging her suicide with a gun that wasn't the one used for the rest of the murders and the first of Sheila's wounds? It's not even self-consistent, let alone consistent with any of the other theories the pro- posters have used to support JBs innocence so far ::)
If two or more weapons were used by one party or another in these shootings, police could not very well stage manage Sheila`s suicide with or by use of both guns, they would have to decide on the spur of the moment, or with use of reasoned logic, which weapon they would be using in the re-arrangement of her body. Any discrepancies in the batch of crime scene bullets recovered from the scene, or from the bodies of victims, could be sorted out later, which is precisely what happened with bullet PV/20...
So multiple weapons were used to kill the other victims? I thought the only suspect bullet was the fragmented one found in Sheila?
-
Mike,
Until now the main Sheila-did-it scenario has involved Sheila shooting herself in the kitchen but not fatally, the police mistakenly assuming her dead, and Sheila escaping upstairs to shoot herself a second time in the main bedroom.
What you are now telling us contradicts this, but you still haven't told us what was supposed to have happened before the police accidently shot Sheila on the bed. If (Z) knows about the accidental shot, then he presumably knows what happened before that, and would surely have told you.
So, once again, I'm asking how Sheila sustained the first shot to the neck. Did she simply shoot herself on the bed? or does the first-shot-in-the-kitchen claim still apply? or does neither of these apply?
If you don't tell us the full story, how are we supposed to decide whether it holds water or not?
Yes, (Z) has given me the account relating to what took place, and the actual sequence of events regarding the two entry wounds sustained by Sheila...
-
Keira. Is that not a personal attack?
I suspect that Mike has not banned me because he understands the English language.
As I have said on at least two occasions, Mike isn't fibbing, it's a tactic.
Which bit of this post do you not understand?
Also, I don't accept this distinction you make between lies and tactics. A tactical lie is still a lie. One who lies for tactical reasons is still a liar.
Surely the relevant point here though Choch, is that Mike has form for this with the Ali Bongo saga? So regardless of whether you call it tactical or a lie it is still not some kind of sacred no-no to accuse Mike of it, given that he has done something very similar in the past?
The same is also true of the Smiffy-Mike dual profile subterfuge if that proves to be true.
The Ali Bongo saga was a didactic joke. Mike intended to confess the joke once he'd used this to illustrate a point he wished to make. So it is not comparable to the current issue. As I understand it, Mike is not joking or being tactical in respect of yesterday's meeting. He had the meeting and reported it to forum members accordingly. Vidvic claims that Mike is lying about this. I believe Vidvic is wrong and should apologise.
-
Mike,
Until now the main Sheila-did-it scenario has involved Sheila shooting herself in the kitchen but not fatally, the police mistakenly assuming her dead, and Sheila escaping upstairs to shoot herself a second time in the main bedroom.
What you are now telling us contradicts this, but you still haven't told us what was supposed to have happened before the police accidently shot Sheila on the bed. If (Z) knows about the accidental shot, then he presumably knows what happened before that, and would surely have told you.
So, once again, I'm asking how Sheila sustained the first shot to the neck. Did she simply shoot herself on the bed? or does the first-shot-in-the-kitchen claim still apply? or does neither of these apply?
If you don't tell us the full story, how are we supposed to decide whether it holds water or not?
Yes, (Z) has given me the account relating to what took place, and the actual sequence of events regarding the two entry wounds sustained by Sheila...
OK, that's a start, we're listening.
-
Keira. Is that not a personal attack?
I suspect that Mike has not banned me because he understands the English language.
As I have said on at least two occasions, Mike isn't fibbing, it's a tactic.
Which bit of this post do you not understand?
Also, I don't accept this distinction you make between lies and tactics. A tactical lie is still a lie. One who lies for tactical reasons is still a liar.
Surely the relevant point here though Choch, is that Mike has form for this with the Ali Bongo saga? So regardless of whether you call it tactical or a lie it is still not some kind of sacred no-no to accuse Mike of it, given that he has done something very similar in the past?
The same is also true of the Smiffy-Mike dual profile subterfuge if that proves to be true.
The Ali Bongo saga was a didactic joke. Mike intended to confess the joke once he'd used this to illustrate a point he wished to make. So it is not comparable to the current issue. As I understand it, Mike is not joking or being tactical in respect of yesterday's meeting. He had the meeting and reported it to forum members accordingly. Vidvic claims that Mike is lying about this. I believe Vidvic is wrong and should apologise.
Do I also need to apologise? Although I don't think it was tactical, I just think Mike is lying his arse off, in fact it would appear that a few other people do as well, do they also need to apologise, oh Miss High and Mighty? ::) ::) ::)
-
just a bit OTT there hartley, Chill.
-
Keira. Is that not a personal attack?
I suspect that Mike has not banned me because he understands the English language.
As I have said on at least two occasions, Mike isn't fibbing, it's a tactic.
Which bit of this post do you not understand?
Also, I don't accept this distinction you make between lies and tactics. A tactical lie is still a lie. One who lies for tactical reasons is still a liar.
Surely the relevant point here though Choch, is that Mike has form for this with the Ali Bongo saga? So regardless of whether you call it tactical or a lie it is still not some kind of sacred no-no to accuse Mike of it, given that he has done something very similar in the past?
The same is also true of the Smiffy-Mike dual profile subterfuge if that proves to be true.
The Ali Bongo saga was a didactic joke. Mike intended to confess the joke once he'd used this to illustrate a point he wished to make. So it is not comparable to the current issue. As I understand it, Mike is not joking or being tactical in respect of yesterday's meeting. He had the meeting and reported it to forum members accordingly. Vidvic claims that Mike is lying about this. I believe Vidvic is wrong and should apologise.
Do I also need to apologise? Although I don't think it was tactical, I just think Mike is lying his arse off, in fact it would appear that a few other people do as well, do they also need to apologise, oh Miss High and Mighty? ::) ::) ::)
You're the resident troll, Hartley, trolls don't apologise.
-
Keira. Is that not a personal attack?
I suspect that Mike has not banned me because he understands the English language.
As I have said on at least two occasions, Mike isn't fibbing, it's a tactic.
Which bit of this post do you not understand?
Also, I don't accept this distinction you make between lies and tactics. A tactical lie is still a lie. One who lies for tactical reasons is still a liar.
Surely the relevant point here though Choch, is that Mike has form for this with the Ali Bongo saga? So regardless of whether you call it tactical or a lie it is still not some kind of sacred no-no to accuse Mike of it, given that he has done something very similar in the past?
The same is also true of the Smiffy-Mike dual profile subterfuge if that proves to be true.
The Ali Bongo saga was a didactic joke. Mike intended to confess the joke once he'd used this to illustrate a point he wished to make. So it is not comparable to the current issue. As I understand it, Mike is not joking or being tactical in respect of yesterday's meeting. He had the meeting and reported it to forum members accordingly. Vidvic claims that Mike is lying about this. I believe Vidvic is wrong and should apologise.
Do I also need to apologise? Although I don't think it was tactical, I just think Mike is lying his arse off, in fact it would appear that a few other people do as well, do they also need to apologise, oh Miss High and Mighty? ::) ::) ::)
You're the resident troll, Hartley, trolls don't apologise.
Because they lack the intellectual and ethical equipment.
-
Thank you for your apology Kiera and may I apologise for mine too.
Just another thought, but it's been quite quiet on here lately, nothing new, everyone waiting for the CCRC. Is it possible Mike that you just wanted to attract a bit of 'spice' back to the forum?
I am in touch with both Pro and Anti Bamber members and have to say Mike, that if this is a wind up, you might have just mis judged the mood of the Pro bambers, who seem more pissed off than the Anti's, who I think find it mildly amusing.
For what it's worth I also have a feeling that Smiffy is Mike. He seems to have access to similar levels of documentation as Mike and I think today, you answered one of my posts as Smiffy when in fact it was Mike who should have answered. He uses a very similar style to yourself as well.
Just my honest opinion.
-
Ok... I'll bite...
So the police were busy staging Sheila's body for the suicide when the gun they were putting in place went off. She was alive when they were doing this, even though she had been certified dead, but the gun went off and she was finally dead.
And further evidence to support this is that the fatal bullet was of a different calibre to the first, so then they had to fake the reconstitution of the fragmented bullet etc.
So...
Why on Earth would the police be busy staging her suicide with a gun that wasn't the one used for the rest of the murders and the first of Sheila's wounds? It's not even self-consistent, let alone consistent with any of the other theories the pro- posters have used to support JBs innocence so far ::)
If two or more weapons were used by one party or another in these shootings, police could not very well stage manage Sheila`s suicide with or by use of both guns, they would have to decide on the spur of the moment, or with use of reasoned logic, which weapon they would be using in the re-arrangement of her body. Any discrepancies in the batch of crime scene bullets recovered from the scene, or from the bodies of victims, could be sorted out later, which is precisely what happened with bullet PV/20...
So multiple weapons were used to kill the other victims? I thought the only suspect bullet was the fragmented one found in Sheila?
There is evidence that as many as 14 original bullet cases were swapped over (MDF/100) to accommodate the prosecutions one gun crime theory. These original 14 bullet cases were replaced by 14 Ely control cartridge cases which were fired via the .22 Anshulz rifle during unofficial unreported test firings of the gun and control bullets once the nature of the investigation changed in September 1985. This substitution process enabled the ballistic expert to match the 25 bullets from the 25 wounds of the five victims, as all having been fired via the Anshulz rifle...
One of these 25 bullets, included the substitution of the original fragmented bullet PV/20...
There was absolutely no scientific evidence produced at all to link or match any of the 25 bullet cases, to any of the 25 bullets...
Linked to this matter, is the fact that some of the 12 whole crime scene bullets (7), were too heavy, and the other five were too light, for any of them to have been manufactured by Ely. When you consider that one of the 12 whole bullets turns out to be the substituted bullet PV/20, it leaves it open for the other 11 whole bullets, of which 7 were too heavy and the other 4 too light to have not been Eley Ammunition...
These discrepancies and inconsistencies indicate in the clearest possible terms, that Somebody has gone out of their way to make this into a one gun crime...
-
Keira
Hartley showing the same old attitude
Still cannot make out why a 32 year old man would spend so much time on a forum but nice to see Vidvic is there to back him up in times of trouble
Glad to see you speak to anti's and pro Bamber people and you must admit the help Jeremy is getting now is impressive
I did see you in the early hours reading the posts about Simons appointment but you didn't comment
-
His C.V is quite impressive, but so was Ewen's.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.....
-
Actually Jackie, Jeremy must be really excited with the latest development with Mike?
I take it Mike told Jeremy he was going to meet 'Z' ?
Jeremy's team must be all over 'Z' to see these photos?
Be nice to hear your views....
-
Keira. Is that not a personal attack?
I suspect that Mike has not banned me because he understands the English language.
As I have said on at least two occasions, Mike isn't fibbing, it's a tactic.
Which bit of this post do you not understand?
Also, I don't accept this distinction you make between lies and tactics. A tactical lie is still a lie. One who lies for tactical reasons is still a liar.
Surely the relevant point here though Choch, is that Mike has form for this with the Ali Bongo saga? So regardless of whether you call it tactical or a lie it is still not some kind of sacred no-no to accuse Mike of it, given that he has done something very similar in the past?
The same is also true of the Smiffy-Mike dual profile subterfuge if that proves to be true.
No Bob. Vic said he didn't call Mike a lier, but used tactics to try and flush out potential police witnesses. I said it was still a lier. We weren't saying that it was justified or not justified. But that whatever term you use it is still an accusation that Mike lied. And that is the contention.
-
The difference being if Mike is telling the truth and their is a photo of Sheila on the bed Jeremys new lawyer is probably more honest and also I know Simon wants this case out in open and the media involved heavily
Two experts
No 1 Ngb
No 2 Solicitor (or how Shona addressed him a failed barrister)
Vidvic you must admit you will be estatic if Simon get most of the evidence released held under PII
After all Vidvic we all want to get to the truth
-
Actually Jackie, Jeremy must be really excited with the latest development with Mike?
I take it Mike told Jeremy he was going to meet 'Z' ?
Jeremy's team must be all over 'Z' to see these photos?
Be nice to hear your views....
Phew! I thought for a moment there that you did know the latest?
-
Vic, you've been on here all day. What. Slow news day? ::)
-
Vidvic
I should imagine if Mike thought someone could help the case he would probably meet them first to see if they are genuine before getting Jeremy excited about new developments.
Jeremy is snowed under at the moment with the release of new evidence and the exciting new finds
Are you up to date with the latest evidence released?
-
Vic, you've been on here all day. What. Slow news day? ::)
lol...... very
-
No Jackie, obviously not....... Should I look on Jeremy's web site?.....
-
Thank you for your apology Kiera and may I apologise for mine too.
Just another thought, but it's been quite quiet on here lately, nothing new, everyone waiting for the CCRC. Is it possible Mike that you just wanted to attract a bit of 'spice' back to the forum?
I am in touch with both Pro and Anti Bamber members and have to say Mike, that if this is a wind up, you might have just mis judged the mood of the Pro bambers, who seem more pissed off than the Anti's, who I think find it mildly amusing.
For what it's worth I also have a feeling that Smiffy is Mike. He seems to have access to similar levels of documentation as Mike and I think today, you answered one of my posts as Smiffy when in fact it was Mike who should have answered. He uses a very similar style to yourself as well.
Just my honest opinion.
Thank you for your apology, Vidvic, which I'm pleased to accept. So we're pals again! How good to debate with a gentleman.
-
Keira
Hartley showing the same old attitude
Still cannot make out why a 32 year old man would spend so much time on a forum but nice to see Vidvic is there to back him up in times of trouble
Glad to see you speak to anti's and pro Bamber people and you must admit the help Jeremy is getting now is impressive
I did see you in the early hours reading the posts about Simons appointment but you didn't comment
I thought I did comment on Simon McKay appointment. I must have sent you so many pms regarding this that I thought I'd commented here but hadn't.
-
His C.V is quite impressive, but so was Ewen's.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.....
Is that a rather unfair comment do you think, Vidvic? What would your better self say?
-
lol Keira. You only get one apology per day..... :P
-
lol Keira. You only get one apology per day..... :P
This isn't for me, it's for Jackie ;D
-
Sorry Keira that whole post was meant for Hartley I was pointing out his attitude to you
On the iPhone
I know how pleased you were about Simon
Sorry if u read it u will see what I did
-
Sorry Keira that whole post was meant for Hartley I was pointing out his attitude to you
On the iPhone
I know how pleased you were about Simon
Sorry if u read it u will see what I did
Oh, right!
-
His C.V is quite impressive, but so was Ewen's.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.....
Is that a rather unfair comment do you think, Vidvic? What would your better self say?
He'd add eye liner as well.
-
Mike, I can´t find your post about my photoshopped pic. I was working and hadn´t time to answer when I saw it earlier.
Anyway, I just made it to illustrate my point. I didn´t want to use too much time on it, so I didn´t move the barrel etc. etc...
Without negatives you can´t be sure of anything.
Mike, you might just be pulling all our legs - wouldn´t be a first, sorry... only you know. 8)
-
Mike, I can´t find your post about my photoshopped pic. I was working and hadn´t time to answer when I saw it earlier.
Anyway, I just made it to illustrate my point. I didn´t want to use too much time on it, so I didn´t move the barrel etc. etc...
Without negatives you can´t be sure of anything.
Mike, you might just be pulling all our legs - wouldn´t be a first, sorry... only you know. 8)
He'd better not be, you can only cry wolf a few times and no one will believe him if he actually finds a repentant witness. Not to say he hasn't of course. But the ali bongo incident did make it more difficult for people to trust him. I think Mike did a lot of damage to people's trust with that game. I don't expect any anti bamber member to believe him at all. But I'm thinking of Jeremy's supporters and even Jeremy himself. I certainly don't find it amusing that pro bamber members are against Mike more than the anti Bamber mob as Vidvic does. What is amusing about it I wonder? That is a comment I remember being made on the facebook guilty page as far as my memory serves me? Sorry Vidvic, just a niggling thought that ran through my head just then. But I doubt that you would be found amongst that amoral lot?
-
What stands out to me Grahame is the dislike for Jeremys new solicitor by the people who want to keep Jeremy in prison.
Firstly we had Shona trying to blacken Simons name and now Vidvic making a nasty comment.
That's exactly what I wanted to get out of vidvic was exactly what I expected
There's not many anti Bamber people on the forum but the behaviour of those two says it all
They have not got the slightest interest in getting to the truth
-
His C.V is quite impressive, but so was Ewen's.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.....
Is that a rather unfair comment do you think, Vidvic? What would your better self say?
was the pig and lipstick quote originally a swipe at sarah palin? not on here,but it was a quote used to describe her? or have i dreamt it?
-
What on Earth are you going on about, who has made any detrimental comment about him? Only one person and she apologised for it. Nobody else at all. Stop telling fibs Jackie!
-
His C.V is quite impressive, but so was Ewen's.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.....
Is that a rather unfair comment do you think, Vidvic? What would your better self say?
was the pig and lipstick quote originally a swipe at sarah palin? not on here,but it was a quote used to describe her? or have i dreamt it?
Andrea, that quote was, I think, a response by Obama to the Republicans' campaign in general and Palin's response was:
"You know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick."
-
i knew it had something to do with her!, thanks for that :)
-
Sorry Keira that whole post was meant for Hartley I was pointing out his attitude to you
On the iPhone
I know how pleased you were about Simon
Sorry if u read it u will see what I did
Sorry to be obtuse but what's the relevance of Simon given the massive revelations that Mike has made on this thread?
-
They have not got the slightest interest in getting to the truth
Yes, that's the impression I get.
-
Sorry Keira that whole post was meant for Hartley I was pointing out his attitude to you
On the iPhone
I know how pleased you were about Simon
Sorry if u read it u will see what I did
Sorry to be obtuse but what's the relevance of Simon given the massive revelations that Mike has made on this thread?
None. But it was Vidvic who introduced it into the thread not Jackie.
-
It could be thinking outside the box is not the answer the answer is still there waiting , its not been found yet, anyone offering something normally brings up the question of payment in the talks.
-
I still don't understand the comment in relation to Simon could someone explain please it certainly didn't sound complimentary
Bob we might as well have your comments about Simon!
The subject of this thread is 'you should all know the truth' and an important part of the truth is PII so when everyone was having a pop at Mike I thought I would bring something else to the topic because we were going around in circles with the z person
-
Surprise surprise the smitemaster is at work
Sad >:(
-
I still don't understand the comment in relation to Simon could someone explain please it certainly didn't sound complimentary
Bob we might as well have your comments about Simon!
The subject of this thread is 'you should all know the truth' and an important part of the truth is PII so when everyone was having a pop at Mike I thought I would bring something else to the topic because we were going around in circles with the z person
I don't have any comments about Simon, Jackie.
Why, should I?
Have I missed something?
-
Grahame Norton BBC
Johny Depp
Fit as !!!!
Now !!
-
Grahame Norton BBC
Johny Depp
Fit as !!!!
Now !!
Newsnight BBC2
Emily Maitlis
Greek Debt!!!
-
bbc 3
top gear
kid rock ???
-
Grahame Norton BBC
Johny Depp
Fit as !!!!
Now !!
Newsnight BBC2
Emily Maitlis
Greek Debt!!!
QVC channel.
Cut price Viagra.
I'm in!!
-
Grahame Norton BBC
Johny Depp
Fit as !!!!
Now !!
Newsnight BBC2
Emily Maitlis
Greek Debt!!!
QVC channel.
Cut price Viagra.
I'm in!!
Are you planning on slipping BT the blue mickey?
-
Just beautiful !!!
Magnificent
Sexy
-
can someone put bbc3 on, is it an american version of top gear?
-
Grahame Norton BBC
Johny Depp
Fit as !!!!
Now !!
Newsnight BBC2
Emily Maitlis
Greek Debt!!!
QVC channel.
Cut price Viagra.
I'm in!!
Are you planning on slipping BT the blue mickey?
Well, you know. Any port in a storm. Oooh, port!! Yum!!
-
Just beautiful !!!
Magnificent
Sexy
He's about as close to perfection that a bloke can be. I bet Kate Moss is kicking her own arse.
-
Id buy that for a dollar
-
Id buy that for a dollar
The viagra, Merts? Don't bother, mate. You'll get a headache!
-
Id buy that for a dollar
where have i heard that before? was it robocop?
-
Shona
You are so right Kate Moss has never got over him
:-((
-
Shona
You are so right Kate Moss has never got over him
:-((
Or Winona Ryder. Everyone he touches, Jack!
Like Bob.
-
Id buy that for a dollar
where have i heard that before? was it robocop?
spot on again
-
my memory must be improving!
-
Id buy that for a dollar
where have i heard that before? was it robocop?
-
haha! thats it yes.
-
haha! thats it yes.
seen T -shirts for sale with it on off ebay usa.
-
Id buy that for a dollar
where have i heard that before? was it robocop?
OMG and JTFC. Is that you, Grahame? You seriously should have gone to Specsavers.
-
did you look at the merton saville link i posted earlier mertol?
-
shona, whos JTFC?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85cL1HisrNc
-
did you look at the merton saville link i posted earlier mertol?
its xxxx stuff surely not true?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85cL1HisrNc
well done
-
i will have a word with someone i know about photos and negatives might shed some light on this thread
-
shona, whos JTFC?
Jesus titty fucking Christ. Grahame's specs are ant burners. And I like Grahame!!
-
;D ;D ;D
-
shona, whos JTFC?
Jesus titty fucking Christ. Grahame's specs are ant burners. And I like Grahame!!
something for you on 1980s off t shona
-
Oh, God. Did I just say that or think it?
-
What stands out to me Grahame is the dislike for Jeremys new solicitor by the people who want to keep Jeremy in prison.
Firstly we had Shona trying to blacken Simons name and now Vidvic making a nasty comment.
That's exactly what I wanted to get out of vidvic was exactly what I expected
There's not many anti Bamber people on the forum but the behaviour of those two says it all
They have not got the slightest interest in getting to the truth
Dearest Jackie,
I did not say anything to insult 'Simon'. You really mustn't tell fibs Jackie.
I was refering to the case and Bambers guilt.
Doesn't matter who you have heading up the case. If he's guilty, he's guilty. If he's not, he's not.
That is why I used the 'lipstick on a pig' expression.
And Grahame, no it wasn't me who introduced 'Simon' to the debate. It was Jackie.
-
And Grahame, no it wasn't me who introduced 'Simon' to the debate. It was Jackie.
Yes it was wasn't it. My apologies Vic.
-
Ok... I'll bite...
So the police were busy staging Sheila's body for the suicide when the gun they were putting in place went off. She was alive when they were doing this, even though she had been certified dead, but the gun went off and she was finally dead.
And further evidence to support this is that the fatal bullet was of a different calibre to the first, so then they had to fake the reconstitution of the fragmented bullet etc.
So...
Why on Earth would the police be busy staging her suicide with a gun that wasn't the one used for the rest of the murders and the first of Sheila's wounds? It's not even self-consistent, let alone consistent with any of the other theories the pro- posters have used to support JBs innocence so far ::)
Some people play "thick"...tactic of trolls in my view.
Simple ......Sheila used both the Pargetter and Bamber rifles to kill the other 4. She is then shot by a police weapon in an incident after they entered the house.
Choice ...police admit they screwed up ...or they cover it up....they selected the latter. There were high profile firearms incidents involving police in the early 80's that meant another police caused death would be politcally very damaging and be very bad for EP ...especially its higher ranked officers.
-
Keira. Is that not a personal attack?
I suspect that Mike has not banned me because he understands the English language.
As I have said on at least two occasions, Mike isn't fibbing, it's a tactic.
Which bit of this post do you not understand?
Also, I don't accept this distinction you make between lies and tactics. A tactical lie is still a lie. One who lies for tactical reasons is still a liar.
Surely the relevant point here though Choch, is that Mike has form for this with the Ali Bongo saga? So regardless of whether you call it tactical or a lie it is still not some kind of sacred no-no to accuse Mike of it, given that he has done something very similar in the past?
The same is also true of the Smiffy-Mike dual profile subterfuge if that proves to be true.
I resent your disgusting attack Bob. I do not and have not posted using any names on this forum other than my own. You too clearly suggest I am lying as well as suggesting Mike is lying.
Fact ...Bob has a record of making wrong false claims about persons on this forum....as has Hartley and as has Shonapugs.
-
Ok... I'll bite...
So the police were busy staging Sheila's body for the suicide when the gun they were putting in place went off. She was alive when they were doing this, even though she had been certified dead, but the gun went off and she was finally dead.
And further evidence to support this is that the fatal bullet was of a different calibre to the first, so then they had to fake the reconstitution of the fragmented bullet etc.
So...
Why on Earth would the police be busy staging her suicide with a gun that wasn't the one used for the rest of the murders and the first of Sheila's wounds? It's not even self-consistent, let alone consistent with any of the other theories the pro- posters have used to support JBs innocence so far ::)
If two or more weapons were used by one party or another in these shootings, police could not very well stage manage Sheila`s suicide with or by use of both guns, they would have to decide on the spur of the moment, or with use of reasoned logic, which weapon they would be using in the re-arrangement of her body. Any discrepancies in the batch of crime scene bullets recovered from the scene, or from the bodies of victims, could be sorted out later, which is precisely what happened with bullet PV/20...
So multiple weapons were used to kill the other victims? I thought the only suspect bullet was the fragmented one found in Sheila?
Obviously Bob can read and is playing ignorant...typical troll behaviour.
-
Mike,
Until now the main Sheila-did-it scenario has involved Sheila shooting herself in the kitchen but not fatally, the police mistakenly assuming her dead, and Sheila escaping upstairs to shoot herself a second time in the main bedroom.
What you are now telling us contradicts this, but you still haven't told us what was supposed to have happened before the police accidently shot Sheila on the bed. If (Z) knows about the accidental shot, then he presumably knows what happened before that, and would surely have told you.
So, once again, I'm asking how Sheila sustained the first shot to the neck. Did she simply shoot herself on the bed? or does the first-shot-in-the-kitchen claim still apply? or does neither of these apply?
If you don't tell us the full story, how are we supposed to decide whether it holds water or not?
Yes, (Z) has given me the account relating to what took place, and the actual sequence of events regarding the two entry wounds sustained by Sheila...
I would not rely on everything "z" says or claims.
In my view I think it unlikely the under chin shot was accidental. The excuse proffered is lame...checking angles...and would it really be credible for someone to accidentally fire the weapon... Considering it was supposedly handled by a firearms officer...this seems to fall flat.
-
Thank you for your apology Kiera and may I apologise for mine too.
Just another thought, but it's been quite quiet on here lately, nothing new, everyone waiting for the CCRC. Is it possible Mike that you just wanted to attract a bit of 'spice' back to the forum?
I am in touch with both Pro and Anti Bamber members and have to say Mike, that if this is a wind up, you might have just mis judged the mood of the Pro bambers, who seem more pissed off than the Anti's, who I think find it mildly amusing.
For what it's worth I also have a feeling that Smiffy is Mike. He seems to have access to similar levels of documentation as Mike and I think today, you answered one of my posts as Smiffy when in fact it was Mike who should have answered. He uses a very similar style to yourself as well.
Just my honest opinion.
So seeing vidvics post I can now declare vidvic to be a fool with bad judgement.
vidvic you are pathetic and sad sad sad... would you put your money where you mouth is on this issue..of Mike and myself (smiffy) being one and the same person...or better still..stake your life on it...if not then retract....!!!
-
Ok... I'll bite...
So the police were busy staging Sheila's body for the suicide when the gun they were putting in place went off. She was alive when they were doing this, even though she had been certified dead, but the gun went off and she was finally dead.
And further evidence to support this is that the fatal bullet was of a different calibre to the first, so then they had to fake the reconstitution of the fragmented bullet etc.
So...
Why on Earth would the police be busy staging her suicide with a gun that wasn't the one used for the rest of the murders and the first of Sheila's wounds? It's not even self-consistent, let alone consistent with any of the other theories the pro- posters have used to support JBs innocence so far ::)
If two or more weapons were used by one party or another in these shootings, police could not very well stage manage Sheila`s suicide with or by use of both guns, they would have to decide on the spur of the moment, or with use of reasoned logic, which weapon they would be using in the re-arrangement of her body. Any discrepancies in the batch of crime scene bullets recovered from the scene, or from the bodies of victims, could be sorted out later, which is precisely what happened with bullet PV/20...
So multiple weapons were used to kill the other victims? I thought the only suspect bullet was the fragmented one found in Sheila?
There is evidence that as many as 14 original bullet cases were swapped over (MDF/100) to accommodate the prosecutions one gun crime theory. These original 14 bullet cases were replaced by 14 Ely control cartridge cases which were fired via the .22 Anshulz rifle during unofficial unreported test firings of the gun and control bullets once the nature of the investigation changed in September 1985. This substitution process enabled the ballistic expert to match the 25 bullets from the 25 wounds of the five victims, as all having been fired via the Anshulz rifle...
One of these 25 bullets, included the substitution of the original fragmented bullet PV/20...
There was absolutely no scientific evidence produced at all to link or match any of the 25 bullet cases, to any of the 25 bullets...
Linked to this matter, is the fact that some of the 12 whole crime scene bullets (7), were too heavy, and the other five were too light, for any of them to have been manufactured by Ely. When you consider that one of the 12 whole bullets turns out to be the substituted bullet PV/20, it leaves it open for the other 11 whole bullets, of which 7 were too heavy and the other 4 too light to have not been Eley Ammunition...
These discrepancies and inconsistencies indicate in the clearest possible terms, that Somebody has gone out of their way to make this into a one gun crime...
Who on earth would have any vested interest in making this into a one gun crime, if it wasn't?
(1) - Jeremy, or any would be as yet unidentified hitman?
(2) - Essex police?
(3) - Relatives?
-
His C.V is quite impressive, but so was Ewen's.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.....
Why would anyone want to put lipstick on a pig?
To make them attractive.... someone who is into beastiality maybe.......
maybe it says something about the nature of the person making such a claim.
admit nothing...deny everything
-
If JB knew at his trial , it was a two gun crime ,he would have been able to get his defence team to ask a lot of awkward question's !! Not to do so point's to one thing only !
-
His C.V is quite impressive, but so was Ewen's.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.....
Why would anyone want to put lipstick on a pig?
To make them attractive.... someone who is into beastiality maybe.......
maybe it says something about the nature of the person making such a claim.
admit nothing...deny everything
Oh God, smiffy, you do make me laugh!! But why are you having a go at me, you little weirdo? And apologise to Bob and Vic, right now, or I'll tell everyone your little secret.
-
Ok... I'll bite...
So the police were busy staging Sheila's body for the suicide when the gun they were putting in place went off. She was alive when they were doing this, even though she had been certified dead, but the gun went off and she was finally dead.
And further evidence to support this is that the fatal bullet was of a different calibre to the first, so then they had to fake the reconstitution of the fragmented bullet etc.
So...
Why on Earth would the police be busy staging her suicide with a gun that wasn't the one used for the rest of the murders and the first of Sheila's wounds? It's not even self-consistent, let alone consistent with any of the other theories the pro- posters have used to support JBs innocence so far ::)
Some people play "thick"...
I'll bow to your expertise in this area "smiffy".
-
If JB knew at his trial , it was a two gun crime ,he would have been able to get his defence team to ask a lot of awkward question's !! Not to do so point's to one thing only !
good point Jon.
Its an irony of the legal system as it is..
Real criminals will have knowledge of the things involved in their crimes so this may aid them at trial.
Innocent people wrongly accused will have no knowledge of the things involved in a crime and this can handicap them in a trial. Sometimes the prosecution can exploit this to get a wrongful conviction. Yes..it is perverse but the cold prosecution types will tell you they are only doing their job which is to get a conviction and morality does not come into it.
-
If JB knew at his trial , it was a two gun crime ,he would have been able to get his defence team to ask a lot of awkward question's !! Not to do so point's to one thing only !
Early stages of my involvement in this case:- (1)
Exactly...
When I first met Jeremy in 1989 at HMP Full Sutton, the only view he held about why his convictions were wrong had to do with the blood found inside the silencer which the court accepted came from Sheila, rather than accept it was a mixture of his parents blood. I remember that this was what he first mentioned to me when we discussed what he was in for (prison term for what did you get convicted for to warrant being here in prison)? He hadn't got a clue about any of the other dodgy evidence which was used to support his prosecution. If he had known about the possible use of more than two weapons in the shootings at that stage, or beforehand when his trial took place, he would have mentioned it to me, he would have had no reason not to mention it to me, because at that time I was just another inmate, who had nothing better to do but talk to other inmates about what we were all in for? Most of the other inmates at HMP Full Sutton at that time were considered to be career criminals who could not be rehabilitated, and I was considered and treated as being one of those. In those early days of my time spent at HMP Full Sutton Jeremy was just one of many prisoners who I spoke to about what they were in for? At no stage did I ever believe or suspect that when I was speaking to Jeremy about his case, that he lied about anything, he always spoke politely and answered questions immediately with confidence. He would have been caught out lying long before now if he had been responsible in any way for taking part in the killings. Lets put it this way, when you are in prison along with some of the most devious cunning, resourceful and dangerous individuals that society has the fortune or misfortune to deal with, and you are talking to some of these individuals whilst you are in prison and they ask you about what you are in for, you had better not lie to them or your life wouldn't be worth anything in the environment of prison life. There were lots of inmates in there at that time for some of the most heinous crimes ever committed against humanity, people who would chop your head off and think nothing about doing it, if they thought you were trying to pull the wool over their eyes. You can tell when someone is telling you lies, its partly instinctive, and partly because what they say does not add up, or there is no explanation for why they did something or said something? For me Jeremy did not fall into this category, I never once thought that he was lying about the suggestion he was making - he was innocent and had not killed anyone. As I say, you could ask or question Jeremy about any part of the case that was used to get him convicted and you always came away feeling that he was telling the truth about having played no role in the killings...
At that stage...
He didn't know about the dodgy find of the silencer, or the fact that police eneded up with at least two different ones that were merged into one and the same...
He thought relatives had found the silencer, and that it had been handed to the police, and that blood had been found inside it and that the blood expert had made a mistake claiming it was Sheila's blood? Jeremy was under an impression that if the silencer had been used on the gun which killed some of his family, that it must have been fitted to the gun at the time his sister shot and killed his parents - hence his belief at that stage that silencer could have been used and removed by his sister before she shot herself by use of the gun. When I questioned him about how the silencer could have got back into the gun cupboard after the possible use of it by Sheila in the shooting of his/her parents, Jeremy just simply said he had no idea, but Sheila must have placed it back there, or that the police must have picked it up and put it back in the gun cupboard before they handed the keys to whf back to the relatives...
He never expressed any view to me about the possibility that more than one weapon could have been used in these shootings...
He never expressed any views about dodgy crime scene ballistics...
He did not even know that Anthony Pargeters .22 rifle was not found at the scene when police entered...
He did not know that police radio logs existed which would contradict the version of events relied upon by the prosecution, regarding what the police found once they got into the farmhouse...
Jeremy did not hold any views about any of this, only that the blood expert, John Hayward, had made a mistake when identifying the blood from the silencer as originating exclusively as coming from his sister, and how if it did, the silencer could have ended up in the gun cupboard, if as he believed she had killed herself with the rifle and the silencer had been used at that stage to fire the fatal bullet which killed her...
If Jeremy had been the killer, he would have known precisely what he had done, with what weapons, what accessories, and he would have been able to direct his legal team during the course of his trial to point out the discrepancies in the prosecutions case to the benefit of his own case, which is something he clearly did not do...
-
Early stages of my involvement in this case:- (2)
I spent most of my time in those early days pondering over what Jeremy believed concerning the blood found in the silencer, and the prosecutions suggestion that the find of the silencer in the gun cupboard by the relatives, could only lead to the conclusion that Jeremy was and had to be guilty...
At that stage...
I had nothing else to go on, or to think about, so as you can imagine, all sorts of unimaginable ideas and theories swept through my inquisitive mind about these few simple so called factors...
You should try it sometime, imagine that you knew nothing else about the case, only that a silencer was found by relatives, handed to the police, who sent it off to the lab and that the blood expert came to the conclusion that the blood originated from Sheila, and it was being said it could have only got into the silencer at the time Sheila was shot, and that its find in the gun cupboard could only mean Sheila could not have killed herself?
Forget about anything else, just try to deal with and fathom out whether or not the convictions for these murders are safe or unsafe, based on this, alone?
This what I had to deal with when I first got to know Jeremy and we spoke about what he was in for?
-
Early stages of my involvement in this case:- (3)
Things to ponder:-
(1) was a silencer used in the shootings?
(2) was silencer used at time all shots were fired, into all victim?
(3) I was not originally aware that Sheila had been shot twice, or angle of shots
(4) was blood exclusive to Sheila?
(5) was blood a mixture from parents?
(6) how did the silencer get into the gun cupboard?
(7) Sheila could not have shot herself with use of silencer if it was found in gun cupboard (one shot only)?
to be updated...
-
Early stages of my involvement in this case:- (3)
Things to ponder:-
(1) was a silencer used in the shootings?
(2) was silencer used at time all shots were fired, into all victim?
(3) I was not originally aware that Sheila had been shot twice, or angle of shots
(4) was blood exclusive to Sheila?
(5) was blood a mixture from parents?
(6) how did the silencer get into the gun cupboard?
(7) Sheila could not have shot herself with use of silencer if it was found in gun cupboard (one shot only)?
to be updated...
Based on what I knew about the case in those early stages, I reasoned that:-
(1) yes, silencer had been used
(2) No, it may only have been used on the gun in some or a few instances
(3) As far as I knew then, Sheila had only been shot once
(4) I was not convinced at this stage that blood was unique to Sheila,
(5) felt it could have come from parents
(6) Sheila put it there, or police replaced it there, before handing keys for whf, over to relatives
(7) If Silencer had been used to inflict only shot to Sheila, and it was her blood inside silencer, and silencer was found in gun cupboard, and it had not been put there by Sheila, or police, Sheila had been murdered...
With these things in mind, I spoke to Jeremy about his case trying to build up a better picture in my minds eye, about the case, and these factors...
-
I once saw a photocopy of a bloodied hand print on the pages of the bible, which (Z) told me the other day, was a bloodied hand print made by Sheila in June Bambers blood, found on the page of the BLACK COVERED BIBLE, not the blue covered one. (Z) brought a photograph taken at the scene by the police which showed the Black covered bible on the bed, with no bodies, and no gun...
Oddly enough...
Bible was given two different exhibit references:-
(1) - DRH/33 (black covered bible)?
(2) - DRH/44 (blue covered bible)?
Black covered bible has gone missing, and its exhibit reference (DRH/33) has been given to the hand swabs)
If Sheila's bloodied hand print on the pages of the bible were made in June Bambers blood, it has serious implications about many claims, including how her hands could have been clean when the police found Sheila's body at the scene?
(Z) says this is a key piece of unused new/fresh evidence, and that on police files is information about this bible and the hand print in blood
-
Lets see this claim about Sheila not being dead and only one bullet wound to her neck.
Hmm Dr Craig arrives etc ..some disputes over time...appeal court says 8.10 but radio log says at 8.10 and etc was given on in 10 minutes from then...which suggest a little later arrival unless radio log is falsified.
Anyway...with murders/ suicides etc a body temperature test is often carried out to help establish time of death.
(thoughts of where a thermometer may be inserted for this !!!!)
Inserting a thermometer on a dead body is one thing...on a live one ..its another....could this be why no temperature test was carried out?
If police knew her not to be dead or believed her to be only recently dead following a colleagues actions or inactions then they may have sought to not allow him to make suitable body temperature tests.
-
Lets see this claim about Sheila not being dead and only one bullet wound to her neck.
Hmm Dr Craig arrives etc ..some disputes over time...appeal court says 8.10 but radio log says at 8.10 and etc was given on in 10 minutes from then...which suggest a little later arrival unless radio log is falsified.
Anyway...with murders/ suicides etc a body temperature test is often carried out to help establish time of death.
(thoughts of where a thermometer may be inserted for this !!!!)
Inserting a thermometer on a dead body is one thing...on a live one ..its another....could this be why no temperature test was carried out?
If police knew her not to be dead or believed her to be only recently dead following a colleagues actions or inactions then they may have sought to not allow him to make suitable body temperature tests.
Yes but what I would like to know (a question that hasn't been answered yet) is if the police thought she was dead, how did they know that they had killed her by accident? It doesn't make sense to me?
-
Lets see this claim about Sheila not being dead and only one bullet wound to her neck.
Hmm Dr Craig arrives etc ..some disputes over time...appeal court says 8.10 but radio log says at 8.10 and etc was given on in 10 minutes from then...which suggest a little later arrival unless radio log is falsified.
Anyway...with murders/ suicides etc a body temperature test is often carried out to help establish time of death.
(thoughts of where a thermometer may be inserted for this !!!!)
Inserting a thermometer on a dead body is one thing...on a live one ..its another....could this be why no temperature test was carried out?
If police knew her not to be dead or believed her to be only recently dead following a colleagues actions or inactions then they may have sought to not allow him to make suitable body temperature tests.
Yes but what I would like to know (a question that hasn't been answered yet) is if the police thought she was dead, how did they know that they had killed her by accident? It doesn't make sense to me?
A shot being fired into the brain is going to be pretty conclusive...it hardly needs a medically qualified person to come to that conclusion.
mmmm Dr Craig....according to the appeal document he arrived at 8.10 am ...though a radio log (dodgy) appears to have him contacted at 8.15 am and a reported eta of 10 minutes. In his statement he says he got to whf at 8.25 am to be shown around the house by DCS George Harris.
lets think a minute....
after discovery of the first 2 bodies a set of requests were made to coroners etc to attend and others be infomed etc...
Why not the doctor to confirm deaths as well ...why not at this time of about 7.45 am...why was the doctor not called then...
why is it claimed the doctor was only called at 8.15 am after all 5 had been found....?
it makes no sense at all...
common sense would dictate the doctor to be called around the same time as the coroners officer and others etc after the finding of the first (two) bodies.
So do we have more falsification here and the doctor really being called about 7.45 when others were and that he did in fact arrive at the scene at 8.10 am as per the appeal documents.
----------------------------------------------------
there again the radio log and Dr Craigs statement may be correct on when he was called and when he arrived.....though it begs the question as to why he was not called before at 7.45 when others were...and this could lead to a view that the police were already aware that something had gone wrong in the raid and to buy time to work out what to do ...they deliberately delayed calling the doctor.
-
this Dr Craig issue..
another "rough" radio log at 7.47 am records police surgeon requested to attend via cw..
cw may well refer to Witham police station who supposedly contacted Dr Craig.
But the other radio log makes mention of him being called at 8.10 am ...does it really seem credible that it took Witham 23 minutes to contact Dr Craig....
some porkies going on here in my view...
-
Lets see this claim about Sheila not being dead and only one bullet wound to her neck.
Hmm Dr Craig arrives etc ..some disputes over time...appeal court says 8.10 but radio log says at 8.10 and etc was given on in 10 minutes from then...which suggest a little later arrival unless radio log is falsified.
Anyway...with murders/ suicides etc a body temperature test is often carried out to help establish time of death.
(thoughts of where a thermometer may be inserted for this !!!!)
Inserting a thermometer on a dead body is one thing...on a live one ..its another....could this be why no temperature test was carried out?
If police knew her not to be dead or believed her to be only recently dead following a colleagues actions or inactions then they may have sought to not allow him to make suitable body temperature tests.
Yes but what I would like to know (a question that hasn't been answered yet) is if the police thought she was dead, how did they know that they had killed her by accident? It doesn't make sense to me?
I asked a similar question on page 3 of this thread, Mike's response is here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1721.msg53213.html#msg53213
-
By going through the various logs on this forum we can establish several things about Dr Craig's attendance.
The request for a police surgeon to attend was first made at 7.37 am shortly after 2 bodies had been found on entry.
Various logs then show requests made and a chain existing in which eventually it is revealed and recorded at 8.06 am that Dr Craig will be attending and his eta given by him would be in 5 to 10 minutes. Obviously the time of recording will be slightly after information is passed on so we can readily accept that by 8.05 am Dr Craig was aware and on his way.
5 to 10 minutes means a real arrival time at the scene in the 8.10am to 8.15 am range so on the evidence available it is reasonable to accept the appeal court given timing of Dr Craigs arrival at scene of 8.10 am.
Maybe the police were slow in getting a surgeon called out through no fault or with no ill intention though it still exists that it could be contended that they were trying to delay his attendance.
However given that Dr Craig was at the scene between 8.10 am and 8.15 am , around the time the house was declared safe --despite and overly long "search" he still had to wait outside doing nothing for about half an hour before being allowed to examine the bodies at 8.40 am.
This seems highly excessive... and after waiting for half an hour ..how long does it take to view 5 bodies and declare them dead on his tour of the house ...just 5 minutes.... it all seems totally out of proportion.
-
Good afternoon all
Mike, have there been any developments since your meeting with your informant?
Thankyou.
-
Good afternoon all
Mike, have there been any developments since your meeting with your informant?
Thankyou.
Yes, I have found some of the stuff which (Z) asked me to look for, which is capable of proving that Jeremy's convictions were secured based on false evidence. For example, (Z) pointed it out to me that keys to whf were handed over twice, by Essex police to the family, and or executors of the Bambers estate(s). Firstly keys were handed over to Ann Eaton on evening of 9th August 1985, and secondly former DCI 'Taff' Jones, handed keys over to WHF on I think 13th September 1985 to the executors of the estate. (Z) also pointed it out to me that the silencer which the relatives found in the gun cupboard was found on an occasion before Essex police retook possession of the keys for whf in September 1985 and that this coincided with Jeremy's first arrest. (Z) told me that the picture which I had been painting on the forum about a silencer which was sent to the lab' on 26th September 1985, is/was a reference to this silencer (one found by relatives) and that if I looked for another lab' document regarding an examination of a silencer at the lab' dated, 27th September 1985, I would discover details which prove that this was the same silencer, and that the blood which had already been found in the other silencer could not have been a reference to the silencer found by the relatives and handed in by Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985, because that silencer was not sent to the lab' until 26th September 1985, and therefore no blood could have been found inside it to link that silencer to Sheila's death...
I found that document the other night and posted it...
(Z) correctly pointed it out tome, that although this silencer was received and examined on 27th September 1985, there was no reference or mention to any blood being found upon or inside it, only references to paint...
(Z) is correct in what he says, why would Essex police be sending a silencer to the lab' on 26th September 1985, asking for it to be checked for blood and fibers, and yet when it gets there on 27th, all that is found upon it is some paint? (Z) says this silencer was different altogether to the silencer sent to the lab' earlier on 30th August 1985, (Z) told me this silencer (DB/1) sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985 was the silencer upon and inside which was found the blood, and that the silencer sent to the lab' on 27th September 1985, was the one with paint ingrained onto the end of it, and that there came a time when the blood and paint features were merged into the same silencer by oral evidence, whuich was presented in statement form and backed up by alterations to some lab' documents so that it looked like or appeared as though the blood and paint had been found on the same silencer...
I have located all the documents (Z) mentioned to me, and once you look at everything with the benefit of (Z)'s knowledge a clear picture begins to emerge regarding how Jeremy Bamber has been framed as the murderer in this case...
I will make a complete post later with (Z)'s explanation attached...
-
No documentary evidence exists to prove that relatives found a silencer at the scene on 10th August 1985, or that such a silencer was kept in police storage until blood was found inside a silencer at the lab, by 11th September 1985, none...
yet there is a paper trail confirming what happened to that silencer (found by David Boutflour) at the scene on 11th September 1985...
(Z) has told me how to prove it, and what to do to show to everyone that a big big lie has been told about the date when the silencer found by the relatives was found, and the occasion blood was found inside it,and paint upon it. (Z) told me if I follow the advice given, it will become apparent to all that police case against Jeremy was concocted and that there was a conspiracy between high ranking Essex police officers and a senior member of the Boutflour and Eaton family...
The more I look into what (Z) has been telling me, the more sure I am that what (Z) is saying is the truth...
-
Here is what 'Z' was telling me about the other day:-
-
How can police still have possession of a silencer by 26th September 1985, with paint on it, and no blood on or in it, and why would police be sending this silencer to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibers?
-
Mike I sent you a pm about shots to Nevill and the diagram which portrays the kitchen door ajar with possible trajectory of shots. Has (Z) discussed any issues relating to discharge of police weapons?
-
Mike I sent you a pm about shots to Nevill and the diagram which portrays the kitchen door ajar with possible trajectory of shots. Has (Z) discussed any issues relating to discharge of police weapons?
Not yet directly spoken to 'Z' about this feature, but will do so next time we meet up...
-
'Z' says this silencer, referred to in this lab' document, is a different silencer to the one sent to the lab' on 26th September 1985:-
Attached is corresponding signed exhibit label bearing identifying mark of DB/1...
-
Mike I sent you a pm about shots to Nevill and the diagram which portrays the kitchen door ajar with possible trajectory of shots. Has (Z) discussed any issues relating to discharge of police weapons?
Not yet directly spoken to 'Z' about this feature, but will do so next time we meet up...
Thanks for response.
-
Here is the other lab' (silencer) document which 'Z' spoke to me about, dated, 27th September 1985:-
Note:- no bloodstains on this silencer...
-
How could this silencer, bearing the identifying mark of SBJ/1, be sent to the lab' on 27th September 1985, if the silencer bearing this same identifying mark (SBJ/1) was the silencer sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, and 30th August 1985?
-
Regarding the silencer issue:
I've not read any substantial contradictory responses, from the respected forum members who suspect or believe in Jeremy's guilt. One has even conceded that the silencer evidence would be dismissed outright as inadmissible, given what is now known. Another has described the silencer evidence as a "crock of shit". Others simply choose to stay silent on this aspect of the case. Granted, its' complexity may have had an impact on this avoidance.
I also think one or two forum members may be 'in denial' about the issue, on account of their loyalty ties to the relatives. Not an easy position to be in.
-
Regarding the silencer issue:
I've not read any substantial contradictory responses, from the respected forum members who suspect or believe in Jeremy's guilt. One has even conceded that the silencer evidence would be dismissed outright as inadmissible, given what is now known. Another has described the silencer evidence as a "crock of shit". Others simply choose to stay silent on this aspect of the case. Granted, its' complexity may have had an impact on this avoidance.
I also think one or two forum members may be 'in denial' about the issue, on account of their loyalty ties to the relatives. Not an easy position to be in.
'Z' told me submission of silencer to lab' on 26th September 1985, and accompanying lab' records, will prove in any court in land, that there was more than one silencer, and that two of them were merged into being one and the same...
also...
how could silencer SBJ/1, be the same silencer sent to the lab' on 13th and 30th August 1985, and blood be found inside it before silencer (SBJ/1) sent to the lab' on 26th September 1985, where police are asking for it to be checked for blood and fibers, if blood had already been found inside it, and confirmed as belonging to Sheila (between 12th and 19th September 1985)?
It just doesn't add up, and when I spoke to 'Z' the other day about this, I had to agree with 'Z' that these lab' records do prove the existence of at least two different silencers, which prosecution witnesses have merged into the same silencer...
-
The other thing which 'Z' told me about regarding these lab' records, is that the references to the paint on the lab' document, dated, 25th September 1985, and mention of the paint being similar or matching paint sample lab' item 97, is mentioned out of sequence, since by 25th September 1985 paint sample RC/1 had not yet been analysed?
I asked 'Z' if this could be accounted for, because the original paint sample, RC/1 taken by DI Cook from the scene on 8th August 1985 was used as the yardstick, rather than the other paint sample bearing the mark RWC/1, which Cook claims he took from the scene on 14th August 1985?
'Z' told me police got themselves in a tizzy, because both silencers ended up with paint on the end of them, and that was why two different paint samples (RC/1 and RWC/1) had been taken on different occasions, first one, RC/1 taken on 8th August 1985,and second one, RWC/1 had been taken on 14th August 1985?
-
The other thing which 'Z' told me about regarding these lab' records, is that the references to the paint on the lab' document, dated, 25th September 1985, and mention of the paint being similar or matching paint sample lab' item 97, is mentioned out of sequence, since by 25th September 1985 paint sample RC/1 had not yet been analysed?
I asked 'Z' if this could be accounted for, because the original paint sample, RC/1 taken by DI Cook from the scene on 8th August 1985 was used as the yardstick, rather than the other paint sample bearing the mark RWC/1, which Cook claims he took from the scene on 14th August 1985?
'Z' told me police got themselves in a tizzy, because both silencers ended up with paint on the end of them, and that was why two different paint samples (RC/1 and RWC/1) had been taken on different occasions, first one, RC/1 taken on 8th August 1985,and second one, RWC/1 had been taken on 14th August 1985?
'Z' asked me, "How could red paint from the aga be present on two different silencers if only one gun was used"?
This got me thinking about other matters, which I intend to speak to 'Z' about at next meeting...
-
Imagine that - two silencers with red paint on end, one at the lab' already from 30th August 1985, and another in police possession until 26th September 1985?
-
Regarding the silencer issue:
I've not read any substantial contradictory responses, from the respected forum members who suspect or believe in Jeremy's guilt. One has even conceded that the silencer evidence would be dismissed outright as inadmissible, given what is now known. Another has described the silencer evidence as a "crock of shit". Others simply choose to stay silent on this aspect of the case. Granted, its' complexity may have had an impact on this avoidance.
I also think one or two forum members may be 'in denial' about the issue, on account of their loyalty ties to the relatives. Not an easy position to be in.
'Z' told me submission of silencer to lab' on 26th September 1985, and accompanying lab' records, will prove in any court in land, that there was more than one silencer, and that two of them were merged into being one and the same...
also...
how could silencer SBJ/1, be the same silencer sent to the lab' on 13th and 30th August 1985, and blood be found inside it before silencer (SBJ/1) sent to the lab' on 26th September 1985, where police are asking for it to be checked for blood and fibers, if blood had already been found inside it, and confirmed as belonging to Sheila (between 12th and 19th September 1985)?
It just doesn't add up, and when I spoke to 'Z' the other day about this, I had to agree with 'Z' that these lab' records do prove the existence of at least two different silencers, which prosecution witnesses have merged into the same silencer...
am I the only one who is off pissed off by Z.
I think this is a crock of shit, and refuse to be drawn on this. I will not put my name forward to discuss this seriously, because I think this a load of B*******s.
Mike you are undermining the forum and losing creditability.
Any ex cop would make a lot of money if he went to the press, but no he went to Mike Tesko and spilled his guts for nothing. Get real Stop taking the piss out of me, I do not believe a word of it.
Completed quote brackets: Grahame
-
Thanks Grahame.
-
Regarding the silencer issue:
I've not read any substantial contradictory responses, from the respected forum members who suspect or believe in Jeremy's guilt. One has even conceded that the silencer evidence would be dismissed outright as inadmissible, given what is now known. Another has described the silencer evidence as a "crock of shit". Others simply choose to stay silent on this aspect of the case. Granted, its' complexity may have had an impact on this avoidance.
I also think one or two forum members may be 'in denial' about the issue, on account of their loyalty ties to the relatives. Not an easy position to be in.
'Z' told me submission of silencer to lab' on 26th September 1985, and accompanying lab' records, will prove in any court in land, that there was more than one silencer, and that two of them were merged into being one and the same...
also...
how could silencer SBJ/1, be the same silencer sent to the lab' on 13th and 30th August 1985, and blood be found inside it before silencer (SBJ/1) sent to the lab' on 26th September 1985, where police are asking for it to be checked for blood and fibers, if blood had already been found inside it, and confirmed as belonging to Sheila (between 12th and 19th September 1985)?
It just doesn't add up, and when I spoke to 'Z' the other day about this, I had to agree with 'Z' that these lab' records do prove the existence of at least two different silencers, which prosecution witnesses have merged into the same silencer...
am I the only one who is off pissed off by Z.
I think this is a crock of shit, and refuse to be drawn on this. I will not put my name forward to discuss this seriously, because I think this a load of B*******s.
Mike you are undermining the forum and losing creditability.
Any ex cop would make a lot of money if he went to the press, but no he went to Mike Tesko and spilled his guts for nothing. Get real Stop taking the piss out of me, I do not believe a word of it.
Completed quote brackets: Grahame
A cop may know one or two things. But I doubt he would know all this stuff that Mike has spoken about before. I want proof of "Z"s existence now This stuff is ott. :(
-
Regarding the silencer issue:
I've not read any substantial contradictory responses, from the respected forum members who suspect or believe in Jeremy's guilt. One has even conceded that the silencer evidence would be dismissed outright as inadmissible, given what is now known. Another has described the silencer evidence as a "crock of shit". Others simply choose to stay silent on this aspect of the case. Granted, its' complexity may have had an impact on this avoidance.
I also think one or two forum members may be 'in denial' about the issue, on account of their loyalty ties to the relatives. Not an easy position to be in.
'Z' told me submission of silencer to lab' on 26th September 1985, and accompanying lab' records, will prove in any court in land, that there was more than one silencer, and that two of them were merged into being one and the same...
also...
how could silencer SBJ/1, be the same silencer sent to the lab' on 13th and 30th August 1985, and blood be found inside it before silencer (SBJ/1) sent to the lab' on 26th September 1985, where police are asking for it to be checked for blood and fibers, if blood had already been found inside it, and confirmed as belonging to Sheila (between 12th and 19th September 1985)?
It just doesn't add up, and when I spoke to 'Z' the other day about this, I had to agree with 'Z' that these lab' records do prove the existence of at least two different silencers, which prosecution witnesses have merged into the same silencer...
am I the only one who is off pissed off by Z.
I think this is a crock of shit, and refuse to be drawn on this. I will not put my name forward to discuss this seriously, because I think this a load of B*******s.
Mike you are undermining the forum and losing creditability.
Any ex cop would make a lot of money if he went to the press, but no he went to Mike Tesko and spilled his guts for nothing. Get real Stop taking the piss out of me, I do not believe a word of it.
Completed quote brackets: Grahame
'Z' exposed this...
-
Grahame you know my stance here. Mike is taking the piss, and I am not happy.
-
Grahame you know my stance here. Mike is taking the piss, and I am not happy.
Only an ex copper on the case would know about the significance of these two lab' records and what they mean and stand for - you believe what you want to, its a free country...
-
There are some on here who choose not to believe anything which seriously undermines the prosecutions case - well, time to get real, how could police still be in possession of a silencer (SBJ/1) on 26th September 1985, that was already sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, albeit under the guise of exhibit DB/1 (which was supposed to be the same silencer)?
'Z' exposed the truth about this matter, no-one else...
Some may choose to believe that 'Z' does not exist, but what 'Z' has done is provide the key to get to the bottom of this conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by senior officers in the case who put 'z' and colleagues in the firing line...
-
Grahame you know my stance here. Mike is taking the piss, and I am not happy.
well said Cliff, i couldnt agree more.
-
Regarding the silencer issue:
I've not read any substantial contradictory responses, from the respected forum members who suspect or believe in Jeremy's guilt. One has even conceded that the silencer evidence would be dismissed outright as inadmissible, given what is now known. Another has described the silencer evidence as a "crock of shit". Others simply choose to stay silent on this aspect of the case. Granted, its' complexity may have had an impact on this avoidance.
I also think one or two forum members may be 'in denial' about the issue, on account of their loyalty ties to the relatives. Not an easy position to be in.
'Z' told me submission of silencer to lab' on 26th September 1985, and accompanying lab' records, will prove in any court in land, that there was more than one silencer, and that two of them were merged into being one and the same...
also...
how could silencer SBJ/1, be the same silencer sent to the lab' on 13th and 30th August 1985, and blood be found inside it before silencer (SBJ/1) sent to the lab' on 26th September 1985, where police are asking for it to be checked for blood and fibers, if blood had already been found inside it, and confirmed as belonging to Sheila (between 12th and 19th September 1985)?
It just doesn't add up, and when I spoke to 'Z' the other day about this, I had to agree with 'Z' that these lab' records do prove the existence of at least two different silencers, which prosecution witnesses have merged into the same silencer...
am I the only one who is off pissed off by Z.
I think this is a crock of shit, and refuse to be drawn on this. I will not put my name forward to discuss this seriously, because I think this a load of B*******s.
Mike you are undermining the forum and losing creditability.
Any ex cop would make a lot of money if he went to the press, but no he went to Mike Tesko and spilled his guts for nothing. Get real Stop taking the piss out of me, I do not believe a word of it.
Sorry Mike It does'nt matter how many times you post now I am pissed off with you.
Perhaps if you stopped guilding the lily you may be taken seriously again
Completed quote brackets: Grahame
'Z' exposed this...
-
Grahame you know my stance here. Mike is taking the piss, and I am not happy.
well said Cliff, i couldnt agree more.
look at what 'Z' exposed, and tell me its imaginary?
-
Suddenly they all went quiet...
they can't think up anything constructive to say about what 'Z' has brought to the forum, about the existence of these two different silencers which police merged into the same silencer......
-
'Z' was right...
here at last is a way of proving there were at least two different silencers, both of which had red paint from the aga on them, one at the lab' from 30th August 1985, and the other in police possession at that time, and kept in police possession until much later on, and not sent to the lab' until 26th September 1985...
Thank you 'Z', for proving the disbelievers with the proof that the silencer evidence was dodgy and is part of a wider conspiracy involving police and relatives...
Thank you 'Z'...
-
Ok Mike, do you ever intend on going public with Z's real name? Are Jeremy Bambers legal team aware of meetings between you and Z?
Supposing this is all true, do you think that these meetings are helping jb's case, considering that you cant take a copy of the pictures, therefore you cant prove they exist.
What good is all this doing, because from where im standing its not going to make one iota of difference.
-
Personal Message to 'Z' on public forum
I promise to keep your identity a secret, and I vow to make sure that all the evidence you have given me will be used to expose the senior investigating officers who made you and your colleagues do what you had to do...
I will pursue those senior police officers, every last one of them, and expose what they did and have done, with the best of my ability, until every last one of them are arrested and prosecuted and imprisoned - thank you for trusting me, I will do everything in my power to expose what your senior officer colleagues did in this case to secure the wrongful conviction for these murders on Jeremy Bamber who is innocent, and for making you and other officers lie and falsify evidence...
I will keep to my side of the bargain...
-
Suddenly they all went quiet...
mike I have not gone quiet, and I will never be quiet, but the fact is you are trying to fill me with bullshit
Give me some credit.
You cannot expect me , or anyone to follow you blindly. Your last posts have been off the wall, and defy belief.
-
Ok Mike, do you ever intend on going public with Z's real name? Are Jeremy Bambers legal team aware of meetings between you and Z?
Supposing this is all true, do you think that these meetings are helping jb's case, considering that you cant take a copy of the pictures, therefore you cant prove they exist.
What good is all this doing, because from where im standing its not going to make one iota of difference.
Mike ::)
-
I am not going to post on this thread again, because you can only have so much piss take. Shame on you Mike.
-
Ok Mike, do you ever intend on going public with Z's real name? Are legal team aware of meetings between you and Z?
Supposing this is all true, do you think that these meetings are helping jb's case, considering that you cant take a copy of the pictures, therefore you cant prove they exist.
What good is all this doing, because from where im standing its not going to make one iota of difference.
helping Jeremy, of course, yes...
Helping Jeremy, and making sure that all the senior officers involved in this conspiracy have to face the music, and that the other coppers who were forced to go along with it, all get a bollocking but that they don't go to jail, that is what I have agreed with 'Z' to try and ensure happens through exposing what the senior officers did, and what they made the other coppers do...
-
Do you intend on going public with Z's name?
-
Ok Mike, do you ever intend on going public with Z's real name? Are legal team aware of meetings between you and Z?
Supposing this is all true, do you think that these meetings are helping jb's case, considering that you cant take a copy of the pictures, therefore you cant prove they exist.
What good is all this doing, because from where im standing its not going to make one iota of difference.
helping Jeremy, of course, yes...
Helping Jeremy, and making sure that all the senior officers involved in this conspiracy have to face the music, and that the other coppers who were forced to go along with it, all get a bollocking but that they don't go to jail, that is what I have agreed with 'Z' to try and ensure happens through exposing what the senior officers did, and what they made the other coppers do...
Mike how can you make such an agreement? You haven't the authority neither the power to do such a thing.
-
I am not going to post on this thread again, because you can only have so much piss take. Shame on you Mike.
the only people taking the piss in this case, were/are senior police officers and the relatives about there only being one silencer, which got sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, inside which was found the all important blood group evidence and paint from the aga surround in the kichen, and yet police still had it and sent it again to the lab' on 26th September 1985, to be checked for blood, when blood had already been found by that stage inside the other silencer...
'Z' was right...
Game is over for police who conspired with relatives over this matter...
Goodbye and good luck, your welcome to come back whenever you want to...
-
So mike, yourself and Z are going to make sure that this conspiracy is uncovered?
How do you both intend to achieve this after 26yrs? Are jb's legal team aware of the meeting that took place between yourself and Z?
-
Ok Mike, do you ever intend on going public with Z's real name? Are legal team aware of meetings between you and Z?
Supposing this is all true, do you think that these meetings are helping jb's case, considering that you cant take a copy of the pictures, therefore you cant prove they exist.
What good is all this doing, because from where im standing its not going to make one iota of difference.
helping Jeremy, of course, yes...
Helping Jeremy, and making sure that all the senior officers involved in this conspiracy have to face the music, and that the other coppers who were forced to go along with it, all get a bollocking but that they don't go to jail, that is what I have agreed with 'Z' to try and ensure happens through exposing what the senior officers did, and what they made the other coppers do...
Mike how can you make such an agreement? You haven't the authority neither the power to do such a thing.
that is the agreement I have made with 'Z', the information which 'Z' has passed to me, and the contents of those pictures which 'Z' showed to me, will help free Jeremy Bamber, the information passed onto me about the significance of those two lab' records is just the beginning of the end for the senior police officers and the false case they put together to get Jeremy convicted...
-
So mike, yourself and Z are going to make sure that this conspiracy is uncovered?
How do you both intend to achieve this after 26yrs? Are jb's legal team aware of the meeting that took place between yourself and Z?
Correct, the significance of those two lab' records is there for all to see, it is the beginning of the end for the senior police officers and the relatives that all conspired together to use the silencer evidence to convict Jeremy Bamber for murders that he probably did not commit...
You only have to look at the two lab' records and consider the information 'Z' provided, to realize that two silencers have been merged into the same silencer...
Let the senior officers explain what they did, and maybe the other coppers who got steam rolled into going along with it, will be treated leniently when the matter comes before the courts...
DPP must have known about the two different silencers which were merged into one...
-
I am not going to post on this thread again, because you can only have so much piss take. Shame on you Mike.
the only people taking the piss in this case, were/are senior police officers and the relatives about there only being one silencer, which got sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, inside which was found the all important blood group evidence and paint from the aga surround in the kichen, and yet police still had it and sent it again to the lab' on 26th September 1985, to be checked for blood, when blood had already been found by that stage inside the other silencer...
'Z' was right...
Game is over for police who conspired with relatives over this matter...
Goodbye and good luck, your welcome to come back whenever you want to...
Do you wish me to leave the forum mike? Is this because I do not agree with your mad hat suggestion.
I will leave straight away if this is what you wont,
-
How is it going to be the beggining of the end mike?
These secret meetings between you and Z are just that, secret. It could only make any real difference if Jeremy Bambers legal team have been made aware of these so called meetings.
Z obviously doesnt want anyone knowing who he is, youre not even allowed to take a copy of the pictures he has, so c'mon how do you intend on exposing it all?
Are jb's legal team aware of these meetings?
-
I am not going to post on this thread again, because you can only have so much piss take. Shame on you Mike.
the only people taking the piss in this case, were/are senior police officers and the relatives about there only being one silencer, which got sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, inside which was found the all important blood group evidence and paint from the aga surround in the kichen, and yet police still had it and sent it again to the lab' on 26th September 1985, to be checked for blood, when blood had already been found by that stage inside the other silencer...
'Z' was right...
Game is over for police who conspired with relatives over this matter...
Goodbye and good luck, your welcome to come back whenever you want to...
Do you wish me to leave the forum mike? Is this because I do not agree with your mad hat suggestion.
I will leave straight away if this is what you wont,
No, I don't...
You can believe what ever you want to believe, I do not force the truth upon you, you must make up your own mind, if you think my involvement with 'Z' is taking the piss, that's your problem, no-one is asking you to believe anything. But where do you think this new information came from, Ali Bongo (the psychic)?
-
How is it going to be the beggining of the end mike?
These secret meetings between you and Z are just that, secret. It could only make any real difference if legal team have been made aware of these so called meetings.
Z obviously doesnt want anyone knowing who he is, youre not even allowed to take a copy of the pictures he has, so c'mon how do you intend on exposing it all?
Are jb's legal team aware of these meetings?
I am assuming JB is getting to know about these meetings, because as I understand it, news about the two lab' records and their significance has already been passed onto him. Once he receives confirmation of it, I am sure he will be over the moon with these developments, and rightly so...
Its not every day that evidence like this falls into your lap, after 26 years or more of struggling against the legal system which has done very little to rectify his miscarriage of justice...
-
'Z' asked me to look out for, and find other documents, which help to expose the silencer conspiracy in a simplified manner...
I have been looking for these documents since our last meeting, and found the ones 'Z' told me about...
Once you know how these documents came into existence it makes it a lot easier to prove what the senior police officers and the relatives have been getting up to...
I will be posting some of these documents and records over the week-end...
-
Mike for any of this to make any difference, Z has to make the relevant people aware, not you because you wont be believed.
Thats why im not buying it, i have asked you the same questions several times now, and you havent really answered them have you, so as far as im concerned this Z doesnt exist and the meeting never happened.
-
Also Mike if any of this was true, it would be enough to get jb's case back to the appeal court quicker than i could blink. It would be massive news.
But no, only us on here know about it!
-
Mike for any of this to make any difference, Z has to make the relevant people aware, not you because you wont be believed.
Thats why im not buying it, i have asked you the same questions several times now, and you havent really answered them have you, so as far as im concerned this Z doesnt exist and the meeting never happened.
'Z' does exist, and it did happen...
But you are free to believe or disbelieve whatever you want to, or not...
Main thing is that 'Z' has exposed the existence of the two silencers which police and relatives merged into the same silencer...
People are aware that this documentary evidence now exists, thanks to 'Z'...
Now that this evidence is in the public domain, and the explanation given to me by 'Z' about it has also been made public on the forum, I expect it will have far reaching consequences for those who falsified this evidence to get an innocent man convicted for these murders...
For this very reason, we have a lot to thank 'Z' for, since no-one else in over 26 years has done anything to show or prove the existence of two primary silencers which the police and relatives merged into the same silencer...
-
I am not going to post on this thread again, because you can only have so much piss take. Shame on you Mike.
the only people taking the piss in this case, were/are senior police officers and the relatives about there only being one silencer, which got sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, inside which was found the all important blood group evidence and paint from the aga surround in the kichen, and yet police still had it and sent it again to the lab' on 26th September 1985, to be checked for blood, when blood had already been found by that stage inside the other silencer...
'Z' was right...
Game is over for police who conspired with relatives over this matter...
Goodbye and good luck, your welcome to come back whenever you want to...
Do you wish me to leave the forum mike? Is this because I do not agree with your mad hat suggestion.
I will leave straight away if this is what you wont,
No Cliff that is not what Mike said. You said you weren't going to post "in this thread". He probably thought you meant forum. Of course he doesn't want you to leave. I have always had it drummed into me, "If in doubt, wait".
-
Also Mike if any of this was true, it would be enough to get jb's case back to the appeal court quicker than i could blink. It would be massive news.
But no, only us on here know about it!
I am glad you think that this breaking news would be massive and that if true it would get Jeremy's case back to the court of appeal (via the CCRC), because mark my words, and thanks to 'Z' it will get Jeremy's case referred back to the court of appeal, and what is more this news will result in his convictions becoming quashed...
I am still waiting to hear from anybody that the information which 'Z' provided about these lab' documents doesn't prove there were two silencers which have been merged into the same one?
-
The only way it will get to the court of appeal mike is if jb's legal team are aware and have definate proof that what youre saying is true, then they would submit it to the CCRC, so..are jb's legal team aware or not?
-
Mike, is your informant not fearful of any repercussions arising from contact with you?
-
Hiow could police still have possession of a silencer bearing the identifying mark of SBJ/1 if it was sent to the lab' already on 30th August 1985, under its other identifying mark of DB/1?
What kind of evidence has been used to help secure these convictions on this innocent man?
If you are the police (like 'Z' has said), you can't send a silencer to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and still be in possession of it, to resend it on 26th September 1985? Also, if blood has already been found in one of these silencers (DB/1) you do not resend the same silencer to the lab to be checked for blood which has already been found inside it (if both silencers were/are the same one)
-
I am not going to post on this thread again, because you can only have so much piss take. Shame on you Mike.
the only people taking the piss in this case, were/are senior police officers and the relatives about there only being one silencer, which got sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, inside which was found the all important blood group evidence and paint from the aga surround in the kichen, and yet police still had it and sent it again to the lab' on 26th September 1985, to be checked for blood, when blood had already been found by that stage inside the other silencer...
'Z' was right...
Game is over for police who conspired with relatives over this matter...
Goodbye and good luck, your welcome to come back whenever you want to...
Do you wish me to leave the forum mike? Is this because I do not agree with your mad hat suggestion.
I will leave straight away if this is what you wont,
No Cliff that is not what Mike said. You said you weren't going to post "in this thread". He probably thought you meant forum. Of course he doesn't want you to leave. I have always had it drummed into me, "If in doubt, wait".
Thanks Grahame. I have a lot of respect for you.
I do not think I misunderstood Mike though.
-
Mike, is your informant not fearful of any repercussions arising from contact with you?
Yes, and no...
other conspirators do not know who 'Z' is, and 'Z' has told me that if asked, any link to me will be denied - 'Z' wants senior officers to answer to it, with a view to senior officers accepting full responsibility for what was done, so that the ordinary rank and file coppers who were forced into going along with it, do not have to face the music...
'Z'has told me that this business about these two lab' records, is the sure fire way of bringing those senior officers out into the public domain to give an explanation for it. Something which Essex police and the DPP will be reluctant to have to do. 'Z' says they will have to admit that there was a mix up with the silencer evidence, and of course this mix up will lead to Jeremy's case being referred back to the court of appeal and for the convictions to be quashed...
-
The only way it will get to the court of appeal mike is if jb's legal team are aware and have definate proof that what youre saying is true, then they would submit it to the CCRC, so..are jb's legal team aware or not?
::) mike could you answer please ?
-
For the purpose of any doubt, I have recently posted feelings that I was and have been followed recently, and I can confirm that I have been told that I am under surveillance by the police. If true, then my meetings with 'Z' will have been noted, so police may know the identity of 'Z', but not necessarily Essex police...
-
Mike, is your informant not fearful of any repercussions arising from contact with you?
Yes, and no...
other conspirators do not know who 'Z' is, and 'Z' has told me that if asked, any link to me will be denied - 'Z' wants senior officers to answer to it, with a view to senior officers accepting full responsibility for what was done, so that the ordinary rank and file coppers who were forced into going along with it, do not have to face the music...
'Z'has told me that this business about these two lab' records, is the sure fire way of bringing those senior officers out into the public domain to give an explanation for it. Something which Essex police and the DPP will be reluctant to have to do. 'Z' says they will have to admit that there was a mix up with the silencer evidence, and of course this mix up will lead to Jeremy's case being referred back to the court of appeal and for the convictions to be quashed...
So Mike. What was Taff Jones' reaction to all this subterfuge that was going on?
-
The only way it will get to the court of appeal mike is if jb's legal team are aware and have definate proof that what youre saying is true, then they would submit it to the CCRC, so..are jb's legal team aware or not?
::) mike could you answer please ?
Considering that some members of the forum are in regular contact with Jeremy, and his legal team, I should think that Jeremy knows all about it by now, and he will have been gathering all the evidence which he has got in his possession to see for himself if there is anything in it or not? Once he gathers this information and evidence together, I have no doubt that it will form part of some application to the CCRC with a view to referring his case back to the court of appeal...
-
[quote author=mike tesko link=to angry thatwut these two lab' records, is the sure fire way of bringing those senior officers out into the public domain to give an explanation for it. Something which Essex police and the DPP will be reluctant to have to do. 'Z' says they will have to admit that there was a mix up with the silencer evidence, and of course this mix up will lead to Jeremy's case being referred back to the court of appeal and for the convictions to be quashed...
So Mike. What was Taff Jones' reaction to all this subterfuge that was going on?
[/quote]
'Z' told me that "Taff" was not happy with the way police tactics were at risk of becoming exposed at the expense of prosecuting and convicting an innocent man for the murders of five members of his family. He was going to expose what the police had dine, when the matter came to trial, he was prepared to go to prison if the case against Jeremy got as far as a trial at the Crown court...
That's what 'Z' told me...
A dark cloud hangs over the circumstances of "Taffs" death...
If the truth be known, 'Z' is worried that the same fate may happen in 'Z' s case, hence the reluctance to go public, self confessing...
-
The only way it will get to the court of appeal mike is if jb's legal team are aware and have definate proof that what youre saying is true, then they would submit it to the CCRC, so..are jb's legal team aware or not?
::) mike could you answer please ?
Considering that some members of the forum are in regular contact with Jeremy, and his legal team, I should think that Jeremy knows all about it by now, and he will have been gathering all the evidence which he has got in his possession to see for himself if there is anything in it or not? Once he gathers this information and evidence together, I have no doubt that it will form part of some application to the CCRC with a view to referring his case back to the court of appeal...
Im still not buying it Mike, why havent YOU approached his legal team? and if Z wants to get off his massive guilt trip, he would approach them too wouldnt he?
-
The only way it will get to the court of appeal mike is if jb's legal team are aware and have definate proof that what youre saying is true, then they would submit it to the CCRC, so..are jb's legal team aware or not?
::) mike could you answer please ?
Considering that some members of the forum are in regular contact with Jeremy, and his legal team, I should think that Jeremy knows all about it by now, and he will have been gathering all the evidence which he has got in his possession to see for himself if there is anything in it or not? Once he gathers this information and evidence together, I have no doubt that it will form part of some application to the CCRC with a view to referring his case back to the court of appeal...
Im still not buying it Mike, why havent YOU approached his legal team? and if Z wants to get off his massive guilt trip, he would approach them too wouldnt he?
Who said 'Z' is a he?
-
The only way it will get to the court of appeal mike is if jb's legal team are aware and have definate proof that what youre saying is true, then they would submit it to the CCRC, so..are jb's legal team aware or not?
::) mike could you answer please ?
Considering that some members of the forum are in regular contact with Jeremy, and his legal team, I should think that Jeremy knows all about it by now, and he will have been gathering all the evidence which he has got in his possession to see for himself if there is anything in it or not? Once he gathers this information and evidence together, I have no doubt that it will form part of some application to the CCRC with a view to referring his case back to the court of appeal...
Im still not buying it Mike, why havent YOU approached his legal team? and if Z wants to get off his massive guilt trip, he would approach them too wouldnt he?
Who said 'Z' is a he?
My thoughts precisely, Mike.
-
He or she, it doesnt matter, my questions still stand regardless.
and its still Bs in my opinion.
-
As it stands this will not be enough to warrant an appeal, its going to need more much more infact and time is not in abundance .
-
Mike, this is what im not getting, if this meeting had taken place between yourself and an ex essex police officer, surely you would have informed jb's legal team at the nearest opportunity? Instead you have chosen to talk about it here, as i said earlier, if true this would get jb's case back to the court of appeal, no doubt about it.
You are jb's biggest and most vocal supporter with the exception of jack.
Why havent you told jb;s legal team? you are not making sense, hence people are suspicious.
-
The only way it will get to the court of appeal mike is if jb's legal team are aware and have definate proof that what youre saying is true, then they would submit it to the CCRC, so..are jb's legal team aware or not?
::) mike could you answer please ?
Considering that some members of the forum are in regular contact with Jeremy, and his legal team, I should think that Jeremy knows all about it by now, and he will have been gathering all the evidence which he has got in his possession to see for himself if there is anything in it or not? Once he gathers this information and evidence together, I have no doubt that it will form part of some application to the CCRC with a view to referring his case back to the court of appeal...
Im still not buying it Mike, why havent YOU approached his legal team? and if Z wants to get off his massive guilt trip, he would approach them too wouldnt he?
Who said 'Z' is a he?
Everything I do and say is being monitored by those representing Jeremy's interests, so how do you know for sure that his legal team do not know about these developments? Lets put it another way - if what 'Z' has told me about these lab' records, dated, 13th August 1985, and 26th September 1985, is true, Jeremy and his legal team would be fools not to act upon it, because it is dynamite that will guarantee that that his convictions get referred back to the court of appeal and get quashed without much resistance from the CPS...
You can't still have possession of a silencer on and by 26th September 1985, that you have already sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and you cannot send the same silencer to the lab' on 26th September 1985 to be checked for blood, if blood has already been found inside it, 27 days previously...
Why would I want to keep this information and evidence from Jeremy and his legal team?
Where is the evidence that I have done such a thing?
-
As it stands this will not be enough to warrant an appeal, its going to need more much more infact and time is not in abundance .
Mertol, an ex officer connected with the case comes forward to tell all, conspiracy, its all true. im quite sure that would get this case to the court of appeal.
-
I dont know for sure that jb's legal team dont know mike, but i have asked you that very question several times and you havent answered.
-
Andrea, All i wish is for Jeremy to have his appeal better still released on this Monday, its those at the top that need to be held to account not the minnows
im sure Jeremy and his legal team are on it now, my concern now is the data held under PII there needs to be a court order to hold it . I hate the police i find them a danger to society i want people to be held to account.
-
The only way it will get to the court of appeal mike is if jb's legal team are aware and have definate proof that what youre saying is true, then they would submit it to the CCRC, so..are jb's legal team aware or not?
::) mike could you answer please ?
Considering that some members of the forum are in regular contact with Jeremy, and his legal team, I should think that Jeremy knows all about it by now, and he will have been gathering all the evidence which he has got in his possession to see for himself if there is anything in it or not? Once he gathers this information and evidence together, I have no doubt that it will form part of some application to the CCRC with a view to referring his case back to the court of appeal...
Jeremy called me this afternoon and updated me about developments in the case. I have always been careful about posting information passed to me by Jeremy but he has confirmed that he has no objection to me posting an update here today.
Jeremy is pleased with the work being undertaken by Simon McKay. A huge amount of work has been undertaken by Jeremy and his team in analysing a large volume of documents obtained recently, which were previously subject to PII restrictions. These documents, together with the negatives also recently disclosed, have yielded valuable material relating to several elements of the case.
In outline, there is further evidence which assists the defence in relation to the scratches to the Aga surround. There is also evidence relating to the finding of the hacksaw blade and examination of the window through which Jeremy was alleged to have gained entry to WHF. The most important material relates to the silencer evidence. Jeremy is confident that he can now prove that two silencers were sent, at different times, to the FSS at Huntingdon. Leaving aside whether you accept what Mike says about "Z", what Mike has said about the silencer evidence appears to be correct, and there is further evidence to support that now. In addition there is some interesting information which has come to light about the tests conducted by the FSS in relation to the blood found inside one of the silencers. It would appear that at the trial the jury were not given an entirely accurate account of the tests carried out.
There is further information in relation to the COLP enquiry which assists the defence. Examination of the negatives at high resolution has also produced useful material.
-
I have done much similar work for Jeremy over the 20 odd years I have known him, and he knows that I do not tell him everything that I do, or get up to, unless it is of importance. In the instant case with regards to this matter, I have only had two meetings with 'Z' and there is much more to be gleaned from further meetings. It is important for 'Z' to keep'Z' s identity a secret, because 'Z' does not want to become an unnecessary victim in the same way "Taff" Jones became one, whether or not his death was an accident, or not...
It depends on what you choose to believe, as to why 'Z' contacted me, and asked for a meeting, why would 'Z' go public and risk everything that might come with such a confession? It is surely much better for information to be drip fed to someone like me, so that the truth can be exposed and those at the top who took the decision to falsify the silencer evidence, put into a position and made to give answers, which might not involve the roles played by ordinary coppers just doing their job...
-
The only way it will get to the court of appeal mike is if jb's legal team are aware and have definate proof that what youre saying is true, then they would submit it to the CCRC, so..are jb's legal team aware or not?
::) mike could you answer please ?
Considering that some members of the forum are in regular contact with Jeremy, and his legal team, I should think that Jeremy knows all about it by now, and he will have been gathering all the evidence which he has got in his possession to see for himself if there is anything in it or not? Once he gathers this information and evidence together, I have no doubt that it will form part of some application to the CCRC with a view to referring his case back to the court of appeal...
Jeremy called me this afternoon and updated me about developments in the case. I have always been careful about posting information passed to me by Jeremy but he has confirmed that he has no objection to me posting an update here today.
Jeremy is pleased with the work being undertaken by Simon McKay. A huge amount of work has been undertaken by Jeremy and his team in analysing a large volume of documents obtained recently, which were previously subject to PII restrictions. These documents, together with the negatives also recently disclosed, have yielded valuable material relating to several elements of the case.
In outline, there is further evidence which assists the defence in relation to the scratches to the Aga surround. There is also evidence relating to the finding of the hacksaw blade and examination of the window through which Jeremy was alleged to have gained entry to WHF. The most important material relates to the silencer evidence. Jeremy is confident that he can now prove that two silencers were sent, at different times, to the FSS at Huntingdon. Leaving aside whether you accept what Mike says about "Z", what Mike has said about the silencer evidence appears to be correct, and there is further evidence to support that now. In addition there is some interesting information which has come to light about the tests conducted by the FSS in relation to the blood found inside one of the silencers. It would appear that at the trial the jury were not given an entirely accurate account of the tests carried out.
There is further information in relation to the COLP enquiry which assists the defence. Examination of the negatives at high resolution has also produced useful material.
Brilliant, NGB, thank you for posting this.
-
I have done much similar work for Jeremy over the 20 odd years I have known him, and he knows that I do not tell him everything that I do, or get up to, unless it is of importance. In the instant case with regards to this matter, I have only had two meetings with 'Z' and there is much more to be gleaned from further meetings. It is important for 'Z' to keep'Z' s identity a secret, because 'Z' does not want to become an unnecessary victim in the same way "Taff" Jones became one, whether or not his death was an accident, or not...
It depends on what you choose to believe, as to why 'Z' contacted me, and asked for a meeting, why would 'Z' go public and risk everything that might come with such a confession? It is surely much better for information to be drip fed to someone like me, so that the truth can be exposed and those at the top who took the decision to falsify the silencer evidence, put into a position and made to give answers, which might not involve the roles played by ordinary coppers just doing their job...
Exactly Mike its those at the top, when you take command you are on your own..
-
Z doesnt need to drip feed you anything mike, the pictures you say z has of sheila would suffice, z said that he isnt the only officer that has copies? why didnt he give you them then? then you could have taken them straight to the legal team. Nobody would know they came from z because he isnt the only one that has access to them.
-
The only way it will get to the court of appeal mike is if jb's legal team are aware and have definate proof that what youre saying is true, then they would submit it to the CCRC, so..are jb's legal team aware or not?
::) mike could you answer please ?
Considering that some members of the forum are in regular contact with Jeremy, and his legal team, I should think that Jeremy knows all about it by now, and he will have been gathering all the evidence which he has got in his possession to see for himself if there is anything in it or not? Once he gathers this information and evidence together, I have no doubt that it will form part of some application to the CCRC with a view to referring his case back to the court of appeal...
Jeremy called me this afternoon and updated me about developments in the case. I have always been careful about posting information passed to me by Jeremy but he has confirmed that he has no objection to me posting an update here today.
Jeremy is pleased with the work being undertaken by Simon McKay. A huge amount of work has been undertaken by Jeremy and his team in analysing a large volume of documents obtained recently, which were previously subject to PII restrictions. These documents, together with the negatives also recently disclosed, have yielded valuable material relating to several elements of the case.
In outline, there is further evidence which assists the defence in relation to the scratches to the Aga surround. There is also evidence relating to the finding of the hacksaw blade and examination of the window through which Jeremy was alleged to have gained entry to WHF. The most important material relates to the silencer evidence. Jeremy is confident that he can now prove that two silencers were sent, at different times, to the FSS at Huntingdon. Leaving aside whether you accept what Mike says about "Z", what Mike has said about the silencer evidence appears to be correct, and there is further evidence to support that now. In addition there is some interesting information which has come to light about the tests conducted by the FSS in relation to the blood found inside one of the silencers. It would appear that at the trial the jury were not given an entirely accurate account of the tests carried out.
There is further information in relation to the COLP enquiry which assists the defence. Examination of the negatives at high resolution has also produced useful material.
It may well be no coincidence that I was recently contacted by 'Z' and this information about the two silencers was at the fore of our discussions, since 'Z' might have been made aware from other sources that Jeremy and his legal team had been provided with the material capable of exposing what really has been going on...
'Z' has not said this to me in as many words, but this could be behind why I have been contacted, and shown the photographs and given the specific information about the two silencers...
I will of course report other information as and when I am given it...
-
Z doesnt need to drip feed you anything mike, the pictures you say z has of sheila would suffice, z said that he isnt the only officer that has copies? why didnt he give you them then? then you could have taken them straight to the legal team. Nobody would know they came from z because he isnt the only one that has access to them.
and so...
what would you have done in these circumstances?
If you were 'Z' what would you have done, and if you were me what would you have done, and do?
-
if i had been you or z ?
-
if i had been you or z ?
either, 'Z' or me, and or both...
Have you got any idea what sort of pressure 'Z' is/has been under, to get into a position to contact somebody like me, with all the history I have got, and all the troubles I have had to endure and put up with and live through, why did 'Z' have to contact me, why didn't 'Z' go to the CCRC herself/himslef , or contact Jeremy's legal team? That is a question for 'Z', not me...
-
I'd like to read more from forum members who fall inside the 'guilty camp'. I'd like to see what they think are the reasons behind Mike employing the use of a false informant in the person of 'Z'.
Let's see their reasoning for Mike to use such a ploy. At the moment, all of the challenging is coming from forum members from my side of the fence.
-
if i had been you or z ?
pardon my view but information is normally traded,if copies of these pictures exist when were they done, the more copies you have the greater chance of a leak in the line, just a thought.
-
right, had i been you mike, i would have informed jb's legal team that i had been approached by an ex Essex cop involved in the case at the time. After any such meeting i would have informed them again at the nearest opportunity and i would tell them everything.
Had i been Z, i would have given you the pics of sheila, nobody would know that they came from me as i wasnt the only person with access to them.
-
Those photos mike you say z has, are surley of massive importance?
If they show sheila on the bed with one bullet wound to the neck? instead of sheila on the floor with 2 bullet wounds to her neck, wouldnt that be enough for the ccrc to reffer?
Have jb's legal team been informed mike, thats all i have been asking, a simple yes or no?
-
right, had i been you mike, i would have informed jb's legal team that i had been approached by an ex Essex cop involved in the case at the time. After any such meeting i would have informed them again at the nearest opportunity and I would tell them everything.
Had i been Z, i would have given you the pics of sheila, nobody would know that they came from me as i wasnt the only person with access to them.
As I understand it, Jeremy's legal team and Jeremy himself may already know about my meetings with 'Z', and what purportedly took place on the two occasions I have met with her/him. I can't believe that what I have been posting in the forum has not been reported to Jeremy, because he gets an update every day about what is spoken about on the forum, from several sources...
I am not 'Z' (nor Smiffy) and I can't speak for 'Z' about what 'Z' should have done, or did, I can only report what happened, in the way it did happen - he brought three photographs which I had not seen before to show me, I saw them and i have reported what saw in them...
-
right, had i been you mike, i would have informed jb's legal team that i had been approached by an ex Essex cop involved in the case at the time. After any such meeting i would have informed them again at the nearest opportunity and i would tell them everything.
Had i been Z, i would have given you the pics of sheila, nobody would know that they came from me as i wasnt the only person with access to them.
If I were Z - thinking entirely from Z's possible perspective, not my own - I might be reluctant to hand those pictures over: they're valuable and I might want to sell them.
-
So, you havent informed his legal team then mike? thanks thats all i wanted to know.
-
right, had i been you mike, i would have informed jb's legal team that i had been approached by an ex Essex cop involved in the case at the time. After any such meeting i would have informed them again at the nearest opportunity and i would tell them everything.
Had i been Z, i would have given you the pics of sheila, nobody would know that they came from me as i wasnt the only person with access to them.
If I were Z - thinking entirely from Z's possible perspective, not my own - I might be reluctant to hand those pictures over: they're valuable and I might want to sell them.
sell them to who?
-
Mike how long did you view the pictures? could you see anything different in each, was Sheila still alive at this point ?
-
right, had i been you mike, i would have informed jb's legal team that i had been approached by an ex Essex cop involved in the case at the time. After any such meeting i would have informed them again at the nearest opportunity and i would tell them everything.
Had i been Z, i would have given you the pics of sheila, nobody would know that they came from me as i wasnt the only person with access to them.
If I were Z - thinking entirely from Z's possible perspective, not my own - I might be reluctant to hand those pictures over: they're valuable and I might want to sell them.
my thoughts too Chocho, everything has a price.
-
Those photos mike you say z has, are surley of massive importance?
If they show sheila on the bed with one bullet wound to the neck? instead of sheila on the floor with 2 bullet wounds to her neck, wouldnt that be enough for the ccrc to reffer?
Have jb's legal team been informed mike, thats all i have been asking, a simple yes or no?
Yes, that is the point...
That was why 'Z' brought that particular photograph to show me, it was a significant moment in our meeting, it opened it all up for the truth to become known and laid bare...
It became clear why senior officers decided to cover it up, and why police stage managed Sheila's body on the bedroom floor, nothing could have been any clearer, once 'Z' showed me that picture. It completely befuddled me because that other photograph I have seen of Sheila on the bed, she had two wounds, not one...
I have not personally been in contact with Jeremy's legal team to tell them about this, no - but I gather they have been told about it...
-
right, had i been you mike, i would have informed jb's legal team that i had been approached by an ex Essex cop involved in the case at the time. After any such meeting i would have informed them again at the nearest opportunity and i would tell them everything.
Had i been Z, i would have given you the pics of sheila, nobody would know that they came from me as i wasnt the only person with access to them.
If I were Z - thinking entirely from Z's possible perspective, not my own - I might be reluctant to hand those pictures over: they're valuable and I might want to sell them.
sell them to who?
The press, the defence team, or anyone who might wish to keep Jeremy in prison.
-
right, had i been you mike, i would have informed jb's legal team that i had been approached by an ex Essex cop involved in the case at the time. After any such meeting i would have informed them again at the nearest opportunity and i would tell them everything.
Had i been Z, i would have given you the pics of sheila, nobody would know that they came from me as i wasnt the only person with access to them.
If I were Z - thinking entirely from Z's possible perspective, not my own - I might be reluctant to hand those pictures over: they're valuable and I might want to sell them.
sell them to who?
The press, the defence team, or anyone who might wish to keep Jeremy in prison.
That's a frightening thought. In my opinion (if Z is genuine) then they need to be 'brought in from the cold' in conjunction with the CCRC or elements within the authorities who are not tainted with perpetuating Bamber's imprisonment / have become aware of the scandal / are sympathetic to Bamber. I think the point Mike makes about DCI Taff Jones is a fair one.
-
Police officers die every year , DCI Taff Jones may have known too much whatever he knew he took to the grave in the light of these recent events we might just find out what it was.
-
Mike how long did you view the pictures? could you see anything different in each, was Sheila still alive at this point ?
The photograph which 'Z' brought to show me of Sheila on the bed, was taken from a different angle than the one I saw previously when I visited Ewen Smiths office in Birmingham. In that photograph (Birmingham) photographer was stood at the foot of the bed and the picture showed Sheila laid on the bed at a right angle to the base of the bed, whereas, in 'Z' s photograph this had been taken from the left hand side of the bed, and just showed the upper part of her body, neck and head...
In the photograph 'Z' showed me, there was a single trail of blood which ran vertically down her neck, as if she had been stood or sat upright when she had been shot and blood had run out of the entry wound in the same direction shown in the photograph published on the front page of the Express newspaper a couple of years ago, which appears dried or wiped away in that picture. She looked dead in the picture, but obviously she could not have been because she got shot for a second time after this picture was taken and blood ran out of the entry wound in a horizontal fashion and direction...
if you look closely at the image below that was published in the Express newspaper, you can see the vertical trail of dried blood running away from the lower entry wound, this is consistent with blood that was visible in the photograph which 'Z' brought to show me the other day in the wood
-
Mike if the picture showed 1 shot to Sheila there is a critical question where did the 2nd come from ?
-
Mike if the picture showed 1 shot to Sheila there is a critical question where did the 2nd come from ?
Yes, I know...
it obviously came after the picture that 'Z' showed me had been taken, at a time when police were in control (or not) at the scene...
One other point which I feel is perhaps worth making is that the run of blood in the above photograph which appears to have run from the lower wound, is in fact blood which ran from the upper wound at a time when Sheila's head was lolled forward and blood from the upper wound became trapped against the necklace and when Sheila's head was repositioned by the police it left blood from the upper wound trailing away in the direction from the lower entry wound, as shown...
Vertical trail of blood visible in the photograph, 'Z' showed me, appears to have been wiped away in the above picture, after or before her body was moved from the bed to the floor...
-
The only way it will get to the court of appeal mike is if jb's legal team are aware and have definate proof that what youre saying is true, then they would submit it to the CCRC, so..are jb's legal team aware or not?
::) mike could you answer please ?
Considering that some members of the forum are in regular contact with Jeremy, and his legal team, I should think that Jeremy knows all about it by now, and he will have been gathering all the evidence which he has got in his possession to see for himself if there is anything in it or not? Once he gathers this information and evidence together, I have no doubt that it will form part of some application to the CCRC with a view to referring his case back to the court of appeal...
Jeremy called me this afternoon and updated me about developments in the case. I have always been careful about posting information passed to me by Jeremy but he has confirmed that he has no objection to me posting an update here today.
Jeremy is pleased with the work being undertaken by Simon McKay. A huge amount of work has been undertaken by Jeremy and his team in analysing a large volume of documents obtained recently, which were previously subject to PII restrictions. These documents, together with the negatives also recently disclosed, have yielded valuable material relating to several elements of the case.
In outline, there is further evidence which assists the defence in relation to the scratches to the Aga surround. There is also evidence relating to the finding of the hacksaw blade and examination of the window through which Jeremy was alleged to have gained entry to WHF. The most important material relates to the silencer evidence. Jeremy is confident that he can now prove that two silencers were sent, at different times, to the FSS at Huntingdon. Leaving aside whether you accept what Mike says about "Z", what Mike has said about the silencer evidence appears to be correct, and there is further evidence to support that now. In addition there is some interesting information which has come to light about the tests conducted by the FSS in relation to the blood found inside one of the silencers. It would appear that at the trial the jury were not given an entirely accurate account of the tests carried out.
There is further information in relation to the COLP enquiry which assists the defence. Examination of the negatives at high resolution has also produced useful material.
Well worded Neil.
-
In the photograph which 'Z' showed me, there was no bloodied fingermarks on the upper part of Sheila's neck/throat so these must have been made there later, not by any would be killer, or one of the other victims, but rather by a police officer at the scene...
-
If i did not know any better the events upon storming the rear entry door are sounding false and i will go further i think Sheila was still alive.
-
If i did not know any better the events upon storming the rear entry door are sounding false and i will go further i think Sheila was still alive.
You will not be surprised then to hear what 'Z' had to say about what the police found once they got into the Kitchen at whf?
-
If i did not know any better the events upon storming the rear entry door are sounding false and i will go further i think Sheila was still alive.
You will not be surprised then to hear what 'Z' had to say about what the police found once they got into the Kitchen at whf?
Please continue.
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got into the kitchen
Two bodies, neither checked properly to see if still alive, it turns out Sheila was not shot at all, but that there was blood on the floor beside where her body was laying. Police now know that she was faking being dead, but in their haste to search the farmhouse and look for all the other potential victims, they left Sheila's body in the kitchen unsupervised...
This mistake...
led to further complications later when Sheila got upstairs and shot herself by use of a rifle with a silencer fitted to its barrel, this other rifle was the .22 air rifle, not the .22semi-automatic anshulz rifle, police believe that Sheila gathered up this air rifle at the bottom of the stairs in the kitchen, and that she took it upstairs with her to the bedroom. Sheila was shot with use of the .22 air rifle in the side of the neck at a time when a silencer was fitted to the end of its barrel, this is what 'Z' told me...
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got into the kitchen
Two bodies, neither checked properly to see if still alive, it turns out Sheila was not shot at all, but that there was blood on the floor beside where her body was laying. Police now know that she was faking being dead, but in their haste to search the farmhouse and look for all the other potential victims, they left Sheila's body in the kitchen unsupervised...
I suggested this months ago to Kaldin (playing dead or unconscious). However, does this not contradict your claim that Z stated the logs were faked?
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got into the kitchen
Two bodies, neither checked properly to see if still alive, it turns out Sheila was not shot at all, but that there was blood on the floor beside where her body was laying. Police now know that she was faking being dead, but in their haste to search the farmhouse and look for all the other potential victims, they left Sheila's body in the kitchen unsupervised...
I suggested this months ago to Kaldin (playing dead or unconscious). However, does this not contradict your claim that Z stated the logs were faked?
Yes and no...
I will explain what 'Z' had to say about this, without giving an explanation of my own for the time being, and later I will give my explanation for it appearing to be so...
Please be patient and bear with me...
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got into the kitchen
There was a delay between Sheila's body being found downstairs, and her shooting herself once in the side of the neck by use of the .22 air rifle, upstairs in the bedroom. During this delay, the other three bodies had been found and located upstairs and the house was declared to be completely searched and secure, and then senior officers were called forward from their position in a nearby outbuilding which was known as the forward control point, into the farmhouse...
it was at this point that things started to go drastically wrong for the police...
-
There was a delay between Sheila's body being found downstairs, and her shooting herself once in the side of the neck by use of the .22 air rifle, upstairs in the bedroom
The delay presumably caused by her somehow getting upstairs. I have a feeling you are going to say there was a pursuit / stand-off situation?
-
There was a delay between Sheila's body being found downstairs, and her shooting herself once in the side of the neck by use of the .22 air rifle, upstairs in the bedroom
The delay presumably caused by her somehow getting upstairs. I have a feeling you are going to say there was a pursuit / stand-off situation?
This is not my account, it is the account given to me recently by 'Z'...
-
an informant who exposes wrongdoing within an organization in the hope of stopping it; "the law gives little protection to whistleblowers who feel the public has a right to know what is going on. I can understand forum members getting their backs up, but if z exsists mike and z have to tread carefully and i'm sure z will have told what mike can and cannot say or he will not be told anything else. If i was z the first person i would have gone to would have been mike to seek his advice for the way forward, and i'm sure things happen backstage that were not told about.
-
an informant who exposes wrongdoing within an organization in the hope of stopping it; "the law gives little protection to whistleblowers who feel the public has a right to know what is going on. I can understand forum members getting their backs up, but if z exsists mike and z have to tread carefully and i'm sure z will have told what mike can and cannot say or he will not be told anything else. If i was z the first person i would have gone to would have been mike to seek his advice for the way forward, and i'm sure things happen backstage that were not told about.
Your post provides a decent contrast to all the doubt that has been offered up, in relation to 'Z'. I think everyone is naturally cautious on this.. but to differing degrees.
-
There was a delay between Sheila's body being found downstairs, and her shooting herself once in the side of the neck by use of the .22 air rifle, upstairs in the bedroom
The delay presumably caused by her somehow getting upstairs. I have a feeling you are going to say there was a pursuit / stand-off situation?
This is not my account, it is the account given to me recently by 'Z'...
Can we be given any more of Z's account Mike?
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got into the kitchen
Enter the fray - senior police officers, and because of the changing circumstances within the farmhouse, a change in leadership of the firearms operation, from PS Adams to PI Montgomery...
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got into the kitchen
Enter the fray - senior police officers, and because of the changing circumstances within the farmhouse, a change in leadership of the firearms operation, from PS Adams to PI Montgomery...
Couldn't it be argued by EP that Montgomery took over simply because the raid aspect of the operation had been completed?
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got into the kitchen
There was a great deal of confusion amongst all the police officers inside whf at that stage, and they made another mistake of creeping downstairs via the main stairs at the front of the house, and down the back stairs at the side of the house, in an effort to locate Sheila, and with a view to carrying out another search of all the downstairs rooms if they did not come across her body in the meantime...
meanwhile...
Senior officers barricaded themselves in the kitchen by use of the kitchen table which was up-righted and pushed against a door to try and prevent Sheila coming back into the kitchen that way...
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got into the kitchen
There was a great deal of confusion amongst all the police officers inside whf at that stage, and they made another mistake of creeping downstairs via the main stairs at the front of the house, and down the back stairs at the side of the house, in an effort to locate Sheila, and with a view to carrying out another search of all the downstairs rooms if they did not come across her body in the meantime...
meanwhile...
Senior officers barricaded themselves in the kitchen by use of the kitchen table which was up-righted and pushed against a door to try and prevent Sheila coming back into the kitchen that way...
The lower part is your argument Mike.
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got into the kitchen
Enter the fray - senior police officers, and because of the changing circumstances within the farmhouse, a change in leadership of the firearms operation, from PS Adams to PI Montgomery...
Couldn't it be argued by EP that Montgomery took over simply because the raid aspect of the operation had been completed?
According to 'Z', change in leadership from Adams to Montgomery at that crucial stage, was a source of much aggravation and displeasure...
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got into the kitchen
There was a great deal of confusion amongst all the police officers inside whf at that stage, and they made another mistake of creeping downstairs via the main stairs at the front of the house, and down the back stairs at the side of the house, in an effort to locate Sheila, and with a view to carrying out another search of all the downstairs rooms if they did not come across her body in the meantime...
meanwhile...
Senior officers barricaded themselves in the kitchen by use of the kitchen table which was up-righted and pushed against a door to try and prevent Sheila coming back into the kitchen that way...
The lower part is your argument Mike.
I am recounting what 'Z' told me, some of it overlaps what I have always believed to be true, so yes, it does accord with my own version of events, but as I say I am only repeating here, what 'Z' told me...
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got into the kitchen
There was a great deal of confusion amongst all the police officers inside whf at that stage, and they made another mistake of creeping downstairs via the main stairs at the front of the house, and down the back stairs at the side of the house, in an effort to locate Sheila, and with a view to carrying out another search of all the downstairs rooms if they did not come across her body in the meantime...
meanwhile...
Senior officers barricaded themselves in the kitchen by use of the kitchen table which was up-righted and pushed against a door to try and prevent Sheila coming back into the kitchen that way...
Senior officers who were trapped inside kitchen at that stage were (1) Montgomery, (2) Harris and (3) Gibbons
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got into the kitchen
Whilst trapped in the Kitchen at this time, Harris was requested to contact CC Peter Simpson at DHQ by use of the land line in the kitchen. This caused Harris to pick up the handset from the kitchen worktop and he depressed the cradle and dialled Simpsons telephone number, this was at about 8:15am, and coincided with the operator claiming that the connection from the scene to police control room was terminated...
Link between scene and ACC Simpson was kept open until shot rang out upstairs and Sheila's body was found on the bed...
'Z' says this is what happened up to the point when Sheila's body was on the bed with only one wound to her neck...
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got into the kitchen
Whilst trapped in the Kitchen at this time, Harris was requested to contact CC peter Simpson at DHQ by use of the land line in the kitchen. This caused Harris to pick up the handset from the kitchen worktop and he depressed the cradle and dialled Simpsons telephone number, this was at about 8:15am, and coincided with the operator claiming that the connection from the scene to police control room was terminated...
Is the copy made of audio recordings still sought by the defence? Imagine if the tape ever came to light? Wow that would be some find.
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got into the kitchen
Whilst trapped in the Kitchen at this time, Harris was requested to contact CC peter Simpson at DHQ by use of the land line in the kitchen. This caused Harris to pick up the handset from the kitchen worktop and he depressed the cradle and dialled Simpsons telephone number, this was at about 8:15am, and coincided with the operator claiming that the connection from the scene to police control room was terminated...
Is the copy made of audio recordings still sought by the defence? Imagine if the tape ever came to light? Wow that would be some find.
Police are saying audio recordings have been destroyed, in keeping with policy in force at that time - kept for a month then tapes are reused? 'Z' says police did not destroy these...
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got upstairs into the bedroom
eventually, Dr Craig and Pi Miller arrive at the scene and visit the bedroom and confirm Sheila to be (on the bed) and dead, at a time when she only has one wound to her neck/throat...
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got into the kitchen
Whilst trapped in the Kitchen at this time, Harris was requested to contact CC peter Simpson at DHQ by use of the land line in the kitchen. This caused Harris to pick up the handset from the kitchen worktop and he depressed the cradle and dialled Simpsons telephone number, this was at about 8:15am, and coincided with the operator claiming that the connection from the scene to police control room was terminated...
Is the copy made of audio recordings still sought by the defence? Imagine if the tape ever came to light? Wow that would be some find.
Police are saying audio recordings have been destroyed, in keeping with policy in force at that time - kept for a month then tapes are reused? 'Z' says police did not destroy these...
I've long felt that the entire hoard of whatever they have, should be seized without warning, by an appropriate authority acting in the interests of redeeming any semblance of integrity in this case.
-
Im a true believer of good over evil and iv'e always thought that people like z exsit and would come forward inthis case and to take this oppertunity to say well done. I had a similar thing happen to me were even though iwas not involved in a explosive incident i was asked to cover up, i refused and came clean the next day letting a lot of people down as i thought but the guilt i would have carried for the rest of my life far outwayed any friendship. Hope this helps
-
If these pictures make it to Jeremy and his legal team then the call logs and silencer dont really matter anymore , it ends on the pictures.
-
If these pictures make it to Jeremy and his legal team then the call logs and silencer dont really matter anymore , it ends on the pictures.
The point is that Mike is right about the 2 silencers.
-
Andrea
I just want to make it very clear that Jeremy knows everything that goes on from this every single day he has his 'spies' everywhere
Most of what Ngb posted Jeremy had told me in a letter but I hadn't got permission
I don't know about this z person because I wasn't there and quite clearly there has been so much cloak and dagger stuff in this case nothing surprises me
If this z person is genuine I hope has come forward because he knows the games is well and truly up
I think it would be perfectly acceptable for a number of police officers to get complete immunity from any prosecution as long as the ringleaders are charged and the relatives are charged.
I could believe Mike being followed because a close friend of Jeremys strongly believes her phone is tapped
-
Are the CRCC aware of any of this ?
-
CCRC Mertol ;)
-
I have been smited 4 times today! wonderful.
-
Mertol, I believe that Mike mentioned in one of his replies much earlier in this thread that they, and others, are monitoring this forum.....
-
CCRC Mertol ;)
damm qwerty keys all laptops should be voice activated , a friend of mine has a pen that takes pictures , he can transfer the components into a jacket button, he bought it off ebay, if only mike had one
-
mine makes 5
-
Mertol, I believe that Mike mentioned in one of his replies much earlier in this thread that they, and others, are monitoring this forum.....
so they will not know what back door is
-
thanks mertol, at least ya honest
-
thanks mertol, at least ya honest
im a Yorkshireman straight as an arrow Andrea
-
Im a true believer of good over evil and iv'e always thought that people like z exsit and would come forward inthis case and to take this oppertunity to say well done. I had a similar thing happen to me were even though iwas not involved in a explosive incident i was asked to cover up, i refused and came clean the next day letting a lot of people down as i thought but the guilt i would have carried for the rest of my life far outwayed any friendship. Hope this helps
There's a big difference between one day and 26 years. I think this aspect goes against the defence because most people find it inconceivable that so many people would go along with sending an innocent man to prison. I have pondered about this over and over and I believe that something extremely serious must have happened during the raid. I still feel the police may have discharged weapons.
-
thanks mertol, at least ya honest
im a Yorkshireman straight as an arrow Andrea
eee bar gum.
-
Im a true believer of good over evil and iv'e always thought that people like z exsit and would come forward inthis case and to take this oppertunity to say well done. I had a similar thing happen to me were even though iwas not involved in a explosive incident i was asked to cover up, i refused and came clean the next day letting a lot of people down as i thought but the guilt i would have carried for the rest of my life far outwayed any friendship. Hope this helps
There's a big difference between one day and 26 years. I think this aspect goes against the defence because most people find it inconceivable that so many people would go along with sending an innocent man to prison. I have pondered about this over and over and I believe that something extremely serious must have happened during the raid. I still feel the police may have discharged weapons.
Sending innocent people to jail is not rare, i dont believe in a jury it is the year 2011 and still using obsolete methods.
-
Im a true believer of good over evil and iv'e always thought that people like z exsit and would come forward inthis case and to take this oppertunity to say well done. I had a similar thing happen to me were even though iwas not involved in a explosive incident i was asked to cover up, i refused and came clean the next day letting a lot of people down as i thought but the guilt i would have carried for the rest of my life far outwayed any friendship. Hope this helps
There's a big difference between one day and 26 years. I think this aspect goes against the defence because most people find it inconceivable that so many people would go along with sending an innocent man to prison. I have pondered about this over and over and I believe that something extremely serious must have happened during the raid. I still feel the police may have discharged weapons.
Sending innocent people to jail is not rare, i dont believe in a jury it is the year 2011 and still using obsolete methods.
I meant with regards to office holders knowingly doing so, as opposed to jury doing so.
-
Im a true believer of good over evil and iv'e always thought that people like z exsit and would come forward inthis case and to take this oppertunity to say well done. I had a similar thing happen to me were even though iwas not involved in a explosive incident i was asked to cover up, i refused and came clean the next day letting a lot of people down as i thought but the guilt i would have carried for the rest of my life far outwayed any friendship. Hope this helps
There's a big difference between one day and 26 years. I think this aspect goes against the defence because most people find it inconceivable that so many people would go along with sending an innocent man to prison. I have pondered about this over and over and I believe that something extremely serious must have happened during the raid. I still feel the police may have discharged weapons.
Sending innocent people to jail is not rare, i dont believe in a jury it is the year 2011 and still using obsolete methods.
I meant with regards to office holders knowingly doing so, as opposed to jury doing so.
oh right , i will add them to the list.
-
Andrea
I just want to make it very clear that Jeremy knows everything that goes on from this every single day he has his 'spies' everywhere
Most of what Ngb posted Jeremy had told me in a letter but I hadn't got permission
I don't know about this z person because I wasn't there and quite clearly there has been so much cloak and dagger stuff in this case nothing surprises me
If this z person is genuine I hope has come forward because he knows the games is well and truly up
I think it would be perfectly acceptable for a number of police officers to get complete immunity from any prosecution as long as the ringleaders are charged and the relatives are charged.
I could believe Mike being followed because a close friend of Jeremys strongly believes her phone is tapped
They will know about every person they feel they need to. They will be in your computer. The works. I've got no doubt about that... (any of us)
-
and visa versa, information flows both ways , tapping a phone comes with a high price ask Murdoch
-
and visa versa, information flows both ways , tapping a phone comes with a high price ask Murdoch
This isn't about gutter journo's hob nobbing with bent coppers. This is about a state cover up, imo. And when I say that, I mean manipulation from certain quarters only.
-
Like JFK ? The powers responsible then exist to this day, one thing i put together recently was the advent of time of this case, in an ideal world anyone in authority would really like everyone to forget this case and forget anything about the events of 7-8-85, but as we do not live in an ideal world its not going away , and on that im sure certain groups have a problem now ,i hated computers in the early days but know i think of them as a friend if not i would not be typing this reply .
-
Like JFK ? The powers responsible then exist to this day, one thing i put together recently was the advent of time of this case, in an ideal world anyone in authority would really like everyone to forget this case and forget anything about the events of 7-8-85, but as we do not live in an ideal world its not going away , and on that im sure certain groups have a problem now ,i hated computers in the early days but know i think of them as a friend if not i would not be typing this reply .
Legal students have got hold of it now. I cant see it getting anything but more contentious and more focused upon.
-
Like JFK ? The powers responsible then exist to this day, one thing i put together recently was the advent of time of this case, in an ideal world anyone in authority would really like everyone to forget this case and forget anything about the events of 7-8-85, but as we do not live in an ideal world its not going away , and on that im sure certain groups have a problem now ,i hated computers in the early days but know i think of them as a friend if not i would not be typing this reply .
Legal students have got hold of it now. I cant see it getting anything but more contentious and more focused upon.
almost certain they will use computers and not pen and paper.
-
If it wasn't for the Internet, this forum wouldn't exist.....
-
If it wasn't for the Internet, this forum wouldn't exist.....
my point exactly ,
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got into the kitchen
Two bodies, neither checked properly to see if still alive, it turns out Sheila was not shot at all, but that there was blood on the floor beside where her body was laying. Police now know that she was faking being dead, but in their haste to search the farmhouse and look for all the other potential victims, they left Sheila's body in the kitchen unsupervised...
This mistake...
led to further complications later when Sheila got upstairs and shot herself by use of a rifle with a silencer fitted to its barrel, this other rifle was the .22 air rifle, not the .22semi-automatic anshulz rifle, police believe that Sheila gathered up this air rifle at the bottom of the stairs in the kitchen, and that she took it upstairs with her to the bedroom. Sheila was shot with use of the .22 air rifle in the side of the neck at a time when a silencer was fitted to the end of its barrel, this is what 'Z' told me...
Mike, I believe the evidence or tale being submitted by 'Z' is incorrect regarding the air rifle.
IF the police KNEW Sheila used the .22 air rifle, then why would they not dispose it? Instead - without it being cleaned - the Police handed the gun over to me upon Jeremy's imprisonment.
they must be more stupid than i thought
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got into the kitchen
Two bodies, neither checked properly to see if still alive, it turns out Sheila was not shot at all, but that there was blood on the floor beside where her body was laying. Police now know that she was faking being dead, but in their haste to search the farmhouse and look for all the other potential victims, they left Sheila's body in the kitchen unsupervised...
This mistake...
led to further complications later when Sheila got upstairs and shot herself by use of a rifle with a silencer fitted to its barrel, this other rifle was the .22 air rifle, not the .22semi-automatic anshulz rifle, police believe that Sheila gathered up this air rifle at the bottom of the stairs in the kitchen, and that she took it upstairs with her to the bedroom. Sheila was shot with use of the .22 air rifle in the side of the neck at a time when a silencer was fitted to the end of its barrel, this is what 'Z' told me...
Mike, I believe the evidence or tale being submitted by 'Z' is incorrect regarding the air rifle.
IF the police KNEW Sheila used the .22 air rifle, then why would they not dispose it? Instead - without it being cleaned - the Police handed the gun over to me upon Jeremy's imprisonment.
they must be more stupid than i thought
Police handed whf over to the relatives, which if we are to believe what we have been told, contained the silencer, the .22 air rifle and all the other weapons and ammunitions, part of which was used in the shootings, at least in the case of the silencer and the .22 air rifle, and a 12 bore shotgun, and not forgetting Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle, if it was there or not?
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got into the kitchen
Two bodies, neither checked properly to see if still alive, it turns out Sheila was not shot at all, but that there was blood on the floor beside where her body was laying. Police now know that she was faking being dead, but in their haste to search the farmhouse and look for all the other potential victims, they left Sheila's body in the kitchen unsupervised...
This mistake...
led to further complications later when Sheila got upstairs and shot herself by use of a rifle with a silencer fitted to its barrel, this other rifle was the .22 air rifle, not the .22semi-automatic anshulz rifle, police believe that Sheila gathered up this air rifle at the bottom of the stairs in the kitchen, and that she took it upstairs with her to the bedroom. Sheila was shot with use of the .22 air rifle in the side of the neck at a time when a silencer was fitted to the end of its barrel, this is what 'Z' told me...
Mike, I believe the evidence or tale being submitted by 'Z' is incorrect regarding the air rifle.
IF the police KNEW Sheila used the .22 air rifle, then why would they not dispose it? Instead - without it being cleaned - the Police handed the gun over to me upon Jeremy's imprisonment.
they must be more stupid than i thought
Police handed whf over to the relatives, which if we are to believe what we have been told, contained the silencer, the .22 air rifle and all the other weapons and ammunitions, part of which was used in the shootings, at least in the case of the silencer and the .22 air rifle, and a 12 bore shotgun, and not forgetting Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle, if it was there or not?
'Z' showed me a photograph of Sheila on the bed when there was only one wound present there - if you were to look at this photograph and take out the upper entry wound and accompanying trail of blood and fingermarks from it, and also the horizontal type blood trail from the lower wound (which is an overlay from the blood from the upper entry wound, you would be left with the lower entry wound, and a vertical trail of dried blood running from the lower entry wound - this is as close to what I saw regarding blood flow from the lower wound in the photograph which 'Z' showed to me the other day:-
There was no rifle barrel against the neck in the photograph 'Z' showed me...
-
The direction of blood flow from the lower entry wound was similar to that identified in the edited image I have produced. The flow of blood was not very much in photo' shown to me by 'Z' who told me that most of the blood produced by this injury was internal...
-
According to the pathologist, the original PV/20 bullet which caused the lower entry wound was fragmented - here is a copy of a photograph taken by the defense ballistics expert, Major Mead, which was taken during a visit to the lab' prior to the case coming to trial - as you can all see, it was not a whole bullet at that time:-
-
Is it possible to tell from examination of this photograph, whether or not this is a .22 bullet, or a .22 pellet?
-
Prior to the autopsy being performed by the opathologist, Peter Venezis, upon the body of Sheila on 7th August 1985, an xray was taken which shows both bullets in situ inside Sheila's neck and brain:-
was the bullet/pellet photographed by Major Mead, the same piece of ammunition that was present inside Sheila's neck when the Xray was taken?
-
Make the comparison, between bullet/pellet PV/20 and the images contained in the Xray, and make up your own mind:-
-
Next:-
The ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, described bullet PV/20 as a WHOLE bullet...
Why did the pathologist describe the original bullet/pellet as FRAGMENTED, and yet the ballistic expert describes it as a WHOLE bullet?
Why are prosecution experts describing the same bullet/pellet differently at different stages of the case?
-
Like 'Z' told me - how could the ballistic expert, Fletcher describe the original bullet, PV/20 as a WHOLE bullet, and say that it was definitely fired via the .22 Anshulz rifle, if when it was insitu in Sheila's neck it was most definitely a FRAGMENTED bullet which had broken into three major pieces?
-
Lets look at Eley .22 LR subsonic Manufacturers bullet weights:-
Eley .22 LR subsonic bullets have a manufacturers weight of 2.27 grams
-
Please use conversion tool to calculate Grain to Gram conversion rates:-
(1) - http://www.metric-conversions.org/weight/grains-to-grams.htm
(2) - http://www.unitconversion.org/weight/grams-to-grains-conversion.html
Where Manufacturers weight for Eley .22 LR subsonic ammunition is given as 35 grains / 2.27 grams...
According to these calculation tools, 35 grain is equivalent to 2.26796 gram, and 2.27 gram is equivalent to 35. 031453461 grain...
-
Thus...
according to the weight given to the bullet/pellet (PV/20) photographed by Major Mead, it weighed 26.46 grain...
35.031453461 grain, minus 26.46 grain, produces a deficit of approximately 8.57 grain, which is equivalent to a loss of over 20% in its mass, yet the ballistic expert describes this as a WHIOLE bullet?
-
Now look at what Eley say about the noise level produced during the firing stage:-
Note how quiet it is when these rounds are fired, so why would there be a need to use a silencer at all?
-
Not wishing to be a fly in the ointment, but wasn't the 'silencer' issue included in Jeremy's submitted documents as part of his 'Freedom Fortnight' campaign!
-
Here is confirmation that the pathologist, Peter Venezis handed over all the crime scene bullets to DS Davidson (SOC), including the original bullet PV/20:-
-
This 'Z' seems to be covering several areas of the case. I would have thought that as a police officer, 'Z' would not have had a broad range of duties linked to the case and would rather have had specific duties? That might simply be a wrong assumption on my part though. Can I ask the length of time that this person has been in touch with your self? A couple of months ago you stated that you had received information with regards to the second shot being by accident. However I recall that at the time, you stated that this 2nd accidental shot was administered post mortem (which would of course tie in with Dr. Craig's diagnosis according to 'Z').
Can I also ask how on earth 'Z' or his disgruntled colleagues were able to get hold of these negatives in the first place? Why would senior officers instigating a cover up allow 'Z' and his disgruntled colleagues to cut these 8 negatives from the strip?
-
Not wishing to be a fly in the ointment, but wasn't the 'silencer' issue included in Jeremy's submitted documents as part of his 'Freedom Fortnight' campaign!
Not the relevance of lab' document, dated 26th September 1985, having no information about blood upon it, or its link to another submission of articles to the lab, bearing same date, as far as I am aware, but correct me if I am wrong, and point me in the direction of your source, please...
-
This 'Z' seems to be covering several areas of the case. I would have thought that as a police officer, 'Z' would not have had a broad range of duties linked to the case and would rather have had specific duties? That might simply be a wrong assumption on my part though. Can I ask the length of time that this person has been in touch with your self? A couple of months ago you stated that you had received information with regards to the second shot being by accident. However I recall that at the time, you stated that this 2nd accidental shot was administered post mortem (which would of course tie in with Dr. Craig's diagnosis according to 'Z').
Can I also ask how on earth 'Z' or his disgruntled colleagues were able to get hold of these negatives in the first place? Why would senior officers instigating a cover up allow 'Z' and his disgruntled colleagues to cut these 8 negatives from the strip?
You might conclude, therefore, that 'Z' had access to such material, and evidence...
Why would any police officer cut these negatives from the strip?
I was first contacted by 'Z' a couple of months or so, ago...
I have met 'Z' on two occasions thus far...
-
This 'Z' seems to be covering several areas of the case. I would have thought that as a police officer, 'Z' would not have had a broad range of duties linked to the case and would rather have had specific duties? That might simply be a wrong assumption on my part though. Can I ask the length of time that this person has been in touch with your self? A couple of months ago you stated that you had received information with regards to the second shot being by accident. However I recall that at the time, you stated that this 2nd accidental shot was administered post mortem (which would of course tie in with Dr. Craig's diagnosis according to 'Z').
Can I also ask how on earth 'Z' or his disgruntled colleagues were able to get hold of these negatives in the first place? Why would senior officers instigating a cover up allow 'Z' and his disgruntled colleagues to cut these 8 negatives from the strip?
You might conclude, therefore, that 'Z' had access to such material, and evidence...
Why would any police officer cut these negatives from the strip?
So Z is linked to SOC then? I understand you cant reveal identity etc. But that is how I read your answer.
-
This 'Z' seems to be covering several areas of the case. I would have thought that as a police officer, 'Z' would not have had a broad range of duties linked to the case and would rather have had specific duties? That might simply be a wrong assumption on my part though. Can I ask the length of time that this person has been in touch with your self? A couple of months ago you stated that you had received information with regards to the second shot being by accident. However I recall that at the time, you stated that this 2nd accidental shot was administered post mortem (which would of course tie in with Dr. Craig's diagnosis according to 'Z').
Can I also ask how on earth 'Z' or his disgruntled colleagues were able to get hold of these negatives in the first place? Why would senior officers instigating a cover up allow 'Z' and his disgruntled colleagues to cut these 8 negatives from the strip?
You might conclude, therefore, that 'Z' had access to such material, and evidence...
Why would any police officer cut these negatives from the strip?
So Z is linked to SOC then? I understand you cant reveal identity etc. But that is how I read your answer.
I can't and won't reveal the true identity of 'Z', I did say that 'Z' had access to the material, but what I can add is that the firearms team were given access to the photograph negatives and the video footage taken at the scene, this is what 'Z' has told me...
-
This 'Z' seems to be covering several areas of the case. I would have thought that as a police officer, 'Z' would not have had a broad range of duties linked to the case and would rather have had specific duties? That might simply be a wrong assumption on my part though. Can I ask the length of time that this person has been in touch with your self? A couple of months ago you stated that you had received information with regards to the second shot being by accident. However I recall that at the time, you stated that this 2nd accidental shot was administered post mortem (which would of course tie in with Dr. Craig's diagnosis according to 'Z').
Can I also ask how on earth 'Z' or his disgruntled colleagues were able to get hold of these negatives in the first place? Why would senior officers instigating a cover up allow 'Z' and his disgruntled colleagues to cut these 8 negatives from the strip?
One can be sure many officers of lower ranks would have known this case was dodgy and would not be happy and that at some time the sh*t would hit the fan. Fear of this happening and getting caught up in it would have struck many. They are not all fools...they would have been aware and some would have gathered evidence as safegaurds and found out as much as they could to protect their own backsides when needed. When threatened ...as they were...it makes sense to gather as much info as possible.
-
This 'Z' seems to be covering several areas of the case. I would have thought that as a police officer, 'Z' would not have had a broad range of duties linked to the case and would rather have had specific duties? That might simply be a wrong assumption on my part though. Can I ask the length of time that this person has been in touch with your self? A couple of months ago you stated that you had received information with regards to the second shot being by accident. However I recall that at the time, you stated that this 2nd accidental shot was administered post mortem (which would of course tie in with Dr. Craig's diagnosis according to 'Z').
Can I also ask how on earth 'Z' or his disgruntled colleagues were able to get hold of these negatives in the first place? Why would senior officers instigating a cover up allow 'Z' and his disgruntled colleagues to cut these 8 negatives from the strip?
One can be sure many officers of lower ranks would have known this case was dodgy and would not be happy and that at some time the sh*t would hit the fan. Fear of this happening and getting caught up in it would have struck many. They are not all fools...they would have been aware and some would have gathered evidence as safegaurds and found out as much as they could to protect their own backsides when needed. When threatened ...as they were...it makes sense to gather as much info as possible.
It's just a pity that 'Z' and his colleagues didn't care much for the preservation of Jeremy Bamber. They cared for themselves but just went along with sacrificing another person? Very noble, if true.
-
I understand from another source that the CCRC obtained a copy of the video footage from the scene, but that Jeremy was not allowed to see or to view it - it is still not yet known who took the video footage at the scene, but one thing is for sure and that is that those in authority do not want the likes of Jeremy or other members of the pubic to see its contents...
The jury were not even aware that such video footage was taken, by whom, or when?...
-
What "Z" claims about most of Sheila's blood loss being internal...seems to add up. It going mainly into her airway...hence the expirated blood spots .
Though some blood has trailed from the second wound down to the shoulder area on Sheila I now think its a fairly high chance that most the blood in the right armpit area came out of Sheila's mouth when at some time she had her head tipped forward and to the right. This would be when she had the single wound only...and thus still had a heartbeat to keep losing blood under pressure.
-
I understand from another source that the CCRC obtained a copy of the video footage from the scene, but that Jeremy was not allowed to see or to view it - it is still not yet known who took the video footage at the scene, but one thing is for sure and that is that those in authority do not want the likes of Jeremy or other members of the pubic to see its contents...
The jury were not even aware that such video footage was taken, by whom, or when?...
CCRC must have one of the most negative reputations of any official body. Quite frankly if what you say is true, then that is absolutely disgraceful.
-
What "Z" claims about most of Sheila's blood loss being internal...seems to add up. It going mainly into her airway...hence the expirated blood spots .
Though some blood has trailed from the second wound down to the shoulder area on Sheila I now think its a fairly high chance that most the blood in the right armpit area came out of Sheila's mouth when at some time she had her head tipped forward and to the right. This would be when she had the single wound only...and thus still had a heartbeat to keep losing blood under pressure.
Yes, I can go along with that, all I know is that I have been shown a photograph with Sheila only having the lower wound to her neck, and she was on the bed when that photographs was taken. I have previously also seen another photograph of Sheila on the bed, with two wounds on her throat/neck...
It must follow that Sheila was shot by someone after the first photograph was taken, and that her body was moved from the bed to the floor...
-
I understand from another source that the CCRC obtained a copy of the video footage from the scene, but that Jeremy was not allowed to see or to view it - it is still not yet known who took the video footage at the scene, but one thing is for sure and that is that those in authority do not want the likes of Jeremy or other members of the pubic to see its contents...
The jury were not even aware that such video footage was taken, by whom, or when?...
CCRC must have one of the most negative reputations of any official body. Quite frankly if what you say is true, then that is absolutely disgraceful.
I have it on good authority that CCRC have a copy of the video footage taken at the scene, and that Jeremy was not, is not allowed to view or to see it...
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got upstairs into the bedroom
eventually, Dr Craig and Pi Miller arrive at the scene and visit the bedroom and confirm Sheila to be (on the bed) and dead, at a time when she only has one wound to her neck/throat...
Graig was an alcoholic. Had he been drinking so early in the morning? Because it does not seem reasonable to me that (1) a .22 air rifle slug, which is much smaller than a .22 fire arms bullet would shatter as a bullet would? It would probably flatten? and (2) That a doctor could make a mistake in pronouncing Sheila was dead. Because (a) he would feel for a pulse in her neck, this is very easy to find and (b) he would feel her abdomen to calculate how long she was dead. If he did this it would prompt him to look for further signs of life. That is why I wonder if he had been drinking. He was my doctor in thouse days and I can't see him making this kind of mistake?
-
I understand from another source that the CCRC obtained a copy of the video footage from the scene, but that Jeremy was not allowed to see or to view it - it is still not yet known who took the video footage at the scene, but one thing is for sure and that is that those in authority do not want the likes of Jeremy or other members of the pubic to see its contents...
The jury were not even aware that such video footage was taken, by whom, or when?...
CCRC must have one of the most negative reputations of any official body. Quite frankly if what you say is true, then that is absolutely disgraceful.
Well said this coupled with the fact that if true,a person on the panel has also seen photo of shiela on the bed. Ithink its cover your back time.
-
I understand from another source that the CCRC obtained a copy of the video footage from the scene, but that Jeremy was not allowed to see or to view it - it is still not yet known who took the video footage at the scene, but one thing is for sure and that is that those in authority do not want the likes of Jeremy or other members of the pubic to see its contents...
The jury were not even aware that such video footage was taken, by whom, or when?...
CCRC must have one of the most negative reputations of any official body. Quite frankly if what you say is true, then that is absolutely disgraceful.
I have it on good authority that CCRC have a copy of the video footage taken at the scene, and that Jeremy was not, is not allowed to view or to see it...
Was it not the case that the CCRC thought it the case that JB should not view some photographs of the bodies etc in case he found them disturbing.....which is an odd argument. Going by the stance of JB is guilty and was responsible for the crimes then he would have seen the bodies in real life so any images of them would not be disturbing. However if its truly thought JB would be disturbed by the photographs then the belief used in this thinking is that JB would be viewing things he had not seen before because he was in fact INNOCENT.
-
Was this (PV/20) a .22 bullet, or a .22 pellet?
-
Make the comparison, between bullet/pellet PV/20 and the images contained in the Xray, and make up your own mind:-
That picture does in fact look like a flattened air rifle bullet? The distinctive nurled top looks rather like a pellet?
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got upstairs into the bedroom
eventually, Dr Craig and Pi Miller arrive at the scene and visit the bedroom and confirm Sheila to be (on the bed) and dead, at a time when she only has one wound to her neck/throat...
Graig was an alcoholic. Had he been drinking so early in the morning? Because it does not seem reasonable to me that (1) a .22 air rifle slug, which is much smaller than a .22 fire arms bullet would shatter as a bullet would? It would probably flatten? and (2) That a doctor could make a mistake in pronouncing Sheila was dead. Because (a) he would feel for a pulse in her neck, this is very easy to find and (b) he would feel her abdomen to calculate how long she was dead. If he did this it would prompt him to look for further signs of life. That is why I wonder if he had been drinking. He was my doctor in thouse days and I can't see him making this kind of mistake?
If the crime victim suffered neck injuries a doctor checking for signs of life would not want to disturb that area and mess up forensics so checking for a pulse at the neck would be a non-starter. So if he did check he would use other less reliable or clear methods.
-
Make the comparison, between bullet/pellet PV/20 and the images contained in the Xray, and make up your own mind:-
That picture does in fact look like a flattened air rifle bullet? The distinctive nurled top looks rather like a pellet?
We (Jeremy , his legal team, and everyone else who truly believes that there has been a miscarriage of justice in this case) need expert opinion, as to whether or not it is a .22 bullet or a .22 pellet, as shown in this photograph (above)?
-
I understand from another source that the CCRC obtained a copy of the video footage from the scene, but that Jeremy was not allowed to see or to view it - it is still not yet known who took the video footage at the scene, but one thing is for sure and that is that those in authority do not want the likes of Jeremy or other members of the pubic to see its contents...
The jury were not even aware that such video footage was taken, by whom, or when?...
CCRC must have one of the most negative reputations of any official body. Quite frankly if what you say is true, then that is absolutely disgraceful.
I have it on good authority that CCRC have a copy of the video footage taken at the scene, and that Jeremy was not, is not allowed to view or to see it...
The release of the original footage should have formed part of the Freedom Fortnight campaign or the campaign to release the negatives. I truly hope that Bamber destroys the CCRC (by fully exposing it). Everything about the way this case is being processed looks to me as a brazened attempt to stall for as long as is possible. To stave off the assaults designed to expose the truth, until the very last man. It's sickening. I do understand that a lot of documentation is coming to light now. But they are still impeding other stuff from coming to light. Therefore there is not full disclosure.
-
Make the comparison, between bullet/pellet PV/20 and the images contained in the Xray, and make up your own mind:-
That picture does in fact look like a flattened air rifle bullet? The distinctive nurled top looks rather like a pellet?
TBH I think it is more likely to be a .22 bullet than a pellet.
I think the marks you are refering to Grahame is rifling. It seems too big to be a pellet.The colour also suggests this is a ,22, unless of course it is blood. I still think it strange that this bullet has fragmented.
The bullet recovered from Ralph's arm had only flattened.
-
I would also like to add that when I saw the photograph of Sheila on the bed when she had two wounds on her neck/throat, that there was no blood running from the corners of her mouth, and no horizontal type blood stains on her neck, or any blood running back into the socket of her left eye - these features became them, at the time police moved her body, from the bed, to the floor...
-
Make the comparison, between bullet/pellet PV/20 and the images contained in the Xray, and make up your own mind:-
That picture does in fact look like a flattened air rifle bullet? The distinctive nurled top looks rather like a pellet?
TBH I think it is more likely to be a .22 bullet than a pellet.
I think the marks you are refering to Grahame is rifling. It seems too big to be a pellet.The colour also suggests this is a ,22, unless of course it is blood. I still think it strange that this bullet has fragmented.
The bullet recovered from Ralph's arm had only flattened.
Yes in the picture of the .22 rifle bullet it does have similar marks on it.
-
Make the comparison, between bullet/pellet PV/20 and the images contained in the Xray, and make up your own mind:-
That picture does in fact look like a flattened air rifle bullet? The distinctive nurled top looks rather like a pellet?
TBH I think it is more likely to be a .22 bullet than a pellet.
I think the marks you are refering to Grahame is rifling. It seems too big to be a pellet.The colour also suggests this is a ,22, unless of course it is blood. I still think it strange that this bullet has fragmented.
The bullet recovered from Ralph's arm had only flattened.
Yes in the picture of the .22 rifle bullet it does have similar marks on it.
Are the marks visible in the photograph, at the top end of the round, or the bottom?
-
I don't buy the argument that this is definitely a .22 Eley bullet, because the marks which are claimed to be rifling marks are at the wrong end of the round (PV/20) - I am no expert, but if this is a bullet why has it flattened at the wrong end of the round, or to put it another way, why is the round (PV/20) flattened at its base, and not at its point...
Similar marks can be found at the base of a .22 pellet...
-
Andrea
I just want to make it very clear that Jeremy knows everything that goes on from this every single day he has his 'spies' everywhere
Most of what Ngb posted Jeremy had told me in a letter but I hadn't got permission
I don't know about this z person because I wasn't there and quite clearly there has been so much cloak and dagger stuff in this case nothing surprises me
If this z person is genuine I hope has come forward because he knows the games is well and truly up
I think it would be perfectly acceptable for a number of police officers to get complete immunity from any prosecution as long as the ringleaders are charged and the relatives are charged.
I could believe Mike being followed because a close friend of Jeremys strongly believes her phone is tapped
I know what Jackie means in referring to Jeremy's "spies" although I would not have used that description myself. Jeremy's admin team look at the forum and he speaks to them every day. If there is anything here which causes them concern or which they believe would be of interest to Jeremy they tell him. It must be remembered however that their key focus is the work in preparing the response to the CCRC and the time available to Jeremy to make phone calls is limited. I doubt therefore if much time is taken up with discussing forum posts.
When I spoke to Jeremy yesterday I did not mention "Z" as I decided to wait for further information to be posted by Mike. Jeremy did not raise "Z" with me, so I do not believe that he knows about it yet. Jeremy knows of my role of one of the Global Moderators on this site, and he understands that in fulfilling that role I am answerable to Mike Tesko who owns the forum and appointed me. I therefore do not see it as part of my function to give reports on the forum to Jeremy. I have from time to time discussed matters which have been raised on the forum (I think this is one of the main benefits of the forum) and asked his opinion. One example of this was the Horsey Dave saga, which is probably the only thing on which Jeremy, Hartley and Vidvic are in agreement!
Jeremy has let me know when he has concerns about things which have been reported to him about the forum. It is no secret that he is unhappy about pictures of the bodies of his family being posted. I have explained that the ones which appear here have now been in the public domain for some time and that no additional photographs of this nature have been posted. I have also explained my view that although the photographs are distressing and I understand his feelings, debate about the issues in the case has been assisted by being able to see the photographs. Although Jeremy does not agree with my position on this, he understands it and I believe respects it.
-
I don't buy the argument that this is definitely a .22 Eley bullet, because the marks which are claimed to be rifling marks are at the wrong end of the round (PV/20) - I am no expert, but if this is a bullet why has it flattened at the wrong end of the round, or to put it another way, why is the round (PV/20) flattened at its base, and not at its point...
Similar marks can be found at the base of a .22 pellet...
Mike the rifling marks I am refering to are on the base which is hidden beneath the casing. The bullet you are illustating is one of many types made ie, some are smooth.
-
If she was aware of a proposal to remove the children I would expect a very negative reaction. She would resist it IN ANY WAY she knew, It would threaten whatever precarious balance she had.
Her reaction would be difficult to predict. She could have withdrawn into depression, and became angry, and vitriolic..... Dr H C Ferguson.
-
I probably did use the wrong word spies about Jeremy finding out everything that goes on from the forum but it was in response to Andrea keep asking if Jeremy knew about Z
I personally do not go running off and tell Jeremy what goes on at the forum
There was a time some months ago when I think Taff Jones police notebook supposedly turned up
The finding sounded very suspicious and I personally did not believe it so didn't make too much comment
Sometimes I just wait and see how things pan out
Things have changed a lot lately and things do seem to be going Jeremys way so I haven't ruled out z being genuine yet
I have no doubt if there's been a massive cock up by police and the game is up an ex policeman could take measures to cover his back or make money out of this
Time will tell
-
As I understand it Mike/Smiffy, this is what you now want us to believe...
The police made a massive balls-up, not realising Sheila was still alive, let her run upstairs and shoot herself, then the doctor ballsed up by certifying her dead when she wasn't, then the police ballsed up again trying to stage her suicide (which is odd in itself - why stage the suicide of someone you found to have committed suicide?) and shot her again themselves, killing her.
At this stage they shat themselves royally, so set about the cover-up.
Miraculously, it worked and the murder-suicide theory was accepted by those that mattered (after all it was a murder-suicide almost).
The police breath a masive sign of relief, realising they've got away with the monumental cock-ups, but technically no real harm has been done, the murderess did shoot herself once, so they can all get on with their lives and mostly sleep ok at night.
Then the relatives come along and say "can you help us pin it on Jemery so we can have his cash?", and rather than think to themselves "you're having laugh, we've only just managed to get away with killing her ourselves", they get back into a huddle and agree to risk the careers and liberties they've just saved by the skin of their teeth to help frame a man for the benefit of people that most of them don't even know. And all this depsite one of their number saying he wouldn't play ball so maybe they had to knock him off too?
Quite frankly it beggars belief that anybody even considers any of this a remote possibility.
Do any of you really believe this could happen in the real world?
-
I agree, its getting beyond ridiculous now.
-
Quote from Bob: As I understand it Mike/Smiffy, this is what you now want us to believe...
It is about time that this suggestion that Mike Tesko and Smiffy are the same person is laid to rest. They are not the same person, and I am not saying that simply because they use a different IP address and are sometimes online at the same time. This suggestion originates with John Lamberton and it has been repeated so many times elswhere and recently here that some people are starting to believe it. Do not believe it, because it is nonsense designed to taunt forum members. I am addressing this to those who are pro Bamber as much as to those who are against or are undecided.
-
As I understand it Mike/Smiffy, this is what you now want us to believe...
The police made a massive balls-up, not realising Sheila was still alive, let her run upstairs and shoot herself, then the doctor ballsed up by certifying her dead when she wasn't, then the police ballsed up again trying to stage her suicide (which is odd in itself - why stage the suicide of someone you found to have committed suicide?) and shot her again themselves, killing her.
At this stage they shat themselves royally, so set about the cover-up.
Miraculously, it worked and the murder-suicide theory was accepted by those that mattered (after all it was a murder-suicide almost).
The police breath a masive sign of relief, realising they've got away with the monumental cock-ups, but technically no real harm has been done, the murderess did shoot herself once, so they can all get on with their lives and mostly sleep ok at night.
Then the relatives come along and say "can you help us pin it on Jemery so we can have his cash?", and rather than think to themselves "you're having laugh, we've only just managed to get away with killing her ourselves", they get back into a huddle and agree to risk the careers and liberties they've just saved by the skin of their teeth to help frame a man for the benefit of people that most of them don't even know. And all this depsite one of their number saying he wouldn't play ball so maybe they had to knock him off too?
Quite frankly it beggars belief that anybody even considers any of this a remote possibility.
Do any of you really believe this could happen in the real world?
Unfortunately it does happen in the real world and there are miscarriages of justice to prove it. What you haven't considered of course in Mike's claim to have met with a character called "Z" is that he was right about the two silencers. For this is one of the considerations of Jeremy's legal team. It is generally believed that there were two silencers. So Mikes explanation of this is a distinct possibility.
-
As I understand it Mike/Smiffy, this is what you now want us to believe...
The police made a massive balls-up, not realising Sheila was still alive, let her run upstairs and shoot herself, then the doctor ballsed up by certifying her dead when she wasn't, then the police ballsed up again trying to stage her suicide (which is odd in itself - why stage the suicide of someone you found to have committed suicide?) and shot her again themselves, killing her.
At this stage they shat themselves royally, so set about the cover-up.
Miraculously, it worked and the murder-suicide theory was accepted by those that mattered (after all it was a murder-suicide almost).
The police breath a masive sign of relief, realising they've got away with the monumental cock-ups, but technically no real harm has been done, the murderess did shoot herself once, so they can all get on with their lives and mostly sleep ok at night.
Then the relatives come along and say "can you help us pin it on Jemery so we can have his cash?", and rather than think to themselves "you're having laugh, we've only just managed to get away with killing her ourselves", they get back into a huddle and agree to risk the careers and liberties they've just saved by the skin of their teeth to help frame a man for the benefit of people that most of them don't even know. And all this depsite one of their number saying he wouldn't play ball so maybe they had to knock him off too?
Quite frankly it beggars belief that anybody even considers any of this a remote possibility.
Do any of you really believe this could happen in the real world?
Unfortunately it does happen in the real world and there are miscarriages of justice to prove it. What you haven't considered of course in Mike's claim to have met with a character called "Z" is that he was right about the two silencers. For this is one of the considerations of Jeremy's legal team. It is generally believed that there were two silencers. So Mikes explanation of this is a distinct possibility.
So what was the motivation for all those involved (and we must be talking about maybe 20 people?) to risk their careers & pensions, and risk going to jail, to enter into such a conspiracy, when they have only just gotten away with such a massive cock-up?
It didn't happen Grahame.
-
As I understand it Mike/Smiffy, this is what you now want us to believe...
The police made a massive balls-up, not realising Sheila was still alive, let her run upstairs and shoot herself, then the doctor ballsed up by certifying her dead when she wasn't, then the police ballsed up again trying to stage her suicide (which is odd in itself - why stage the suicide of someone you found to have committed suicide?) and shot her again themselves, killing her.
At this stage they shat themselves royally, so set about the cover-up.
Miraculously, it worked and the murder-suicide theory was accepted by those that mattered (after all it was a murder-suicide almost).
The police breath a masive sign of relief, realising they've got away with the monumental cock-ups, but technically no real harm has been done, the murderess did shoot herself once, so they can all get on with their lives and mostly sleep ok at night.
Then the relatives come along and say "can you help us pin it on Jemery so we can have his cash?", and rather than think to themselves "you're having laugh, we've only just managed to get away with killing her ourselves", they get back into a huddle and agree to risk the careers and liberties they've just saved by the skin of their teeth to help frame a man for the benefit of people that most of them don't even know. And all this depsite one of their number saying he wouldn't play ball so maybe they had to knock him off too?
Quite frankly it beggars belief that anybody even considers any of this a remote possibility.
Do any of you really believe this could happen in the real world?
Unfortunately it does happen in the real world and there are miscarriages of justice to prove it. What you haven't considered of course in Mike's claim to have met with a character called "Z" is that he was right about the two silencers. For this is one of the considerations of Jeremy's legal team. It is generally believed that there were two silencers. So Mikes explanation of this is a distinct possibility.
So what was the motivation for all those involved (and we must be talking about maybe 20 people?) to risk their careers & pensions, and risk going to jail, to enter into such a conspiracy, when they have only just gotten away with such a massive cock-up?
It didn't happen Grahame.
Well according to Mike it was because they realised they shot Sheila by accident? But I'm not arguing motives. I haven't enough information for that. What I am saying is that Mike was right about there being two silencers. Because that is exactly what Jeremy and his team are considering.
-
As I understand it Mike/Smiffy, this is what you now want us to believe...
The police made a massive balls-up, not realising Sheila was still alive, let her run upstairs and shoot herself, then the doctor ballsed up by certifying her dead when she wasn't, then the police ballsed up again trying to stage her suicide (which is odd in itself - why stage the suicide of someone you found to have committed suicide?) and shot her again themselves, killing her.
At this stage they shat themselves royally, so set about the cover-up.
Miraculously, it worked and the murder-suicide theory was accepted by those that mattered (after all it was a murder-suicide almost).
The police breath a masive sign of relief, realising they've got away with the monumental cock-ups, but technically no real harm has been done, the murderess did shoot herself once, so they can all get on with their lives and mostly sleep ok at night.
Then the relatives come along and say "can you help us pin it on Jemery so we can have his cash?", and rather than think to themselves "you're having laugh, we've only just managed to get away with killing her ourselves", they get back into a huddle and agree to risk the careers and liberties they've just saved by the skin of their teeth to help frame a man for the benefit of people that most of them don't even know. And all this depsite one of their number saying he wouldn't play ball so maybe they had to knock him off too?
Quite frankly it beggars belief that anybody even considers any of this a remote possibility.
Do any of you really believe this could happen in the real world?
Unfortunately it does happen in the real world and there are miscarriages of justice to prove it. What you haven't considered of course in Mike's claim to have met with a character called "Z" is that he was right about the two silencers. For this is one of the considerations of Jeremy's legal team. It is generally believed that there were two silencers. So Mikes explanation of this is a distinct possibility.
So what was the motivation for all those involved (and we must be talking about maybe 20 people?) to risk their careers & pensions, and risk going to jail, to enter into such a conspiracy, when they have only just gotten away with such a massive cock-up?
It didn't happen Grahame.
Well according to Mike it was because they realised they shot Sheila by accident?
That's my point. They got away with shooting her by accident. Everybody believed the murder-suicide and the case was pretty much closed.
So why then start the process of framing JB?
It makes no sense at all.
-
As I understand it Mike/Smiffy, this is what you now want us to believe...
The police made a massive balls-up, not realising Sheila was still alive, let her run upstairs and shoot herself, then the doctor ballsed up by certifying her dead when she wasn't, then the police ballsed up again trying to stage her suicide (which is odd in itself - why stage the suicide of someone you found to have committed suicide?) and shot her again themselves, killing her.
At this stage they shat themselves royally, so set about the cover-up.
Miraculously, it worked and the murder-suicide theory was accepted by those that mattered (after all it was a murder-suicide almost).
The police breath a masive sign of relief, realising they've got away with the monumental cock-ups, but technically no real harm has been done, the murderess did shoot herself once, so they can all get on with their lives and mostly sleep ok at night.
Then the relatives come along and say "can you help us pin it on Jemery so we can have his cash?", and rather than think to themselves "you're having laugh, we've only just managed to get away with killing her ourselves", they get back into a huddle and agree to risk the careers and liberties they've just saved by the skin of their teeth to help frame a man for the benefit of people that most of them don't even know. And all this depsite one of their number saying he wouldn't play ball so maybe they had to knock him off too?
Quite frankly it beggars belief that anybody even considers any of this a remote possibility.
Do any of you really believe this could happen in the real world?
Unfortunately it does happen in the real world and there are miscarriages of justice to prove it. What you haven't considered of course in Mike's claim to have met with a character called "Z" is that he was right about the two silencers. For this is one of the considerations of Jeremy's legal team. It is generally believed that there were two silencers. So Mikes explanation of this is a distinct possibility.
So what was the motivation for all those involved (and we must be talking about maybe 20 people?) to risk their careers & pensions, and risk going to jail, to enter into such a conspiracy, when they have only just gotten away with such a massive cock-up?
It didn't happen Grahame.
Well according to Mike it was because they realised they shot Sheila by accident?
That's my point. They got away with shooting her by accident. Everybody believed the murder-suicide and the case was pretty much closed.
So why then start the process of framing JB?
It makes no sense at all.
I have no idea Bob. It does seem to be a bit unnecessary?
-
It fits together rather too easily, get Jeremy into court get the result and everyone walks away everyone bar Jeremy Bamber.
-
It fits together rather too easily, get Jeremy into court get the result and everyone walks away everyone bar Jeremy Bamber.
Eh? It's quite the opposite.
It was already sorted. Murder-suicide, jobs & pensions saved.
Starting up the whole Jeremy thing was an enormous unnecessary risk, and no way would they have all agreed to it.
-
I don't think the police thought that Jeremy would be convicted, and he almost was not...
-
I don't think the police thought that Jeremy would be convicted, and he almost was not...
Also you have the other complication. The relatives finding the silencer.
-
I don't think the police thought that Jeremy would be convicted, and he almost was not...
Why do it then?
-
I don't think the police thought that Jeremy would be convicted, and he almost was not...
Why do it then?
See my last post Bob.
-
I don't think the police thought that Jeremy would be convicted, and he almost was not...
Why do it then?
My view is, it was done to safeguard the position and reputation of Essex police in their handling of the investigation, and to appease the relatives who had a hold over the police regarding the cover up, and the appalling way they handled the evidence in this case...
-
How on earth can EP not find a silencer were they that docile?, not at the time but shortly after its found not by EP but by a relation really this was the scene of multiple shootings.
-
As I understand it Mike/Smiffy, this is what you now want us to believe...
The police made a massive balls-up, not realising Sheila was still alive, let her run upstairs and shoot herself, then the doctor ballsed up by certifying her dead when she wasn't, then the police ballsed up again trying to stage her suicide (which is odd in itself - why stage the suicide of someone you found to have committed suicide?) and shot her again themselves, killing her.
At this stage they shat themselves royally, so set about the cover-up.
Miraculously, it worked and the murder-suicide theory was accepted by those that mattered (after all it was a murder-suicide almost).
The police breath a masive sign of relief, realising they've got away with the monumental cock-ups, but technically no real harm has been done, the murderess did shoot herself once, so they can all get on with their lives and mostly sleep ok at night.
Then the relatives come along and say "can you help us pin it on Jemery so we can have his cash?", and rather than think to themselves "you're having laugh, we've only just managed to get away with killing her ourselves", they get back into a huddle and agree to risk the careers and liberties they've just saved by the skin of their teeth to help frame a man for the benefit of people that most of them don't even know. And all this depsite one of their number saying he wouldn't play ball so maybe they had to knock him off too?
Quite frankly it beggars belief that anybody even considers any of this a remote possibility.
Do any of you really believe this could happen in the real world?
Unfortunately it does happen in the real world and there are miscarriages of justice to prove it. What you haven't considered of course in Mike's claim to have met with a character called "Z" is that he was right about the two silencers. For this is one of the considerations of Jeremy's legal team. It is generally believed that there were two silencers. So Mikes explanation of this is a distinct possibility.
So what was the motivation for all those involved (and we must be talking about maybe 20 people?) to risk their careers & pensions, and risk going to jail, to enter into such a conspiracy, when they have only just gotten away with such a massive cock-up?
It didn't happen Grahame.
Well according to Mike it was because they realised they shot Sheila by accident?
That's my point. They got away with shooting her by accident. Everybody believed the murder-suicide and the case was pretty much closed.
So why then start the process of framing JB?
It makes no sense at all.
Because the extended family went over the heads of the local constabulary and complained to top brass that Jeremy had done it? Because Taff Jones was then removed from the case and top brass began taking an interest in the investigation?
-
Reading what bob, Andi and Grahame have posted. It strikes me that the full truth of what took place prior to the raid, during the raid and in its immediate aftermath, have not yet been uncovered or volunteered. It is therefore not possible to nail down the exact motives for any kind of 'cover our backs' re-staging. The only thing left is to speculate from what is known or strongly suspected.
But if there was a re-staging of any kind involved, which then implemented a deception that got past a coroners inquest, surely people can see that this is extremely serious.
RWB was going higher and higher up the chain. Where do you think he would have stopped if ACC Simpson had f***d him off? Since this very ACC is alleged to be at the top of those in the know at the time this was happening, it's not unfeasible that he was indeed left with a very stark choice.
-
Relatives got wind of the police cover up, and when Robert Boutflour went to DHQ to see his Masonic colleague, Peter Simpson, he put over such a forceful argument about exposing the cover up instigated by Essex police, that Simpson became instantly convinced that relatives were determined to make sure heads would roll if police did not arrest JB and prosecute him as the murderer...
-
I don't think the police thought that Jeremy would be convicted, and he almost was not...
Also you have the other complication. The relatives finding the silencer.
Surely the silencer could just have been dismissed as irrelevant? Especially given that the relatives had taken it apart and contaminated it.
-
I don't think the police thought that Jeremy would be convicted, and he almost was not...
Also you have the other complication. The relatives finding the silencer.
Surely the silencer could just have been dismissed as irrelevant? Especially given that the relatives had taken it apart and contaminated it.
It wasn't just a case of the relatives finding a silencer, police already had a silencer which they chose to ignore, and Robert Boutflour knew about this other silencer and blackmailed the police into arresting Jeremy and prosecuting him, or otherwise......
-
Relatives got wind of the police cover up, and when Robert Boutflour went to DHQ to see his Masonic colleague, Peter Simpson, he put over such a forceful argument about exposing the cover up instigated by Essex police, that Simpson became instantly convinced that relatives were determined to make sure heads would roll if police did not arrest JB and prosecute him as the murderer...
How did the relatives get wind of it, and what evidence could they have provided that was so compelling as to force the creation of a massive conspiracy that ranged from humble bobbies up to a police commissioner?
-
Relatives got wind of the police cover up, and when Robert Boutflour went to DHQ to see his Masonic colleague, Peter Simpson, he put over such a forceful argument about exposing the cover up instigated by Essex police, that Simpson became instantly convinced that relatives were determined to make sure heads would roll if police did not arrest JB and prosecute him as the murderer...
How did the relatives get wind of it, and what evidence could they have provided that was so compelling as to force the creation of a massive conspiracy that ranged from humble bobbies up to a police commissioner?
If you will lend me your ears, I will explain...
-
I don't think the police thought that Jeremy would be convicted, and he almost was not...
Why do it then?
To placate the relatives? Who were not exactly taking no for an answer. It would have been better for EP if Bamber had walked, imo.
-
I don't think the police thought that Jeremy would be convicted, and he almost was not...
Why do it then?
To placate the relatives? Who were not exactly taking no for an answer. It would have been better for EP if Bamber had walked, imo.
It was also to placate the press who were crucifying Essex Police and portraying them as akin to the Keystone Cops for their bungled investigation of the case.
-
Relatives got wind of the police cover up, and when Robert Boutflour went to DHQ to see his Masonic colleague, Peter Simpson, he put over such a forceful argument about exposing the cover up instigated by Essex police, that Simpson became instantly convinced that relatives were determined to make sure heads would roll if police did not arrest JB and prosecute him as the murderer...
How did the relatives get wind of it, and what evidence could they have provided that was so compelling as to force the creation of a massive conspiracy that ranged from humble bobbies up to a police commissioner?
If you will lend me your ears, I will explain...
I'm all ears...
-
I don't think the police thought that Jeremy would be convicted, and he almost was not...
Why do it then?
To placate the relatives? Who were not exactly taking no for an answer. It would have been better for EP if Bamber had walked, imo.
It was also to placate the press who were crucifying Essex Police and portraying them as akin to the Keystone Cops for their bungled investigation of the case.
So all these policemen, forensic experts, SOCOs etc. were prepared to send an innocent man to jail, commit perjury, risk their liberty, careers and pensions, just to keep the press of their backs?
I think not.
The botches were done with, and the murder-suicide was accepted by all but a small number of relatives. Colin believed it, and I think his opinion would have carried most weight with the press given that he was the father of the children. I am waiting to read Mike's explanation of what evidence the relatives used to blackmail police with in order to instigate this unfeasible conspiracy - it is going to have to be very compelling...
-
Relatives got wind of the police cover up, and when Robert Boutflour went to DHQ to see his Masonic colleague, Peter Simpson, he put over such a forceful argument about exposing the cover up instigated by Essex police, that Simpson became instantly convinced that relatives were determined to make sure heads would roll if police did not arrest JB and prosecute him as the murderer...
How did the relatives get wind of it, and what evidence could they have provided that was so compelling as to force the creation of a massive conspiracy that ranged from humble bobbies up to a police commissioner?
If you will lend me your ears, I will explain...
I'm all ears...
Relatives had access to internal police information from sources like, DS 'Stan' Jones, DC 'Mick' Clark, and Metropolitan police officer and friend, PC Robert Carr, when you couple this to the influence which Robert Boutflour had with his masonic colleagues who were police officers involved in the case, it all added up to a recipe for disaster...
Relatives found out about the cover up, and witnessed at first hand how the police had botched the investigation from the outset - Robert Boutflour soon realized that if Essex police did not do what the relatives wanted them to do, he and the other relatives would expose the police and bring the force and those in commend to their knees...
Heads would roll, and police officers would face the sack and all would be prosecuted for telling lies and misleading the Coroners court, and perverting the course of justice...
-
I don't think the police thought that Jeremy would be convicted, and he almost was not...
Why do it then?
To placate the relatives? Who were not exactly taking no for an answer. It would have been better for EP if Bamber had walked, imo.
Yes - I agree Rochy - it would have been much better for EP, which is why I'm not buying this latest conspiracy theory.
-
Relatives got wind of the police cover up, and when Robert Boutflour went to DHQ to see his Masonic colleague, Peter Simpson, he put over such a forceful argument about exposing the cover up instigated by Essex police, that Simpson became instantly convinced that relatives were determined to make sure heads would roll if police did not arrest JB and prosecute him as the murderer...
How did the relatives get wind of it, and what evidence could they have provided that was so compelling as to force the creation of a massive conspiracy that ranged from humble bobbies up to a police commissioner?
If you will lend me your ears, I will explain...
I'm all ears...
Relatives had access to internal police information from sources like, DS 'Stan' Jones, DC 'Mick' Clark, and Metropolitan police officer and friend, PC Robert Carr, when you couple this to the influence which Robert Boutflour had with his masonic colleagues who were police officers involved in the case, it all added up to a recipe for disaster...
Are you suggesting that Jones, Clark and Carr encouraged realatives to blackmail them by giving them the evidence they would need to do it? Were they insane?
-
Robert Boutflour soon realized that if Essex police did not do what the relatives wanted them to do, he and the other relatives would expose the police and bring the force and those in commend to their knees...
Using what evidence? He could say what he liked to the press, but without any concrete proof his accusations would have done nothing to harm the force. People make crazy accusations about the police every day.
-
Relatives got wind of the police cover up, and when Robert Boutflour went to DHQ to see his Masonic colleague, Peter Simpson, he put over such a forceful argument about exposing the cover up instigated by Essex police, that Simpson became instantly convinced that relatives were determined to make sure heads would roll if police did not arrest JB and prosecute him as the murderer...
How did the relatives get wind of it, and what evidence could they have provided that was so compelling as to force the creation of a massive conspiracy that ranged from humble bobbies up to a police commissioner?
If you will lend me your ears, I will explain...
I'm all ears...
Relatives had access to internal police information from sources like, DS 'Stan' Jones, DC 'Mick' Clark, and Metropolitan police officer and friend, PC Robert Carr, when you couple this to the influence which Robert Boutflour had with his masonic colleagues who were police officers involved in the case, it all added up to a recipe for disaster...
Are you suggesting that Jones, Clark and Carr encouraged realatives to blackmail them by giving them the evidence they would need to do it? Were they insane?
You underestimate the power of loyalty between friends who were all freemasons - they didn't need an excuse to be insane, it was natural for this group of people to share information about the case with each other...
Robert Boutflour was a very influential individual who had more ways than one of finding out things which were of interest to him, and his extended family...
-
Robert Boutflour soon realized that if Essex police did not do what the relatives wanted them to do, he and the other relatives would expose the police and bring the force and those in commend to their knees...
Using what evidence? He could say what he liked to the press, but without any concrete proof his accusations would have done nothing to harm the force. People make crazy accusations about the police every day.
Well, its not every day that there is a multiple murder, and police leave all the weapons and ammunitions and a silencer at the scene, so that the relatives could find it and take it away for safe keeping - hows that for a starter?
Its not an everyday occurrence, that lies can be told at the opening of an inquest into the deaths of five victims, that one of them had taken her own life by way of a solitary shot to the neck, when she had two shots to the neck...
-
Relatives got wind of the police cover up, and when Robert Boutflour went to DHQ to see his Masonic colleague, Peter Simpson, he put over such a forceful argument about exposing the cover up instigated by Essex police, that Simpson became instantly convinced that relatives were determined to make sure heads would roll if police did not arrest JB and prosecute him as the murderer...
How did the relatives get wind of it, and what evidence could they have provided that was so compelling as to force the creation of a massive conspiracy that ranged from humble bobbies up to a police commissioner?
If you will lend me your ears, I will explain...
I'm all ears...
Relatives had access to internal police information from sources like, DS 'Stan' Jones, DC 'Mick' Clark, and Metropolitan police officer and friend, PC Robert Carr, when you couple this to the influence which Robert Boutflour had with his masonic colleagues who were police officers involved in the case, it all added up to a recipe for disaster...
Are you suggesting that Jones, Clark and Carr encouraged realatives to blackmail them by giving them the evidence they would need to do it? Were they insane?
You underestimate the power of loyalty between friends who were all freemasons - they didn't need an excuse to be insane, it was natural for this group of people to share information about the case with each other...
It is also natural for people to look after their own positions. If those three were masons they would have had loyatly to each other too - the three would have kept quiet to protect each other, not blabbed to Boutlfour.
Is a freemason-based conspiracy the only explanation you have for this turn of events?
-
Robert Boutflour soon realized that if Essex police did not do what the relatives wanted them to do, he and the other relatives would expose the police and bring the force and those in commend to their knees...
Using what evidence? He could say what he liked to the press, but without any concrete proof his accusations would have done nothing to harm the force. People make crazy accusations about the police every day.
Well, its not every day that there is a multiple murder, and police leave all the weapons and ammunitions and a silencer at the scene, so that the relatives could find it and take it away for safe keeping - hows that for a starter?
But that was all public knowledge, and the case was still closed as a murder-suicide. For a blackmail to work they would have needed evidence that was not in the public domain.
-
Relatives got wind of the police cover up, and when Robert Boutflour went to DHQ to see his Masonic colleague, Peter Simpson, he put over such a forceful argument about exposing the cover up instigated by Essex police, that Simpson became instantly convinced that relatives were determined to make sure heads would roll if police did not arrest JB and prosecute him as the murderer...
How did the relatives get wind of it, and what evidence could they have provided that was so compelling as to force the creation of a massive conspiracy that ranged from humble bobbies up to a police commissioner?
If you will lend me your ears, I will explain...
I'm all ears...
Relatives had access to internal police information from sources like, DS 'Stan' Jones, DC 'Mick' Clark, and Metropolitan police officer and friend, PC Robert Carr, when you couple this to the influence which Robert Boutflour had with his masonic colleagues who were police officers involved in the case, it all added up to a recipe for disaster...
Are you suggesting that Jones, Clark and Carr encouraged realatives to blackmail them by giving them the evidence they would need to do it? Were they insane?
You underestimate the power of loyalty between friends who were all freemasons - they didn't need an excuse to be insane, it was natural for this group of people to share information about the case with each other...
Robert Boutflour was a very influential individual who had more ways than one of finding out things which were of interest to him, and his extended family...
My problem with this is it doesn't explain the relatives' certainty in Jeremy's guilt. I have for some time been toying with the concept that one or more relatives knew more than the others. For example, RWB knew some aspects of the bungled raid but Ann Eaton did not. That's just an example mind. But I would expect RWB to have been ahead of the game, due to his age, experience and connections?
-
Relatives got wind of the police cover up, and when Robert Boutflour went to DHQ to see his Masonic colleague, Peter Simpson, he put over such a forceful argument about exposing the cover up instigated by Essex police, that Simpson became instantly convinced that relatives were determined to make sure heads would roll if police did not arrest JB and prosecute him as the murderer...
How did the relatives get wind of it, and what evidence could they have provided that was so compelling as to force the creation of a massive conspiracy that ranged from humble bobbies up to a police commissioner?
If you will lend me your ears, I will explain...
I'm all ears...
Relatives had access to internal police information from sources like, DS 'Stan' Jones, DC 'Mick' Clark, and Metropolitan police officer and friend, PC Robert Carr, when you couple this to the influence which Robert Boutflour had with his masonic colleagues who were police officers involved in the case, it all added up to a recipe for disaster...
Are you suggesting that Jones, Clark and Carr encouraged realatives to blackmail them by giving them the evidence they would need to do it? Were they insane?
You underestimate the power of loyalty between friends who were all freemasons - they didn't need an excuse to be insane, it was natural for this group of people to share information about the case with each other...
It is also natural for people to look after their own positions. If those three were masons they would have had loyatly to each other too - they three would have kept quiet to protect each other, not blabbed to Boutlfour.
Is a freemason-based conspiracy the only explanation you have for this turn of events?
Robert Boutflour was not behind the door, who could see and knew that the police investigation had been deliberately botched, and he found out through PC Robert Carr, that police lied about how many shots had been fired, and that Sheila had only been shot once, when in fact she had been shot twice. He also knew that there had not been any official ballistics tests done to verify and confirm that only one weapon had been used in the shootings? He himself had been at the scene and witnessed at first hand how many weapons and amounts of ammunition had been left strewn about the farmhouse by the police, despite this being the scene of a multiple shooting...
Robert Boutflour got to know about the police shooting Sheila for a second time, whilst her body was laid out on the bed at a time when she had already been declared to be dead, but was not...
There are endless other things which Robert Boutflour got to know about, which helped him to easily persuade ACC Peter Simpson to order a fresh investigation and to get rid of DCI 'Taff' Jones, from head of the investigation...
You only have to ask yourself why was it so easy for Robert Boutflour to influence the police investigation and make it change course, and dispose of the senior investigating officer?
You do not have to be one of the BAMBER IS INNOCENT brigade to realize that Robert Boutflour had considerable influence, so much so that Simpson had no hesitation but to alter the course of the investigation, for good, or bad - such a decision bought Essex police a little more time...
-
Relatives got wind of the police cover up, and when Robert Boutflour went to DHQ to see his Masonic colleague, Peter Simpson, he put over such a forceful argument about exposing the cover up instigated by Essex police, that Simpson became instantly convinced that relatives were determined to make sure heads would roll if police did not arrest JB and prosecute him as the murderer...
How did the relatives get wind of it, and what evidence could they have provided that was so compelling as to force the creation of a massive conspiracy that ranged from humble bobbies up to a police commissioner?
If you will lend me your ears, I will explain...
I'm all ears...
Relatives had access to internal police information from sources like, DS 'Stan' Jones, DC 'Mick' Clark, and Metropolitan police officer and friend, PC Robert Carr, when you couple this to the influence which Robert Boutflour had with his masonic colleagues who were police officers involved in the case, it all added up to a recipe for disaster...
Are you suggesting that Jones, Clark and Carr encouraged realatives to blackmail them by giving them the evidence they would need to do it? Were they insane?
You underestimate the power of loyalty between friends who were all freemasons - they didn't need an excuse to be insane, it was natural for this group of people to share information about the case with each other...
Robert Boutflour was a very influential individual who had more ways than one of finding out things which were of interest to him, and his extended family...
My problem with this is it doesn't explain the relatives' certainty in Jeremy's guilt. I have for some time been toying with the concept that one or more relatives knew more than the others. For example, RWB knew some aspects of the bungled raid but Ann Eaton did not. That's just an example mind. But I would expect RWB to have been ahead of the game, due to his age, experience and connections?
my belief is that this view which all the relatives appear to have had collectively was born out of speculation, rather than anything solid upon which to base this belief, and partly because if it tuned out to be correct, that they stood a very good chance of becoming the sole beneficiaries of the Bamber estates, and not have to find monies to pay back to the Bamber estate, monies that would in all probability end up in Jeremy's pocket...
So they got their heads together and came up with the idea of trying to blame Jeremy for the killings, but they were not getting any success whilst DCI 'Taff' Jones was head of the investigation...
As far as I know, DCI 'Taff' Jones was not a freemason, so he was beyond the influence of Robert Boutflour and the organisation he subscribed to...
Not only that...
But DCI Jones knew that Sheila did not die until after the police got into the farmhouse, so there was no way he was going to listen to anything at all that relatives might say or allege along the lines of Jeremy having killed Sheila and stage managed her body on the bedroom floor with the rifle on it, to make it look like she had taken her own life, when DCI Jones knew first hand, that this was most definitely not the case...
-
At the time relatives came up with the idea that Jeremy was the killer, they had no evidence to support such a suggestion, it was all contrived speculation...
It would have been just as easy for Jeremy at that stage to claim that the relatives had killed his family to get their hands on the inheritance, without having anything solid to base such a view uopon...
-
As time moved on, and it became increasingly clear that the relatives would have to raise monies to pay back to Ralph Bambers estate for land and other building work carried out which had been financed by Ralph Bamber, it is not too difficult to see why Robert Boutflour sprung into action with the sole purpose of throwing suspicion upon Jeremy with a view to getting him locked up and convicted for the murders to pave the way for his extended family to become the sole beneficiaries of the Bamber estate(s)...
Which is what occurred over time...
-
If a check was to be made of all those involved in investigating this case, and all those who were involved in any inquiries into the handling of this case, and all those involved in the court proceedings which took place, involving the trial and the appeals, it will be found that the vast majority of the principle persons engaged in these duties are all freemasons, with one common thing in mind - they all set out to watch each others backs, and keep the lid on the truth...
A nod, a wink, and a funny handshake, and all manner of dances took place, in high places...
-
As time moved on, and it became increasingly clear that the relatives would have to raise monies to pay back to Ralph Bambers estate for land and other building work carried out which had been financed by Ralph Bamber, it is not too difficult to see why Robert Boutflour sprung into action with the sole purpose of throwing suspicion upon Jeremy with a view to getting him locked up and convicted for the murders to pave the way for his extended family to become the sole beneficiaries of the Bamber estate(s)...
Which is what occurred over time...
I will draw some scorn by appearing to run with the 'Z' thing. Though I have also threw a few questions at you regarding its integrity.
So I'm going to go further and ask about this: 'Z' must have opinion about the death of Taff Jones?
-
Right Mike I have today spoken today an expert on gun related matters. I have shown him the images that you have posted.
His reaction was the bullet on the images is a sub sonic .22 bullet.
he agrees with me that this is NOT a pellet, which in his opinion would just flatten out.
The markings on the head of the bullet you displayed are the depth of the hollow point and nothing else.
Some eley .22 have these others do not depending on the type of ammo.
Hollow point are mostly lead, and break into three or four pieces on impact, even on soft tissue.[which is what we can see on the xrays of Sheila.
Interestly this ammo is wax coated, and has been for some years, so the absent of lead on Sheila's hands is no surprise
The marks you see are the base of a sub sonic bullet which does not break up [unlike the head] it travels through the target.
He informed me that non sub sonic ammo has a type of copper covering with no markings.
I have more information on this, but I was only interested in establishing that this image of Sheila was not a pellet.
I want the truth as much as you, but we need to know the facts.
Can I suggest that you find out more about the wax covering on these bullets.
Regards,
-
As time moved on, and it became increasingly clear that the relatives would have to raise monies to pay back to Ralph Bambers estate for land and other building work carried out which had been financed by Ralph Bamber, it is not too difficult to see why Robert Boutflour sprung into action with the sole purpose of throwing suspicion upon Jeremy with a view to getting him locked up and convicted for the murders to pave the way for his extended family to become the sole beneficiaries of the Bamber estate(s)...
Which is what occurred over time...
I will draw some scorn by appearing to run with the 'Z' thing. Though I have also threw a few questions at you regarding its integrity.
So I'm going to go further and ask about this: 'Z' must have opinion about the death of Taff Jones?
'Z' has thus far refused to comment on whether 'Taff' Jones death was an accident or suspicious, although from talking with 'Z' on the two occasions we met, I get the impression that 'Z' is mindful of the consequences should 'Z's identity become blown. I personally think that 'Z' thinks that the death of 'Taff' Jones was suspicious and could be linked to what he knew and what he was prepared to expose should the trial of JB actually go ahead...
-
I don't think the police thought that Jeremy would be convicted, and he almost was not...
Why do it then?
To placate the relatives? Who were not exactly taking no for an answer. It would have been better for EP if Bamber had walked, imo.
It was also to placate the press who were crucifying Essex Police and portraying them as akin to the Keystone Cops for their bungled investigation of the case.
They were the Keystone Cops Chocho they failed to find a silencer.
-
Right Mike I have today spoken today an expert on gun related matters. I have shown him the images that you have posted.
His reaction was the bullet on the images is a sub sonic .22 bullet.
he agrees with me that this is NOT a pellet, which in his opinion would just flatten out.
The markings on the head of the bullet you displayed are the depth of the hollow point and nothing else.
Some eley .22 have these others do not depending on the type of ammo.
Hollow point are mostly lead, and break into three or four pieces on impact, even on soft tissue.[which is what we can see on the xrays of Sheila.
Interestly this ammo is wax coated, and has been for some years, so the absent of lead on Sheila's hands is no surprise
The marks you see are the base of a sub sonic bullet which does not break up [unlike the head] it travels through the target.
He informed me that non sub sonic ammo has a type of copper covering with no markings.
I have more information on this, but I was only interested in establishing that this image of Sheila was not a pellet.
I want the truth as much as you, but we need to know the facts.
Can I suggest that you find out more about the wax covering on these bullets.
Regards,
I have the following observations to make, if this was a genuine .22 bullet as described by your expert, could you please ask him to explain how difficult it would have been to match up the crimping marks upon it, to a corresponding bullet case, and why in this instance this was not done?
-
Remind me Bob are you an ex copper
-
Right Mike I have today spoken today an expert on gun related matters. I have shown him the images that you have posted.
His reaction was the bullet on the images is a sub sonic .22 bullet.
he agrees with me that this is NOT a pellet, which in his opinion would just flatten out.
The markings on the head of the bullet you displayed are the depth of the hollow point and nothing else.
Some eley .22 have these others do not depending on the type of ammo.
Hollow point are mostly lead, and break into three or four pieces on impact, even on soft tissue.[which is what we can see on the xrays of Sheila.
Interestly this ammo is wax coated, and has been for some years, so the absent of lead on Sheila's hands is no surprise
The marks you see are the base of a sub sonic bullet which does not break up [unlike the head] it travels through the target.
He informed me that non sub sonic ammo has a type of copper covering with no markings.
I have more information on this, but I was only interested in establishing that this image of Sheila was not a pellet.
I want the truth as much as you, but we need to know the facts.
Can I suggest that you find out more about the wax covering on these bullets.
Regards,
I have the following observations to make, if this was a genuine .22 bullet as described by your expert, could you please ask him to explain how difficult it would have been to match up the crimping marks upon it, to a corresponding bullet case, and why in this instance this was not done?
I am not sure what you are asking Mike, The marks you are displaying are the base of the bullet.
-
So you are a serving police officer Bob
-
Right Mike I have today spoken today an expert on gun related matters. I have shown him the images that you have posted.
His reaction was the bullet on the images is a sub sonic .22 bullet.
he agrees with me that this is NOT a pellet, which in his opinion would just flatten out.
The markings on the head of the bullet you displayed are the depth of the hollow point and nothing else.
Some eley .22 have these others do not depending on the type of ammo.
Hollow point are mostly lead, and break into three or four pieces on impact, even on soft tissue.[which is what we can see on the xrays of Sheila.
Interestly this ammo is wax coated, and has been for some years, so the absent of lead on Sheila's hands is no surprise
The marks you see are the base of a sub sonic bullet which does not break up [unlike the head] it travels through the target.
He informed me that non sub sonic ammo has a type of copper covering with no markings.
I have more information on this, but I was only interested in establishing that this image of Sheila was not a pellet.
I want the truth as much as you, but we need to know the facts.
Can I suggest that you find out more about the wax covering on these bullets.
Regards,
I have the following observations to make, if this was a genuine .22 bullet as described by your expert, could you please ask him to explain how difficult it would have been to match up the crimping marks upon it, to a corresponding bullet case, and why in this instance this was not done?
I am not sure what you are asking Mike, The marks you are displaying are the base of the bullet.
What like these:-
You can find information and other photographs of these .22 pellets at the following link:-
(1) - http://www.photosbykev.com/wordpress/2009/01/20/air-rifle-pellet-database/
-
Are they just Air rifle pellets? above
-
Exacly Mike. There is no way is that a waisted pellet in Sheila's neck.
Can I draw your attention to the WAX cfovering on this type of ammo.
Do you not recognise the signicance of this. Can you realise why there was no lead on Sheila's hands.
WAX WAX WAX.
-
Are they just Air rifle pellets? above
.22 air pellets, yes...
-
Exacly Mike. There is no way is that a waisted pellet in Sheila's neck.
Can I draw your attention to the WAX cfovering on this type of ammo.
Do you not recognise the signicance of this. Can you realise why there was no lead on Sheila's hands.
WAX WAX WAX.
I beg to differ...
But just to be specific, are you referring to the debri as shown in the xray, or to the photographs taken by Major mead, of bullet PV/20?
-
As time moved on, and it became increasingly clear that the relatives would have to raise monies to pay back to Ralph Bambers estate for land and other building work carried out which had been financed by Ralph Bamber, it is not too difficult to see why Robert Boutflour sprung into action with the sole purpose of throwing suspicion upon Jeremy with a view to getting him locked up and convicted for the murders to pave the way for his extended family to become the sole beneficiaries of the Bamber estate(s)...
Which is what occurred over time...
I will draw some scorn by appearing to run with the 'Z' thing. Though I have also threw a few questions at you regarding its integrity.
So I'm going to go further and ask about this: 'Z' must have opinion about the death of Taff Jones?
'Z' has thus far refused to comment on whether 'Taff' Jones death was an accident or suspicious, although from talking with 'Z' on the two occasions we met, I get the impression that 'Z' is mindful of the consequences should 'Z's identity become blown. I personally think that 'Z' thinks that the death of 'Taff' Jones was suspicious and could be linked to what he knew and what he was prepared to expose should the trial of JB actually go ahead...
OK. This again could be interpreted as your view though. I'm not claiming that you're being dishonest with this 'Z' stuff. But it's alienating forum members. We've gone down to one guilty camp member and half the pro camp are up in arms, while the other are prodding it with a stick. I wish there was a way for you confirm its integrity to everyone.
-
As time moved on, and it became increasingly clear that the relatives would have to raise monies to pay back to Ralph Bambers estate for land and other building work carried out which had been financed by Ralph Bamber, it is not too difficult to see why Robert Boutflour sprung into action with the sole purpose of throwing suspicion upon Jeremy with a view to getting him locked up and convicted for the murders to pave the way for his extended family to become the sole beneficiaries of the Bamber estate(s)...
Which is what occurred over time...
I will draw some scorn by appearing to run with the 'Z' thing. Though I have also threw a few questions at you regarding its integrity.
So I'm going to go further and ask about this: 'Z' must have opinion about the death of Taff Jones?
'Z' has thus far refused to comment on whether 'Taff' Jones death was an accident or suspicious, although from talking with 'Z' on the two occasions we met, I get the impression that 'Z' is mindful of the consequences should 'Z's identity become blown. I personally think that 'Z' thinks that the death of 'Taff' Jones was suspicious and could be linked to what he knew and what he was prepared to expose should the trial of JB actually go ahead...
OK. This again could be interpreted as your view though. I'm not claiming that you're being dishonest with this 'Z' stuff. But it's alienating forum members. We've gone down to one guilty camp member and half the pro camp are up in arms, while the other are prodding it with a stick. I wish there was a way for you confirm its integrity to everyone.
'Z' has not directly expressed a view on this point, to me...
-
As time moved on, and it became increasingly clear that the relatives would have to raise monies to pay back to Ralph Bambers estate for land and other building work carried out which had been financed by Ralph Bamber, it is not too difficult to see why Robert Boutflour sprung into action with the sole purpose of throwing suspicion upon Jeremy with a view to getting him locked up and convicted for the murders to pave the way for his extended family to become the sole beneficiaries of the Bamber estate(s)...
Which is what occurred over time...
I will draw some scorn by appearing to run with the 'Z' thing. Though I have also threw a few questions at you regarding its integrity.
So I'm going to go further and ask about this: 'Z' must have opinion about the death of Taff Jones?
'Z' has thus far refused to comment on whether 'Taff' Jones death was an accident or suspicious, although from talking with 'Z' on the two occasions we met, I get the impression that 'Z' is mindful of the consequences should 'Z's identity become blown. I personally think that 'Z' thinks that the death of 'Taff' Jones was suspicious and could be linked to what he knew and what he was prepared to expose should the trial of JB actually go ahead...
OK. This again could be interpreted as your view though. I'm not claiming that you're being dishonest with this 'Z' stuff. But it's alienating forum members. We've gone down to one guilty camp member and half the pro camp are up in arms, while the other are prodding it with a stick. I wish there was a way for you confirm its integrity to everyone.
'Z' has not directly expressed a view on this point...
If ('Z') reads this forum, as you say they do, then they should come forward and post. They could still maintain their anonymity so I see no reason for them to lurk in the shadows.
-
Exacly Mike. There is no way is that a waisted pellet in Sheila's neck.
Can I draw your attention to the WAX cfovering on this type of ammo.
Do you not recognise the signicance of this. Can you realise why there was no lead on Sheila's hands.
WAX WAX WAX.
I beg to differ...
But just to be specific, are you referring to the debri as shown in the xray, or to the photographs taken by Major mead, of bullet PV/20?
I give up. NBG will you tell this man that this is NOT a pellet, A pellet would not fragment, in fact I have seen someone re use a pellet taken from a rabbit. You need to rethink this Mike.
Sheila had 12 bore, 4 10 shot guns at her disposal, but chose a 22 air rifle to end her life.
I can't buy into that.
-
Air rifle pellets are tiny little things arent they? or they were when i was a kid.
-
Even into death you can take vanity.
-
Air rifle pellets are tiny little things arent they? or they were when i was a kid.
i had a 1.77 air pistol and a break action rifle the pellets were small 22 bigger, you can get hunting ones with a point tip for vermin control ect.
-
Air rifle pellets are tiny little things arent they? or they were when i was a kid.
.22 pellets make the same entry holes as .22 bullets...
-
As time moved on, and it became increasingly clear that the relatives would have to raise monies to pay back to Ralph Bambers estate for land and other building work carried out which had been financed by Ralph Bamber, it is not too difficult to see why Robert Boutflour sprung into action with the sole purpose of throwing suspicion upon Jeremy with a view to getting him locked up and convicted for the murders to pave the way for his extended family to become the sole beneficiaries of the Bamber estate(s)...
Which is what occurred over time...
I will draw some scorn by appearing to run with the 'Z' thing. Though I have also threw a few questions at you regarding its integrity.
So I'm going to go further and ask about this: 'Z' must have opinion about the death of Taff Jones?
'Z' has thus far refused to comment on whether 'Taff' Jones death was an accident or suspicious, although from talking with 'Z' on the two occasions we met, I get the impression that 'Z' is mindful of the consequences should 'Z's identity become blown. I personally think that 'Z' thinks that the death of 'Taff' Jones was suspicious and could be linked to what he knew and what he was prepared to expose should the trial of JB actually go ahead...
OK. This again could be interpreted as your view though. I'm not claiming that you're being dishonest with this 'Z' stuff. But it's alienating forum members. We've gone down to one guilty camp member and half the pro camp are up in arms, while the other are prodding it with a stick. I wish there was a way for you confirm its integrity to everyone.
'Z' has not directly expressed a view on this point...
If ('Z') reads this forum, as you say they do, then they should come forward and post. They could still maintain their anonymity so I see no reason for them to lurk in the shadows.
Pretty sure their ID would get sussed out very quickly by those monitoring the forum (i.e. the ones with access to such means).
-
Mike, are you able to divulge if your informant has come forward as a direct result of your forum?
-
Exacly Mike. There is no way is that a waisted pellet in Sheila's neck.
Can I draw your attention to the WAX cfovering on this type of ammo.
Do you not recognise the signicance of this. Can you realise why there was no lead on Sheila's hands.
WAX WAX WAX.
I beg to differ...
But just to be specific, are you referring to the debri as shown in the xray, or to the photographs taken by Major mead, of bullet PV/20?
I give up. NBG will you tell this man that this is NOT a pellet, A pellet would not fragment, in fact I have seen someone re use a pellet taken from a rabbit. You need to rethink this Mike.
Sheila had 12 bore, 4 10 shot guns at her disposal, but chose a 22 air rifle to end her life.
I can't buy into that.
You are overlooking something of extreme importance...
According to the contents of a hand written note sent by DI Cook to the ballistics expert, Malcolm Fletcher, the silencer through which bullets had been fired was warped or damaged due to it having received a hard knock. What this means is that any bullet or pellet fired through the damaged silencer would almost certainly have become damaged before it left the muzzle end of the silencer. With this in mind, it is very probable if not highly likely that any .22 pellet fired through the damaged silencer would fragment in the same way that whatever it is inside Sheila's neck fragmented...
If the silencer was damaged, and it was damaging bullets or pellets fired through it, then the fragmented pieces shown to be present inside Sheila's neck in the Xray, could be the remnants of a damaged pellet so damaged by the damaged silencer...
-
Mike, are you able to divulge if your informant has come forward as a direct result of your forum?
I can confirm that my informant has not come forward as a direct result of my forum going on line, but that contact between us was made by, and because of other means, which I cannot divulge...
-
Air rifle pellets are tiny little things arent they? or they were when i was a kid.
.22 pellets make the same entry holes as .22 bullets...
No they don't. Also the damage is tenfold.
I am not trying to score points here Mike, but you asked for expert advice, and I gave it to you.
The fact it does not meet your expectations is of no consequence.
I have tried to give you an honest reply,
Make no mistake I would love to agree with you and say Sheila shot herself with the air rifle, but I would be kidding myself.
-
Mike, are you able to divulge if your informant has come forward as a direct result of your forum?
I can confirm that my informant has not come forward as a direct result of my forum going on line, but that contact between us was made by, and because of other means, which I cannot divulge...
Thankyou Mike.
-
The first thing which needs resolving, is whether or not, the bullet, PV/20, which major Mead photographed, is the same pieces or a piece of the round shown in the Xray taken of Sheila before autopsy got under way?
YES?
or
NO?
I personally do not think they relate to the same thing, I would be interested to hear anybody else's view on this particular point...
-
Exacly Mike. There is no way is that a waisted pellet in Sheila's neck.
Can I draw your attention to the WAX cfovering on this type of ammo.
Do you not recognise the signicance of this. Can you realise why there was no lead on Sheila's hands.
WAX WAX WAX.
That is a good observation Cliff.
-
Exacly Mike. There is no way is that a waisted pellet in Sheila's neck.
Can I draw your attention to the WAX cfovering on this type of ammo.
Do you not recognise the signicance of this. Can you realise why there was no lead on Sheila's hands.
WAX WAX WAX.
I beg to differ...
But just to be specific, are you referring to the debri as shown in the xray, or to the photographs taken by Major mead, of bullet PV/20?
I give up. NBG will you tell this man that this is NOT a pellet, A pellet would not fragment, in fact I have seen someone re use a pellet taken from a rabbit. You need to rethink this Mike.
Sheila had 12 bore, 4 10 shot guns at her disposal, but chose a 22 air rifle to end her life.
I can't buy into that.
You are overlooking something of extreme importance...
According to the contents of a hand written note sent by DI Cook to the ballistics expert, Malcolm Fletcher, the silencer through which bullets had been fired was warped or damaged due to it having received a hard knock. What this means is that any bullet or pellet fired through the damaged silencer would almost certainly have become damaged before it left the muzzle end of the silencer. With this in mind, it is very probable if not highly likely that any .22 pellet fired through the damaged silencer would fragment in the same way that whatever it is inside Sheila's neck fragmented...
If the silencer was damaged, and it was damaging bullets or pellets fired through it, then the fragmented pieces shown to be present inside Sheila's neck in the Xray, could be the remnants of a damaged pellet so damaged by the damaged silencer...
I do not think a silencer/moderator can be attached to a 22 pellet gun.
-
Exacly Mike. There is no way is that a waisted pellet in Sheila's neck.
Can I draw your attention to the WAX cfovering on this type of ammo.
Do you not recognise the signicance of this. Can you realise why there was no lead on Sheila's hands.
WAX WAX WAX.
I beg to differ...
But just to be specific, are you referring to the debri as shown in the xray, or to the photographs taken by Major mead, of bullet PV/20?
I give up. NBG will you tell this man that this is NOT a pellet, A pellet would not fragment, in fact I have seen someone re use a pellet taken from a rabbit. You need to rethink this Mike.
Sheila had 12 bore, 4 10 shot guns at her disposal, but chose a 22 air rifle to end her life.
I can't buy into that.
You are overlooking something of extreme importance...
According to the contents of a hand written note sent by DI Cook to the ballistics expert, Malcolm Fletcher, the silencer through which bullets had been fired was warped or damaged due to it having received a hard knock. What this means is that any bullet or pellet fired through the damaged silencer would almost certainly have become damaged before it left the muzzle end of the silencer. With this in mind, it is very probable if not highly likely that any .22 pellet fired through the damaged silencer would fragment in the same way that whatever it is inside Sheila's neck fragmented...
If the silencer was damaged, and it was damaging bullets or pellets fired through it, then the fragmented pieces shown to be present inside Sheila's neck in the Xray, could be the remnants of a damaged pellet so damaged by the damaged silencer...
I do not think a silencer/moderator can be attached to a 22 pellet gun.
I don't think so either. You don't need a moderator on an air rifle.
-
Exacly Mike. There is no way is that a waisted pellet in Sheila's neck.
Can I draw your attention to the WAX cfovering on this type of ammo.
Do you not recognise the signicance of this. Can you realise why there was no lead on Sheila's hands.
WAX WAX WAX.
I beg to differ...
But just to be specific, are you referring to the debri as shown in the xray, or to the photographs taken by Major mead, of bullet PV/20?
I give up. NBG will you tell this man that this is NOT a pellet, A pellet would not fragment, in fact I have seen someone re use a pellet taken from a rabbit. You need to rethink this Mike.
Sheila had 12 bore, 4 10 shot guns at her disposal, but chose a 22 air rifle to end her life.
I can't buy into that.
You are overlooking something of extreme importance...
According to the contents of a hand written note sent by DI Cook to the ballistics expert, Malcolm Fletcher, the silencer through which bullets had been fired was warped or damaged due to it having received a hard knock. What this means is that any bullet or pellet fired through the damaged silencer would almost certainly have become damaged before it left the muzzle end of the silencer. With this in mind, it is very probable if not highly likely that any .22 pellet fired through the damaged silencer would fragment in the same way that whatever it is inside Sheila's neck fragmented...
If the silencer was damaged, and it was damaging bullets or pellets fired through it, then the fragmented pieces shown to be present inside Sheila's neck in the Xray, could be the remnants of a damaged pellet so damaged by the damaged silencer...
I do not think a silencer/moderator can be attached to a 22 pellet gun.
Of course it can...
-
So, now we've finally got the full (Z) scenario (at least the main points).
On one hand it does appear to clear up some mysteries, such as why the doctor mentioned only one bullet hole, or how a stunned and badly injured Sheila could get upstairs (because she wasn't stunned and badly injured).
It also helps to explain why a cover-up was chosen - not just one huge cock-up, but three! (although you could say there were four - the failure to realise that Sheila was alive in the kitchen, the failure to cover all the stairways, the failure to realise that Sheila was alive in the bedroom, and the accidental shot).
On the other hand it's more difficult to believe that the police could have made just so many huge mistakes (although I suppose that stranger things have happened). It's also more difficult to believe that the police would think that Sheila was dead in the kitchen when there were no obvious bullet holes (even if she was lying next to a quantity of blood).
-
upon storming WHF the team would have spent little time in one room
-
Exacly Mike. There is no way is that a waisted pellet in Sheila's neck.
Can I draw your attention to the WAX cfovering on this type of ammo.
Do you not recognise the signicance of this. Can you realise why there was no lead on Sheila's hands.
WAX WAX WAX.
I beg to differ...
But just to be specific, are you referring to the debri as shown in the xray, or to the photographs taken by Major mead, of bullet PV/20?
I give up. NBG will you tell this man that this is NOT a pellet, A pellet would not fragment, in fact I have seen someone re use a pellet taken from a rabbit. You need to rethink this Mike.
Sheila had 12 bore, 4 10 shot guns at her disposal, but chose a 22 air rifle to end her life.
I can't buy into that.
You are overlooking something of extreme importance...
According to the contents of a hand written note sent by DI Cook to the ballistics expert, Malcolm Fletcher, the silencer through which bullets had been fired was warped or damaged due to it having received a hard knock. What this means is that any bullet or pellet fired through the damaged silencer would almost certainly have become damaged before it left the muzzle end of the silencer. With this in mind, it is very probable if not highly likely that any .22 pellet fired through the damaged silencer would fragment in the same way that whatever it is inside Sheila's neck fragmented...
If the silencer was damaged, and it was damaging bullets or pellets fired through it, then the fragmented pieces shown to be present inside Sheila's neck in the Xray, could be the remnants of a damaged pellet so damaged by the damaged silencer...
I do not think a silencer/moderator can be attached to a 22 pellet gun.
Of course it can...
Are you suggesting that a moderator from a .22 can be attached to a 22 air rifle Mike?
-
Exacly Mike. There is no way is that a waisted pellet in Sheila's neck.
Can I draw your attention to the WAX cfovering on this type of ammo.
Do you not recognise the signicance of this. Can you realise why there was no lead on Sheila's hands.
WAX WAX WAX.
I beg to differ...
But just to be specific, are you referring to the debri as shown in the xray, or to the photographs taken by Major mead, of bullet PV/20?
I give up. NBG will you tell this man that this is NOT a pellet, A pellet would not fragment, in fact I have seen someone re use a pellet taken from a rabbit. You need to rethink this Mike.
Sheila had 12 bore, 4 10 shot guns at her disposal, but chose a 22 air rifle to end her life.
I can't buy into that.
I have to say that I would be very surprised if an air rifle was used by Sheila. If it had been used at close range the pellet could have penetrated and caused serious harm or possibly even killed, but I have never known an air rifle pellet to fragment. Depending upon the design they tend to flatten and spread. There is too little energy produced by a normal air rifle to cause fragmentation. On the other hand a .22 hollowpoint round does have a tendency to fragment. It is designed to expand on impact (similar to a dumdum) but it sometimes fragments particularly if it contacts something hard like bone. For what it is worth the defence believe that the only weapon used was the Anschutz rifle.
-
Exacly Mike. There is no way is that a waisted pellet in Sheila's neck.
Can I draw your attention to the WAX cfovering on this type of ammo.
Do you not recognise the signicance of this. Can you realise why there was no lead on Sheila's hands.
WAX WAX WAX.
I beg to differ...
But just to be specific, are you referring to the debri as shown in the xray, or to the photographs taken by Major mead, of bullet PV/20?
I give up. NBG will you tell this man that this is NOT a pellet, A pellet would not fragment, in fact I have seen someone re use a pellet taken from a rabbit. You need to rethink this Mike.
Sheila had 12 bore, 4 10 shot guns at her disposal, but chose a 22 air rifle to end her life.
I can't buy into that.
You are overlooking something of extreme importance...
According to the contents of a hand written note sent by DI Cook to the ballistics expert, Malcolm Fletcher, the silencer through which bullets had been fired was warped or damaged due to it having received a hard knock. What this means is that any bullet or pellet fired through the damaged silencer would almost certainly have become damaged before it left the muzzle end of the silencer. With this in mind, it is very probable if not highly likely that any .22 pellet fired through the damaged silencer would fragment in the same way that whatever it is inside Sheila's neck fragmented...
If the silencer was damaged, and it was damaging bullets or pellets fired through it, then the fragmented pieces shown to be present inside Sheila's neck in the Xray, could be the remnants of a damaged pellet so damaged by the damaged silencer...
I do not think a silencer/moderator can be attached to a 22 pellet gun.
Of course it can...
Are you suggesting that a moderator from a .22 can be attached to a 22 air rifle Mike?
Yes, providing that it has the correct thread on the end of its barrel, and some .22 air rifles are more powerful than others. What I am saying is that it was possible for a .22 pellet to become damaged inside the warped silencer before it exited the muzzle of the silencer and upon entering Sheila's neck it simply dispersed naturally without striking anything in particular to make it fragment, because it was already fragmented before it went into her neck...
-
Exacly Mike. There is no way is that a waisted pellet in Sheila's neck.
Can I draw your attention to the WAX cfovering on this type of ammo.
Do you not recognise the signicance of this. Can you realise why there was no lead on Sheila's hands.
WAX WAX WAX.
Cliff - you make a good point about the wax coating. After handling rimfire ammunition you feel it on your hands. I suspect that this would have the effect of reducing the amount of lead deposited. I do not know why wax is used on rimfire rounds and not on bigger centrefire rounds.
-
Exacly Mike. There is no way is that a waisted pellet in Sheila's neck.
Can I draw your attention to the WAX cfovering on this type of ammo.
Do you not recognise the signicance of this. Can you realise why there was no lead on Sheila's hands.
WAX WAX WAX.
I beg to differ...
But just to be specific, are you referring to the debri as shown in the xray, or to the photographs taken by Major mead, of bullet PV/20?
I give up. NBG will you tell this man that this is NOT a pellet, A pellet would not fragment, in fact I have seen someone re use a pellet taken from a rabbit. You need to rethink this Mike.
Sheila had 12 bore, 4 10 shot guns at her disposal, but chose a to end her life.
I can't buy into that.
I have to say that I would be very surprised if an air rifle was used by Sheila. If it had been used at close range the pellet could have penetrated and caused serious harm or possibly even killed, but I have never known an air rifle pellet to fragment. Depending upon the design they tend to flatten and spread. There is too little energy produced by a normal air rifle to cause fragmentation. On the other hand a .22 hollowpoint round does have a tendency to fragment. It is designed to expand on impact (similar to a dumdum) but it sometimes fragments particularly if it contacts something hard like bone. For what it is worth the defence believe that the only weapon used was the Anschutz rifle.
Some air rifles are more powerful than others, and produce greater poundage when fired, and require control by gun law:-
(1) - http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/firearms/#a01
(2) - http://www.chweston.co.uk/acatalog/Airgun_Laws.html
-
I don't think the police thought that Jeremy would be convicted, and he almost was not...
Why do it then?
To placate the relatives? Who were not exactly taking no for an answer. It would have been better for EP if Bamber had walked, imo.
It was also to placate the press who were crucifying Essex Police and portraying them as akin to the Keystone Cops for their bungled investigation of the case.
So all these policemen, forensic experts, SOCOs etc. were prepared to send an innocent man to jail, commit perjury, risk their liberty, careers and pensions, just to keep the press of their backs?
I think not.
The botches were done with, and the murder-suicide was accepted by all but a small number of relatives. Colin believed it, and I think his opinion would have carried most weight with the press given that he was the father of the children. I am waiting to read Mike's explanation of what evidence the relatives used to blackmail police with in order to instigate this unfeasible conspiracy - it is going to have to be very compelling...
Apologies for posting this twice on different threads, but it is more relevant to this thread, so I'll delete it from the other one in a moment.
Here you have a former Chief Constable of Essex speaking about the key issues of his career, both high and low points. One of the few cases he names as a low point is Jeremy Bamber's and the effect this had on police morale.
We should not underestimate the importance of the criticism of EP that came out of this case.
Repository: Essex Record Office
Level: Category Sound Archive
Level: Fonds BBC ESSEX
Level:
Item
Reference Code SA 1/179/1
Dates of Creation 1987
Scope and Content Title: Robert Bunyard, Retiring Chief Constable of Essex
Speaker (s): Bunyard, Robert, Chief Constable; Bellerby, Jules
Date of recording: 1/12/87
Date of broadcast: /12/87
Length of tape: 60 Minutes
Depositor: BBC Essex
Restrictions: BBC
Synopsis of tape: Interview and phone-in; new post as instructor at Bramshill Police College; early career in teaching; changes in policing since joining, eg more technology, less contact with community; changes in Essex population since appointed Deputy Chief Constable in 1977; contrasts in policing different areas; effects of motorways on crime rate; driving standards and suitability of current testing; crimes involving shooting, necessary controls on availability of shotguns; need for 'armed response unit' , investigation into reasons for owning guns; visit to United States, contrasts with situation there, inaccuracy of media portrayal of police, JEREMY BAMBER case in 1986 and effect of resulting criticism on force morale; recent achievements of Essex Police, e.g schools programmes, neighbourhood watch schemes; methods of dealing with emergencies. e.g hijacked Tanzanian Aircraft diverted to Stansted Airport
Date From 1987
Date To 1987
-
upon storming WHF the team would have spent little time in one room
True, but a person lying there with a bullet hole in the neck is going to look more dead than one without!
Another thing that bothers me somewhat - why play dead only to shoot yourself as soon as the coast is clear (although I suppose there's no accounting for what someone in that frame of mind might do).
-
Exacly Mike. There is no way is that a waisted pellet in Sheila's neck.
Can I draw your attention to the WAX cfovering on this type of ammo.
Do you not recognise the signicance of this. Can you realise why there was no lead on Sheila's hands.
WAX WAX WAX.
I beg to differ...
But just to be specific, are you referring to the debri as shown in the xray, or to the photographs taken by Major mead, of bullet PV/20?
I give up. NBG will you tell this man that this is NOT a pellet, A pellet would not fragment, in fact I have seen someone re use a pellet taken from a rabbit. You need to rethink this Mike.
Sheila had 12 bore, 4 10 shot guns at her disposal, but chose a 22 air rifle to end her life.
I can't buy into that.
You are overlooking something of extreme importance...
According to the contents of a hand written note sent by DI Cook to the ballistics expert, Malcolm Fletcher, the silencer through which bullets had been fired was warped or damaged due to it having received a hard knock. What this means is that any bullet or pellet fired through the damaged silencer would almost certainly have become damaged before it left the muzzle end of the silencer. With this in mind, it is very probable if not highly likely that any .22 pellet fired through the damaged silencer would fragment in the same way that whatever it is inside Sheila's neck fragmented...
If the silencer was damaged, and it was damaging bullets or pellets fired through it, then the fragmented pieces shown to be present inside Sheila's neck in the Xray, could be the remnants of a damaged pellet so damaged by the damaged silencer...
I do not think a silencer/moderator can be attached to a 22 pellet gun.
Cliff - it can be, provided that the end of the barrel is threaded for it. A Parker Hale sound moderator is sometimes used for this purpose. I have to say that I have never understood why someone would see the need for a sound moderator on an air rifle because it is quiet without one. However it is quite common now to see air rifles offered for sale with a sound moderator so they are obviously used by some people. I do not know if the BSA air rifle at WHF was threaded to accept a sound moderator.
-
NGB the person I spoke to today was certain that a hollow point .22 will break up on the softest of targets. He also suggested that this would be into three or four fragments, which is what we are seeing in the xrays. The markings on the bullet are the depth of the hollow, and are wax filled, and have been for some years. Sub sonic ammo make virtually no noise, so a moderator is not nesessary.
-
Exacly Mike. There is no way is that a waisted pellet in Sheila's neck.
Can I draw your attention to the WAX cfovering on this type of ammo.
Do you not recognise the signicance of this. Can you realise why there was no lead on Sheila's hands.
WAX WAX WAX.
I beg to differ...
But just to be specific, are you referring to the debri as shown in the xray, or to the photographs taken by Major mead, of bullet PV/20?
I give up. NBG will you tell this man that this is NOT a pellet, A pellet would not fragment, in fact I have seen someone re use a pellet taken from a rabbit. You need to rethink this Mike.
Sheila had 12 bore, 4 10 shot guns at her disposal, but chose a to end her life.
I can't buy into that.
I have to say that I would be very surprised if an air rifle was used by Sheila. If it had been used at close range the pellet could have penetrated and caused serious harm or possibly even killed, but I have never known an air rifle pellet to fragment. Depending upon the design they tend to flatten and spread. There is too little energy produced by a normal air rifle to cause fragmentation. On the other hand a .22 hollowpoint round does have a tendency to fragment. It is designed to expand on impact (similar to a dumdum) but it sometimes fragments particularly if it contacts something hard like bone. For what it is worth the defence believe that the only weapon used was the Anschutz rifle.
Some air rifles are more powerful than others, and produce greater poundage when fired, and require control by gun law:-
(1) - http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/firearms/#a01
Mike - I agree, but I do not think the BSA air rifle at WHF was a Section 1 firearm. If it had been it would have been listed on Nevill's Firearm Certificate. Also the police would not have returned it to Jeremy following the trial (as we know he could not receive it in prison so he authorised someone else to receive it).
-
Exacly Mike. There is no way is that a waisted pellet in Sheila's neck.
Can I draw your attention to the WAX cfovering on this type of ammo.
Do you not recognise the signicance of this. Can you realise why there was no lead on Sheila's hands.
WAX WAX WAX.
Cliff - you make a good point about the wax coating. After handling rimfire ammunition you feel it on your hands. I suspect that this would have the effect of reducing the amount of lead deposited. I do not know why wax is used on rimfire rounds and not on bigger centrefire rounds.
He did tell me, but I forgot. He also uses 7.62 ammo.
I will ring him to find the answer. I still think the wax covering is significant
-
Exacly Mike. There is no way is that a waisted pellet in Sheila's neck.
Can I draw your attention to the WAX cfovering on this type of ammo.
Do you not recognise the signicance of this. Can you realise why there was no lead on Sheila's hands.
WAX WAX WAX.
Cliff - you make a good point about the wax coating. After handling rimfire ammunition you feel it on your hands. I suspect that this would have the effect of reducing the amount of lead deposited. I do not know why wax is used on rimfire rounds and not on bigger centrefire rounds.
He did tell me, but I forgot. He also uses 7.62 ammo.
I will ring him to find the answer. I still think the wax covering is significant
Good work Cliff, this is what this forum was partially set up to achieve...
namely, to find out important details and factors such as this (WAX) which could have a direct bearing on why there was very little lead deposit found on Sheila's hands / hand swabs...
-
NGB the person I spoke to today was certain that a hollow point .22 will break up on the softest of targets. He also suggested that this would be into three or four fragments, which is what we are seeing in the xrays. The markings on the bullet are the depth of the hollow, and are wax filled, and have been for some years. Sub sonic ammo make virtually no noise, so a moderator is not nesessary.
Cliff - yes I agree that a hollowpoint round can fragment fairly easily. Although I have not tested this I have no reason to doubt what you have been told. As far as a sound moderator is concerned, although a .22 rimfire rifle firing subsonic ammunition makes relatively little noise, using a sound moderator reduces that noise further. When I use subsonic ammunition (I keep one of my rifles for use with subsonic ammunition) I still use a Parker Hale sound moderator, which reduces the noise to little more than a click.
-
Exacly Mike. There is no way is that a waisted pellet in Sheila's neck.
Can I draw your attention to the WAX cfovering on this type of ammo.
Do you not recognise the signicance of this. Can you realise why there was no lead on Sheila's hands.
WAX WAX WAX.
I beg to differ...
But just to be specific, are you referring to the debri as shown in the xray, or to the photographs taken by Major mead, of bullet PV/20?
I give up. NBG will you tell this man that this is NOT a pellet, A pellet would not fragment, in fact I have seen someone re use a pellet taken from a rabbit. You need to rethink this Mike.
Sheila had 12 bore, 4 10 shot guns at her disposal, but chose a to end her life.
I can't buy into that.
I have to say that I would be very surprised if an air rifle was used by Sheila. If it had been used at close range the pellet could have penetrated and caused serious harm or possibly even killed, but I have never known an air rifle pellet to fragment. Depending upon the design they tend to flatten and spread. There is too little energy produced by a normal air rifle to cause fragmentation. On the other hand a .22 hollowpoint round does have a tendency to fragment. It is designed to expand on impact (similar to a dumdum) but it sometimes fragments particularly if it contacts something hard like bone. For what it is worth the defence believe that the only weapon used was the Anschutz rifle.
Some air rifles are more powerful than others, and produce greater poundage when fired, and require control by gun law:-
(1) - http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/firearms/#a01
Mike - I agree, but I do not think the BSA air rifle at WHF was a Section 1 firearm. If it had been it would have been listed on Nevill's Firearm Certificate. Also the police would not have returned it to Jeremy following the trial (as we know he could not receive it in prison so he authorised someone else to receive it).
I have a copy of Neville Bambers firearm certificate, and Anthony Pargeters certificate somewhere, so I will search for it during my spare time to see if it is listed on either...
as for .22 pellets, you can get hunting pellets which are designed to fragment upon striking the target and cause maximum damage which some believe is useful when shooting vermin...
I should also like to add that irrespective of the poundage of an air rifle, if the silencer through which .22 pellets are fired is warped it will damage the pellet as it passes through the baffle plates of the silencer, particularly if they are misaligned and cause the pellets to fragment. This can be tested easily by someone with a warped or poorly aligned silencer and fire .22 pellets through it. The pellets will fragment if they strike the misaligned baffle plates as the pellet passes along before exiting...
-
Female skin is more delicate than male skin.
-
Mike, are you able to divulge if your informant has come forward as a direct result of your forum?
I can confirm that my informant has not come forward as a direct result of my forum going on line, but that contact between us was made by, and because of other means, which I cannot divulge...
But they are a forum member / guest as you have already stated. I am guessing that they have never posted and probably use the hide ID facility, which a few members do seem to use.
Imagine if Ann Eaton started posting? That would be class.
-
NGB the person I spoke to today was certain that a hollow point .22 will break up on the softest of targets. He also suggested that this would be into three or four fragments, which is what we are seeing in the xrays. The markings on the bullet are the depth of the hollow, and are wax filled, and have been for some years. Sub sonic ammo make virtually no noise, so a moderator is not nesessary.
The problem with this, is that not all the 25 bullets fired during these shootings fragmented into three or four pieces, unless I have missed something, somewhere...
-
Mike, are you able to divulge if your informant has come forward as a direct result of your forum?
I can confirm that my informant has not come forward as a direct result of my forum going on line, but that contact between us was made by, and because of other means, which I cannot divulge...
But they are a forum member / guest as you have already stated. I am guessing that they have never posted and probably use the hide ID facility, which a few members do seem to use.
Imagine if Ann Eaton started posting? That would be class.
Perhaps %Z% is Bob Miller? Facing up to your own mortality often leads to repentance...
-
Exacly Mike. There is no way is that a waisted pellet in Sheila's neck.
Can I draw your attention to the WAX cfovering on this type of ammo.
Do you not recognise the signicance of this. Can you realise why there was no lead on Sheila's hands.
WAX WAX WAX.
Cliff - you make a good point about the wax coating. After handling rimfire ammunition you feel it on your hands. I suspect that this would have the effect of reducing the amount of lead deposited. I do not know why wax is used on rimfire rounds and not on bigger centrefire rounds.
He did tell me, but I forgot. He also uses 7.62 ammo.
I will ring him to find the answer. I still think the wax covering is significant
7.62 mm ammunition was as I am sure you know the standard Nato round until the early 1980s. I imagine you used that ammo in the army using the SLR. In civilian use it is more usually referred to as .308", and is used in particular for deer culling. I use 6.5 x 55 ammunition, similar to the .308 but longer and with a smaller diameter. This ammunition does not have the waxy feel that rimfire ammunition does, and I imagine that your contact will probably confirm that his 7.62/.308 ammunition is the same.
-
Mike, are you able to divulge if your informant has come forward as a direct result of your forum?
I can confirm that my informant has not come forward as a direct result of my forum going on line, but that contact between us was made by, and because of other means, which I cannot divulge...
But they are a forum member / guest as you have already stated. I am guessing that they have never posted and probably use the hide ID facility, which a few members do seem to use.
Imagine if Ann Eaton started posting? That would be class.
Perhaps %Z% is Bob Miller? Facing up to your own mortality often leads to repentance...
It's funny you should mention him. For a short moment earlier today, I had wondered if you were Miller.
-
If I remeber correctly...
Didn't Anthony Pargeter originally own the BSA .22 air rifle?
-
If I remeber correctly...
Didn't Anthony Pargeter originally own the BSA .22 air rifle?
Mike - I think he did, and he gave it to Jeremy to use at WHF.
-
The way I see it...
It wouldn't matter what poundage the air rifle had, if a pellet was fired through a damaged or poorly aligned silencer, there would be enough momentum to damage the pellet or to fragment it, and get the pieces to the end of the silencers muzzle and exit it...
What interests me after this point, is what minimum velocity would be required for those pieces of pellet to penetrate the surface of the skin and end up is Sheila's neck as shown by Xray?
Would there be sufficient poundage or velocity to carry those fragmented pieces of pellet into Sheila's neck, once it had passed beyond the muzzle of the silencer, and gone into exit mode before entering the neck?
-
Mike, are you able to divulge if your informant has come forward as a direct result of your forum?
I can confirm that my informant has not come forward as a direct result of my forum going on line, but that contact between us was made by, and because of other means, which I cannot divulge...
But they are a forum member / guest as you have already stated. I am guessing that they have never posted and probably use the hide ID facility, which a few members do seem to use.
Imagine if Ann Eaton started posting? That would be class.
Perhaps %Z% is Bob Miller? Facing up to your own mortality often leads to repentance...
It's funny you should mention him. For a short moment earlier today, I had wondered if you were Miller.
8) ::) ;)
-
If I remeber correctly...
Didn't Anthony Pargeter originally own the BSA .22 air rifle?
You remember correctly Mike. He gave it to Jeremy. he mentioned this in a statement.
-
If I remeber correctly...
Didn't Anthony Pargeter originally own the BSA .22 air rifle?
Mike - I think he did, and he gave it to Jeremy to use at WHF.
Yes, thank you - I have got a copy of Anthony Pargeters firearms certificate somewhere from the COLP investigation and so it should be easy to check if it was a section 1 firearm or not?
-
If I remeber correctly...
Didn't Anthony Pargeter originally own the BSA .22 air rifle?
You remember correctly Mike. He gave it to Jeremy. he mentioned this in a statement.
Yes, thanks, I thought he did, but couldn't be sure...
-
If bullets were coated in wax, hand swab evidence relied upon during the trial (1986) and subsequent appeal, (2002) was misleading and useless. To be pondered is why Jeremy's legal team did not contact Eley ammunitions manufacturer directly and get confirmation of this?
-
Mike, are you able to divulge if your informant has come forward as a direct result of your forum?
I can confirm that my informant has not come forward as a direct result of my forum going on line, but that contact between us was made by, and because of other means, which I cannot divulge...
But they are a forum member / guest as you have already stated. I am guessing that they have never posted and probably use the hide ID facility, which a few members do seem to use.
Imagine if Ann Eaton started posting? That would be class.
Perhaps %Z% is Bob Miller? Facing up to your own mortality often leads to repentance...
It's funny you should mention him. For a short moment earlier today, I had wondered if you were Miller.
8) ::) ;)
I don't understand these avatar smilie things, or whatever they're called at all, Bob. So, can I ask you to explain what the three you've posted mean, please?
-
Here comes the rub. My expert informs me that his fingers are discoloured after loading ammo,but with a quick wash in soapy water his hands are clean.
He has a 10 shot magazine, which he can load fully in about 20 seconds. In his words "a piece of piss".
No difficulty there then!
-
Me too Bob
-
Put your pointer over the smilies choc, and it tells you what they mean.
-
If bullets were coated in wax, hand swab evidence relied upon during the trial (1986) and subsequent appeal, (2002) was misleading and useless. To be pondered is why Jeremy's legal team did not contact Eley ammunitions manufacturer directly and get confirmation of this?
Another thing...
no tests were done on the box of ammunition from which the 25 crime scene rounds were supposedly taken before usage, since all these were accounted for during test firing of the .22 anshulz rifle by the ballistics expert?
Volunteers at the lab' handled a different batch of .22 ammunition when they carried out tests of handling 18 bullets and the results obtained from handling this different batch of bullets was misused to show that if Sheila had handled waxed bullets she would have had significantly higher levels of ead deposit than she had?
Another deception performed by the prosecution, and its witnesses, and experts...
-
What happened to the other two main pieces of bullet/pellet which fragmented inside Sheila's neck?
Did Venezis only recover one piece, if so - which piece?
-
I would be interested to know which of the three fragmented pieces, as shown in the Xray, is the bullet (PV/20) which Major Mead, photographed?
-
Put your pointer over the smilies choc, and it tells you what they mean.
Thanks, Andrea, but I stil don't understand what 'cool', 'roll eye' and 'wink' together mean. Do you know?
-
No, not a clue!
-
Put your pointer over the smilies choc, and it tells you what they mean.
Thanks, Andrea, but I stil don't understand what 'cool', 'roll eye' and 'wink' together mean. Do you know?
Keira do you honestly believe that you don't know what this means?
-
No, not a clue!
posted on off top, Js
-
Put your pointer over the smilies choc, and it tells you what they mean.
Thanks, Andrea, but I stil don't understand what 'cool', 'roll eye' and 'wink' together mean. Do you know?
Keira do you honestly believe that you don't know what this means?
No, I don't, explain it to me, please Cliff.
-
No, not a clue!
posted on off top, Js
Uh?
-
To Andrea about Jimmy Saville
-
To Andrea about Jimmy Saville
Oh, right, sorry, I thought it was an obscure explanation of those three avatar things.
-
Put your pointer over the smilies choc, and it tells you what they mean.
Thanks, Andrea, but I stil don't understand what 'cool', 'roll eye' and 'wink' together mean. Do you know?
I don't know either my lovely, ;)
Keira do you honestly believe that you don't know what this means?
No, I don't, explain it to me, please Cliff.
-
Put your pointer over the smilies choc, and it tells you what they mean.
Thanks, Andrea, but I stil don't understand what 'cool', 'roll eye' and 'wink' together mean. Do you know?
I don't know either my lovely, ;)
Keira do you honestly believe that you don't know what this means?
No, I don't, explain it to me, please Cliff.
It means that he thinks it's cool that I thought of him as Miller, the wink, an added further 'tongue in cheek' suggestion that he might be Miller. The upward eyes simply point to my original message, in reference to his response.
-
Bob could be miller, the cop miller?
-
Bob could be miller, the cop miller?
Very much doubt it. But stranger things have happened. If Miller was ever a scientist, then there's your answer.
-
Bob could be miller, the cop miller?
I'm sure Bob said he's from Somerset or thereabouts!
-
truth is often strnager than fiction roch, i notice hes gone quiet?
-
I can still recall the scenes on the steps of the Court of Appeal after the release of The Guildford 4 and others, and I doubt that I am the only one. It did challenge the credibility of the police and shook the judicial establishment to its core. I suggest that the eventual quashing of Mr Bamber’s conviction (and it WILL happen) will have a similar impact, and that is why Mr Bamber remains in prison. I believe that one of the casualties of Mr Bamber’s eventual release could well spell the end of the CCRC. I dug this out for you rochford someone else shares your view
-
truth is often strnager than fiction roch, i notice hes gone quiet?
Trolls too
-
I can still recall the scenes on the steps of the Court of Appeal after the release of The Guildford 4 and others, and I doubt that I am the only one. It did challenge the credibility of the police and shook the judicial establishment to its core. I suggest that the eventual quashing of Mr Bamber’s conviction (and it WILL happen) will have a similar impact, and that is why Mr Bamber remains in prison. I believe that one of the casualties of Mr Bamber’s eventual release could well spell the end of the CCRC. I dug this out for you rochford someone else shares your view
Thanks Deedar. Who's view is it, if not yours?
-
I can still recall the scenes on the steps of the Court of Appeal after the release of The Guildford 4 and others, and I doubt that I am the only one. It did challenge the credibility of the police and shook the judicial establishment to its core. I suggest that the eventual quashing of Mr Bamber’s conviction (and it WILL happen) will have a similar impact, and that is why Mr Bamber remains in prison. I believe that one of the casualties of Mr Bamber’s eventual release could well spell the end of the CCRC. I dug this out for you rochford someone else shares your view
Thanks Deedar. Who's view is it, if not yours?
It had got name withheld, prob someone who works for them ha ha
-
Bullet information:-
here, ballistic expert, Fletcher, describes bullet PV/20 as a whole bullet, which he says is strongly suggestive that it had been fired via the anshulz rifle, now - bullet (PV/20) which was photographed by Major mead was not a whole bullet by anybodies standards...
-
According to Fletcher, 12 of the 25 crime scene bullets were WHOLE in appearance, but amongst those 12 he includes bullet PV/20, which is clearly not a whole bullet, by reference to the xray, or photographs taken of it...
The 25 crime scene bullets
WHOLE - 12
NEARLY WHOLE - 9
Half a BULLET - 1
FRAGMENTS OF BULLET - 3
-
'Z' asked me to post the trial transcript of DC David Hammersley, on the forum if I had got a copy of it, because 'Z' told me that when Hammersley testified he mentioned things which involved the cover up...
I have therefore, found the said transcript and am posting it in its entirety for consideration, and to facilitate debate on the evidence given during the trial by DC Hammerlsey:-
-
Bob could be miller, the cop miller?
He could be windy miller.
-
'Z' asked me to post the trial transcript of DC David Hammersley, on the forum if I had got a copy of it, because 'Z' told me that when Hammersley testified he mentioned things which involved the cover up...
I have therefore, found the said transcript and am posting it in its entirety for consideration, and to facilitate debate on the evidence given during the trial by DC Hammerlsey:-
Every one would do well to take time and trouble to read through the testimony of DC Hammersley which he gave at Jeremy's trial, in October 1986...
-
I have been contacted again via a go between, asking me to arrange a further meeting with 'Z' in the coming week...
'Z' has told me through a go between that some of 'Z's colleagues have been asking questions about who 'Z' could be? Of course, 'Z' has denied any knowledge of even knowing about the character referred to as 'Z'...
Hmnnn...
something is starting to stir...
-
I have been contacted again via a go between, asking me to arrange a further meeting with 'Z' in the coming week...
'Z' has told me through a go between that some of 'Z's colleagues have been asking questions about who 'Z' could be? Of course, 'Z' has denied any knowledge of even knowing about the character referred to as 'Z'...
Hmnnn...
something is starting to stir...
So...
Montgomery moved the rifle, not DI Cook?
-
I have been contacted again via a go between, asking me to arrange a further meeting with 'Z' in the coming week...
'Z' has told me through a go between that some of 'Z's colleagues have been asking questions about who 'Z' could be? Of course, 'Z' has denied any knowledge of even knowing about the character referred to as 'Z'...
Hmnnn...
something is starting to stir...
So...
Montgomery moved the rifle, not DI Cook?
Not only did Montgomery remove the rifle, rather than Di Cook do it, but Montgomery removed the ammunition magazine...
-
I have been contacted again via a go between, asking me to arrange a further meeting with 'Z' in the coming week...
'Z' has told me through a go between that some of 'Z's colleagues have been asking questions about who 'Z' could be? Of course, 'Z' has denied any knowledge of even knowing about the character referred to as 'Z'...
Hmnnn...
something is starting to stir...
So...
Montgomery moved the rifle, not DI Cook?
Not only did Montgomery remove the rifle, rather than Di Cook do it, but Montgomery removed the ammunition magazine...
A bit strange that, Montgomery removing the rifle from Sheila's body and taking off the ammunition magazine as well - how come there are no pictures with the ammunition magazine missing from the rifle?
-
I have been contacted again via a go between, asking me to arrange a further meeting with 'Z' in the coming week...
'Z' has told me through a go between that some of 'Z's colleagues have been asking questions about who 'Z' could be? Of course, 'Z' has denied any knowledge of even knowing about the character referred to as 'Z'...
Hmnnn...
something is starting to stir...
So...
Montgomery moved the rifle, not DI Cook?
Not only did Montgomery remove the rifle, rather than Di Cook do it, but Montgomery removed the ammunition magazine...
A bit strange that, Montgomery removing the rifle from Sheila's body and taking off the ammunition magazine as well - how come there are no pictures with the ammunition magazine missing from the rifle?
How come that when DI Cook testified, hwe claimed to have removed the rifle from Sheila's body and stood it against the bedroom window?
-
I have been contacted again via a go between, asking me to arrange a further meeting with 'Z' in the coming week...
'Z' has told me through a go between that some of 'Z's colleagues have been asking questions about who 'Z' could be? Of course, 'Z' has denied any knowledge of even knowing about the character referred to as 'Z'...
Hmnnn...
something is starting to stir...
So...
Montgomery moved the rifle, not DI Cook?
Not only did Montgomery remove the rifle, rather than Di Cook do it, but Montgomery removed the ammunition magazine...
A bit strange that, Montgomery removing the rifle from Sheila's body and taking off the ammunition magazine as well - how come there are no pictures with the ammunition magazine missing from the rifle?
How come that when DI Cook testified, he claimed to have removed the rifle from Sheila's body and stood it against the bedroom window?
Funny, also...
that when PC Bird testified, he claimed he did not see who removed the rifle from atop Sheila's body, despite him being the one who was taking the crime scene pictures?
I will have to sort out the testimony of DI Cook and PC Bird from the trial, along with the testimony of DS Davidson, so that everyone can get a better picture of what took place, who did what, when and why?
Surely...
all of them at least got their stories right, right?
-
Off to bed...
going to Newmarket, and Colchester, in the early hours of the morning, might call in to see a few old friends of mine if time permits...
-
from his evidence in court it makes me wonder if he was ever there at whf or the mortuary on the 7th.
He seems to get a lot of things wrong.
Kitchen lights included....tut tut...even if he went to whf on other occasions..such as the 8th and 9th he paid no attention to the lights .....
talking of the kitchen lights...and from what is reported in that transcript ....someone else seems to have got it wrong on the kitchen lights as well...which is puzzling...and her name is Anne Eaton.
She too seems to have got the broken light (lampshade) the wrong way round...which suggests it was removed or taken down prior to her ever entering the house on the evening of the 9th.
She claims the wrong light was the one that was damaged in her COLP interview.
------------------------------------------------------------
ah...the rifle....now how easy or hard would it be to remove the magazine while grasping just the metal loops of the rifle that a strap would attach to?
Was it not Woodcock who as well claims to have removed the rifle from Sheila to make sure it was safe?
-
from his evidence in court it makes me wonder if he was ever there at whf or the mortuary on the 7th.
He seems to get a lot of things wrong.
Kitchen lights included....tut tut...even if he went to whf on other occasions..such as the 8th and 9th he paid no attention to the lights .....
talking of the kitchen lights...and from what is reported in that transcript ....someone else seems to have got it wrong on the kitchen lights as well...which is puzzling...and her name is Anne Eaton.
She too seems to have got the broken light (lampshade) the wrong way round...which suggests it was removed or taken down prior to her ever entering the house on the evening of the 9th.
She claims the wrong light was the one that was damaged in her COLP interview.
------------------------------------------------------------
ah...the rifle....now how easy or hard would it be to remove the magazine while grasping just the metal loops of the rifle that a strap would attach to?
Was it not Woodcock who as well claims to have removed the rifle from Sheila to make sure it was safe?
Mike, do you not think you have deceived people enough lately? ::)
-
PS Woodcock makes a statement cling he removed rifle from Sheila`s body and made it safe ¤- so now we have three named police officers, PI Montgomery, DI Cook and PS Woodcock, all involved with removing the rifle from Sheila's body at one time or another? This is important information, since there were clearly three occasions when somebody moved the rifle off or away from Sheila`s body...
For example, once before PS Adams visited the bedroom and viewed Sheila`s body minus the rifle (as described to COLP), before 9am, secondly, and thirdly, as proofed by the position of the rifles barrel (1) beneath point of chin, and (2) resting against Sheila`s neck? Somebody would have to be responsible for removing the rifle on three occasions linked to this scenario, and `Z` has confided in me that Woodcock, Cook and Montgomery, were principle participants engaged in the stage managing of Sheila`s body in the bedroom...
`Z` has told me that JB has been blamed for doing the very things, that Woodcock, Cook and Montgomery
Have done...
It was the prosecutions case at trial, and still is to this day, despite some 26 years having elapsed, that whoever stage managed Sheila Caffells body, killed her...
`Z` told me, that this is true, but that it was the police who stage managed her body,, and the police who ultimately killed her...
-
from his evidence in court it makes me wonder if he was ever there at whf or the mortuary on the 7th.
He seems to get a lot of things wrong.
Kitchen lights included....tut tut...even if he went to whf on other occasions..such as the 8th and 9th he paid no attention to the lights .....
talking of the kitchen lights...and from what is reported in that transcript ....someone else seems to have got it wrong on the kitchen lights as well...which is puzzling...and her name is Anne Eaton.
She too seems to have got the broken light (lampshade) the wrong way round...which suggests it was removed or taken down prior to her ever entering the house on the evening of the 9th.
She claims the wrong light was the one that was damaged in her COLP interview.
------------------------------------------------------------
ah...the rifle....now how easy or hard would it be to remove the magazine while grasping just the metal loops of the rifle that a strap would attach to?
Was it not Woodcock who as well claims to have removed the rifle from Sheila to make sure it was safe?
Mike, do you not think you have deceived people enough lately? ::)
Why make comments to me, on a post made by Smiffy?
-
Thanks to information provided to me by `Z` recently, it is now possible to put names to the police officers who were responsible for stage managing the scene, (Woodcock, Cook and Montgomery). Police testimony given to COLP, and a series of crime scene photographs (already in existence and posted elsewhere on the forum) help to prove and establish this beyond doubt...
-
`Z` provided me with the identity of the police officer who was handling the rifle when it went off accidentally inflicting the second wound under the chin, which effectively killed Sheila, and sparked a cover up...
-
from his evidence in court it makes me wonder if he was ever there at whf or the mortuary on the 7th.
He seems to get a lot of things wrong.
Kitchen lights included....tut tut...even if he went to whf on other occasions..such as the 8th and 9th he paid no attention to the lights .....
talking of the kitchen lights...and from what is reported in that transcript ....someone else seems to have got it wrong on the kitchen lights as well...which is puzzling...and her name is Anne Eaton.
She too seems to have got the broken light (lampshade) the wrong way round...which suggests it was removed or taken down prior to her ever entering the house on the evening of the 9th.
She claims the wrong light was the one that was damaged in her COLP interview.
------------------------------------------------------------
ah...the rifle....now how easy or hard would it be to remove the magazine while grasping just the metal loops of the rifle that a strap would attach to?
Was it not Woodcock who as well claims to have removed the rifle from Sheila to make sure it was safe?
Mike, do you not think you have deceived people enough lately? ::)
Why make comments to me, on a post made by Smiffy?
That's because you are actually the same person, aren't you Mike, Smiffy is your phone and is why you never post links or documents under that name.
As Mike, you have never ever posted a document without making a whole series of comments about it, that is of course except for the firearms officers statements on the 'new board' which you have made the comments when signed in as Smiffy. Why are they on a new board? Well that's so you can get to them more easily when using your phone.
Plus the similarities in sentence construction of posts and that you've got yourself all confused recently and started replying when logged in as the wrong user name.
Oh and I've just caught you smiting me, an old Smiffy special.
I must admit, I'm slightly embarrassed to have been deceived by you for so long, but not half as embarrassed as how you should be feeling.
-
`Z` provided me with the identity of the police officer who was handling the rifle when it went off accidentally inflicting the second wound under the chin, which effectively killed Sheila, and sparked a cover up...
What were these cops doing. Aren't they trained not to mess around with firearms before they had made them safe. If they don't know how then leave well alone. Would they do that with a bomb? "Now let me see, chuck me that bomb and we'll see where it was put to be more effective". Of course they wouldn't. Suppose if had been a shotgun? "Oh, you just hold that triggerwhile I sniff the barrel to see if it has been fired". What makes me think that either it was unlikely that what "z" said is true? Or they were incredibly stupid cops?
-
from his evidence in court it makes me wonder if he was ever there at whf or the mortuary on the 7th.
He seems to get a lot of things wrong.
Kitchen lights included....tut tut...even if he went to whf on other occasions..such as the 8th and 9th he paid no attention to the lights .....
talking of the kitchen lights...and from what is reported in that transcript ....someone else seems to have got it wrong on the kitchen lights as well...which is puzzling...and her name is Anne Eaton.
She too seems to have got the broken light (lampshade) the wrong way round...which suggests it was removed or taken down prior to her ever entering the house on the evening of the 9th.
She claims the wrong light was the one that was damaged in her COLP interview.
------------------------------------------------------------
ah...the rifle....now how easy or hard would it be to remove the magazine while grasping just the metal loops of the rifle that a strap would attach to?
Was it not Woodcock who as well claims to have removed the rifle from Sheila to make sure it was safe?
Mike, do you not think you have deceived people enough lately? ::)
Why make comments to me, on a post made by Smiffy?
That's because you are actually the same person, aren't you Mike, Smiffy is your phone and is why you never post links or documents under that name.
As Mike, you have never ever posted a document without making a whole series of comments about it, that is of course except for the firearms officers statements on the 'new board' which you have made the comments when signed in as Smiffy. Why are they on a new board? Well that's so you can get to them more easily when using your phone.
Plus the similarities in sentence construction of posts and that you've got yourself all confused recently and started replying when logged in as the wrong user name.
Oh and I've just caught you smiting me, an old Smiffy special.
I must admit, I'm slightly embarrassed to have been deceived by you for so long, but not half as embarrassed as how you should be feeling.
Is that right....Steve? ::)
-
So Hartley ..going by the Ann Eaton claims about the light in the kitchen which were proven wrong...means some of your ramblings on here about the said light are also wrong...
Ann had not been to whf for a long while prior to the murder..it seems..so she would not exactly be familiar with it...the new gun cupboard, new external door, where the phone was kept, which light in the kitchen had a lampshade on it etc... ie she was ignorant of many things....yet it did not stop that evil woman from giving false evidence and making claims she had no right to make.
So why did Ann make a claim that the broken lampshade light was the one nearest the stairs when police photographs show it was not....was this because that light was nearer to the scratch on the shelf that was created later on with the moderator...was it because the frame up persons imagined a rifle being swung and feasibly a rifle swung that may scratch the aga surround/shelf could also strike the light nearest the stairs and this was the false scenario that was being created. When in reality the broken lampshade was on the light furthest from the stairs and thus not in the area where a rifle swung to cause marks on the aga could also strike a lampshade if fitted....
Basically if something like a rifle or stool struck the lampshade ....then this happened well away from the aga surround scratch marks that some evil people later created to frame JB.
-
Next, Hartly will be saying I am the copper that fired the gun that killed Sheila...
-
from his evidence in court it makes me wonder if he was ever there at whf or the mortuary on the 7th.
He seems to get a lot of things wrong.
Kitchen lights included....tut tut...even if he went to whf on other occasions..such as the 8th and 9th he paid no attention to the lights .....
talking of the kitchen lights...and from what is reported in that transcript ....someone else seems to have got it wrong on the kitchen lights as well...which is puzzling...and her name is Anne Eaton.
She too seems to have got the broken light (lampshade) the wrong way round...which suggests it was removed or taken down prior to her ever entering the house on the evening of the 9th.
She claims the wrong light was the one that was damaged in her COLP interview.
------------------------------------------------------------
ah...the rifle....now how easy or hard would it be to remove the magazine while grasping just the metal loops of the rifle that a strap would attach to?
Was it not Woodcock who as well claims to have removed the rifle from Sheila to make sure it was safe?
Mike, do you not think you have deceived people enough lately? ::)
Why make comments to me, on a post made by Smiffy?
That's because you are actually the same person, aren't you Mike, Smiffy is your phone and is why you never post links or documents under that name.
As Mike, you have never ever posted a document without making a whole series of comments about it, that is of course except for the firearms officers statements on the 'new board' which you have made the comments when signed in as Smiffy. Why are they on a new board? Well that's so you can get to them more easily when using your phone.
Plus the similarities in sentence construction of posts and that you've got yourself all confused recently and started replying when logged in as the wrong user name.
Oh and I've just caught you smiting me, an old Smiffy special.
I must admit, I'm slightly embarrassed to have been deceived by you for so long, but not half as embarrassed as how you should be feeling.
Is that right....Steve? ::)
Yes, unfortunately and rather disappointingly, it is Grahame. You're having the piss taken out of you, and not by me.
-
Next, Hartly will be saying I am the copper that fired the gun that killed Sheila...
Hahahahahahahahaha ;D Nice one, Mike.
-
Good morning all
Mike, are you in possession of, or have you posted the witness statement of your informant?
I will understand if you are not in a position to answer this.....
Thankyou.
-
from his evidence in court it makes me wonder if he was ever there at whf or the mortuary on the 7th.
He seems to get a lot of things wrong.
Kitchen lights included....tut tut...even if he went to whf on other occasions..such as the 8th and 9th he paid no attention to the lights .....
talking of the kitchen lights...and from what is reported in that transcript ....someone else seems to have got it wrong on the kitchen lights as well...which is puzzling...and her name is Anne Eaton.
She too seems t
o have got the broken light (lampshade) the wrong way round...which suggests it was removed or taken down prior to her ever entering the house on the evening of the 9th.
She claims the wrong light was the one that was damaged in her COLP interview.
------------------------------------------------------------
ah...the rifle....now how easy or hard would it be to remove the magazine while grasping just the metal loops of the rifle that a strap would attach to?
Was it not Woodcock who as well claims to have removed the rifle from Sheila to make sure it was safe?
Mike, do you not think you have deceived people enough lately? ::)
Why make comments to me, on a post made by Smiffy?
That's because you are actually the same person, aren't you Mike, Smiffy is your phone and is why you never post links or documents under that name.
As Mike, you have never ever posted a document without making a whole series of comments about it, that is of course except for the firearms officers statements on the 'new board' which you have made the comments when signed in as Smiffy. Why are they on a new board? Well that's so you can get to them more easily when using your phone.
Plus the similarities in sentence construction of posts and that you've got yourself all confused recently and started replying when logged in as the wrong user name.
Oh and I've just caught you smiting me, an old Smiffy special.
I must admit, I'm slightly embarrassed to have been deceived by you for so long, but not half as embarrassed as how you should be feeling.
Is that right....Steve? ::)
Yes, unfortunately and rather disappointingly, it is Grahame. You're having the piss taken out of you, and not by me.
You`ll be claiming next that I am the copper that took the silencer which the relatives found on 11th September to the lab` on the 26th September which only had paint on it...
-
Mike,
I must sheepishly admit that I did wonder for a time if you and Smiffy were the same person - because you are both so astonishingly knowledgeable in respect of this case. However, I've changed my mind because:
1. You both post simultaneously.
2. There are distinct differences in your sentence construction and respective use of grammar.
3. You disagree with each other at times and I can't see you establishing a forum alter ego and using this to undermine your own credibility.
4. Hartley believes you're Smiffy. As Hartley's wrong on everything else, his support for this view is sufficient in itself to make me question it.
5. One of Hartley's absurd reasons: following weeks of appalling rudeness, provocation and smears on your character by Hartley, you finally responded as any normal human being would do, got mad and smited him! What planet is the man on!
6. I've been watching 'Who's online' a lot during the past week or two and I have not seen you smite anyone at any time.
7. For Hartley, who set up the false identity, Steve, to accuse you of doing the same is mighty rich and grossly hypocritical.
8. Hartley is a classic case of paranoid projection: he projects his faults onto others whom he even blames for these. Perhaps we should send him to Dr Ferguson jnr?
-
Quote from Bob: As I understand it Mike/Smiffy, this is what you now want us to believe...
It is about time that this suggestion that Mike Tesko and Smiffy are the same person is laid to rest. They are not the same person, and I am not saying that simply because they use a different IP address and are sometimes online at the same time. This suggestion originates with John Lamberton and it has been repeated so many times elswhere and recently here that some people are starting to believe it. Do not believe it, because it is nonsense designed to taunt forum members. I am addressing this to those who are pro Bamber as much as to those who are against or are undecided.
This is exactly what John Lamberton done on other forums that he frequented to cause disruption. He accused another site owner of being Smiffy and went from one forum to the next repeating it, till eventually other posters were doing the same. It is only now after many many months, that these people have realised they were fooled when they see or have been told that further accusations have been made by John Lamberton that Mike Tesco is Smiffy. Unfortunately much damage has been done by then and now due to his deliberate and malicious accusation.
-
Mike,
I must sheepishly admit that I did wonder for a time if you and Smiffy were the same person - because you are both so astonishingly knowledgeable in respect of this case. However, I've changed my mind because:
1. You both post simultaneously.
2. There are distinct differences in your sentence construction and respective use of grammar.
3. You disagree with each other at times and I can't see you establishing a forum alter ego and using this to undermine your own credibility.
4. Hartley believes you're Smiffy. As Hartley's wrong on everything else, his support for this view is sufficient in itself to make me question it.
5. One of Hartley's absurd reasons: following weeks of appalling rudeness, provocation and smears on your character by Hartley, you finally responded as any normal human being would do, got mad and smited him! What planet is the man on!
6. I've been watching 'Who's online' a lot during the past week or two and I have not seen you smite anyone at any time.
7. For Hartley, who set up the false identity, Steve, to accuse you of doing the same is mighty rich and grossly hypocritical.
8. Hartley is a classic case of paranoid projection: he blames others for his own faults. Perhaps we should send him to Dr Ferguson jnr?
Or perhaps he could get an appointment to see the illusive DR Harris ?
-
Keira
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Check my posts on here if people want.
I state I have posted as Outsider on the wrongly accused person forum... easy to check..
I was on that long before joining this forum.
Obviously my posting style will be basically the same as when using smiffy on here or outsider on the WAP forum...
clearly I am not Mike.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hammersley in court claimed about the 2 bullet cases found near to Sheila that one was found one side of her and the other was on the other side of her. He also claims to have logged and collected as found.
The sequence of these two bullet cases is that they were found first of all prior to the body being moved.
One is described as lying between the bible and a slipper and is supposedly photographed.
Oddly no slipper appears in any long distance shots of that part of the bedroom...was Hammersley misidentifying socks for slippers? most strange.
However in Woodcock's statement he claims he saw the two bullet cases that were found close to Sheila only when her body had been removed and that they were lying on the floor between her body and the bed.
Clearly the 2 accounts contradict each other and the errors are not of a type in which it could be passed off as a simple mistake. Something is very wrong and at least one account is a fabrication if not both of them at least on this issue.
-
I have been asked to post the trial transcript of DI Cook, DS Davidson and PC bird for the purpose of completeness, since it will enable everyone to see the bigger picture. Once you see what all the SOCO are saying, it become Crystal clear that there accounts of what took place does not. Add up or tie in...
-
Mike,
I must sheepishly admit that I did wonder for a time if you and Smiffy were the same person - because you are both so astonishingly knowledgeable in respect of this case. However, I've changed my mind because:
1. You both post simultaneously.
2. There are distinct differences in your sentence construction and respective use of grammar.
3. You disagree with each other at times and I can't see you establishing a forum alter ego and using this to undermine your own credibility.
4. Hartley believes you're Smiffy. As Hartley's wrong on everything else, his support for this view is sufficient in itself to make me question it.
5. One of Hartley's absurd reasons: following weeks of appalling rudeness, provocation and smears on your character by Hartley, you finally responded as any normal human being would do, got mad and smited him! What planet is the man on!
6. I've been watching 'Who's online' a lot during the past week or two and I have not seen you smite anyone at any time.
7. For Hartley, who set up the false identity, Steve, to accuse you of doing the same is mighty rich and grossly hypocritical.
8. Hartley is a classic case of paranoid projection: he blames others for his own faults. Perhaps we should send him to Dr Ferguson jnr?
Or perhaps he could get an appointment to see the illusive DR Harris ?
Great idea, ask him to cure Hartley's compulsive smiting at the same time. He just smited me again ;D
-
Three different police officers moved rifle off body, when once should have sufficed ...
-
I know that Sheila was photographed on the bed at a time when she was still alive. And only had one wound to her neck. I also know that she was shot under the chin for a second time whIst she was still on the bed, before her body was moved to the floor...
-
I. Know that Sheila was photographed on the bed at a time when she was still alive. And only had one wound to her neck. I also know that she was shot under the chin for a second time whIst she was still on the bed, before her body was moved to the floor...
I have believed in Jeromy's innocence for a long time now, but I am troubled by Mikes posts.
I can not get my head around that the police fired the fatal shot.
I can see no reason for this.
I am not about to change my mind, but mikes take on this is beyond me.
Z does nothing for me, as I still feel stung by Ali Bongo, so I am very cautious.
If mike is taking the piss again, then I will leave the forum.
I have been thinking about Z for some time now, and I could make these statements as it is available on this sight. No problems there then.
Us pro Bambers will listen to any misinformation, and trust in mike, but it does not do it for me.
After 26 years Z decides enough is enough, and is going to spill his guts. Why?
He has the power of EP behind him. He could of collected a million quid a few years back, so why do it for nothing. I have yet to meet a copper with a coinciance
-
sorry for my crap spelling.
-
I. Know that Sheila was photographed on the bed at a time when she was still alive. And only had one wound to her neck. I also know that she was shot under the chin for a second time whIst she was still on the bed, before her body was moved to the floor...
I have believed in Jeromy's innocence for a long time now, but I am troubled by Mikes posts.
I can not get my head around that the police fired the fatal shot.
I can see no reason for this.
I am not about to change my mind, but mikes take on this is beyond me.
Z does nothing for me, as I still feel stung by Ali Bongo, so I am very cautious.
If mike is taking the piss again, then I will leave the forum.
I have been thinking about Z for some time now, and I could make these statements as it is available on this sight. No problems there then.
Us pro Bambers will listen to any misinformation, and trust in mike, but it does not do it for me.
After 26 years Z decides enough is enough, and is going to spill his guts. Why?
He has the power of EP behind him. He could of collected a million quid a few years back, so why do it for nothing. I have yet to meet a copper with a coinciance
If Z exists he will not be alone there will be others, no one person could have such information.
-
This thread is bollocks, and cannot be sugbstanciated, Spelling crap again. Sorry.
-
I. Know that Sheila was photographed on the bed at a time when she was still alive. And only had one wound to her neck. I also know that she was shot under the chin for a second time whIst she was still on the bed, before her body was moved to the floor...
I have believed in Jeromy's innocence for a long time now, but I am troubled by Mikes posts.
I can not get my head around that the police fired the fatal shot.
I can see no reason for this.
I am not about to change my mind, but mikes take on this is beyond me.
Z does nothing for me, as I still feel stung by Ali Bongo, so I am very cautious.
If mike is taking the piss again, then I will leave the forum.
I have been thinking about Z for some time now, and I could make these statements as it is available on this sight. No problems there then.
Us pro Bambers will listen to any misinformation, and trust in mike, but it does not do it for me.
After 26 years Z decides enough is enough, and is going to spill his guts. Why?
He has the power of EP behind him. He could of collected a million quid a few years back, so why do it for nothing. I have yet to meet a copper with a coinciance
If Z exists he will not be alone there will be others, no one person could have such information.
Z does not exist, he is a figment of Mikes imagination.
-
Mike,
I must sheepishly admit that I did wonder for a time if you and Smiffy were the same person - because you are both so astonishingly knowledgeable in respect of this case. However, I've changed my mind because:
1. You both post simultaneously.
2. There are distinct differences in your sentence construction and respective use of grammar.
3. You disagree with each other at times and I can't see you establishing a forum alter ego and using this to undermine your own credibility.
4. Hartley believes you're Smiffy. As Hartley's wrong on everything else, his support for this view is sufficient in itself to make me question it.
5. One of Hartley's absurd reasons: following weeks of appalling rudeness, provocation and smears on your character by Hartley, you finally responded as any normal human being would do, got mad and smited him! What planet is the man on!
6. I've been watching 'Who's online' a lot during the past week or two and I have not seen you smite anyone at any time.
7. For Hartley, who set up the false identity, Steve, to accuse you of doing the same is mighty rich and grossly hypocritical.
8. Hartley is a classic case of paranoid projection: he projects his faults onto others whom he even blames for these. Perhaps we should send him to Dr Ferguson jnr?
Keira, you can post on an i phone with no problems.
-
I have yet to meet a copper with a coinciance
Is coinciance a conscience obout money Cliff? ;D
-
sorry for my crap spelling.
Your spelling is not as bad as you think it is, Cliff, you go ahead and spell how you want, that's your right. The spelling and grammar Fascists can go to blazes!
-
I have yet to meet a copper with a coinciance
Is coinciance a conscience obout money Cliff? ;D
I love your new avatar, it's much nicer you than that grumpy face. Grahame's a pussy cat :D
-
I have yet to meet a copper with a coinciance
Is coinciance a conscience obout money Cliff? ;D
I love your new avatar, it's much more you than that grumpy face. Grahame's a pussy cat :D
Err... do you really mean that? It's cat that looks like Hitler ::)
-
I. Know that Sheila was photographed on the bed at a time when she was still alive. And only had one wound to her neck. I also know that she was shot under the chin for a second time whIst she was still on the bed, before her body was moved to the floor...
I have believed in Jeromy's innocence for a long time now, but I am troubled by Mikes posts.
I can not get my head around that the police fired the fatal shot.
I can see no reason for this.
I am not about to change my mind, but mikes take on this is beyond me.
Z does nothing for me, as I still feel stung by Ali Bongo, so I am very cautious.
If mike is taking the piss again, then I will leave the forum.
I have been thinking about Z for some time now, and I could make these statements as it is available on this sight. No problems there then.
Us pro Bambers will listen to any misinformation, and trust in mike, but it does not do it for me.
After 26 years Z decides enough is enough, and is going to spill his guts. Why?
He has the power of EP behind him. He could of collected a million quid a few years back, so why do it for nothing. I have yet to meet a copper with a coinciance
be grateful for all the evidence 'Z' has uncovered and is helping to uncover...
-
sorry for my crap spelling.
Your spelling is not as bad as you think it is, Cliff, you go ahead and spell how you want, that's your right. The spelling and grammar Fascists can go to blazes!
Shakespeare didn't do too bad. In his day there was no standard spelling.
-
I have yet to meet a copper with a coinciance
Is coinciance a conscience obout money Cliff? ;D
I love your new avatar, it's much more you than that grumpy face. Grahame's a pussy cat :D
A Hitler pussy cat. ;D
-
I have yet to meet a copper with a coinciance
Is coinciance a conscience obout money Cliff? ;D
I love your new avatar, it's much nicer than that grumpy face. Grahame's a pussy cat :D
Err... do you really mean that? It's cat that looks like Hitler ::)
Aw, but it's a sweet little cat, don't be mean, Bob
-
sorry for my crap spelling.
Your spelling is not as bad as you think it is, Cliff, you go ahead and spell how you want, that's your right. The spelling and grammar Fascists can go to blazes!
Shakespeare didn't do too bad. In his day there was no standard spelling.
Exactly.
-
Hammersley quote in court.
"This is the first time I had used a kit similar to this."
This being the hand swabs supposedly taken from Sheila.
What is wrong with the man ...does he have a problem with language and common sense?
Was his answer such a mess and incorrectly tensed as it was a fabrication full stop...he was out of his depth and lied.
His incorrect use of present tense in his answer is a most powerful indicator that he was being deceptive.
How can the kit he was using be similar to the kit he was using...would it not be not merely similar but identical because it was one and the same?
-
Hammersley quote in court.
"This is the first time I had used a kit similar to this."
This being the hand swabs supposedly taken from Sheila.
What is wrong with the man ...does he have a problem with language and common sense?
Was his answer such a mess and incorrectly tensed as it was a fabrication full stop...he was out of his depth and lied.
His incorrect use of present tense in his answer is a most powerful indicator that he was being deceptive.
How can the kit he was using be similar to the kit he was using...would it not be not merely similar but identical because it was one and the same?
Good points, Smiffy. This should be one short, simple sentence describing the procedure Hammersley used to take the swabs. Yet this sentence is riddled with jittery self defence and contradictions. Why is Hammersley so nervous and defensive? Why does he nonsensically mix the past and present tense? Why would an experienced police officer use such a clumsy and evasive expression in court? Why use the word 'similar' which makes nonsense of this statement? Hammersley seems to be so defensive and so afraid that he'll say the wrong thing - and be caught out doing so? - that he ends up spouting nonsense. I think you're right, in my opinion, he's covering something up.
-
Hammersley quote in court.
"This is the first time I had used a kit similar to this."
This being the hand swabs supposedly taken from Sheila.
What is wrong with the man ...does he have a problem with language and common sense?
Was his answer such a mess and incorrectly tensed as it was a fabrication full stop...he was out of his depth and lied.
His incorrect use of present tense in his answer is a most powerful indicator that he was being deceptive.
How can the kit he was using be similar to the kit he was using...would it not be not merely similar but identical because it was one and the same?
Good points, Smiffy. This should be one short, simple sentence describing the procedure Hammersley used to take the swabs. Yet this sentence is riddled with jittery self defence and contradictions. Why is Hammersley so nervous and defensive? Why does he nonsensically mix the past and present tense? Why would an experienced police officer use such a clumsy and evasive expression in court? Why use the word 'similar' which makes nonsense of this statement? Hammersley seems to be so defensive and so afraid that he'll say the wrong thing - and be caught out doing so? - that he ends up spouting nonsense. I think you're right, in my opinion, he's covering something up.
If Hammersley had actually taken the swabs after reading the instructions he would have known all about the samples all going off together in one complete kit back to the lab. Again ..a person taking the swabs and having read all the instructions would also know when taking the swabs that all the samples taken would be sent as one package...thus leading to no errors on the paperwork in which DRH numbers started to be issued and then crossed out when the mistake was realised. It appears to me to be the case that Hammersley did not take the swabs at all.
I am also of the view from errors in his story that he was not present on the 7th as claimed.
His notebook entries about swabs at 11.00 am seem wrong....as going by his court evidence and that of others ...he did not bag up or take any sample until the scene had been photographed. We have 2 officers claiming to remove the rifle at 11.10 am so that would mean he could not even start bagging Sheila's hands or head etc until after this time.
In court Hammersley fails to mention Woodcock as being present or about when the rifle was examined and removed. Though Woodcock claims Hammersley was there. Clearly there is some deception of a very serious nature going on and it appears to be with both persons accouts.
It is feasible that the information mainly used by Hammersley in regards to the 7th august could have come from both Cook and Davidson with some lesser parts maybe from others.
The claims about being supervised by Cook very tightly on days other than the 7th could well betray Cook playing a key role in controlling and manipulating forensics and other SOC activities so as to cover up what really happened that Hammersley may not be fully aware of.
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got into the kitchen
Two bodies, neither checked properly to see if still alive, it turns out Sheila was not shot at all, but that there was blood on the floor beside where her body was laying. Police now know that she was faking being dead, but in their haste to search the farmhouse and look for all the other potential victims, they left Sheila's body in the kitchen unsupervised...
This mistake...
led to further complications later when Sheila got upstairs and shot herself by use of a rifle with a silencer fitted to its barrel, this other rifle was the .22 air rifle, not the .22semi-automatic anshulz rifle, police believe that Sheila gathered up this air rifle at the bottom of the stairs in the kitchen, and that she took it upstairs with her to the bedroom. Sheila was shot with use of the .22 air rifle in the side of the neck at a time when a silencer was fitted to the end of its barrel, this is what 'Z' told me...
Mike, I believe the evidence or tale being submitted by 'Z' is incorrect regarding the air rifle.
IF the police KNEW Sheila used the .22 air rifle, then why would they not dispose it? Instead - without it being cleaned - the Police handed the gun over to me upon Jeremy's imprisonment.
they must be more stupid than i thought
Police handed whf over to the relatives, which if we are to believe what we have been told, contained the silencer, the .22 air rifle and all the other weapons and ammunitions, part of which was used in the shootings, at least in the case of the silencer and the .22 air rifle, and a 12 bore shotgun, and not forgetting Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle, if it was there or not?
'Z' showed me a photograph of Sheila on the bed when there was only one wound present there - if you were to look at this photograph and take out the upper entry wound and accompanying trail of blood and fingermarks from it, and also the horizontal type blood trail from the lower wound (which is an overlay from the blood from the upper entry wound, you would be left with the lower entry wound, and a vertical trail of dried blood running from the lower entry wound - this is as close to what I saw regarding blood flow from the lower wound in the photograph which 'Z' showed to me the other day:-
There was no rifle barrel against the neck in the photograph 'Z' showed me...
Mike, the air rifle was not left at whf.....it was given to me.....by the police themselves! Therefore, I do believe it was not used..........and they had hold of that rifle along time before I got hold of it.
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got into the kitchen
Two bodies, neither checked properly to see if still alive, it turns out Sheila was not shot at all, but that there was blood on the floor beside where her body was laying. Police now know that she was faking being dead, but in their haste to search the farmhouse and look for all the other potential victims, they left Sheila's body in the kitchen unsupervised...
This mistake...
led to further complications later when Sheila got upstairs and shot herself by use of a rifle with a silencer fitted to its barrel, this other rifle was the .22 air rifle, not the .22semi-automatic anshulz rifle, police believe that Sheila gathered up this air rifle at the bottom of the stairs in the kitchen, and that she took it upstairs with her to the bedroom. Sheila was shot with use of the .22 air rifle in the side of the neck at a time when a silencer was fitted to the end of its barrel, this is what 'Z' told me...
Mike, I believe the evidence or tale being submitted by 'Z' is incorrect regarding the air rifle.
IF the police KNEW Sheila used the .22 air rifle, then why would they not dispose it? Instead - without it being cleaned - the Police handed the gun over to me upon Jeremy's imprisonment.
they must be more stupid than i thought
Police handed whf over to the relatives, which if we are to believe what we have been told, contained the silencer, the .22 air rifle and all the other weapons and ammunitions, part of which was used in the shootings, at least in the case of the silencer and the .22 air rifle, and a 12 bore shotgun, and not forgetting Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle, if it was there or not?
'Z' showed me a photograph of Sheila on the bed when there was only one wound present there - if you were to look at this photograph and take out the upper entry wound and accompanying trail of blood and fingermarks from it, and also the horizontal type blood trail from the lower wound (which is an overlay from the blood from the upper entry wound, you would be left with the lower entry wound, and a vertical trail of dried blood running from the lower entry wound - this is as close to what I saw regarding blood flow from the lower wound in the photograph which 'Z' showed to me the other day:-
There was no rifle barrel against the neck in the photograph 'Z' showed me...
Mike, the air rifle was not left at whf.....it was given to me.....by the police themselves! Therefore, I do believe it was not used..........and they had hold of that rifle along time before I got hold of it.
Funnt then...
Why police should seize it along with 12 bore shotgun and fingerprint it, and find fingerprints on both whIch police became Interested in? The .22 air rifle was eventually found by relatives at bottom of small stairs in kitchen, within a very short distance of Ralph` body, and on the route Sheila took to get upstairs. There is even a belief that the rifle which WPC Jeapes saw leaning against the bedroom window before armed police went in, could have been the air rifle which was used to inflict the first shot...
-
A serious question for Mike..... Mike this is a very critical stage in Jeremy's fight for freedom and to prove his innocence. I am amazed at how much time and effort you have given to this case over many years and for that pro Bamber's are truly grateful. I was just thinking if you could see a time when you would hand over all the documents in your possession to Jeremy's legal team (especially now dynamic Simon is on board) and really let them do their stuff. If anyone can free Jeremy then it will be them. This is so serious Mike, I think if I was you I would hand over the documents and call it a day for the forum. I would be happy that my work is done and that my friend Jeremy is being represented legally and highly professionally, something that I am not. What do you think to my statement Mike? This is certainly not a criticism of you at all, just my thoughts about what I would have done. All the best Mike.
-
Dale, I wonder if you would be so good as to introduce yourself in the foyer before you post again? Thank you. :)
-
You appear worried dale....
Carry on as you have been doing Mike.
The more information that is public knowledge the better.
I feel sure JB's legal representatives will have all the documents Mike has already and they can contact him if they feel they have not.
-
Dale is a strong supporter of Jeremy, I suspect possibly linked to FB Innocent Page.
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got into the kitchen
Two bodies, neither checked properly to see if still alive, it turns out Sheila was not shot at all, but that there was blood on the floor beside where her body was laying. Police now know that she was faking being dead, but in their haste to search the farmhouse and look for all the other potential victims, they left Sheila's body in the kitchen unsupervised...
This mistake...
led to further complications later when Sheila got upstairs and shot herself by use of a rifle with a silencer fitted to its barrel, this other rifle was the .22 air rifle, not the .22semi-automatic anshulz rifle, police believe that Sheila gathered up this air rifle at the bottom of the stairs in the kitchen, and that she took it upstairs with her to the bedroom. Sheila was shot with use of the .22 air rifle in the side of the neck at a time when a silencer was fitted to the end of its barrel, this is what 'Z' told me...
Mike, I believe the evidence or tale being submitted by 'Z' is incorrect regarding the air rifle.
IF the police KNEW Sheila used the .22 air rifle, then why would they not dispose it? Instead - without it being cleaned - the Police handed the gun over to me upon Jeremy's imprisonment.
they must be more stupid than i thought
Police handed whf over to the relatives, which if we are to believe what we have been told, contained the silencer, the .22 air rifle and all the other weapons and ammunitions, part of which was used in the shootings, at least in the case of the silencer and the .22 air rifle, and a 12 bore shotgun, and not forgetting Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle, if it was there or not?
'Z' showed me a photograph of Sheila on the bed when there was only one wound present there - if you were to look at this photograph and take out the upper entry wound and accompanying trail of blood and fingermarks from it, and also the horizontal type blood trail from the lower wound (which is an overlay from the blood from the upper entry wound, you would be left with the lower entry wound, and a vertical trail of dried blood running from the lower entry wound - this is as close to what I saw regarding blood flow from the lower wound in the photograph which 'Z' showed to me the other day:-
There was no rifle barrel against the neck in the photograph 'Z' showed me...
Mike, the air rifle was not left at whf.....it was given to me.....by the police themselves! Therefore, I do believe it was not used..........and they had hold of that rifle along time before I got hold of it.
Funnt then...
Why police should seize it along with 12 bore shotgun and fingerprint it, and find fingerprints on both whIch police became Interested in? The .22 air rifle was eventually found by relatives at bottom of small stairs in kitchen, within a very short distance of Ralph` body, and on the route Sheila took to get upstairs. There is even a belief that the rifle which WPC Jeapes saw leaning against the bedroom window before armed police went in, could have been the air rifle which was used to inflict the first shot...
Mike: What does 'Funnt then......' mean? I have no idea.
Regarding the rifle, I do not understand how, 'Z' can say that the Police KNEW the air rifle was used......that they knew from the beginning. My point is, if the Police KNEW this, then why would they hand it to me. They had it in their possesssion for a few years before they delivered it to me.
Why did they not 'lose' it? Instead, they handed it to me personally, in the full knowledge that one day this rifle could be used at a later date should their be any discrepencies in the case.
Also, 'Z' stated (I believe), that relatives/whf held the rifle. That in fact is incorrect information.
You know these facts already......upon all the info I have, this does not add up.
-
On this video his former lawyer also say's it's 'really sad' and that 'a thoroughly innocent man is in jail'!!
Perhaps you should take another look and listen to the whole report before you start posting.
i didnt say he din't say that i just said of the evidence, no need to twist matters because you don't like what his former lawyers says. It has nothing to do with what i posted.
With respect I must disagree with you there, Dale. You cherry picked this old report, which has both negative and positive aspects from Bamber's point of view, and reported solely the negative aspect here. So it has everything to do with what you posted because you attempted to give this report a negative slant. It doesn't take rocket science to guess why you might have done that.
If Dale is Dale Rudge (22) Grahame, he's linked to you know who.
-
If Dale is Dale Rudge (22) Grahame, he's linked to you know who.
They are not linked :)
-
Dale is a strong supporter of Jeremy, I suspect possibly linked to FB Innocent Page.
Those on the innocent page don't agree with the forum. They think Jeremy doesn't want it. But Jeremy appears to say different things to different people? Because he told both ngb and Jackie that he doesn't mind the forum only some of the things discussed on the forum.
-
Mike: What does 'Funnt then......' mean? I have no idea.
Regarding the rifle, I do not understand how, 'Z' can say that the Police KNEW the air rifle was used......that they knew from the beginning. My point is, if the Police KNEW this, then why would they hand it to me. They had it in their possesssion for a few years before they delivered it to me.
Why did they not 'lose' it? Instead, they handed it to me personally, in the full knowledge that one day this rifle could be used at a later date should their be any discrepencies in the case.
Also, 'Z' stated (I believe), that relatives/whf held the rifle. That in fact is incorrect information.
You know these facts already......upon all the info I have, this does not add up.
I think funnt is a misspelling of funny?
Cd's are you still in possession of this rifle? I think I remember you saying that you no longer have it? Also another contact told be that Jeremy only owned an air rifle and had no other firearms at his cottage. Is this right?
-
Mike: What does 'Funnt then......' mean? I have no idea.
Regarding the rifle, I do not understand how, 'Z' can say that the Police KNEW the air rifle was used......that they knew from the beginning. My point is, if the Police KNEW this, then why would they hand it to me. They had it in their possesssion for a few years before they delivered it to me.
Why did they not 'lose' it? Instead, they handed it to me personally, in the full knowledge that one day this rifle could be used at a later date should their be any discrepencies in the case.
Also, 'Z' stated (I believe), that relatives/whf held the rifle. That in fact is incorrect information.
You know these facts already......upon all the info I have, this does not add up.
I think funnt is a misspelling of funny?
Cd's are you still in possession of this rifle? I think I remember you saying that you no longer have it? Also another contact told be that Jeremy only owned an air rifle and had no other firearms at his cottage. Is this right?
Hi Grahame,
Regarding Jeremy owning a firearm or not, it's information I received so long ago, I cannot remember. I do however, have a recollection of being told all firearms (be his or the family's) were kept at whf.
I had to remove the rifle from my home as my children grow up.
-
Mike: What does 'Funnt then......' mean? I have no idea.
Regarding the rifle, I do not understand how, 'Z' can say that the Police KNEW the air rifle was used......that they knew from the beginning. My point is, if the Police KNEW this, then why would they hand it to me. They had it in their possesssion for a few years before they delivered it to me.
Why did they not 'lose' it? Instead, they handed it to me personally, in the full knowledge that one day this rifle could be used at a later date should their be any discrepencies in the case.
Also, 'Z' stated (I believe), that relatives/whf held the rifle. That in fact is incorrect information.
You know these facts already......upon all the info I have, this does not add up.
I think funnt is a misspelling of funny?
Cd's are you still in possession of this rifle? I think I remember you saying that you no longer have it? Also another contact told be that Jeremy only owned an air rifle and had no other firearms at his cottage. Is this right?
Hi Grahame,
Regarding Jeremy owning a firearm or not, it's information I received so long ago, I cannot remember. I do however, have a recollection of being told all firearms (be his or the family's) were kept at whf.
I had to remove the rifle from my home as my children grow up.
Thank you Cd's. I must let the forum know that I believe your information to be reliable, accurate and trustworthy.
-
Mike: What does 'Funnt then......' mean? I have no idea.
Regarding the rifle, I do not understand how, 'Z' can say that the Police KNEW the air rifle was used......that they knew from the beginning. My point is, if the Police KNEW this, then why would they hand it to me. They had it in their possesssion for a few years before they delivered it to me.
Why did they not 'lose' it? Instead, they handed it to me personally, in the full knowledge that one day this rifle could be used at a later date should their be any discrepencies in the case.
Also, 'Z' stated (I believe), that relatives/whf held the rifle. That in fact is incorrect information.
You know these facts already......upon all the info I have, this does not add up.
I think funnt is a misspelling of funny?
Cd's are you still in possession of this rifle? I think I remember you saying that you no longer have it? Also another contact told be that Jeremy only owned an air rifle and had no other firearms at his cottage. Is this right?
Hi Grahame,
Regarding Jeremy owning a firearm or not, it's information I received so long ago, I cannot remember. I do however, have a recollection of being told all firearms (be his or the family's) were kept at whf.
I had to remove the rifle from my home as my children grow up.
Thank you Cd's. I must let the forum know that I believe your information to be reliable, accurate and trustworthy.
Does that mean that 'z' got it wrong?
-
I have been re reading the statements of R,& D Boutflours In particular the events of 10 Aug. 1985.
To say they are muddled would be an understatement.
RB. I went with my daughter to WHF where we met my son David, and Mr Cock.
On finding the moderator RB said you had better give them to the police son.
DB. On the 10 Aug.1985 I arranged to meet Ann at WHF, and on arrival at 11 am Ann was aready there on her own. We were then joined by Mr Cock.He does not metion his father in this statement, but does in further statements.
It also seems that RB, DB, and AE informed the police of the finding of the moderator.
Of interest as well is the statement of Ann's regarding the packaging of the moderator. Ann said Jones put it in a kitchen roll holder, and sellotaped the ends.
When Jones gave evidence under oath he said I put the moderator in a kitchen roll holder, as I had nothing with me, I then folded the ends over and placed a peg at each end.
-
Mike: What does 'Funnt then......' mean? I have no idea.
Regarding the rifle, I do not understand how, 'Z' can say that the Police KNEW the air rifle was used......that they knew from the beginning. My point is, if the Police KNEW this, then why would they hand it to me. They had it in their possesssion for a few years before they delivered it to me.
Why did they not 'lose' it? Instead, they handed it to me personally, in the full knowledge that one day this rifle could be used at a later date should their be any discrepencies in the case.
Also, 'Z' stated (I believe), that relatives/whf held the rifle. That in fact is incorrect information.
You know these facts already......upon all the info I have, this does not add up.
I think funnt is a misspelling of funny?
Cd's are you still in possession of this rifle? I think I remember you saying that you no longer have it? Also another contact told be that Jeremy only owned an air rifle and had no other firearms at his cottage. Is this right?
Hi Grahame,
Regarding Jeremy owning a firearm or not, it's information I received so long ago, I cannot remember. I do however, have a recollection of being told all firearms (be his or the family's) were kept at whf.
I had to remove the rifle from my home as my children grow up.
Thank you Cd's. I must let the forum know that I believe your information to be reliable, accurate and trustworthy.
Does that mean that 'z' got it wrong?
Looks like it don't it?
-
In the court transcript concerning Hammersley he claims to have been supervised when examining the scene by Cook. However in his COLP interview DS Davidson claims to have supervised Hammersley.
Rather strange is it not. Davidson also claimed at the COLP interview at first that he was searching/finding items...but when its pointed out he filled in the forms he changed his mind and claimed Hammersley was searching. How about Hammersley not being present on the 7th and Davidson doing both searching and filling in the forms.
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got into the kitchen
Two bodies, neither checked properly to see if still alive, it turns out Sheila was not shot at all, but that there was blood on the floor beside where her body was laying. Police now know that she was faking being dead, but in their haste to search the farmhouse and look for all the other potential victims, they left Sheila's body in the kitchen unsupervised...
This mistake...
led to further complications later when Sheila got upstairs and shot herself by use of a rifle with a silencer fitted to its barrel, this other rifle was the .22 air rifle, not the .22semi-automatic anshulz rifle, police believe that Sheila gathered up this air rifle at the bottom of the stairs in the kitchen, and that she took it upstairs with her to the bedroom. Sheila was shot with use of the .22 air rifle in the side of the neck at a time when a silencer was fitted to the end of its barrel, this is what 'Z' told me...
Mike, I believe the evidence or tale being submitted by 'Z' is incorrect regarding the air rifle.
IF the police KNEW Sheila used the .22 air rifle, then why would they not dispose it? Instead - without it being cleaned - the Police handed the gun over to me upon Jeremy's imprisonment.
they must be more stupid than i thought
Police handed whf over to the relatives, which if we are to believe what we have been told, contained the silencer, the .22 air rifle and all the other weapons and ammunitions, part of which was used in the shootings, at least in the case of the silencer and the .22 air rifle, and a 12 bore shotgun, and not forgetting Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle, if it was there or not?
'Z' showed me a photograph of Sheila on the bed when there was only one wound present there - if you were to look at this photograph and take out the upper entry wound and accompanying trail of blood and fingermarks from it, and also the horizontal type blood trail from the lower wound (which is an overlay from the blood from the upper entry wound, you would be left with the lower entry wound, and a vertical trail of dried blood running from the lower entry wound - this is as close to what I saw regarding blood flow from the lower wound in the photograph which 'Z' showed to me the other day:-
There was no rifle barrel against the neck in the photograph 'Z' showed me...
Mike, the air rifle was not left at whf.....it was given to me.....by the police themselves! Therefore, I do believe it was not used..........and they had hold of that rifle along time before I got hold of it.
Funnt then...
Why police should seize it along with 12 bore shotgun and fingerprint it, and find fingerprints on both whIch police became Interested in? The .22 air rifle was eventually found by relatives at bottom of small stairs in kitchen, within a very short distance of Ralph` body, and on the route Sheila took to get upstairs. There is even a belief that the rifle which WPC Jeapes saw leaning against the bedroom window before armed police went in, could have been the air rifle which was used to inflict the first shot...
Mike: What does 'Funnt then......' mean? I have no idea.
Regarding the rifle, I do not understand how, 'Z' can say that the Police KNEW the air rifle was used......that they knew from the beginning. My point is, if the Police KNEW this, then why would they hand it to me. They had it in their possesssion for a few years before they delivered it to me.
Why did they not 'lose' it? Instead, they handed it to me personally, in the full knowledge that one day this rifle could be used at a later date should their be any discrepencies in the case.
Also, 'Z' stated (I believe), that relatives/whf held the rifle. That in fact is incorrect information.
You know these facts already......upon all the info I have, this does not add up.
FIrst of all...
Pollice handed over one of the two principle silencers in this case over to the relatives, so it does not necessarily follow that if it was used the police would not hand it over...
Secondly...
Relatives took possessIon of the .22 Air rifle from the scene on 10th August, they kept it until afternoon of 12th August. At which point Jeremy went to see the Eatons, demanding its return. The relatives handed Jeremy it back, along with the 12 bore shotgun. If relatives had got the silencer by that stage they would have given it back, also...
Air rifle was used, in the same way one of the two principle silencers was used, and handed back...
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got into the kitchen
Two bodies, neither checked properly to see if still alive, it turns out Sheila was not shot at all, but that there was blood on the floor beside where her body was laying. Police now know that she was faking being dead, but in their haste to search the farmhouse and look for all the other potential victims, they left Sheila's body in the kitchen unsupervised...
This mistake...
led to further complications later when Sheila got upstairs and shot herself by use of a rifle with a silencer fitted to its barrel, this other rifle was the .22 air rifle, not the .22semi-automatic anshulz rifle, police believe that Sheila gathered up this air rifle at the bottom of the stairs in the kitchen, and that she took it upstairs with her to the bedroom. Sheila was shot with use of the .22 air rifle in the side of the neck at a time when a silencer was fitted to the end of its barrel, this is what 'Z' told me...
Mike, I believe the evidence or tale being submitted by 'Z' is incorrect regarding the air rifle.
IF the police KNEW Sheila used the .22 air rifle, then why would they not dispose it? Instead - without it being cleaned - the Police handed the gun over to me upon Jeremy's imprisonment.
they must be more stupid than i thought
Police handed whf over to the relatives, which if we are to believe what we have been told, contained the silencer, the .22 air rifle and all the other weapons and ammunitions, part of which was used in the shootings, at least in the case of the silencer and the .22 air rifle, and a 12 bore shotgun, and not forgetting Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle, if it was there or not?
'Z' showed me a photograph of Sheila on the bed when there was only one wound present there - if you were to look at this photograph and take out the upper entry wound and accompanying trail of blood and fingermarks from it, and also the horizontal type blood trail from the lower wound (which is an overlay from the blood from the upper entry wound, you would be left with the lower entry wound, and a vertical trail of dried blood running from the lower entry wound - this is as close to what I saw regarding blood flow from the lower wound in the photograph which 'Z' showed to me the other day:-
There was no rifle barrel against the neck in the photograph 'Z' showed me...
Mike, the air rifle was not left at whf.....it was given to me.....by the police themselves! Therefore, I do believe it was not used..........and they had hold of that rifle along time before I got hold of it.
Funnt then...
Why police should seize it along with 12 bore shotgun and fingerprint it, and find fingerprints on both whIch police became Interested in? The .22 air rifle was eventually found by relatives at bottom of small stairs in kitchen, within a very short distance of Ralph` body, and on the route Sheila took to get upstairs. There is even a belief that the rifle which WPC Jeapes saw leaning against the bedroom window before armed police went in, could have been the air rifle which was used to inflict the first shot...
Mike: What does 'Funnt then......' mean? I have no idea.
Regarding the rifle, I do not understand how, 'Z' can say that the Police KNEW the air rifle was used......that they knew from the beginning. My point is, if the Police KNEW this, then why would they hand it to me. They had it in their possesssion for a few years before they delivered it to me.
Why did they not 'lose' it? Instead, they handed it to me personally, in the full knowledge that one day this rifle could be used at a later date should their be any discrepencies in the case.
Also, 'Z' stated (I believe), that relatives/whf held the rifle. That in fact is incorrect information.
You know these facts already......upon all the info I have, this does not add up.
FIrst of all...
Pollice handed over one of the two principle silencers in this case over to the relatives, so it does not necessarily follow that if it was used the police would not hand it over...
Secondly...
Relatives took possessIon of the .22 Air rifle from the scene on 10th August, they kept it until afternoon of 12th August. At which point Jeremy went to see the Eatons, demanding its return. The relatives handed Jeremy it back, along with the 12 bore shotgun. If relatives had got the silencer by that stage they would have given it back, also...
Air rifle was used, in the same way one of the two principle silencers was used, and handed back...
Mike, this does not add up. You said that the relatives handed the air rifle back to Jeremy. But Cd's said that the police handed it to Cd's? How did the police get it again?
-
Smiffy. I have absolutely nothing to worry about. I am 100% certain Jeremy's team are working very hard with the evidence before them. I only asked the question of Mike because he is not a legal professional and thought if I was in his position I would want my friend to have the very best advice possible with regards ALL the evidence available, no matter where it came from or who had it in their loft. I have nothing against Mike whatsoever.
-
Zorro, has been found out now and is wanting. I personally do not believe this at all.
Too much infomation out the to hoodwink the forum.
Why are you trying this Mike? It is laughable.
Meeting someone in a wood is a bit rich, but you took some nice pictures. You will never find someone to cough up.
I do not doubt your motives, but you need to give us some credit.
I do wonder though how many people were taken in. Forget this Mike and put Zorro to bed with Ali Bongo it has run it's course.
-
I would be astonished if the moderator fitted the air rifle. I have not seen a air rifle with a screw end to accomodate a silencer, though I admit this could exist
-
Mike, may I respectfully ask when you intend to post the statements of Cook, Davidson and Bird.
Thankyou.
-
Zorro, has been found out now and is wanting. I personally do not believe this at all.
Too much infomation out the to hoodwink the forum.
Why are you trying this Mike? It is laughable.
Meeting someone in a wood is a bit rich, but you took some nice pictures. You will never find someone to cough up.
I do not doubt your motives, but you need to give us some credit.
I do wonder though how many people were taken in. Forget this Mike and put Zorro to bed with Ali Bongo it has run it's course.
You should be careful what you are saying, you might end up with egg on your face, 'Z' not only exists, we have met twIce and I have been shown three photographs, as previously described, and I have been given valuable information. You nor anyone else have demonstrated to me that `Z` has it wrong about the use of the air rifle in the shooting of Sheila, until you can produce evidence to suggest otherwise, you might like to consider taking a step back and thinking about what you've been saying ...
Long live `Z`...
-
Zorro, has been found out now and is wanting. I personally do not believe this at all.
Too much infomation out the to hoodwink the forum.
Why are you trying this Mike? It is laughable.
Meeting someone in a wood is a bit rich, but you took some nice pictures. You will never find someone to cough up.
I do not doubt your motives, but you need to give us some credit.
I do wonder though how many people were taken in. Forget this Mike and put Zorro to bed with Ali Bongo it has run it's course.
You should be careful what you are saying, you might end up with egg on your face, 'Z' not only exists, we have met twIce and I have been shown three photographs, as previously described, and I have been given valuable information. You nor anyone else have demonstrated to me that `Z` has it wrong about the use of the air rifle in the shooting of Sheila, until you can produce evidence to suggest otherwise, you might like to consider taking a step back and thinking about what you've been saying ...
Long live `Z`...
Thing is Mike we are batting for the same team, but I am not a Patsy that believes everything you come out with.
Mike are you sure that the moderator is compatable with a 22 air rifle I can assure you they are not.
I do not need to step back, because I believe JB is innocent, but your latest posts are not credible.
I have to say I do not think Zorro exist. Sorry but I have been duped before. Once bitten ect.
-
'Z' s account of what police found once they got into the kitchen
Two bodies, neither checked properly to see if still alive, it turns out Sheila was not shot at all, but that there was blood on the floor beside where her body was laying. Police now know that she was faking being dead, but in their haste to search the farmhouse and look for all the other potential victims, they left Sheila's body in the kitchen unsupervised...
This mistake...
led to further complications later when Sheila got upstairs and shot herself by use of a rifle with a silencer fitted to its barrel, this other rifle was the .22 air rifle, not the .22semi-automatic anshulz rifle, police believe that Sheila gathered up this air rifle at the bottom of the stairs in the kitchen, and that she took it upstairs with her to the bedroom. Sheila was shot with use of the .22 air rifle in the side of the neck at a time when a silencer was fitted to the end of its barrel, this is what 'Z' told me...
Mike, I believe the evidence or tale being submitted by 'Z' is incorrect regarding the air rifle.
IF the police KNEW Sheila used the .22 air rifle, then why would they not dispose it? Instead - without it being cleaned - the Police handed the gun over to me upon Jeremy's imprisonment.
they must be more stupid than i thought
Police handed whf over to the relatives, which if we are to believe what we have been told, contained the silencer, the .22 air rifle and all the other weapons and ammunitions, part of which was used in the shootings, at least in the case of the silencer and the .22 air rifle, and a 12 bore shotgun, and not forgetting Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle, if it was there or not?
'Z' showed me a photograph of Sheila on the bed when there was only one wound present there - if you were to look at this photograph and take out the upper entry wound and accompanying trail of blood and fingermarks from it, and also the horizontal type blood trail from the lower wound (which is an overlay from the blood from the upper entry wound, you would be left with the lower entry wound, and a vertical trail of dried blood running from the lower entry wound - this is as close to what I saw regarding blood flow from the lower wound in the photograph which 'Z' showed to me the other day:-
There was no rifle barrel against the neck in the photograph 'Z' showed me...
Mike, the air rifle was not left at whf.....it was given to me.....by the police themselves! Therefore, I do believe it was not used..........and they had hold of that rifle along time before I got hold of it.
Funnt then...
Why police should seize it along with 12 bore shotgun and fingerprint it, and find fingerprints on both whIch police became Interested in? The .22 air rifle was eventually found by relatives at bottom of small stairs in kitchen, within a very short distance of Ralph` body, and on the route Sheila took to get upstairs. There is even a belief that the rifle which WPC Jeapes saw leaning against the bedroom window before armed police went in, could have been the air rifle which was used to inflict the first shot...
Mike: What does 'Funnt then......' mean? I have no idea.
Regarding the rifle, I do not understand how, 'Z' can say that the Police KNEW the air rifle was used......that they knew from the beginning. My point is, if the Police KNEW this, then why would they hand it to me. They had it in their possesssion for a few years before they delivered it to me.
Why did they not 'lose' it? Instead, they handed it to me personally, in the full knowledge that one day this rifle could be used at a later date should their be any discrepencies in the case.
Also, 'Z' stated (I believe), that relatives/whf held the rifle. That in fact is incorrect information.
You know these facts already......upon all the info I have, this does not add up.
FIrst of all...
Pollice handed over one of the two principle silencers in this case over to the relatives, so it does not necessarily follow that if it was used the police would not hand it over...
Secondly...
Relatives took possessIon of the .22 Air rifle from the scene on 10th August, they kept it until afternoon of 12th August. At which point Jeremy went to see the Eatons, demanding its return. The relatives handed Jeremy it back, along with the 12 bore shotgun. If relatives had got the silencer by that stage they would have given it back, also...
Air rifle was used, in the same way one of the two principle silencers was used, and handed back...
Mike, this does not add up. You said that the relatives handed the air rifle back to Jeremy. But Cd's said that the police handed it to Cd's? How did the police get it again?
Simple enough explanation...
(1) Air rifle at scene with silencer fitted to its barrel, and used to shoot Sheila
(2) Police cover up involved DS `Stan` Jones taking silencer off air rifle and putting the silencer back in the gun cupboard, and in its place he took the other silencer belonging to Anthony Pargeter which was kept in the downstairs toilet, into his possession
(3) Police left air rifle, and silencer which was attached at the time Sheila was shot at the scene, so that when polIce handed keys over to Ann Eaton on evening of 9th August, air rifle and silencer, were effectively handed over insitu by the police to the relatives
(4) Air rifle was recovered by Ann Eaton from the small spiral staircase in the corner of tHe kitchen
(5) Silencer remained in gun cupboard where DS Jones had put it, and was not found by the relatives until after Jeremy had been arrested on the first occasion in early September...
(6) Relatives took air rifle home and kept it there until Jeremy asked for it back on afternoon on 12th August
(7) Jeremy retained possess of air rile, untiil time of his next arrest, at which point police took possession of it from hios cottage with the co-operation of his relatives
(8) Police also took possession of a 12 bore shotgun which was being va$ued at Sotherbys, both were finger printed
(9) After trial police want to return air rifle to Jeremy who ios convicted and serving life imprisonment, prison refuse to keep air rife in prison property store, so Jeremy m$akles arrangement for police to hand it over to person I
In London area
-
Maybe it is because the only is air weapons I have owned have never had a screw end to accomadate a silencer, I have had Webley, and BSA, and probably a few in between. Non have had a facillaty for a silencer.
I am not trying to score points here Mike. but the readers need to be aware.
Maybe NGB can enlighten us.
-
Zorro, has been found out now and is wanting. I personally do not believe this at all.
Too much infomation out the to hoodwink the forum.
Why are you trying this Mike? It is laughable.
Meeting someone in a wood is a bit rich, but you took some nice pictures. You will never find someone to cough up.
I do not doubt your motives, but you need to give us some credit.
I do wonder though how many people were taken in. Forget this Mike and put Zorro to bed with Ali Bongo it has run it's course.
You should be careful what you are saying, you might end up with egg on your face, 'Z' not only exists, we have met twIce and I have been shown three photographs, as previously described, and I have been given valuable information. You nor anyone else have demonstrated to me that `Z` has it wrong about the use of the air rifle in the shooting of Sheila, until you can produce evidence to suggest otherwise, you might like to consider taking a step back and thinking about what you've been saying ...
Long live `Z`...
Thing is Mike we are batting for the same team, but I am not a Patsy that believes everything you come out with.
Mike are you sure that the moderator is compatable with a 22 air rifle I can assure you they are not.
I do not need to step back, because I believe JB is innocent, but your latest posts are not credible.
I have to say I do not think Zorro exist. Sorry but I have been duped before. Once bitten ect.
Why have you invented the name, `Zoro`?
If anybody is responsible for any invention in this matter, you would do well to look no further than yourself, in this instance...
-
I used Zorro because he was the masked crusader. Nothing more.
What have I ever invented Mike?
-
I used Zorro because he was the masked crusader. Nothing more.
What have I ever invented Mike?
The name `Zoro` and attributed that name to my informant, trying to turn 'Z` into something she or he is most definitely not...
-
I used Zorro because he was the masked crusader. Nothing more.
What have I ever invented Mike?
The name `Zoro` and attributed that name to my informant, trying to turn 'Z` into something she or he is most definitely not...
Mike you need to get into your nut. I have no desire to argue with you. I told you we are on the same side, but I am not going to let you take the piss.
Unlike you Mike I am inventing nothing, and I truley believe you are doing harm. Perhaps you need to step back and consider what you are saying.
I do not think that anyone believes you at the moment, but I accept that I could be wildly wrong.
-
I used Zorro because he was the masked crusader. Nothing more.
What have I ever invented Mike?
The name `Zoro` and attributed that name to my informant, trying to turn 'Z` into something she or he is most definitely not...
Mike you need to get into your nut. I have no desire to argue with you. I told you we are on the same side, but I am not going to let you take the piss.
Unlike you Mike I am inventing nothing, and I truley believe you are doing harm. Perhaps you need to step back and consider what you are saying.
I do not think that anyone believes you at the moment, but I accept that I could be wildly wrong.
You believe what you believe, and leave me to know what I know, you are taking the piss out of yourself, nobody needs to do it for you...
Have you got any idea what happened to the original piece of fragmented pellet from the air rifle that was the original PV/20?
I doubt it...
Do you know where the substituted bullet (PV/20) originated from?
I doubt it...
But. `Z` does...
-
I used Zorro because he was the masked crusader. Nothing more.
What have I ever invented Mike?
The name `Zoro` and attributed that name to my informant, trying to turn 'Z` into something she or he is most definitely not...
Mike you need to get into your nut. I have no desire to argue with you. I told you we are on the same side, but I am not going to let you take the piss.
Unlike you Mike I am inventing nothing, and I truley believe you are doing harm. Perhaps you need to step back and consider what you are saying.
I do not think that anyone believes you at the moment, but I accept that I could be wildly wrong.
You believe what you believe, and leave me to know what I know, you are taking the piss out of yourself, nobody needs to do it for you...
Have you got any idea what happened to the original piece of fragmented pellet from the air rifle that was the original PV/20?
I doubt it...
Do you know where the substituted bullet (PV/20) originated from?
I doubt it...
But. `Z` does...
[/quote
IT WAS NOT A PELLET
-
I used Zorro because he was the masked crusader. Nothing more.
What have I ever invented Mike?
The name `Zoro` and attributed that name to my informant, trying to turn 'Z` into something she or he is most definitely not...
Mike you need to get into your nut. I have no desire to argue with you. I told you we are on the same side, but I am not going to let you take the piss.
Unlike you Mike I am inventing nothing, and I truley believe you are doing harm. Perhaps you need to step back and consider what you are saying.
I do not think that anyone believes you at the moment, but I accept that I could be wildly wrong.
You believe what you believe, and leave me to know what I know, you are taking the piss out of yourself, nobody needs to do it for you...
Have you got any idea what happened to the original piece of fragmented pellet from the air rifle that was the original PV/20?
I doubt it...
Do you know where the substituted bullet (PV/20) originated from?
I doubt it...
But. `Z` does...
I say again IT WAS NOT A PELLET
-
Fuck it was a pellet, and Z is on the button, My son is a virgin, and my daughter is going to be nun, And I am mother terasia
-
Simple enough explanation...
(1) Air rifle at scene with silencer fitted to its barrel, and used to shoot Sheila
(2) Police cover up involved DS `Stan` Jones taking silencer off air rifle and putting the silencer back in the gun cupboard, and in its place he took the other silencer belonging to Anthony Pargeter which was kept in the downstairs toilet, into his possession
(3) Police left air rifle, and silencer which was attached at the time Sheila was shot at the scene, so that when polIce handed keys over to Ann Eaton on evening of 9th August, air rifle and silencer, were effectively handed over insitu by the police to the relatives
(4) Air rifle was recovered by Ann Eaton from the small spiral staircase in the corner of tHe kitchen
(5) Silencer remained in gun cupboard where DS Jones had put it, and was not found by the relatives until after Jeremy had been arrested on the first occasion in early September...
(6) Relatives took air rifle home and kept it there until Jeremy asked for it back on afternoon on 12th August
(7) Jeremy retained possess of air rile, untiil time of his next arrest, at which point police took possession of it from hios cottage with the co-operation of his relatives
(8) Police also took possession of a 12 bore shotgun which was being va$ued at Sotherbys, both were finger printed
(9) After trial police want to return air rifle to Jeremy who ios convicted and serving life imprisonment, prison refuse to keep air rife in prison property store, so Jeremy m$akles arrangement for police to hand it over to person I
In London area
Mike what happened to the 12 bore shot gun? Was that Jeremy's as well?
-
I used Zorro because he was the masked crusader. Nothing more.
What have I ever invented Mike?
The name `Zoro` and attributed that name to my informant, trying to turn 'Z` into something she or he is most definitely not...
I doubt "Z" is a woman. For what woman would arrange to meet a stange man in a wood unaccompanied?
-
I used Zorro because he was the masked crusader. Nothing more.
What have I ever invented Mike?
The name `Zoro` and attributed that name to my informant, trying to turn 'Z` into something she or he is most definitely not...
Mike you need to get into your nut. I have no desire to argue with you. I told you we are on the same side, but I am not going to let you take the piss.
Unlike you Mike I am inventing nothing, and I truley believe you are doing harm. Perhaps you need to step back and consider what you are saying.
I do not think that anyone believes you at the moment, but I accept that I could be wildly wrong.
You believe what you believe, and leave me to know what I know, you are taking the piss out of yourself, nobody needs to do it for you...
Have you got any idea what happened to the original piece of fragmented pellet from the air rifle that was the original PV/20?
I doubt it...
Do you know where the substituted bullet (PV/20) originated from?
I doubt it...
But. `Z` does...
I say again IT WAS NOT A PELLET
You nor anybody else has any evidence at all, to prove that the fragmented pieces of lead shown in the xray is not a shattered pellet, which fragmented inside the damaged silencer which was fitt
ed to the thread on the barrel of the air rife? If you have any evidence to contradict what I have been told? The photograph of bullet PV/20 cannot be reconciled with the pieces of fragmented lead shown in the xray, if you or anybody can contradict what I am saying, post your theory...
-
I used Zorro because he was the masked crusader. Nothing more.
What have I ever invented Mike?
The name `Zoro` and attributed that name to my informant, trying to turn 'Z` into something she or he is most definitely not...
I doubt "Z" is a woman. For what woman would arrange to meet a stange man in a wood unaccompanied?
Slack Alice. Lovely girl.
-
I used Zorro because he was the masked crusader. Nothing more.
What have I ever invented Mike?
The name `Zoro` and attributed that name to my informant, trying to turn 'Z` into something she or he is most definitely not...
Mike you need to get into your nut. I have no desire to argue with you. I told you we are on the same side, but I am not going to let you take the piss.
Unlike you Mike I am inventing nothing, and I truley believe you are doing harm. Perhaps you need to step back and consider what you are saying.
I do not think that anyone believes you at the moment, but I accept that I could be wildly wrong.
You believe what you believe, and leave me to know what I know, you are taking the piss out of yourself, nobody needs to do it for you...
Have you got any idea what happened to the original piece of fragmented pellet from the air rifle that was the original PV/20?
I doubt it...
Do you know where the substituted bullet (PV/20) originated from?
I doubt it...
But. `Z` does...
I say again IT WAS NOT A PELLET
You nor anybody else has any evidence at all, to prove that the fragmented pieces of lead shown in the xray is not a shattered pellet, which fragmented inside the damaged silencer which was fitt
ed to the thread on the barrel of the air rife? If you have any evidence to contradict what I have been told? The photograph of bullet PV/20 cannot be reconciled with the pieces of fragmented lead shown in the xray, if you or anybody can contradict what I am saying, post your theory...
Nor do you mike, And i will not follow blindly
-
Fuck it was a pellet, and Z is on the button, My son is a virgin, and my daughter is going to be nun, And I am mother terasia
Wow! Can you sign my arse? ;D
-
Fuck it was a pellet, and Z is on the button, My son is a virgin, and my daughter is going to be nun, And I am mother terasia
Wow! Can you sign my arse? ;D
Book an appointment Grahame, I have got lots of arses to sign, but I have got to lick someones first
-
I used Zorro because he was the masked crusader. Nothing more.
What have I ever invented Mike?
The name `Zoro` and attributed that name to my informant, trying to turn 'Z` into something she or he is most definitely not...
Mike you need to get into your nut. I have no desire to argue with you. I told you we are on the same side, but I am not going to let you take the piss.
Unlike you Mike I am inventing nothing, and I truley believe you are doing harm. Perhaps you need to step back and consider what you are saying.
I do not think that anyone believes you at the moment, but I accept that I could be wildly wrong.
You believe what you believe, and leave me to know what I know, you are taking the piss out of yourself, nobody needs to do it for you...
Have you got any idea what happened to the original piece of fragmented pellet from the air rifle that was the original PV/20?
I doubt it...
Do you know where the substituted bullet (PV/20) originated from?
I doubt it...
But. `Z` does...
I say again IT WAS NOT A PELLET
You nor anybody else has any evidence at all, to prove that the fragmented pieces of lead shown in the xray is not a shattered pellet
Don't be daft - it would have to be the world's largest air rifle pellet to have shattered into pieces the size shown on the x-ray ::)
I hate agreeing with you >:(
-
I used Zorro because he was the masked crusader. Nothing more.
What have I ever invented Mike?
The name `Zoro` and attributed that name to my informant, trying to turn 'Z` into something she or he is most definitely not...
Mike you need to get into your nut. I have no desire to argue with you. I told you we are on the same side, but I am not going to let you take the piss.
Unlike you Mike I am inventing nothing, and I truley believe you are doing harm. Perhaps you need to step back and consider what you are saying.
I do not think that anyone believes you at the moment, but I accept that I could be wildly wrong.
You believe what you believe, and leave me to know what I know, you are taking the piss out of yourself, nobody needs to do it for you...
Have you got any idea what happened to the original piece of fragmented pellet from the air rifle that was the original PV/20?
I doubt it...
Do you know where the substituted bullet (PV/20) originated from?
I doubt it...
But. `Z` does...
I say again IT WAS NOT A PELLET
You nor anybody else has any evidence at all, to prove that the fragmented pieces of lead shown in the xray is not a shattered pellet
Don't be daft - it would have to be the world's largest air rifle pellet to have shattered into pieces the size shown on the x-ray ::)
I hate agreeing with you >:(
I decided to delete my contribution after posting it as I know you and NGB are the firearms experts and don't need me chipping in - but you were too quick for me Cliff :D
Anyway, I would have thought Mike should listen to you two guys on this issue. I'm afraid this is all getting very silly now. Either somebody is playing Mike to discredit him, or he is playing us, to some unknown end :-\
-
I used Zorro because he was the masked crusader. Nothing more.
What have I ever invented Mike?
The name `Zoro` and attributed that name to my informant, trying to turn 'Z` into something she or he is most definitely not...
Mike you need to get into your nut. I have no desire to argue with you. I told you we are on the same side, but I am not going to let you take the piss.
Unlike you Mike I am inventing nothing, and I truley believe you are doing harm. Perhaps you need to step back and consider what you are saying.
I do not think that anyone believes you at the moment, but I accept that I could be wildly wrong.
You believe what you believe, and leave me to know what I know, you are taking the piss out of yourself, nobody needs to do it for you...
Have you got any idea what happened to the original piece of fragmented pellet from the air rifle that was the original PV/20?
I doubt it...
Do you know where the substituted bullet (PV/20) originated from?
I doubt it...
But. `Z` does...
I say again IT WAS NOT A PELLET
You nor anybody else has any evidence at all, to prove that the fragmented pieces of lead shown in the xray is not a shattered pellet, which fragmented inside the damaged silencer which was fitt
ed to the thread on the barrel of the air rife? If you have any evidence to contradict what I have been told? The photograph of bullet PV/20 cannot be reconciled with the pieces of fragmented lead shown in the xray, if you or anybody can contradict what I am saying, post your theory...
Nor do you mike, And i will not follow blindly
That is where you are most definitely wrong, because police have tampered with the original piece of fragmented lead, shown in the xray, and substituted it with something else, now why would police do this if it was originally a bullet, rather than a pellet?
-
Jeremy discussed air rifle with me on many occasions, and even wrote to me several times in the past - so when Jeremy himself has told me that the barrel of the air rifle was threaded so that it could be fitted with a silencer, I do not have to put up with nonsense from trouble makers. Just out of interest, to anybody who is remotely interested, the external thread on the barrel of the air rifle, and the inverted thread on the inside of the silencer are universal...
There are also many sights on the internet which confirms that you can get a silencer to fit the barrel of .22 air rifles...
If certain members want to talk utter nonsense and garbage I will leave this matter to their befuddled brains...
-
I would be astonished if the moderator fitted the air rifle. I have not seen a air rifle with a screw end to accomodate a silencer, though I admit this could exist
Then you do not know this subject well then Cliff.
Sound moderators can be fitted..no probs and some people do use them on air rifles. Search online and you will find this out.
-
I am unable to exclude the fragments on the x ray as being from either a pellet or a bullet as of the moment.
My tendency is that it is a bullet...but we will wait and see on that issue. Be patient.
An informant may reveal some truths but maybe not all the truths and may mislead on some issues. Their version of the truth may include false elements that direct blame away from themselves of persons they are friends with.
-
I was speaking to a firearms instructor (Roman) today in Scotland, about the 10 shot magazine for the anshulz rifle - he was telling me that it would be possible to get 12 rounds in the 10 shot magazine at a push. He said the tight fit of the extra rounds might cause a problem with loading a round into the breach, saying it could cause either a bullet to jam in the breach, or a case to jam in the ejection port...
This is interesting because one of the recovered bullet cases on the stair was distinctively dented, and although the ballistic expert tried to replicate the dent, he was unable to do so...
-
Imagine that...
12 rounds in the magazine, and. 1 round in the breach X 2 = 26 rounds in total?
-
The solitary case found on the stair which had been distinctively dented could have been caused by overloading additional rounds into the 10 shot ammunition. Magazine, as described previously and caused this particular round to jam in the ejection port...
Therefore...
10 rounds in first load of magazine plus 1 in breach, plus a second load of 12 in magazine and 1 in the breach, making a total of 24 rounds in total, plus a pellet producing 25 in total...
-
Don't forget June had 8 bullets enter her body and not 7 as the prosecution claim...ie they missed out the left breast shot.
-
The firearms instructor (Roman) also told me that it would be possible to distinguish rounds fired through the .22 semi-automatic rifle, when a silencer was fitted, as opposed to when a silencer was jot fitted, by reference to the rifling marks on the bullet (when no silencer is used) to these rifling marks being scoured with striations from the smooth bore of the silencers baffle plates. He described these microscopic differences to me by saying that these scouring striation marks made on bullets fired through a silenced rifle, would be most prominent at the curved head of the bullet, as it moved out from the environment of the rifles barrel of the rifle, into the smooth bore environment of the silencer.
According to Malcomb Fletcher, the prosecutions ballistic expert, he was unable to tell if any of the 25 crime scene bullets which formed part of the batch of crime scene ammunition, had been fired through a silenced weapon? If any of them had been, he would have been able to tell, but he says not, and from that we can conclude that none of the bullets had been fired through a silencer, otherwise the relevant bullets would have had the markings upon them which overlaid the rifling marks fronm the barrel of the rifle...
If a silencer was used then...
It wasn't fitted to the barrel iof the .22 anshulz rifles barrel, but it could have been fitted to the barrel of the air rifle...
This was why police substituted the original piece of fragmented lead, with something else which could be a .22 bullet, which they claimed was a whole bullet when it most clearly was jot...
-
Here are some images of the Anshulz rifle (model 525) similar to the one used in the shootings:-
-
You can see in the third image (above) the three vent holes through which gases are forced out from the weapon upon a round being detonated. This is of interest in this case because the shooter would have held the weapon with their left hand holding the barrel, and there would be every chance that amounts of FDR would be propelled onto the shooters left arm - but the police failed to take any swabs at all from the relevant area of Sheila left arm...
-
Images for Parker Hale (mm1) silencer:-
-
`Z` provided me with the identity of the police officer who was handling the rifle when it went off accidentally inflicting the second wound under the chin, which effectively killed Sheila, and sparked a cover up...
Have I got this right, Mike? You now know who killed Sheila?
-
Surely this must be the last piece of your jigsaw?
-
With all due respect, Mike, where do your loyalties lie? With JB, or Z?
-
Shona have another drink or go and shag big tits your post are ridiculous and by the way before you continue to make ridiculous posts remember mike is ill
-
Shona have another drink or go and shag big tits your post are ridiculous and by the way before you continue to make ridiculous posts remember mike is ill
Shame on you, Ms Preece. Using Mike's illness as some sort of currency.
-
Shona
Have another drink if you have nothing useful to say
-
Shona
Have another drink if you have nothing useful to say
As I've already said, I'm not pissed. Please put forward your points.
-
Shona you seem obsessed with me having a boyfriend
If only you knew just because you messed up on the romance front not everyone has
I couldn't be happier I have plenty of love in my life don't worry about me
-
There is a simple test that can be applied, according to `Z`, which will resolve many issues in this case?
Which silencer was the crucIal flake of blood found inside, (a) the one sent to lab` on 30th August 1985 (DB/1) lab` item 23,, or (b) the one sent to lab' on 26th September 1985(SBJ/1) lab` item 22?
-
`Z` has pointed out that because the silencer sent to the lab` on 30th August 1986, was the one the crucial blood evidence was found inside, it must follow that the same blood could not have been found in the second silencer sent to the lab` 27 days later...
How could Essex police still have possession of a silencer on 26th September, to enable them to send it to the lab, when if there was only one silencer, it was already at the lab', had already been checked for blood, blood which to all intents and purposes belonged exclusively to Sheila?
Why were Essex police submitting a silencer (SBJ/1) to the lab` to be checked for blood, on 26th September, if it was already there?
-
Why is it, that no official `General Examination Record` which relates solely to the submission of the silencer to the lab` on 30th August 1985, exists?
'Z` claims to know why...
-
Why is it, that no official `General Examination Record` which relates solely to the submission of the silencer to the lab` on 30th August 1985, exists?
'Z` claims to know why...
I'm sorry, Mike. I can't do this anymore. You're treating us like a bunch of prats. If you have info that furthers your case, then use it. If not, then come clean and admit that this is just another scam to grab everyone's attention. You are losing credibility.
-
`Z` has pointed out that because the silencer sent to the lab` on 30th August 1986, was the one the crucial blood evidence was found inside, it must follow that the same blood could not have been found in the second silencer sent to the lab` 27 days later...
How could Essex police still have possession of a silencer on 26th September, to enable them to send it to the lab, when if there was only one silencer, it was already at the lab', had already been checked for blood, blood which to all intents and purposes belonged exclusively to Sheila?
Why were Essex police submitting a silencer (SBJ/1) to the lab` to be checked for blood, on 26th September, if it was already there?
common sense says they have misrepresented the facts...it is a cover up.
the silencer evidence as presented is a pack of lies...
-
Why is it, that no official `General Examination Record` which relates solely to the submission of the silencer to the lab` on 30th August 1985, exists?
'Z` claims to know why...
I'm sorry, Mike. I can't do this anymore. You're treating us like a bunch of prats. If you have info that furthers your case, then use it. If not, then come clean and admit that this is just another scam to grab everyone's attention. You are losing credibility.
Well all I can say is that only Mike and Smiffy have stuck to the thread. All everyone else has done is criticise Mike for trying to dupe us. I wonder if that is just an attempt to derail the argument because they have nothing to contribute themselves. I don't think with your argument Shona that you can progress much further. Because you will not compromise but remain stuck in your belief that there was a hitman. Someone who was perhaps as strong as two people, because it was not possible for Sheila to overpower Ralph. Or that Jeremy couldn't do his own killing. That is as far as your argument goes. But just consider for a moment if Mikes contact is real? For and I've said it before. He was dead on tract concerning the two silencers. Because Jeremy's team are considering the same thing and it seems to be generally accepted that there were in fact two silencers. So I urge everyone to reconcider Mike's claim about his informant. Who knows we could be very surprised one day?
-
Why is it, that no official `General Examination Record` which relates solely to the submission of the silencer to the lab` on 30th August 1985, exists?
'Z` claims to know why...
I'm sorry, Mike. I can't do this anymore. You're treating us like a bunch of prats. If you have info that furthers your case, then use it. If not, then come clean and admit that this is just another scam to grab everyone's attention. You are losing credibility.
Well all I can say is that only Mike and Smiffy have stuck to the thread. All everyone else has done is criticise Mike for trying to dupe us. I wonder if that is just an attempt to derail the argument because they have nothing to contribute themselves. I don't think with your argument Shona that you can progress much further. Because you will not compromise but remain stuck in your belief that there was a hitman. Someone who was perhaps as strong as two people, because it was not possible for Sheila to overpower Ralph. Or that Jeremy couldn't do his own killing. That is as far as your argument goes. But just consider for a moment if Mikes contact is real? For and I've said it before. He was dead on tract concerning the two silencers. Because Jeremy's team are considering the same thing and it seems to be generally accepted that there were in fact two silencers. So I urge everyone to reconcider Mike's claim about his informant. Who knows we could be very surprised one day?
Or one silencer with two different reports. I would compromise, Grahame, if I could. Probably more so than most on here. But, yes, I genuinely believe that JB paid to have his adopted family murdered. And I'm afraid that Mike has form. Ali Bongo. June in the kitchen. Sheila's arm. And now, Z.
-
'Z` told me the significance of details contained on a submission of articles form, to the lab`, dated, 26th September 1985, which bears one of the SOCO signatures, dated, 13th September, `Z` says this as the date SOC finger printed this particular silencer. Key point being other silencer had already been finger printed the month before, by oblique light test and super glue treatment, so why were police wanting to fingerprint the silencer in their possess, again?
How could police still have possession of the same silencer, on 13th September 1985, and want to fingerprint it, if the same silencer had been at the lab` from as long ago, as two weeks previously? How come that on 26th September when silencer was submitted to lab` it was being requested for it to be checked for blood and fibres, when according to other evidence, blood had already been found in the silencer sent to the lab` on 30th August, blood which had already been identified, as being unique and exclusive to Sheila (in tests carried out between 12th and 18th September 1985), which fell before the date when the second silencer was submitted to the lab` on 26th September...
-
'Z` told me the significance of details contained on a submission of articles form, to the lab`, dated, 26th September 1985, which bears one of the SOCO signatures, dated, 13th September, `Z` says this as the date SOC finger printed this particular silencer. Key point being other silencer had already been finger printed the month before, by oblique light test and super glue treatment, so why were police wanting to fingerprint the silencer in their possess, again?
How could police still have possession of the same silencer, on 13th September 1985, and want to fingerprint it, if the same silencer had been at the lab` from as long ago, as two weeks previously? How come that on 26th September when silencer was submitted to lab` it was being requested for it to be checked for blood and fibres, when according to other evidence, blood had already been found in the silencer sent to the lab` on 30th August, blood which had already been identified, as being unique and exclusive to Sheila (in tests carried out between 12th and 18th September 1985), which fell before the date when the second silencer was submitted to the lab` on 26th September...
Mike. This "Z" seems to have told you a great deal in a very short time during this meeting? How could your memory cope with all this information?
-
'Z` told me the significance of details contained on a submission of articles form, to the lab`, dated, 26th September 1985, which bears one of the SOCO signatures, dated, 13th September, `Z` says this as the date SOC finger printed this particular silencer. Key point being other silencer had already been finger printed the month before, by oblique light test and super glue treatment, so why were police wanting to fingerprint the silencer in their possess, again?
How could police still have possession of the same silencer, on 13th September 1985, and want to fingerprint it, if the same silencer had been at the lab` from as long ago, as two weeks previously? How come that on 26th September when silencer was submitted to lab` it was being requested for it to be checked for blood and fibres, when according to other evidence, blood had already been found in the silencer sent to the lab` on 30th August, blood which had already been identified, as being unique and exclusive to Sheila (in tests carried out between 12th and 18th September 1985), which fell before the date when the second silencer was submitted to the lab` on 26th September...
Mike. This "Z" seems to have told you a great deal in a very short time during this meeting? How could your memory cope with all this information?
And how does Zorro's memory recall such detail 26 years on?
-
I do not know anybody who goes by the names of, `Ali bongo`, or `Zoro`, these are names invented by others, who wouldn`t recognise the truth, if it hit them full on in the face...
-
'Z` told me the significance of details contained on a submission of articles form, to the lab`, dated, 26th September 1985, which bears one of the SOCO signatures, dated, 13th September, `Z` says this as the date SOC finger printed this particular silencer. Key point being other silencer had already been finger printed the month before, by oblique light test and super glue treatment, so why were police wanting to fingerprint the silencer in their possess, again?
How could police still have possession of the same silencer, on 13th September 1985, and want to fingerprint it, if the same silencer had been at the lab` from as long ago, as two weeks previously? How come that on 26th September when silencer was submitted to lab` it was being requested for it to be checked for blood and fibres, when according to other evidence, blood had already been found in the silencer sent to the lab` on 30th August, blood which had already been identified, as being unique and exclusive to Sheila (in tests carried out between 12th and 18th September 1985), which fell before the date when the second silencer was submitted to the lab` on 26th September...
And if the firearms expert was conducting firing tests with a silencer on the 20th september how would that affect the location of the silencer and any evidence found on it or within it!!
Let alone the other secret (not admitted to test firing that appears to have taken place on the 13th september) ...just has to be 2 or more silencers does it not....and not just one as the prosecution and police claimed.
-
I don't know if the person Z exists, given the details about him/her on here, nor do I care.
I do think that Mike has got the info from someone/somewhere.
I think he will have good enough reason not to provide his source, that doesnt mean that the information that is being posted is untrue.
With respect, JB's legal team will not have the time to put all their efforts into scrutinizing all documents/evidence available to them, regardless of how good and supportive they are.
Someone has to get information into the public domain. Only someone with access to paperwork and contacts can do this.
There is not many people who would put their neck on the line under the circumstances. As long as Mike makes the distinction of what he has been told/or uncovered, and what is his own opinion, I don't see the problem.
I also noticed a comment on another thread that JB was not happy that pictures of his family had been posted on the internet. He cant have it both ways, in my opinion. If the public are to see/hear/read the details of what happened at WHF then everything that can possibly be shared, must be, no matter how disturbing and upsetting it is as long as it is relevent to discussion,and also in the hope that it raises awareness of his fight for freedom and get to the awful truth of what happened that day.
-
Good afternoon all
Mike, is your informant aiding you in re-examining documentation in your possession? What I mean by this is, where you have presented a theory of your own, is your informant correcting that theory by way of their own account of events?
Thankyou.
-
Good afternoon all
Mike, is your informant aiding you in re-examining documentation in your possession? What I mean by this is, where you have presented a theory of your own, is your informant correcting that theory by way of their own account of events?
Thankyou.
Exactly...
Informant visits site/forum and has analysed the different theories all of us have been putting up for debate, and correcting the factual errors...
This is precisely what my informant has, and is doing...
-
Silencer (DB/1) with Sheila's blood inside it was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, under a lab' item number 23, where it remained until commencement of trial in October 1986:-
Yet...
On 16th November 1985, DC Hammersley (SOC) took the rifle, telescopic site and silencer to whf and placed it inside the gun cupboard in the downstairs office, and took a photograph of it in situ. How was it possible to do this, if the silencer was being retained at Huntingdon Lab' at that time, and according to the lab' records, the silencer sent to them and examined on 30th August 1985, was kept in their constant care and supervision, all the way up to the trial in October 1986?
Note reference to these negatives, and that DC Hammerlsey retained possession of these (DB/9) - now why would photographs and negatives which DC Hammersley took, on this occasion, be given an exhibit reference of DB/9 in the name of PC David BIRD (SOC)?
-
Note that there is a signed exhibit label attached to the rifle in this photograph (DRH/15), but absolutely no labelling or protective packaging at all on the silencer? This is because the second silencer was used to take this photograph, and what is more - DC Hammersley knew about the existence of two silencers, because he was a SOCO...
-
Here:-
Take a look at this dodgy hand swab document?
Nothing recorded upon it to show that it had originally been sent to the lab' on 9th August 1985, and that it was rejected (under a different lab' item number 17)
-
Looks like swabs for, F, H1, H2, H3, H4, were never checked at all of lead deposits...
-
Transcript of PC David BIRD (SOC) at the trial of :-
Look at these crime scene photogr9ahs which were taken by PC David Bird, and bear in mind that the position of the rifle has been moved about on Sheila's body whilst PC Bird was present taking these very photographs which show that the rifle was being and had been moved?
Then...
Read the transcript of PC Birds Testimony at the trial, and ask your self if he was being truthful, or whether or not PC David Bird has lied and deceived the copurt which tried for these murders?
Currently being uploaded this instant...
-
The Smiffy / Bamber connection...
-
Track leading to meeting place where I met up with 'Z' recently, and additional track which I used after meeting to leave area...
-
Pub where 'Z' parked transport used to attend meeting (but which pub)?
-
The road leading to the truth will not always be straight...
-
Pinkney's Green, via M11 and M25.
-
Religious mania, and mental illness was at the heart of these murders:-
-
Bird at one part of his court evidence claimed to take picture number 25.
Then later when cross examined he claimed not to have taken picture number 25 and that someone else must have taken it.
Photograph number 17 is of interest...he claims not to have taken than one. Bits of yellow tape were supposed to be stuck on windows.
-
Am I correct in thinking that the yellow tape had been put on
Jeremy's windows, smiffy?
Summer ???
-
Am I correct in thinking that the yellow tape had been put on
Jeremy's windows, smiffy?
Summer ???
Not sure...17 is supposed to be in the kitchen where the supposed piece of the rifle butt DRH/21 was found and appears in this photograph.
-
The two suspects - Jeremy and Sheila:-
For one month, Essex police were prepared to accept that Sheila had killed the others, and that she had then turned the gun on herself, and taken her own life with a solitary shot...
Then...
A month later, suspicion fell upon Jeremy...
-
Of course, "" received a fair trial:-
Essex police wouldn't stitch anybody up, for "five murders", would they?
Scripture:- (1) http://niv.scripturetext.com/psalms/51.htm
Have mercy on me, O God,
according to your unfailing love;
according to your great compassion
blot out my transgressions.
Wash away all my iniquity
and cleanse me from my sin.
For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is always before me.
Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you are proved right when you speak
and justified when you judge.
Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Surely you desire truth in the inner partsa;
you teach me wisdom in the inmost place.
Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean;
wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.
Let me hear joy and gladness;
let the bones you have crushed rejoice.
Hide your face from my sins
and blot out all my iniquity.
Create in me a pure heart, O God,
and renew a steadfast spirit within me.
Do not cast me from your presence
or take your Holy Spirit from me.
Restore to me the joy of your salvation
and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.
Then I will teach transgressors your ways,
and sinners will turn back to you.
Save me from bloodguilt, O God,
the God who saves me,
and my tongue will sing of your righteousness.
O Lord, open my lips,
and my mouth will declare your praise.
You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
The sacrifices of God arec a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart,
O God, you will not despise.
In your good pleasure make Zion prosper;
build up the walls of Jerusalem.
Then there will be righteous sacrifices,
whole burnt offerings to delight you;
then bulls will be offered on your altar.
Scripture (2) http://niv.scripturetext.com/psalms/52-1.htm
Why do you boast of evil, you mighty man?
Why do you boast all day long,
you who are a disgrace in the eyes of God?
Your tongue plots destruction;
it is like a sharpened razor,
you who practice deceit.
You love evil rather than good,
falsehood rather than speaking the truth. Selah
You love every harmful word,
O you deceitful tongue!
Surely God will bring you down to everlasting ruin:
He will snatch you up and tear you from your tent;
he will uproot you from the land of the living. Selah
The righteous will see and fear;
they will laugh at him, saying,
“Here now is the man
who did not make God his stronghold
but trusted in his great wealth
and grew strong by destroying others!”
But I am like an olive tree
flourishing in the house of God;
I trust in God’s unfailing love
for ever and ever.
I will praise you forever for what you have done;
in your name I will hope, for your name is good.
I will praise you in the presence of your saints.
-
It was not a mere coincidence that the pages of the blue bible were open at this specific point - the contents of the open pages gave an insight into what was happening inside Sheila Caffells twisted mind...
-
Some recent photographs from my holiday break:-
-
It was not a mere coincidence that the pages of the blue bible were open at this specific point - the contents of the open pages gave an insight into what was happening inside Sheila Caffells twisted mind...
Nice pics Mike,
If the bible was open at a poignant page then isn't it fortunate that when the police set the scene, moved her from the bed and shot her, that the bible remained at the correct page?
-
it was stained it looks to me so it would have not been hard to find the relevant pages.
-
It was not a mere coincidence that the pages of the blue bible were open at this specific point - the contents of the open pages gave an insight into what was happening inside Sheila Caffells twisted mind...
Nice pics Mike,
If the bible was open at a poignant page then isn't it fortunate that when the police set the scene, moved her from the bed and shot her, that the bible remained at the correct page?
I have been assured that it was the black covered bible on the bed, not the blue one - this black covered bible belonged to June Bamber, and according to the house cleaner, it went missing from the time of the murders, after police took possession of it. My informant reckons that the pages of both bibles were found open at similar parts of the bible, and that there was a bloodied hand print on the pages of the black covered bible, not just bloodied marks...
Strange how police have failed to disclose the black covered bible or the evidence of the bloodied hand print upon its pages...
-
Off to Scotland, Invergordon, in a short while, via Bellshill, Aberdeen, and Inverness...
It's going to be a long night, and a long day, and a long night...
I will keep logging in, whilst on my travels when I am having a break, but I will be relying on my Backberry...
-
Off to Scotland, Invergordon, in a short while, via Bellshill, Aberdeen, and Inverness...
It's going to be a long night, and a long day, and a long night...
I will keep logging in, whilst on my travels when I am having a break, but I will be relying on my Backberry...
ive never been to Scotland its too far , i will settle for Ikea Leeds for the moment.
-
Off to Scotland, Invergordon, in a short while, via Bellshill, Aberdeen, and Inverness...
It's going to be a long night, and a long day, and a long night...
I will keep logging in, whilst on my travels when I am having a break, but I will be relying on my Backberry...
Safe trip.
-
Off to Scotland, Invergordon, in a short while, via Bellshill, Aberdeen, and Inverness...
It's going to be a long night, and a long day, and a long night...
I will keep logging in, whilst on my travels when I am having a break, but I will be relying on my Backberry...
Lucky you, Scotland is lovely. I love Inverness. Have a good time!
-
Mike, have a wonderful holiday in Scotland.
I loved your holiday snaps that you posted.
Good to know that you will stay in touch with us, here
on the forum with your Blackberry.
I will look forward to your posts.
Take care,
Summer :)
-
Maybe it is because the only is air weapons I have owned have never had a screw end to accomadate a silencer, I have had Webley, and BSA, and probably a few in between. Non have had a facillaty for a silencer.
I am not trying to score points here Mike. but the readers need to be aware.
Maybe NGB can enlighten us.
I have an idea what a screw end may look like.....and the air rifle in question has no screw end.....the only way a silencer could have been fitted would be to slot on the end of the rifle itself.........
I could be wrong.......but the butt of the rifle was flat inside and out. (if that makes sense)
-
+ 1 about the bible Mertol very sharp
You should have been cross examining the opposition
-
Maybe it is because the only is air weapons I have owned have never had a screw end to accomadate a silencer, I have had Webley, and BSA, and probably a few in between. Non have had a facillaty for a silencer.
I am not trying to score points here Mike. but the readers need to be aware.
Maybe NGB can enlighten us.
I have an idea what a screw end may look like.....and the air rifle in question has no screw end.....the only way a silencer could have been fitted would be to slot on the end of the rifle itself.........
I could be wrong.......but the butt of the rifle was flat inside and out. (if that makes sense)
But that can't be right! 'Z' reckons it must have a screw thread ...........
-
Have a nice stay Mike and i hope the weather keeps fine for you, might be a bit chilly though, best regards,mertol.
-
+ 1 about the bible Mertol very sharp
You should have been cross examining the opposition
I did at one point Jackie want to be in Law, i left school with nothing, however if i had been in court on Jeremys side i would have hit them hard no let up, the war is not lost because the battle is not won..
-
+ 1 about the bible Mertol very sharp
You should have been cross examining the opposition
I did at one point Jackie want to be in Law, i left school with nothing, however if i had been in court on Jeremys side i would have hit them hard no let up, the war is not lost because the battle is not won..
Why did you leave school with nothing Mertol?
-
I bet you would too Mertol ;D
-
+ 1 about the bible Mertol very sharp
You should have been cross examining the opposition
I did at one point Jackie want to be in Law, i left school with nothing, however if i had been in court on Jeremys side i would have hit them hard no let up, the war is not lost because the battle is not won..
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
-
Maybe it is because the only is air weapons I have owned have never had a screw end to accomadate a silencer, I have had Webley, and BSA, and probably a few in between. Non have had a facillaty for a silencer.
I am not trying to score points here Mike. but the readers need to be aware.
Maybe NGB can enlighten us.
I have an idea what a screw end may look like.....and the air rifle in question has no screw end.....the only way a silencer could have been fitted would be to slot on the end of the rifle itself.........
I could be wrong.......but the butt of the rifle was flat inside and out. (if that makes sense)
Grahame, not sure how to do a link......this is the post from last night.
-
Maybe it is because the only is air weapons I have owned have never had a screw end to accomadate a silencer, I have had Webley, and BSA, and probably a few in between. Non have had a facillaty for a silencer.
I am not trying to score points here Mike. but the readers need to be aware.
Maybe NGB can enlighten us.
I have an idea what a screw end may look like.....and the air rifle in question has no screw end.....the only way a silencer could have been fitted would be to slot on the end of the rifle itself.........
I could be wrong.......but the butt of the rifle was flat inside and out. (if that makes sense)
Grahame, not sure how to do a link......this is the post from last night.
Thank you Vic.
-
(Z) - I see what you mean about the footprints, I found the schedule you spoke about...
Item 5 BN - Broken piece of rifle stock (two)
-
+ 1 about the bible Mertol very sharp
You should have been cross examining the opposition
I did at one point Jackie want to be in Law, i left school with nothing, however if i had been in court on Jeremys side i would have hit them hard no let up, the war is not lost because the battle is not won..
Why did you leave school with nothing Mertol?
because i had no desire to be taught, back then what the hell 1066 had to do with what was for my tea that same day was beyond me it still is, thanks for the +1 yesterday Jackie, i like to question and find faults with things and the evidence against Jeremy ive not even started.
-
Of course, "" received a fair trial:-
Essex police wouldn't stitch anybody up, for "five murders", would they?
Scripture:- (1) http://niv.scripturetext.com/psalms/51.htm
Have mercy on me, O God,
according to your unfailing love;
according to your great compassion
blot out my transgressions.
Wash away all my iniquity
and cleanse me from my sin.
For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is always before me.
Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you are proved right when you speak
and justified when you judge.
Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Surely you desire truth in the inner partsa;
you teach me wisdom in the inmost place.
Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean;
wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.
Let me hear joy and gladness;
let the bones you have crushed rejoice.
Hide your face from my sins
and blot out all my iniquity.
Create in me a pure heart, O God,
and renew a steadfast spirit within me.
Do not cast me from your presence
or take your Holy Spirit from me.
Restore to me the joy of your salvation
and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.
Then I will teach transgressors your ways,
and sinners will turn back to you.
Save me from bloodguilt, O God,
the God who saves me,
and my tongue will sing of your righteousness.
O Lord, open my lips,
and my mouth will declare your praise.
You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
The sacrifices of God arec a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart,
O God, you will not despise.
In your good pleasure make Zion prosper;
build up the walls of Jerusalem.
Then there will be righteous sacrifices,
whole burnt offerings to delight you;
then bulls will be offered on your altar.
Scripture (2) http://niv.scripturetext.com/psalms/52-1.htm
Why do you boast of evil, you mighty man?
Why do you boast all day long,
you who are a disgrace in the eyes of God?
Your tongue plots destruction;
it is like a sharpened razor,
you who practice deceit.
You love evil rather than good,
falsehood rather than speaking the truth. Selah
You love every harmful word,
O you deceitful tongue!
Surely God will bring you down to everlasting ruin:
He will snatch you up and tear you from your tent;
he will uproot you from the land of the living. Selah
The righteous will see and fear;
they will laugh at him, saying,
“Here now is the man
who did not make God his stronghold
but trusted in his great wealth
and grew strong by destroying others!”
But I am like an olive tree
flourishing in the house of God;
I trust in God’s unfailing love
for ever and ever.
I will praise you forever for what you have done;
in your name I will hope, for your name is good.
I will praise you in the presence of your saints.
Scripture 1 David the king wrote after he committed adultery with Bathsheba when her husband Uriah was away at war. She was found to be with child and David was wondering how he could get out of a tricky situation. So when Uriah got back David told him to go to his wife. But Uriah would not but kept guard over the king. So David sent him to the hotest part of the battle knowing that he would be killed. And Uriah obeyed and went and was killed. It was then that David took Bathsheba to wife. After the baby was born it developed an illness and died and that was when David became convicted of the terrible things he had done. He not only took another mans wife, but in effect committed murder as well.
-
'Z` has identified to me, true identity of gun which had red paint on it from aga in the kitchen, on end of its barrel...
-
'Z` has identified to me, true identity of gun which had red paint on it from aga in the kitchen, on end of its barrel...
Well dont keep us in suspense...........!
-
'Z` has identified to me, true identity of gun which had red paint on it from aga in the kitchen, on end of its barrel...
Well dont keep us in suspense...........!
Yeah, these suspenders hurt.
-
'Z` has identified to me, true identity of gun which had red paint on it from aga in the kitchen, on end of its barrel...
Well dont keep us in suspense...........!
Yeah, these suspenders hurt.
What are you like Grahame? ;D
Im guessing that the answer is going to be...........Pargeters rifle?
-
'Z` has identified to me, true identity of gun which had red paint on it from aga in the kitchen, on end of its barrel...
Well dont keep us in suspense...........!
Yeah, these suspenders hurt.
What are you like Grahame? ;D
Im guessing that the answer is going to be...........Pargeters rifle?
All too often Pargeter seems to be the missing link. Cliff recognised this, weeks ago.
Hence the nervous breakdown?
-
'Z` has identified to me, true identity of gun which had red paint on it from aga in the kitchen, on end of its barrel...
Well dont keep us in suspense...........!
Yeah, these suspenders hurt.
What are you like Grahame? ;D
Im guessing that the answer is going to be...........Pargeters rifle?
All too often Pargeter seems to be the missing link. Cliff recognised this, weeks ago.
Hence the nervous breakdown?
Cliff's...?
-
'Z` has identified to me, true identity of gun which had red paint on it from aga in the kitchen, on end of its barrel...
Well dont keep us in suspense...........!
Yeah, these suspenders hurt.
What are you like Grahame? ;D
Im guessing that the answer is going to be...........Pargeters rifle?
All too often Pargeter seems to be the missing link. Cliff recognised this, weeks ago.
Hence the nervous breakdown?
Cliff's...?
As soon as I'd posted that, I realised what I'd said!! Sorry. Pargeter's breakdown. Cliff is as sane as me!! Ahem.
-
See,Im thinking that Pargater changed his story for the COLP intereview for a specific reason.By now stating that he had taken his rifle home prior to the murders,it can be assumed that he took his sound moderator along with it?Therefore giving the notion that there was only the one sound moderator at whf on that fateful night.The Bamber sound moderator.Since EP had already collected this as evidence on 8th August,how could the relatives have found a second sound moderator in the farmhouse(presumably Pargaters) at a later date,if Pargeter did indeed have it in his possesion at his home,as he claims?I believe that Jeremy's defence team should dig deeper with regards to Pargaters conflicting statements.I get the feeling that he holds the key to unravelling the silencer issue.
-
'Z` has identified to me, true identity of gun which had red paint on it from aga in the kitchen, on end of its barrel...
Well dont keep us in suspense...........!
Yeah, these suspenders hurt.
What are you like Grahame? ;D
Im guessing that the answer is going to be...........Pargeters rifle?
All too often Pargeter seems to be the missing link. Cliff recognised this, weeks ago.
Hence the nervous breakdown?
Cliff's...?
As soon as I'd posted that, I realised what I'd said!! Sorry. Pargeter's breakdown. Cliff is as sane as me!! Ahem.
I know, I was joking but forgot to add a smiley ;D
-
Sorry,missed all your posts by taking too long to write mine :-[
-
This is one of the problems i have why the kitchen this silencer was found , why not in a secure place out of sight, were the silencers always kept there.
-
See,Im thinking that Pargater changed his story for the COLP intereview for a specific reason.By now stating that he had taken his rifle home prior to the murders,it can be assumed that he took his sound moderator along with it?Therefore giving the notion that there was only the one sound moderator at whf on that fateful night.The Bamber sound moderator.Since EP had already collected this as evidence on 8th August,how could the relatives have found a second sound moderator in the farmhouse(presumably Pargaters) at a later date,if Pargeter did indeed have it in his possesion at his home,as he claims?I believe that Jeremy's defence team should dig deeper with regards to Pargaters conflicting statements.I get the feeling that he holds the key to unravelling the silencer issue.
Good points, Tyler, +1 for this when I can applaud you again.
-
Sorry,missed all your posts by taking too long to write mine :-[
Could it be possible that there was only one silencer, but with at least 2 different reports? One for blood, one for paint? And that is how it was recorded?
-
Sorry,missed all your posts by taking too long to write mine :-[
Could it be possible that there was only one silencer, but with at least 2 different reports? One for blood, one for paint? And that is how it was recorded?
I just dont know to be honest.It seems to appear that EP already had a silencer in their possesion,at the time the relatives found the second one.And as Mike has stated before,one had more baffle plates than the other?
-
Sorry,missed all your posts by taking too long to write mine :-[
Could it be possible that there was only one silencer, but with at least 2 different reports? One for blood, one for paint? And that is how it was recorded?
I just dont know to be honest.It seems to appear that EP already had a silencer in their possesion,at the time the relatives found the second one.And as Mike has stated before,one had more baffle plates than the other?
That's not how I've understood it, Tyler. I'm not sure how EP could have a silencer before the one in the cupboard was found. But when it WAS found, it seemed to be treated as a paperweight, for a while. What a monumental cock-up.
-
Sorry,missed all your posts by taking too long to write mine :-[
Could it be possible that there was only one silencer, but with at least 2 different reports? One for blood, one for paint? And that is how it was recorded?
I just dont know to be honest.It seems to appear that EP already had a silencer in their possesion,at the time the relatives found the second one.And as Mike has stated before,one had more baffle plates than the other?
That's not how I've understood it, Tyler. I'm not sure how EP could have a silencer before the one in the cupboard was found. But when it WAS found, it seemed to be treated as a paperweight, for a while. What a monumental cock-up.
A cock -up Shona , one of many not wearing gloves on a crimescene, i ask you really !
-
I found it interesting today that Mike posted that he feels the first shot to Sheila was with a silencer fitted. If his air rifle theory were to crumble then surely he is saying that even the first shot was not by Sheila herself?
-
Sorry,but I personally cannot buy the air rifle theory.
-
Sorry,missed all your posts by taking too long to write mine :-[
Could it be possible that there was only one silencer, but with at least 2 different reports? One for blood, one for paint? And that is how it was recorded?
I just dont know to be honest.It seems to appear that EP already had a silencer in their possesion,at the time the relatives found the second one.And as Mike has stated before,one had more baffle plates than the other?
That's not how I've understood it, Tyler. I'm not sure how EP could have a silencer before the one in the cupboard was found. But when it WAS found, it seemed to be treated as a paperweight, for a while. What a monumental cock-up.
A cock -up Shona , one of many not wearing gloves on a crimescene, i ask you really !
I know. Hugely clumsy policing. And I honestly think that's the reason we'll never truly know. There is every chance that JB will get out, if Simon McKay is as shit-hot as he's supposed to be. There will be some dodgy technicality. And he'll use it. Why else would a high-profile lawyer jump on at this stage?
-
'Z` exists, and is a source of much insight into the anomalies and contradictions in this case...
Remember...
That ballistic expert Fletcher said he could not say whether or not any of the 25 bullets had been fired through a silencer, yet there is what appears to be a mark made by the silencer, around the lower non fatal entry wound, whist at the same time, there is a marked absence of the same, around the upper entry wound beneath the chin...
Silencer appears to have been used at time first shot was fired, yet absent when second shot was fired...
If none of the 25 bullets had been fired through the silencer, it paves the way for an air rifle to have fired at least one of the original bullets,,.
His post from today........
-
Sorry,missed all your posts by taking too long to write mine :-[
Could it be possible that there was only one silencer, but with at least 2 different reports? One for blood, one for paint? And that is how it was recorded?
I just dont know to be honest.It seems to appear that EP already had a silencer in their possesion,at the time the relatives found the second one.And as Mike has stated before,one had more baffle plates than the other?
That's not how I've understood it, Tyler. I'm not sure how EP could have a silencer before the one in the cupboard was found. But when it WAS found, it seemed to be treated as a paperweight, for a while. What a monumental cock-up.
Yes I agree,a cock-up indeed!
Was evidence that was labelled SBJ/1 not a sound moderator then?
-
SBJ/1 is a silencer and was logged on the 13th August. According to the list Mike has posted, there is not an earlier silencer logged.
-
I'm really sorry, everyone, but I have to say this. I'm no shrinking violet, but I find it impossible to post on here when I know that Jackie will immediately attack whatever I say. There is no point. I actually have something that I consider quite important to say, but it will get lost in her vitriol. So I will pm it.
-
Sorry,missed all your posts by taking too long to write mine :-[
Could it be possible that there was only one silencer, but with at least 2 different reports? One for blood, one for paint? And that is how it was recorded?
I just dont know to be honest.It seems to appear that EP already had a silencer in their possesion,at the time the relatives found the second one.And as Mike has stated before,one had more baffle plates than the other?
That's not how I've understood it, Tyler. I'm not sure how EP could have a silencer before the one in the cupboard was found. But when it WAS found, it seemed to be treated as a paperweight, for a while. What a monumental cock-up.
A cock -up Shona , one of many not wearing gloves on a crimescene, i ask you really !
I know. Hugely clumsy policing. And I honestly think that's the reason we'll never truly know. There is every chance that JB will get out, if Simon McKay is as shit-hot as he's supposed to be. There will be some dodgy technicality. And he'll use it. Why else would a high-profile lawyer jump on at this stage?
Shona , whatever your stance is on this case i for one respect your view , all i can say if this Simon Mc Kay can find gaping holes he is going to use it, this was very poor work by the police this was a scene of 5 people shot not some casual break in, one way or another this needs sorting once and for all.
-
Sorry,missed all your posts by taking too long to write mine :-[
Could it be possible that there was only one silencer, but with at least 2 different reports? One for blood, one for paint? And that is how it was recorded?
I just dont know to be honest.It seems to appear that EP already had a silencer in their possesion,at the time the relatives found the second one.And as Mike has stated before,one had more baffle plates than the other?
That's not how I've understood it, Tyler. I'm not sure how EP could have a silencer before the one in the cupboard was found. But when it WAS found, it seemed to be treated as a paperweight, for a while. What a monumental cock-up.
A cock -up Shona , one of many not wearing gloves on a crimescene, i ask you really !
I know. Hugely clumsy policing. And I honestly think that's the reason we'll never truly know. There is every chance that JB will get out, if Simon McKay is as shit-hot as he's supposed to be. There will be some dodgy technicality. And he'll use it. Why else would a high-profile lawyer jump on at this stage?
Shona , whatever your stance is on this case i for one respect your view , all i can say if this Simon Mc Kay can find gaping holes he is going to use it, this was very poor work by the police this was a scene of 5 people shot not some casual break in, one way or another this needs sorting once and for all.
You speak the truth, Merts. And I know that you have some insight about the state of the bodies and time of death. But, bottom line, if Ralph didn't make that phone call, and I honestly don't think that he did, then where does that leave us?
-
Your alright Shona I am totally chilled out tonight I am lying next to a beautiful man you will be pleased to know
-
Give his dog some biscuits ;)
-
Your alright Shona I am totally chilled out tonight I am lying next to a beautiful man you w
How lovely. I'm so happy for you. I'm not exactly sure why you feel the need to share that, but I presume it means that JB is just that little bit closer to being released. Don't give him a lovebite, Jack.
-
Ladies.........chill.......
-
Ladies.........chill.......
Sorry. But Andy was VERY funny!!!
-
wide awake anyone?
-
Iam actually, hyper manic phase today so i wont sleep, see you over there.
-
Actually one of my closest friends died of cancer Sunday so I needed some company
-
Actually one of my closest friends died of cancer Sunday so I needed some company
Sorry to hear that Jackie.x
-
Actually one of my closest friends died of cancer Sunday so I needed some company
Just because we don't agree, it doesn't mean that we can't get on. Talk to me, Jack. xx.
-
Actually one of my closest friends died of cancer Sunday so I needed some company
I'm sorry to hear that, Jackie, poor you, poor friend too.
Right, I'm off to bed, night everyone.
-
nite nite Keira........sleep well x
-
Sleep well, Choch. xx.
-
Jack your gorgeous boy must be pissed off with you, he wants to get his bone home and youre on here!!
-
Jack your gorgeous boy must be pissed off with you, he wants to get his bone home and youre on here!!
Oh Andy!! This is why we all love yoU!!
-
He is a musician and he is playing his guitar and all I need is a cuddle right now and he's cool with it.
-
Well, i couldnt have a beatiful boy next to me and not do him, what a waste :)
-
SBJ/1 is a silencer and was logged on the 13th August. According to the list Mike has posted, there is not an earlier silencer logged.
This is grossly misleading, since police records confirm that DS 'Stan` Jones, took possession of several exhibits from the scene on 7th. August 1985, namely, SBJ/4, SBJ/3 and SBJ/2 and on that basis one can draw a positive inference that the original silencer was found and retained by DS Jones, on the same occasion (7th August) otherwise, SBJ/2 would have been DS Jones first exhibit, and so on and so forth...
Additionally...
DCI `Taff` Jones , and DS `Stan` Jones, went to speak to Jeremy about whether or not the silencer was fitted to the guns barrel?
They went to speak to Jeremy, about this on afternoon of 9th August, so police knew about the silencer the day before the purported find of it the next day - the point being, why would police be mentioning the silencer matter to Jeremy on the day before relatives purport to find it?
Police still had keys to whf, so why were police so interested in a silencer, at that time, when police still had the keys...
Police must have seen the silencer before they went to see Jeremy that day, for them to be taking such an interest in the silencer...
Matters are not helped , by DS `Stan Jones ridiculous claim, concerning his astonishment upon finding out from Robert Boutflour, on 12 th August, that a silencer had been found, which caused DS Jones to scurry off to allegedly collect it from Peter Eaton that same evening? How could DS Jones be so astonished, considering that only a few days previosly, he and DCI Jones, had been questioning Jeremy about it?
-
I am not going to do anymore campaigning for JB I have totally given up he never appreciated it anyway
-
I am not going to do anymore campaigning for JB I have totally given up he never appreciated it anyway
Why makes you think he doesn't appreciate it? Has something happened?
-
Z has identified true identity of gun which had red paint on it from aga in the kitchen . . .
Are you allowed to divulge what gun it was?
Also, did you find out anything more as to (a) exactly where Sheila was when first seen apparently lifeless, and (b) whether Sheila spoke at all to the police called to WHF? If not, please ask your informant.
-
Z has identified true identity of gun which had red paint on it from aga in the kitchen . . .
Are you allowed to divulge what gun it was?
Also, did you find out anything more as to (a) exactly where Sheila was when first seen apparently lifeless, and (b) whether Sheila spoke at all to the police called to WHF? If not, please ask your informant.
Yes, I am allowed to divulge the identity of the guns barrel, and my informant has confirmed to me that Sheila's body was first spotted through the kitchen window by one of the officers who saw her body through a doorway adjacent to the window, in a room known as the pantry. Sheila's body was isolated from her fathers, in that they were not in the same room as each other...
Back to divulging the identity of the rifles barrel which was found to have paint on it, there is something which needs to be explained regarding why it has been difficult for someone who is/was not in the know regarding its identity and any significance which the police attached to it from a very early stage. For example, the following guns were known to have been found in the following locations at the scene:-
(1) 12 bore shotgun - downstairs in gun cupboard
(2) Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle - downstairs in toilet
(3) Anshulz rifle - upstairs resting against bedroom window. but ended up on body as part of stage managing by police
(4) .22 air rifle - upstairs in bedroom, but moved to bottom of small stairs in corner of kitchen as part of stage managing by police...
Based on this information, it was an almost impossible task for any outsider to try and reconstruct to which rifles barrel was DC Hammersley referring to when he spoke to COLP in 1991, and told them why a paint sample had been taken from the aga surround in the kitchen at whf on 8th August 1985. Since, according to my informant, the relevant piece of guns barrel upon which the red paint from the aga was found, belonged to a rifle found upstairs, but the component part (Metal end cap which screws onto the barrel of the rifle) was actually found downstairs...
This crucial piece of the guns barrel (metal cap contaminated with paint from the aga surround) was found on the kitchen floor. Police originally came to the conclusion that a small mark which was present on the kitchen surround had been made when the rifles barrel (metal end cap) had been fitted to the end of the anshulz rifles barrel, and it had come into contact with the surround at some time or other, and not necessarily during any struggle between Ralph and his killer. Nevertheless, it is now clear that the guns metal end cap which screws onto the end of the barrel of the anshulz rifle was the cause of the original mark found on the aga surround, not any silencer, and that a paint sample (RC/1) was taken and used to confirm this to have been the case...
Informant told me that other marks on aga were made later, at which stage silencers got contaminated with paint from the same place...
Hope this helps...
-
SBJ/1 is a silencer and was logged on the 13th August. According to the list Mike has posted, there is not an earlier silencer logged.
This is grossly misleading, since police records confirm that DS 'Stan` Jones, took possession of several exhibits from the scene on 7th. August 1985, namely, SBJ/4, SBJ/3 and SBJ/2 and on that basis one can draw a positive inference that the original silencer was found and retained by DS Jones, on the same occasion (7th August) otherwise, SBJ/2 would have been DS Jones first exhibit, and so on and so forth...
Additionally...
DCI `Taff` Jones , and DS `Stan` Jones, went to speak to Jeremy about whether or not the silencer was fitted to the guns barrel?
They went to speak to Jeremy, about this on afternoon of 9th August, so police knew about the silencer the day before the purported find of it the next day - the point being, why would police be mentioning the silencer matter to Jeremy on the day before relatives purport to find it?
Police still had keys to whf, so why were police so interested in a silencer, at that time, when police still had the keys...
Police must have seen the silencer before they went to see Jeremy that day, for them to be taking such an interest in the silencer...
Matters are not helped , by DS `Stan Jones ridiculous claim, concerning his astonishment upon finding out from Robert Boutflour, on 12 th August, that a silencer had been found, which caused DS Jones to scurry off to allegedly collect it from Peter Eaton that same evening? How could DS Jones be so astonished, considering that only a few days previosly, he and DCI Jones, had been questioning Jeremy about it?
Plus...
we all know there should have been two identical looking silencers kept at whf at the material time, one belonging to Anthony Pargeter, and the other to Ralph Bamber, one normally kept in the downstairs toilet, and the other one kept in the gun cupboard. Now for some reason, nobody wants to talk about Pargeters silencer, its as though they don't want it to exist?
-
So...
if relatives only found one silencer, the one in the gun cupboard, that silencer had to be Ralph bambers silencer, because the gun cupboard was the normal place where it was kept...
On the other hand...
Anthony Pargeters silencer, where was that, and what the hell happened to it?
Why aren't the police bothered abiout its apparent absence from the scene?
Why aren't relatives questioning what happened to it, like they questioned everything else
-
Funny...
How as part of the COLP (1991) inquiry, the two principle silencers in this case, (Pargeters and Bambers silencers),were sent for testing by COLP. Both had a universal fitting that allows for either silencer to be fitted to other weapons, such as a .22 air rifle like the one previously owned by Anthony Pargeter, that he gave to Jeremy...
-
I am not going to do anymore campaigning for JB I have totally given up he never appreciated it anyway
:o :o :o :o :o :o
-
Sorry,missed all your posts by taking too long to write mine :-[
Could it be possible that there was only one silencer, but with at least 2 different reports? One for blood, one for paint? And that is how it was recorded?
I just dont know to be honest.It seems to appear that EP already had a silencer in their possesion,at the time the relatives found the second one.And as Mike has stated before,one had more baffle plates than the other?
That's not how I've understood it, Tyler. I'm not sure how EP could have a silencer before the one in the cupboard was found. But when it WAS found, it seemed to be treated as a paperweight, for a while. What a monumental cock-up.
A cock -up Shona , one of many not wearing gloves on a crimescene, i ask you really !
I know. Hugely clumsy policing. And I honestly think that's the reason we'll never truly know. There is every chance that JB will get out, if Simon McKay is as shit-hot as he's supposed to be. There will be some dodgy technicality. And he'll use it. Why else would a high-profile lawyer jump on at this stage?
That's actually a good point.
-
I am not going to do anymore campaigning for JB I have totally given up he never appreciated it anyway
That's interesting - can you elaborate what has happened to bring such a big and sudden swing. And have you changed your opinion on guilt/innocence, or just had a falling out with the campaign?
-
'Z` has identified to me, true identity of gun which had red paint on it from aga in the kitchen, on end of its barrel...
Well dont keep us in suspense...........!
Yeah, these suspenders hurt.
What are you like Grahame? ;D
Im guessing that the answer is going to be...........Pargeters rifle?
All too often Pargeter seems to be the missing link. Cliff recognised this, weeks ago.
Hence the nervous breakdown?
Cliff's...?
As soon as I'd posted that, I realised what I'd said!! Sorry. Pargeter's breakdown. Cliff is as sane as me!! Ahem.
I'm not sure if that's an insult or a complement? ;D
-
Sorry,but I personally cannot buy the air rifle theory.
Neither do I. If sheila had used the .22 firearm toi shoot everybody else why would she choose a far less powerful weapon to try and kill herselff?
-
I'm really sorry, everyone, but I have to say this. I'm no shrinking violet, but I find it impossible to post on here when I know that Jackie will immediately attack whatever I say. There is no point. I actually have something that I consider quite important to say, but it will get lost in her vitriol. So I will pm it.
ATTACK! ATTACK. Shona's posted. ;)
-
Sorry,but I personally cannot buy the air rifle theory.
Neither do I. If sheila had used the .22 firearm toi shoot everybody else why would she choose a far less powerful weapon to try and kill herselff?
Well,the anshutz was found to be out of ammo.I still don't buy it though.
Gosh.............my stalker has been busy ::)
-
Actually one of my closest friends died of cancer Sunday so I needed some company
That's not good. So sorry to hear that Jackie.
-
Sorry,but I personally cannot buy the air rifle theory.
Neither do I. If sheila had used the .22 firearm toi shoot everybody else why would she choose a far less powerful weapon to try and kill herselff?
Well,the anshutz was found to be out of ammo.I still don't buy it though.
Gosh.............my stalker has been busy ::)
Mine too, they're smiting me to blazes again. Okay, here I come to smite you back. And +1 to you, Tyler.
-
Picture hallway2.jpg on page 53. Where the gun is leaning up against the window. Is that a silencer on it? Because if you look at the gun laying on Sheila its barrel looks markedly shorter than the barrel of the one leaning against the window?
-
Sorry,but I personally cannot buy the air rifle theory.
Neither do I. If sheila had used the .22 firearm toi shoot everybody else why would she choose a far less powerful weapon to try and kill herselff?
Well,the anshutz was found to be out of ammo.I still don't buy it though.
Gosh.............my stalker has been busy ::)
Mine too, they're smiting me to blazes again. Okay, here I come to smite you back. And +1 to you, Tyler.
They've bin smiting me too. But who cares? Just shows their childish mentalities. Water off a ducks back.
-
Sorry,but I personally cannot buy the air rifle theory.
Neither do I. If sheila had used the .22 firearm toi shoot everybody else why would she choose a far less powerful weapon to try and kill herselff?
Well,the anshutz was found to be out of ammo.I still don't buy it though.
Gosh.............my stalker has been busy ::)
Mine too, they're smiting me to blazes again. Okay, here I come to smit you back. And +1 to you, Tyler.
Ha,thank you Keira,but no need.The culprit is just showing himself up for what he really is - an overgrown child ;D
-
For Mike;
In an earlier post,you mentioned something about a photograph of a footprint.
Can you tell us any more about this?
ie: where was the footprint found,and was it ever established as to whom it belonged to?
Thanks
-
SBJ/1 is a silencer and was logged on the 13th August. According to the list Mike has posted, there is not an earlier silencer logged.
This is grossly misleading, since police records confirm that DS 'Stan` Jones, took possession of several exhibits from the scene on 7th. August 1985, namely, SBJ/4, SBJ/3 and SBJ/2 and on that basis one can draw a positive inference that the original silencer was found and retained by DS Jones, on the same occasion (7th August) otherwise, SBJ/2 would have been DS Jones first exhibit, and so on and so forth...
Additionally...
DCI `Taff` Jones , and DS `Stan` Jones, went to speak to Jeremy about whether or not the silencer was fitted to the guns barrel?
They went to speak to Jeremy, about this on afternoon of 9th August, so police knew about the silencer the day before the purported find of it the next day - the point being, why would police be mentioning the silencer matter to Jeremy on the day before relatives purport to find it?
Police still had keys to whf, so why were police so interested in a silencer, at that time, when police still had the keys...
Police must have seen the silencer before they went to see Jeremy that day, for them to be taking such an interest in the silencer...
Matters are not helped , by DS `Stan Jones ridiculous claim, concerning his astonishment upon finding out from Robert Boutflour, on 12 th August, that a silencer had been found, which caused DS Jones to scurry off to allegedly collect it from Peter Eaton that same evening? How could DS Jones be so astonished, considering that only a few days previosly, he and DCI Jones, had been questioning Jeremy about it?
Vidvic , do you believe SBJ/1 was taken and documented at the scene after SBJ/4 ?
-
Sorry,but I personally cannot buy the air rifle theory.
Neither do I. If sheila had used the .22 firearm toi shoot everybody else why would she choose a far less powerful weapon to try and kill herselff?
Well,the anshutz was found to be out of ammo.I still don't buy it though.
Gosh.............my stalker has been busy ::)
Mine too, they're smiting me to blazes again. Okay, here I come to smit you back. And +1 to you, Tyler.
Ha,thank you Keira,but no need.The culprit is just showing himself up for what he really is - an overgrown child ;D
You are so right, Tyler, yet knowing that doesn't stop me responding like a child by slapping them back ;D
Here, smiter, here, smiter....! Come on, boy....come and get your just deserts...you miserable spider...er...rat!
-
The sooner smites are gone the better.
-
The sooner smites are gone the better.
I second that, Vidvic! +1 for you
-
The sooner smites are gone the better.
I second that, Vidvic! +1 for you
Woops! I'd just given you a +1, what an idjit! :)
-
Are items found at a crime scene given their exhibit numbers at the scene, or are they collected up and then given their numbers sometime later?
-
Sorry,missed all your posts by taking too long to write mine :-[
Could it be possible that there was only one silencer, but with at least 2 different reports? One for blood, one for paint? And that is how it was recorded?
I just dont know to be honest.It seems to appear that EP already had a silencer in their possesion,at the time the relatives found the second one.And as Mike has stated before,one had more baffle plates than the other?
That's not how I've understood it, Tyler. I'm not sure how EP could have a silencer before the one in the cupboard was found. But when it WAS found, it seemed to be treated as a paperweight, for a while. What a monumental cock-up.
A cock -up Shona , one of many not wearing gloves on a crimescene, i ask you really !
I know. Hugely clumsy policing. And I honestly think that's the reason we'll never truly know. There is every chance that JB will get out, if Simon McKay is as shit-hot as he's supposed to be. There will be some dodgy technicality. And he'll use it. Why else would a high-profile lawyer jump on at this stage?
Shona , whatever your stance is on this case i for one respect your view , all i can say if this Simon Mc Kay can find gaping holes he is going to use it, this was very poor work by the police this was a scene of 5 people shot not some casual break in, one way or another this needs sorting once and for all.
You speak the truth, Merts. And I know that you have some insight about the state of the bodies and time of death. But, bottom line, if Ralph didn't make that phone call, and I honestly don't think that he did, then where does that leave us?
You have a right to a straight answer Shona, if Ralph did not make that phone call it was because he was already dead.
-
Jack your gorgeous boy must be pissed off with you, he wants to get his bone home and youre on here!!
Oh Andy!! This is why we all love yoU!!
Ive always found a Yorkshire lass will speak her mind like just now !
-
I am not going to do anymore campaigning for JB I have totally given up he never appreciated it anyway
Come on, Jackie, cheer up, don't let a minor scrap with a silly girl get you down. We all have low periods at certain times, you'll bounce back as you always do because you are a fighter! Next week you'll be singing Jeremy's praises again. xx
-
Are items found at a crime scene given their exhibit numbers at the scene, or are they collected up and then given their numbers sometime later?
Exhibit references for individual witnesses are automatically allocated to items seized, found or retained by individual officers, so that all the items to which a witness refers in his/her evidence is listed in sequential order, and by this process continuity is established. For example, if I were a witness in a case, and I found, retained, seized or took possession of say four items, the first one would bear my initials (MVT) 1, then 2, followed by 3 and 4, marked like this:-
MVT/1
MVT/2
MVT/3
MVT/4
The allocating of exhibits by use of this system, ensures that the evidence is given and that continuity is established beyond doubt. You can use or rely on this system to check out the truthfulness or otherwise of dodgy or suspect evidence which has been introduced at a later time to help bolster up a case against a suspect or defendant. In the example above, item MVT/3 cannot have been found before either MVT/1 or MVT/2, but it could have been found before MVT/4...
When you apply this to the four exhibits which DS 'Stan' Jiones took possession of at the scene on 7th August 1985, it must follow that if he took possession of items SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4 on 7th August 1985, that he must also have taken possession of one of the silencers at the scene on the same day. Lets take the matter a step further - three exhibits which wer5e seized by DS Jones on 7th August 1985, are logged in one of the property books which ,lists items taken, seized or found or whatever from the scene on 7th August 1985, yet this was a document which relates to the first part of the investigation (SC/688/85), and none of these items (SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4) were carried over into the new investigation (SC/786/85), they were omitted for some reason?
For some reason the police did not want Jeremy Bambers legal team or the court to know that DS 'Stan' Jones had found, seized or taken possession of four exhibits from the scene on 7th August 1985...
I will remind you what exhibit references were given to three of those items on that occasion:-
SBJ/2
SBJ/3
SBJ/4
Now, you do not have to be a scientists from Huntingdon Lab' (1985 era) to see or to know, or to work out, or to use a little bit of that grey matter that some of us are blessed with, that is located somewhere between both of our lug holes, that DS Jones, "must also have taken possession of item SBJ/1 from the scene", on or before the other three items to which I am alluding to, and to which the evidence confirms existed, as of and on 7th August 1985...
the number 4 is greater than 3, and the number 3 is greater than 2, and I think if I am correct, but correct me if I am wrong, the number 2 is greater than 1, so by my reckoning, item SBJ/4 was found at the scene by DS Jones, after item SBJ/3, and item SBJ/3 was found at the scene by DS Jones, after item SBJ/2, and it must follow by a reliance of simple logic and reasoning that item SBJ/1 which DS Jones took possession of at the scene on 7th August 1985, was found or taken into the possession of DS Jones, before either SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...
You have to ask yourself then...
What piece of evidence was given the original exhibit reference of SBJ/1?
Oh look - the silencer bearing the reference (SBJ/1)was sent to the lab' on 26th September 1985, by Essex police, to be checked for blood and fibres, and the 'Genera Examination Record, for the examination of that silencer, which was originally dated, 27th September 1985, (but which has had the date altered to 25th September 1985) happens to have that very same exhibit reference? Funny how there was no blood found at all on this silencer bearing the mark of SBJ/1?
Hang on a minute, wasn't there only one silencer, which had three different exhibit references attributed to it at different stages of the investigation, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1? Then how could silencer bearing the mark DB/1 be at the lab' from 30th August 1985, and blood be found inside it that was linked exclusively to Sheila, and yet the police still be in possession of it between 13th and 26th September 1985, to enable them to submit it to the same lab' to be checked for blood and fibres? Lets just hit the nail on the head to bring this point home to everybody who is remotely interested, blood found inside silencer bearing the mark DB/1, lab' item 23, was analysed and confirmed by tests carried out by blood expert, John Hayward, and his assistants, between 12th and 18th September 1985, at Huntingdon Lab', and so Essex police still had another silencer in their possession whilst silencer (DB/1) was already at the lab' from 30th August 1985, onward. Now, either I am thick or something has been going here with two or more silencers which the police, and the lab', and the relatives, have presented evidence to the court and in this case, as though these different silencers were one and the same? But they could not have been. Now what appears to be the case, is that the police eventually got possession of both Parker hale silencers from the scene, one belonging to Anthony Pargeter, and the other belonging to Ralph Bamber. I will remind you where these were normally kept at the scene so that it becomes a clearer picture - Pargeters silencer was normally kept with his .22 bolt action rifle in the toilet downstairs at whf, and despite some 26 years or more having elapsed since the timing of these terrible shootings, he stuill has not accounted for where his silencer was at the material time, and further more, Essex police, nor the COLP investigation, has been bothered to ask him officially where his silencer was on the night of the shootings? Lets go a step further - the relatives do not seem particularly interested what happened to Anthony Pargeters, Parker Hale silencer, at the material time?
But me...
I am interested in it, and I have been interested in its whereabouts, for a very long time now...
And it seems to me, that one of these two principle silencers, (Lets for arguments sake, call them or refer to them by the different exhibit marks of DB/1 and SBJ/1) the one belonging to Pargeter, and the other belonging to Ralph Bamber, are the two silencers at the heart of this problem, where one was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, inside which was found the crucial blood of Sheila, and another silencer which police still had in their possession (marked SBJ/1) until 26th September 1985, which the police did not send to the lab' to be checked until a date (26th September 1985) after the blood from the other one had already been found and identified...
I cannot put it any clearer than that, or this...
Two different silencers, both identical Parker hale silencers, one with blood from Sheila inside it and paint attributed to it, and another with only paint upon it...
Both merged into one and the same silencer, by the alteration of lab' documents, and entries in witness statements, made by police officers, lab' experts and relatives...
I will post all the relevant documentation along with this post, (later on today) so that members of the forum, and guests, can see for themselves what has been going on here. You can all make up your own minds about what took place regarding these silencers. For my part, I am more than satisfied that I have had the truth explained to me by my informant ('Z')...
Once you work it out that there were two principle silencers, both identical Parker hale types, and you realize that they had different exhibit marks (SBJ/1 and DB/1) it becomes easy to see how this major deception was pulled off to help convict Jeremy Bamber for thee awful murders. This is not a case where the silencers themselves have been swapped over physically, but rather one where the exhibit marks attributed or given to either have been swapped around, and where police, relatives and scientists have been referring to these different silencers by both identifying marks, at different times, as though it was the same silencer all along, when it was most definitely not...
Silencer DB/1, lab' item number 23, was not and is not the same silencer as the one marked SBJ/1, Lab' item number 22, although the silencer referred to as per the submission to the lab' on 13th August and 30th August 1985, may be a reference to the same actual silencer, being sent to the lab' on both of these occasions. Once the relatives took possession of the Bamber silencer from the scene on 11th September 1985 (DRB/1), someone responsible for putting together a case which could be used to help convict Jeremy for these murders, merged them into the same silencer. In other words, information about the actual date when the relatives found the silencer (DRB/1) and handed it over to the police, who retained it, and kept it for 25 days before sending it to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibres, on 26th September 1985, was information swept under the carpet, in the hope and belief that what had been done would never be found out, but they didn't reckon on somebody coming along at a later date who set about reconstructing the sequence of events, regarding the same...
Dodgy silencer evidence, containing dodgy blood evidence and dodgy paint evidence, is what was relied upon to convict Jeremy Bamber for these awful murders. Two principle silencers, DB/1 and SBJ/1, and a pack of lies about how and when and by whom each of these two silencers were found at the scene...
-
For Mike;
In an earlier post,you mentioned something about a photograph of a footprint.
Can you tell us any more about this?
ie: where was the footprint found,and was it ever established as to whom it belonged to?
Thanks
Yes, a footprint found and photographed in the pile of the bedroom carpet, I will post the image in due course. Police were happy to accept that this barefooted mark was made by Sheila at a time after June had already been wounded and shot, and it was pointing in the general direction of the window, where Jeremy and the police had seen the silhouetted figure. My informant told me that police were able to positively identify this footprint as having been made by Sheila, by reference to the size of her foot, and other features...
This was one of the reasons why the hit man theory was abandoned after Matthew MacDonalds arrest and subsequent release, as a suspect - police accepted that figure seen at window was probably Sheila, not any unidentified man, as they had first thought, based upon information provided by PC Myall, contained in the MAJOR INCIDENT PROJECT document ( to which I have a copy of)...
-
I am not going to do anymore campaigning for JB I have totally given up he never appreciated it anyway
So you're giving up on Jeremy. Why? Because he is not appreciative of what you do? Or because he was unjustly imprisoned?
-
Are items found at a crime scene given their exhibit numbers at the scene, or are they collected up and then given their numbers sometime later?
Two different silencers, both identical Parker hale silencers, one with blood from Sheila inside it and paint attributed to it, and another with only paint upon it...
Both merged into one and the same silencer, by the alteration of lab' documents, and entries in witness statements, made by police officers, lab' experts and relatives...
Police Inspector "Bob" Miller, was at the heart of this conspiracy to alter all the exhibit references for these silencers, to try and merge them into one and the same. You will remember that he was the officer who accompanied Dr Craig at the scene when Dr Craig confirmed Sheila to be dead at 8:44am, at a time when Sheila only had one wound to her neck? PI Miller was the very same officer, who had attended the opening of the inquest on 14th August 1985, who had told deputy Coroner, Mr Thompkin, that Sheila had shot and killed the other four victims, and that she had then taken her own life by way of a solitary shot...
PI Miller, drafted up a document to assist him to get witnesses to alter references in their statements about the silencer, where reference had been made to the silencer being identified by the different identifying marks, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1. He identified all the conflicting references in every witness statement and lab' document in police possession at that stage, and set about getting witnesses to alter them into a sort of cohesive argument for there only having been just the one silencer, with three different exhibit references (SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1) - I have a copy of the handwritten draft made by PI Miller to assist him in this task, which I shall of course publish again here shortly...
Lets also not forget...
That PI "Bob" Miller was not only involving himself in trying to make the silencer evidence good by getting witnesses to alter the exhibit references in their statements, and lab' records, and all manner of evil criminality, but he was also involved in the introduction of evidence about the claim that relatives handed over a silencer to DS "Stan" Jones, on evening of 12th August 1985, by claiming that on the morning of 13th August 1985, DS Jones had shown him a silencer which Peter Eaton had given to him, or handed over to him, on the previous evening, and how PI Miller had told DS Jones to hand it over to DI Cook (SOC) another conspirator, on the morning of 13th August 1985, to enable him as it were to suggest that the silencer handed over by the relatives on 12th August 1985, was the same silencer sent to the lab' to be checked and examined on 13th August 1985, by Glynis Howard?
All bollocks, and nonsense, of course...
Relatives did not find Bamber silencer in gun cupboard until 11th September 1985, which police kept in their possession until 26th September 1985, before submitting it to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibres, and so on and so forth...
-
Silencer found in gun cupboard where it was normally kept, on 11th September 1985, had got nothing whatsoever to do with any other silencer sent to the lab' on either 13th or 30th August 1985 - it couldn't have, because it was not found in the gun cupboard until 11th September 1985...
The finding of this silencer, in the gun cupboard on 11th September 1985, and the handing over of it by Ann Eaton (not Peter Eaton) is / was the reason why police still had possession of it by and up to 26th September 1985...
-
I am not going to do anymore campaigning for JB I have totally given up he never appreciated it anyway
But I do, and others do - so don't give up, for what its worth, between the devil and the deep blue sea, you have done a terrific job, it would be a shame to let it all go to waste...
-
Cooks claim of attributing SBJ/1 to a silencer...would show a procedure of only SOCO actually issuing these item numbers.
Therefore SBJ/1 ,SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4 should all be known to Cook and SOCO after Stan Jones had found them on the 7th.
Vidvic mentions the 13th august for SBJ/13 ....as when it was logged . That is incorrect as that is the date it became an item submitted to the lab as with other items. It does indicate when the item was found and logged.
If not on the HOLAB then it should still be logged elsewhere...(misc property log....ie the one that has not been disclosed).
-
Visit to Stirling Castle (recently) and the case of William Wallace?
Here are some images taken by me, last night (10th November 2011):-
Let us not forget, that at the precise moment his heart was being ripped out of his body, the immortal words he yelled, which meant so much, to so many:-
FREEDOM !!!
FREEDOM !!!
FREEDOM !!!
FREEDOM !!!
FREEDOM !!!
-
I am not going to do anymore campaigning for JB I have totally given up he never appreciated it anyway
But I do, and others do - so don't give up, for what its worth, between the devil and the deep blue sea, you have done a terrific job, it would be a shame to let it all go to waste...
Jackie is not going to give up, Mike. Someone - not Jeremy and not here - has upset Jackie and she is understandably angry. Jackie will soon be campaigning for Jeremy again, I've no doubt of that.
-
I am not going to do anymore campaigning for JB I have totally given up he never appreciated it anyway
So you're giving up on Jeremy. Why? Because he is not appreciative of what you do? Or because he was unjustly imprisoned?
Jackie hasn't given up, Grahame, she's just angry with someone. But you and I know that Jackie's a fighter, not a quitter, she will eat this person for breakfast, then she will be back fighting for Jeremy.
-
Funny...
How as part of the COLP (1991) inquiry, the two principle silencers in this case, (Pargeters and Bambers silencers),were sent for testing by COLP. Both had a universal fitting that allows for either silencer to be fitted to other weapons, such as a .22 air rifle like the one previously owned by Anthony Pargeter, that he gave to Jeremy...
I think it should also noted that Anthony Pargeter had Two magazines for his rifle, a ten shot and a five shot, With the Bamber magazine that is a total of 25 shots.
No need to reload anything then!
Pargeter does not mention emptying the magazines, in fact he said it was a fiddly job so he probably didn't.
-
I am not going to do anymore campaigning for JB I have totally given up he never appreciated it anyway
But I do, and others do - so don't give up, for what its worth, between the devil and the deep blue sea, you have done a terrific job, it would be a shame to let it all go to waste...
I second that.
-
Vey nice pictures Mike. But I doubt if Wallace every shouted those words. Also Edward longshanks died several years after Wallace, not the same day as he did. I like the rebel spirit of Wallace though.
-
Vey nice pictures Mike. But I doubt if Wallace every shouted those words. Also Edward longshanks died several years after Wallace, not the same day as he did. I like the rebel spirit of Wallace though.
According to the film `Braveheart`, he did shout out ”freedom”, as his heart was being ripped out...
-
Vey nice pictures Mike. But I doubt if Wallace every shouted those words. Also Edward longshanks died several years after Wallace, not the same day as he did. I like the rebel spirit of Wallace though.
According to the film `Braveheart`, he did shout out ”freedom”, as his heart was being ripped out...
Mmm... and according to the film Braveheart he slept with queen Isabella, despite her not coming to Britain until 3 years after his death.
I hope you validate your JB-related evidence a bit more rigorously Michael :)
Good film though, provided you apply a bucket of salt.
-
Vey nice pictures Mike. But I doubt if Wallace every shouted those words. Also Edward longshanks died several years after Wallace, not the same day as he did. I like the rebel spirit of Wallace though.
According to the film `Braveheart`, he did shout out ”freedom”, as his heart was being ripped out...
Mmm... and according to the film Braveheart he slept with queen Isabella, despite her not coming to Britain until 3 years after her death.
I hope you validate your JB-related evidence a bit more rigorously Michael :)
Good film though, provided you apply a bucket of salt.
They laughed at Mel Gibson playing a Scott in Braveheart. But look at him now, an alcoholic racist
-
Vey nice pictures Mike. But I doubt if Wallace every shouted those words. Also Edward longshanks died several years after Wallace, not the same day as he did. I like the rebel spirit of Wallace though.
According to the film `Braveheart`, he did shout out ”freedom”, as his heart was being ripped out...
Mmm... and according to the film Braveheart he slept with queen Isabella, despite her not coming to Britain until 3 years after her death.
I hope you validate your JB-related evidence a bit more rigorously Michael :)
Good film though, provided you apply a bucket of salt.
modern day records are often inaccurate, as evidenced in the Bamber case, so how can anybody be sure that records from centuries ago were more accurate?
-
Vey nice pictures Mike. But I doubt if Wallace every shouted those words. Also Edward longshanks died several years after Wallace, not the same day as he did. I like the rebel spirit of Wallace though.
According to the film `Braveheart`, he did shout out ”freedom”, as his heart was being ripped out...
Mmm... and according to the film Braveheart he slept with queen Isabella, despite her not coming to Britain until 3 years after her death.
I hope you validate your JB-related evidence a bit more rigorously Michael :)
Good film though, provided you apply a bucket of salt.
modern day records are often inaccurate, as evidenced in the Bamber case, so how can anybody be sure that records from centuries ago were more accurate?
"History is Bunk" (Henry Ford).
-
Vey nice pictures Mike. But I doubt if Wallace every shouted those words. Also Edward longshanks died several years after Wallace, not the same day as he did. I like the rebel spirit of Wallace though.
According to the film `Braveheart`, he did shout out ”freedom”, as his heart was being ripped out...
As defiant as Sir Everard Digby. (Allegedly).
-
Vey nice pictures Mike. But I doubt if Wallace every shouted those words. Also Edward longshanks died several years after Wallace, not the same day as he did. I like the rebel spirit of Wallace though.
According to the film `Braveheart`, he did shout out ”freedom”, as his heart was being ripped out...
Mmm... and according to the film Braveheart he slept with queen Isabella, despite her not coming to Britain until 3 years after her death.
I hope you validate your JB-related evidence a bit more rigorously Michael :)
Good film though, provided you apply a bucket of salt.
modern day records are often inaccurate, as evidenced in the Bamber case, so how can anybody be sure that records from centuries ago were more accurate?
Exactly. So where did the film makers get the information for Braveheart? But we do know from various records when Edward 1st died and it was long after William Wallace. His son was crowned in his place. He was a homosexual. The people didn't tolerate that kind of thing in those days so they shoved a red hot poker up his arse and killed him. Ouch!.
-
FREEDOM !!!
-
Exactly. So where did the film makers get the information for Braveheart? But we do know from various records when Edward 1st died and it was long after William Wallace. His son was crowned in his place. He was a homosexual. The people didn't tolerate that kind of thing in those days so they shoved a red hot poker up his arse and killed him. Ouch!.
Graheme, you should tread this book. It tells how that came to happen and questions whether it even happened at all. Great book.
-
More photographs from area where recent meeting between myself and informant took place:-
-
An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
-
He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.
Charles Peguy
-
An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness , and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.
(Romans 2:15)
-
He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.
Charles Peguy
This has a lot of resonance for me personally. On a lesser scale of course. But I get in to trouble for shoving 'the truth' in people's faces. You have to be sure you have the full story. Because often there are several truths.
-
This is a view of the kitchen once it was reconstructed by help from the house cleaner:-
-
Marks on the front face of the aga surround, are missing at the time this photograph was taken, but appeared there later - who made these additional marks on the front face of the aga, and why?
-
If there were two silencers, it makes it easy to use one of them to deliberately scratch the front face of the aga to make the additional mark which is absent on the morning of the murders, and still absent when the house cleaner reset the kitchen, but which mysteriously appeared there, once Jeremy was re-arrested and charged with the murders...
-
Photographic negatives?
-
An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Excellent quotation, Mike +1.
-
How could Sheila have been photographed downstairs, as suggested by the negative schedule here?
-
A total of 7 negatives are missing from the upstairs bedroom, but more importantly - a further 8 missing which were taken from under the stairs in the downstairs office, which is where the silencer that the relatives claim to have found was recovered from...
-
Why would PC Bird be taking 8 photographs of the cupboard under the stairs in the downstairs office on 7th August, and why should all these negatives go missing?
My informant tells me, that this was because DS "Stan" Jones, took possession of a silencer (SBJ/1) from the scene, which turned out to have Sheila's blood inside it. The other one did not...
The other one was used by somebody to make the additional mark on the front face of the aga surround, which was absent on the morning of the shootings...
-
PC Bird was asked specifically to take photographs which showed a view from the kitchen window, which coincided with the sighting of a dead female behind the door of the pantry adjacent to the kitchen window, by one of the armed police officers before entry was gained...
-
Lets not forget that police found two bodies upon entry of premises, the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female, not just the body of Ralph Bamber...
-
Why have 8 crucial negatives which were taken in the gun cupboard gone missing?
What did PC Bird photograph in the gun cupboard, what Essex police did not want anybody to find out about?
When I asked my informant about this, I was told that a gun was photographed there which should not have been there, when I enquired which one, my informant told me the rifle which was photographed on top of Sheila's body in the bedroom. I asked my informant how the rifle on Sheila's body could also have been photographed in the gun cupboard? With a shrug of shoulders, followed by a deathly silence, I got the impression that I was not supposed to be asking those type of questions, for what reason I know not?
So...
I offer this part of the puzzle up for members to debate, with a view to coming up with some idea regarding this feature?
How could the rifle which was photographed on Sheila's body upstairs, also have been photographed in the gun cupboard downstiars, where it was normally kept by Ralph Bamber?
-
Photographic negatives?
Where is this from ? The list you have posted ?
-
Once rifle was removed from Sheila's body upstairs, was it taken back downstairs, and placed into the gun cupboard, where PC Bird photographed it, that morning?
There has to be a very good reason why police removed 8 negatives of photographs that were taken in the gun cupboard that morning...
Did PC Bird photograph the Bamber silencer that morning in a different position or location to that alleged by David Boutflour to which he referred when he claims he found the silencer?
Alarm bells are ringing, there is something wrong here...
-
Photographic negatives?
Where is this from ? The list you have posted ?
Mr Suthersts report...
-
Silencer which was found by relatives on 11th September 1985 at whf, coincided with the arrest of Jeremy, at a time when he was in custody, relatives took an opportunity to return to whf and carry out a further search of the premises...
Was this when the relatives scratched the front face of the aga surround with the silencer they had found, and was this why red paint from the aga was found upon the silencer when the police sent it to the lab to be checked?
-
Picture hallway2.jpg on page 53. Where the gun is leaning up against the window. Is that a silencer on it?
No.
-
This is a view of the kitchen once it was reconstructed by help from the house cleaner:-
And one of the things missing from the kitchen is the mat in front of the sink unit.
The one Ralph's bloodstained watch was supposed to be under and also supposed to be covering bullet case DRH 20 in written evidence but is shown on a floorplan as being found under or upon the mat under the table which is not in the same place as in the crime scene photographs used in court.
-
How could police show gun dealer, Radcliffe silencer on 16th November 1985, if it was still in storage at the lab' where it had been since 30th August 1985?
Here is the gun dealers statement, dated, 16th November 1985:-
Also note, that silencer at this stage is being referred to by exhibit reference, DRB/1, and that the telescopic site is being referred to by exhibit mark, DBR/2. What is interesting about this, is that Ann Eaton handed over the telescopic site and other things to the police on 11th September 1985, at a time when everything which was handed over by her was given her brothers identifying mark (DRB), yet later items DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4, had their exhitbit references altered and changed into AE/2, AE/3 and AE/4...
In some documents these alterations were given a slightly different identifying mark of CAE/2, CAE/3 and CAE/4...
Tampering with these exhibit references involving exhibits Ann Eaton handed over to the police on 11th September 1985, was designed to hide for the fact that she also handed over the silencer (DRB/1) which her brother found in the gun cupboard that day at whf...
-
No evidence exists to show that a silencer submitted to the lab' on 30th August 1985, was ever handed back to Essex police before the start of the trial, to enable DS 162 Bernard to take it to show the gun dealer on 16th November 1985, so it must have been the second silencer which he took on that occasion...
-
Here is another witness statement from the gun Dealer, dated, 20th September 1985
Some discrepancy exists over the type of ammunition sold with the rifle to Ralph Bamber on 24th November 1984, since the gun dealer refers to it as Eley .22 (RF) rim fire ammunition, where the gun expert Malcolm Fletcher, refers to the batch of crime scene ammunition as .22 LR ammunition?
-
Statement from PC Tingey about measurements of Sheila and the rifle no longer required from 19th September 1986
By then, prosecution had acquired other evidence to get this point across, but nevertheless, where is the statement mentioning these measurements from PC Tingey, and when was it made?
-
Relatives knew that Sheila had been offered to be shown how to load bullets into the magazine of the rifle, about a month or so, before shootings
Relatives were all to eager to mention that they did not think Sheuila knew one end of the gun from the other, yet at Easter time, about one month before the shootings in 1985, Robert Boutflour had a conversation with June Bamber about Jeremy offering to show Sheila how to load bullets into the magazine of the .22 rifle...
-
Police find two torches in a hedgerow in field close to whf
These two torches are believed to have normally been kept on the mantelpiece (aga) in the kitchen at whf:-
-
List of all the (prosecution) experts involved in the examination of exhibits in connection with this case:-
-
Lab' notes, regarding submission of silencer to lab' and enquiries from police about blood and paint upon silencer, dated, 27th October 1986 (whilst trial was ongoing)...
-
List of Exhibits in the case, giving details of identifying marks, date found, date sent to Lab', etc...
The contents of thee schedules were drafted up by Jeremy, many years ago, at a time when he did not appreciate the existence of two silencers/ sound moderators, etc...
Also note, that there is no mention of several other crucial exhibits, including the bible (DRH/44), or the rifles end cap?
-
My Informant ('Z') has told me that the same silencer was sent to the lab'on both 13th and 30th August 1985, and that Sheila's blood was found inside that silencer. This silencer was not the one found by the relatives in the gun cupboard...
The one found by the relatives on 11th September 1985, did not go to the lab' until later...
I spoke to my informant about the date when the seciond silencer was sent to the lab', since Jeremy and I were in dispute as to the actual date it went there? Jeremy has been saying it was not sent until 20th September 1985, whilst I was under the impression it was not sent until 26th September 1985? 'Z' told me that Jeremy's interpretation is the correct one...
In other words, second silencer was sent to the lab' on 20th September, not 26th September 1985...
In any event, my informant says that the silencer which was found by relatives was not the silencer inside which was found Sheila's blood, only paint was found on the second silencer sent to the lab' on 20th September 1985...
'Z' has asked me to post a copy of a document on the forum which gives a clear indication that it was the same silencer which the police sent to the lab' on 13th and 30th August 1985, and that this silencer was not the one found by the relatives in the gun cupboard, since they did not find that silencer there until 11th September 1985, long afterwards...
My informant has told me that the silencer sent to the lab' on both of these occasions had the original exhibit reference of SBJ/1, and not SBJ/1 on 13th August, and DB/1 on 30th August 1985. Informant says the exhibit references were swapped around to accommodate the evidence of the finding of the second silencer by the relatives, so as to produce it as though it had been found a month earlier (on 10th August 1985)...
-
As you can see, the identifying mark for the submission of the silencer to the lab' on 30th August 1985, was originally given as SBJ/1, not DB/1 (which was added, and altered, later on)...
-
The silencer found in the gun cupboard by the relatives on 11th September 1985, and which got sent to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibres, on 20th/26th September 1985, was originally given the identifying mark of DB/1...
-
Exhibit references for both silencers were interchanged, so that police and lab' records suggested silencer DB/1 was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and that it was therefore the original silencer sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, and attempts were made to suppress any information about the actual date when the relatives had found the silencer on 11th September 1985, and or that it had been sent to the lab' on 20th/26th September 1985?
-
Informant says this was why the silencer sent to the lab' on 20th/26th September had the identifying mark of SBJ/1 upon it, rather than DB/1 (which later got changed again into DRB/1), so that by the time the case came to trial in October 1985, the silencer evidence was presented as though there had only ever been one silencer, sent to the lab' once on 30th August 1985, and that once it had been examined blood from Sheila was found inside it. This silencer which was court exhibit 9, had the identifying mark of DRB/1...
Nobody knew about the second silencer at that stage...
Nobody knew that there had been three submission dates for a silencer to the lab' (13th and 30th August 1985, and 20th/26th September 1985)...
Nobody knew that relatives did not find silencer in gun cupboard at whf until 11th September 1985, on a date which was after the silencer containing Sheila's blood had already been sent to the lab' (30th August 1985)...
Nobody knew that these two identical looking Parker Hale silencers had been merged into one and the same silencer by a team or gang or conspirators involving police officers, relatives and some experts at the lab'...
We now know, for example, that the silencer marked SBJ/1, was not the same silencer, as DB/1, and that DRB/1 could not have been both of them, only one of them...
-
(A) Original silencer found by DS "Stan" Jones, had the identifying mark of SBJ/1,he found this at the scene on 7th August 1985, and both he and DCI "Taff" Jones, spoke to Jeremy about this when they went to see him at his cottage, 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, on 9th August 1985...
(B) Silencer found by relatives in gun cupboard on 11th September 1985, was found there on that occasion along with the telescopic site and other items which Ann Eaton handed over to the police that same day, which was provisionally given the exhibit mark of DB/1, but this was later changed to DRB/1...
Silencers mentioned at (A) and (B) were merged into the same silencer, which sparked off a mission to alter exhibit references in statements and police / lab' documentation, where references to a silencer on the different occasions, were altered from SBJ./1 into DB/1 and subsequently altered again, into DRB/1...
When challenged about these alterations in 1991 as part of the COLP investigation, Essex police came up with a story saying the reason for the changes and alterations in the silencer exhibit reference's from SBJ/1 to DB/1 to DRB/1 because of clashes to do with other witnesses in the case having an identical exhibit reference. But when this was looked into, DS "Stan" Jones did not produce or find (officially) any exhibit SBJ/1,and the references to him taking possession of other exhibits from the scene, marked SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4,were removed altogether, so as to try and prevent anyone doing a reconstruction. Additionally, DB was the identifying mark given to exhibits by PC David Bird, but he has not produced any exhibit marked DB/1, so the claim by Essex police that there was some sort of a clash involving the exhibit references of different witnesses in the case is and was a false one...
Officially there is a missing exhibit found by DS "Stan" Jones, marked SBJ/1, and another missing exhibit found by PC Bird, marked DB/1...
-
The attempt to reconstruct what actually took place with these silencers, and the different identifying marks of SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, has been made difficult and could not easily have been recognised but for the information recently provided to me by my informant ('Z') who has told me that the deception occurred because of the swapping over of exhibit references, which became interchangeable at different stages of the police investigations, merged as it were into one and the same silencer, so that references to a silencer marked SBJ/1, and DB/1 were the same silencer (DRB/1) when in actual fact they were two different ones, namely, one found by DS "Stan" Jones at the scene, and the other found by the relatives much later...
-
(1) Silencer found by DS "Stan" Jones - originally marked SBJ/1
(2) Silencer found by relatives - originally marked DB/1
(3) both merged into same silencer - marked DRB/1
Hence, how silencers SBJ/1, and DB/1, were merged into the same silencer, DRB/1...
As they say...
"Jobs a gud en"...
-
I will be posting the COLP interview records of PC Bird, later on today, to facilitate debate, and for comparison with his court transcript given at Jeremy's trial...
-
Exhibit references for both silencers were interchanged, so that police and lab' records suggested silencer DB/1 was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and that it was therefore the original silencer sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, and attempts were made to suppress any information about the actual date when the relatives had found the silencer on 11th September 1985, and or that it had been sent to the lab' on 20th/26th September 1985?
Mike. If the silencer that was found originally by the police, the one that had the incriminating evidence of the blood of Sheila on it was the one sent to the lab. Why would they go to the trouble of sending the silencer that the relatives found which had less incriminating evidence on it? Surely the first silencer would have been enough evidence on it to put Jeremy in the dock without the evidence of the one with paint on it? Why would they go to the trouble of changing things round?
Surely the silencer found by the police which had the blood of Sheila on it was the stronger evidence?
-
Picture hallway2.jpg on page 53. Where the gun is leaning up against the window. Is that a silencer on it?
No.
Not?
-
Exhibit references for both silencers were interchanged, so that police and lab' records suggested silencer DB/1 was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and that it was therefore the original silencer sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, and attempts were made to suppress any information about the actual date when the relatives had found the silencer on 11th September 1985, and or that it had been sent to the lab' on 20th/26th September 1985?
Mike. If the silencer that was found originally by the police, the one that had the incriminating evidence of the blood of Sheila on it was the one sent to the lab. Why would they go to the trouble of sending the silencer that the relatives found which had less incriminating evidence on it? Surely the first silencer would have been enough evidence on it to put Jeremy in the dock without the evidence of the one with paint on it? Why would they go to the trouble of changing things round?
Surely the silencer found by the police which had the blood of Sheila on it was the stronger evidence?
If a silencer was submitted on the 13th august...and the lab report is genuine...then all they could say about it was that human blood was found on the silencer. It did not state whose blood and it could not be grouped.
So at that stage there was little it could do to incriminate anyone...
More blood was supposedly found inside a silencer when tested later on....but there is no evidence that this blood found later on was actually in the silencer on the 13th or wether it was another silencer entirely. Ie blood or flakes could have been added later.
-
Exhibit references for both silencers were interchanged, so that police and lab' records suggested silencer DB/1 was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and that it was therefore the original silencer sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, and attempts were made to suppress any information about the actual date when the relatives had found the silencer on 11th September 1985, and or that it had been sent to the lab' on 20th/26th September 1985?
Mike. If the silencer that was found originally by the police, the one that had the incriminating evidence of the blood of Sheila on it was the one sent to the lab. Why would they go to the trouble of sending the silencer that the relatives found which had less incriminating evidence on it? Surely the first silencer would have been enough evidence on it to put Jeremy in the dock without the evidence of the one with paint on it? Why would they go to the trouble of changing things round?
Surely the silencer found by the police which had the blood of Sheila on it was the stronger evidence?
If a silencer was submitted on the 13th august...and the lab report is genuine...then all they could say about it was that human blood was found on the silencer. It did not state whose blood and it could not be grouped.
So at that stage there was little it could do to incriminate anyone...
More blood was supposedly found inside a silencer when tested later on....but there is no evidence that this blood found later on was actually in the silencer on the 13th or wether it was another silencer entirely. Ie blood or flakes could have been added later.
In a statement dated 10 Sept. 1985 Pargeter said this.
" Sometime after the 10 Aug. 1985 David phoned me, and told me that the police had RETURNED the silencer to the family. DB said that there was a large scratch on it, some paint on the nurled end and what appeared to be blood. I advised DB to RETURN it to the police.
Now does mean this that when the police took the silencer it did not have a large scratch ect. and when they returned it, it did.
Even so it appears the police had "a" silencer BEFORE the 10 AUG 1985. or have I got this wrong?
-
Picture hallway2.jpg on page 53. Where the gun is leaning up against the window. Is that a silencer on it?
No.
Not?
Considerably enlarge the image for convenience. As a consequence of the lighting, there is what initially appears to be a change in the width of the barrel halfway along it. However, one can't see a line across the barrel where the sound moderator would start, and the overall length of the barrel is too short for a sound moderator to be present. If the silencer were present, it would constitute the final third of the overall length of the barrel, not half of the overall length. I previously posted these points here (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,322.msg4352.html#msg4352).
Now does mean this that when the police took the silencer it did not have a large scratch ect. and when they returned it, it did.
I assume you intended the following: "Now does this mean that when the police took the silencer it did not have a large scratch etc., and when they returned it, it did?"
-
Now does mean this that when the police took the silencer it did not have a large scratch ect. and when they returned it, it did.
I assume you intended the following: "Now does this mean that when the police took the silencer it did not have a large scratch etc., and when they returned it, it did?"
;D go on, shoot him. ;D
-
Exhibit references for both silencers were interchanged, so that police and lab' records suggested silencer DB/1 was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and that it was therefore the original silencer sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, and attempts were made to suppress any information about the actual date when the relatives had found the silencer on 11th September 1985, and or that it had been sent to the lab' on 20th/26th September 1985?
Mike. If the silencer that was found originally by the police, the one that had the incriminating evidence of the blood of Sheila on it was the one sent to the lab. Why would they go to the trouble of sending the silencer that the relatives found which had less incriminating evidence on it? Surely the first silencer would have been enough evidence on it to put Jeremy in the dock without the evidence of the one with paint on it? Why would they go to the trouble of changing things round?
Surely the silencer found by the police which had the blood of Sheila on it was the stronger evidence?
I have briefly spoken to my informant about this matter, only last last week, and the explanation I was given is very interesting...
-
Informant provided me with an explanation about the handing over of the silencer by Ann Eaton to the police on 11th September 1985, again this explanation is very interesting and revealing...
-
Exhibit references for both silencers were interchanged, so that police and lab' records suggested silencer DB/1 was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and that it was therefore the original silencer sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, and attempts were made to suppress any information about the actual date when the relatives had found the silencer on 11th September 1985, and or that it had been sent to the lab' on 20th/26th September 1985?
Mike. If the silencer that was found originally by the police, the one that had the incriminating evidence of the blood of Sheila on it was the one sent to the lab. Why would they go to the trouble of sending the silencer that the relatives found which had less incriminating evidence on it? Surely the first silencer would have been enough evidence on it to put Jeremy in the dock without the evidence of the one with paint on it? Why would they go to the trouble of changing things round?
Surely the silencer found by the police which had the blood of Sheila on it was the stronger evidence?
I have briefly spoken to my informant about this matter, only last last week, and the explanation I was given is very interesting...
Small flake which David Boutflour scraped off one of the silencers was sent to the lab' to be checked and analysed and this is what produced the crucial blood group evidence (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) - this evidence was supposedly removed from the silencer David Boutflour found on the silencer at the scene on 11th September 1985, and upon which he had used a razor blade to scrape it from the silencer with, on that occasion...
-
Exhibit references for both silencers were interchanged, so that police and lab' records suggested silencer DB/1 was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and that it was therefore the original silencer sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, and attempts were made to suppress any information about the actual date when the relatives had found the silencer on 11th September 1985, and or that it had been sent to the lab' on 20th/26th September 1985?
Mike. If the silencer that was found originally by the police, the one that had the incriminating evidence of the blood of Sheila on it was the one sent to the lab. Why would they go to the trouble of sending the silencer that the relatives found which had less incriminating evidence on it? Surely the first silencer would have been enough evidence on it to put Jeremy in the dock without the evidence of the one with paint on it? Why would they go to the trouble of changing things round?
Surely the silencer found by the police which had the blood of Sheila on it was the stronger evidence?
I have briefly spoken to my informant about this matter, only last last week, and the explanation I was given is very interesting...
Small flake which David Boutflour scraped off one of the silencers was sent to the lab' to be checked and analysed and this is what produced the crucial blood group evidence (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) - this evidence was supposedly removed from the silencer David Boutflour found on the silencer at the scene on 11th September 1985, and upon which he had used a razor blade to scrape it from the silencer with, on that occasion...
This was why, the silencer sent to the lab' on 20th / 26th September 1985 was sent there to be checked for the presence of blood and fibres, and which resulted in only paint being found upon it...
-
Small flake of blood containing Sheila's blood group activity was not found inside any of the silencers whilst either was at the lab', either on or after 30th August 1985, or on or after 20th/26th September 1985...
It was merely a small flake of dried blood which the police took possession of from David Boutflour, after he told them that he had used a razor blade to scrape it off the end of one of the silencers...
The flake was incorporated into one of the silencers because by so doing it would be more believable, and it allowed the ballistic expert to introduce his theory of backspatter...
-
So in theory,the small piece of blood scraped off of the silencer found by David,could have been Robert Boutflours blood,seeing as he shared the same blood group as Sheila?
And remember,blood found in the original silencer was determined to be Sheilas or a mix or Nevill and Junes.But when DNA testing became avaliable,Sheilas DNA was not found to be present in that silencer.
-
Pargeter's statement is rather vague, as "after the 10 Aug. 1985" could refer to any date from 11 Aug. 1985 up to the 10 Sept. 1985 date of the statement, and David didn't explicitly state who originally found the silencer mentioned. The police could have "returned" a silencer that they had found or one that David had found. Had David said that the police returned the silencer to him, as distinct from to the family, that might have suggested that he had found it originally, but use of the word "family" gives no indication of who found the silencer originally. In any case, I'd be reluctant to treat Pargeter's statement as a reliable account of what exactly David said.
-
Listen up, and listen good
Ann Eaton handed over the silencer which her brother David found in the gun cupboard at whf on 11th September 1985, to DC Oakley, or a DC Oakey, who was at the scene on 11th September 1985, along with PC David Bird (SOC). My informant has told me that PC Bird at that time, was handed this silencer by the other police officer, and at that stage, PC Bird made notes in his pocketbook about it, referring to the find and seizure of exhibit DB/1...
My informant tells me that PC Bird recorded the recovery of exhibit DB/1 twice in his pocketbook, namely once on 10th September 1985, which was a reference to a soil sample, and secondly on 11th September 1985, as a reference to the silencer (albeit, the silencer was not actually mentioned in his pocketbook entry)...
'Z' pointed out to me, that the handing over of the second silencer to the police by Ann Eaton on this (11th September 1985) day, was responsible for the alteration in one of the submission documents from the police to the lab' where the exhibit reference for the silencer which had been submitted to the lab'on 30th August 1985, was altered from SBJ/1 to DB/1 (by hand) as part of the ploy to merge both silencers into the same one...
The small flake of dried blood was supposedly scraped off the silencer found by David Boutflour in the gun cupboard on 11th September 1985, and sent to the lab' upon which it was immediately analysed, producing the blood group activity of A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1)....
-
My informant has told me that I will find evidence for this in the COLP interview of PC Bird (SOC), and this is the reason why I have recently posted his trial transcript, and why I am in the process of posting PC Birds (SOC) COLP interview transcript from 1991...
#
There is mention in those interviews by PC Bird about the fact that he records the seizure or find of exhibit DB/1, twice, once on 10th September 1985, and the other on 11th September 1985...
-
So in theory,the small piece of blood scraped off of the silencer found by David,could have been Robert Boutflours blood,seeing as he shared the same blood group as Sheila?
And remember,blood found in the original silencer was determined to be Sheilas or a mix or Nevill and Junes.But when DNA testing became avaliable,Sheilas DNA was not found to be present in that silencer.
My informant tells me that the small flake of dried blood was actually taken from the bloodstained knickers belonging to Sheila, but I suppose in theory at least it could also have been provided by Robert Boutflour who as you point out had the same blood group activity as Sheila (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1)...
In any event, my informant says that this was the reason why the second silencer was sent to the lab' on 20th / 26th September 1985, by the police, to be checked for blood and fibres. Police suspected that the relatives may have got some of the blood from Sheila's heavily stained panties and introduced it as though it had been found on or inside the silencer that had been found on 11th September 1985...
-
I am going to copy the remainder of the COLP interview with PC Bird (SOC) now, so I will be away for awhile...
I will add newly copied pages of interview to original post...
In fact...
Go there now, and I will introduce the copies piecemeal...
-
Jeremy has been saying it was not sent until 20th September 1985, whilst I was under the impression it was not sent until 26th September 1985? 'Z' told me that Jeremy's interpretation is the correct one...
Is any document available that either suggests this date was 20th September 1985 or gives another date? The only relevant document I can recall seeing gives "26", with a "6" that is a bit large, but doesn't appear to have been altered from "0". Was there any motive for changing "20" to "26" anyway, or any explanation as to why 'Z' would recall the exact date?
-
Jeremy has been saying it was not sent until 20th September 1985, whilst I was under the impression it was not sent until 26th September 1985? 'Z' told me that Jeremy's interpretation is the correct one...
Is any document available that either suggests this date was 20th September 1985 or gives another date? The only relevant document I can recall seeing gives "26", with a "6" that is a bit large, but doesn't appear to have been altered from "0". Was there any motive for changing "20" to "26" anyway, or any explanation as to why 'Z' would recall the exact date?
Only the submission of articles, which is dated, in my opinion, 26th September 1985, but which Jeremy says is actually a reference to the 20th September 1985, because he has got copy of some other lab' documents which confirm that there were submissions from the police to the lab' on that date...
My informant had access to SOC material at the time of the investigation, pertaining to firearms and accessories, and this is why 'Z' has information about the second silencer which was sent to the lab' on 20th September 1985, in keeping with what Jeremy stated previously, contradicting my findings...
-
These other lab documents would be relevant only if they related to items that were also listed on the same form that I mentioned above, as items could have been submitted on both dates.
I understand that your informant had access to the information, but that doesn't explain why he would remember this specific date or why the day number would be given as, or altered to, "26" on the form that we've seen.
-
These other lab documents would be relevant only if they related to items that were also listed on the same form that I mentioned above, as items could have been submitted on both dates.
I understand that your informant had access to the information, but that doesn't explain why he would remember this specific date or why the day number would be given as, or altered to, "26" on the form that we've seen.
Without giving to much away about the identity of my informant, it would be true to say that other firearms accessories were submitted to the lab' (20th September 1985) along with the second silencer, and that my informant does not say that the date has been altered with regard to the submission of the second silencer, from 26th to 20th September 1985, or vice versa, my informant says the date was always the 20th September 1985, and that my interpenetration of 26th September 1985, was a misreading of the date on the form mentioned...
Informant says that a number of exhibits bearing the DRB mark were all submitted to the lab' on the same date, and that the second silencer (DRB/1) was one of these submitted articles on that date. Informant remembers these items and the date because they were all firearms exhibits, in particular, the fact that a second silencer was being sent to the lab' on a date after another silencer was already present at the lab'. Informant remembers the date in question because 'Z' may have had to handle some of them, that date, and have notes in my informants pocketbook, to confirm that this is what took place...
-
Pargeter's statement is rather vague, as "after the 10 Aug. 1985" could refer to any date from 11 Aug. 1985 up to the 10 Sept. 1985 date of the statement, and David didn't explicitly state who originally found the silencer mentioned. The police could have "returned" a silencer that they had found or one that David had found. Had David said that the police returned the silencer to him, as distinct from to the family, that might have suggested that he had found it originally, but use of the word "family" gives no indication of who found the silencer originally. In any case, I'd be reluctant to treat Pargeter's statement as a reliable account of what exactly David said.
The use of the term family was mine. David said the silencer was returned to him, or at least this was the way I interpreted it.
-
Also remember the silencer was origanally accredited with exhibit number AE1 by the exhibits officer.
-
My informant tells me that the small flake of dried blood was actually taken from the bloodstained knickers belonging to Sheila
I cannot see how you could obtain a flake of blood from bloodstained knickers, particularly if they've been soaking in a bucket of water. Without getting too graphic, the blood would have soaked into the fibres and then become diluted by the water. To obtain a flake it would have to sit on the surface so that you could then scrape it off once dry, and it just doesn't do that.
-
It may be me reading this wrong Mike, but is your informant telling you what you already know, and so do we. Are you being taken for a ride here Mike.
His theories have been speculating on this forum for yonks, and have been discussed.
I suppose you will get your head up your arse again for me daring to question you, but I am nobodies patsy, and have grave doubts of the authenticity of Z.
-
My informant tells me that the small flake of dried blood was actually taken from the bloodstained knickers belonging to Sheila
I cannot see how you could obtain a flake of blood from bloodstained knickers, particularly if they've been soaking in a bucket of water. Without getting too graphic, the blood would have soaked into the fibres and then become diluted by the water. To obtain a flake it would have to sit on the surface so that you could then scrape it off once dry, and it just doesn't do that.
it was originally a clot of blood which came from panties, which apparently was left to dry, I wasn't there so I cannot give you the exact or precise circumstances of its find or recovery...
-
It may be me reading this wrong Mike, but is your informant telling you what you already know, and so do we. Are you being taken for a ride here Mike.
His theories have been speculating on this forum for yonks, and have been discussed.
I suppose you will get your head up your arse again for me daring to question you, but I am nobodies patsy, and have grave doubts of the authenticity of Z.
You are entitled to believe whatever you want to...
-
It may be me reading this wrong Mike, but is your informant telling you what you already know, and so do we. Are you being taken for a ride here Mike.
His theories have been speculating on this forum for yonks, and have been discussed.
I suppose you will get your head up your arse again for me daring to question you, but I am nobodies patsy, and have grave doubts of the authenticity of Z.
You are entitled to believe whatever you want to...
Quite.
-
. . . my informant says the date was always the 20th September 1985, and that my interpretation of 26th September 1985, was a misreading of the date on the form mentioned...
My misreading too, then, as it is quite clearly "26" on that form.
Informant says that a number of exhibits bearing the DRB mark were all submitted to the lab' on the same date, and that the second silencer (DRB/1) was one of these submitted articles on that date. Informant remembers these items and the date because they were all firearms exhibits
If that's the case, there should be documents available to back it up, and some explanation as to why other firearms exhibits attributed to DRB were being sent off at such a late stage. Even if your informant knew that the exhibits were ready to be sent off on 20th September, and made a note in is pocketbook, he probably wouldn't know for certain that they were actually sent on that date unless he was the officer who completed the form and dispatched them. We know two things for certain: one is that on the form we've seen the day appears to be "26", and the other is that it's really difficult (try it) to write a "0" that accidentally looks like a "6".
it was originally a clot of blood which came from panties, which apparently was left to dry, I wasn't there so I cannot give you the exact or precise circumstances of its find or recovery...
Your informant presumably wasn't in the room when it occurred either. He could have heard about it, but that doesn't guarantee that it's correct.
The use of the term family was mine. David said the silencer was returned to him, or at least this was the way I interpreted it.
Can you give a link so that we can see the exact wording in Pargeter's statement?
-
You wont like what you see as Pargeter is on funny ground. I encourage you to read the whole of Pargeters statements.
I am not clever enough to paste here, but if you go to statements and transciripts, you will find it there
-
Reader you obviously knew about the Pargeter statements, because I have just read your past posts
Are you distancing yourself from AP
-
The 1635 action reports connected with the investigations into these five deaths:-
Here is a list of all the relevant action reports instigated by Essex police in connection with this case, somewhere amongst all these enquiries, lies the truth about what really did occur with respect to these murders,and how the police gathered evidence for use in Jeremy Bambers prosecution and conviction...
I have most of the hand written action reports, in my possession, but some are obviously missing and unaccounted for, some have been withheld under pii. I could post some of them, if relevant..
-
Reader you obviously knew about the Pargeter statements, . . .
The statement you seem to be referring to does use the word "family".
-
Reader you obviously knew about the Pargeter statements, . . .
The statement you seem to be referring to does use the word "family".
Anthony Pargeter refers to the silencer having been handed back to the family, in one of his statements
-
The forged, handwritten notes, of Julie Mugford (so called Diary entries)
These notes are supposed to represent a contemporaneous account of what was going on between Jeremy, others and herself, at the material time. I am posting them here on the forum to help facilitate debate about the alleged role Jeremy/Mugford played in these murders:-
-
How the silencer Conspiracy, unfolded:-
I would also like to add, that on 29th August 1985, that DI Cook (SOC) dismantled the silencer (SBJ/1) and rebuilt it, before screwing the rebuilt unit directly onto the barrel of the rifle, exposing it to the risk and possibility of contamination...
Also...
that this silencer (bearing the identifying mark of SBJ/1) with blood on its end cap, was not the same silencer examined at the Lab' on 25th September 1985, bearing the same identifying (SBJ/1) mark, which only had opaint upon it...
-
I would like to point out that my informant has told me that these exhibit references (SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1) were interchangeable, and that where it refers to a specific exhibit reference in certain documentation, it does not necessarily mean it was that exact silencer, only that its exhibit reference had been adopted, for the purpose of the police trying to merge both silencers into being one and the same...
-
The silencer at the lab' from 30th August 1985 (SBJ/1) altered later to DB/1, was coated in super glue residue, whereas the second silencer (SBJ/1) substituted from DB/1, examined at the lab' on 25th September 1985, had no such super glue residue upon it...
-
NOTICE
Contact with my informant, on several occasions, has been through use of a different computer, at a different location, owned by someone else...
-
Have you met him face to face mike? Or has it been through a webcam?
-
Have you met him face to face mike? Or has it been through a webcam?
I think he said they met at a pub, and then went for a stroll in the woods.
-
But going by his previous post cliff, some meeti gs have been through use of the computer, i gather that he means webcam?
-
Oh I see what you mean Andy. Your probably right.
-
But going by his previous post cliff, some meeti gs have been through use of the computer, i gather that he means webcam?
But you asked Mike if he had met him face to face Have you met him face to face mike? Or has it been through a webcam?
From what I gather from all the pictures of the wood and the pub where z parked his car is that Mike's answer would be "yes".
-
The 1635 action reports connected with the investigations into these five deaths:-
Here is a list of all the relevant action reports instigated by Essex police in connection with this case, somewhere amongst all these enquiries, lies the truth about what really did occur with respect to these murders,and how the police gathered evidence for use in Jeremy Bambers prosecution and conviction...
I have most of the hand written action reports, in my possession, but some are obviously missing and unaccounted for, some have been withheld under pii. I could post some of them, if relevant..
Have a look at the sequence with which these contemporaneously recorded action reports are logged for any information relating to the alleged find of the silencer by the relatives? Why is it that the police appear not to show any interest in the find of the silencer by the relatives until after 11th September 1985?
-
The 1635 action reports connected with the investigations into these five deaths:-
Here is a list of all the relevant action reports instigated by Essex police in connection with this case, somewhere amongst all these enquiries, lies the truth about what really did occur with respect to these murders,and how the police gathered evidence for use in Jeremy Bambers prosecution and conviction...
I have most of the hand written action reports, in my possession, but some are obviously missing and unaccounted for, some have been withheld under pii. I could post some of them, if relevant..
Have a look at the sequence with which these contemporaneously recorded action reports are logged for any information relating to the alleged find of the silencer by the relatives? Why is it that the police appear not to show any interest in the find of the silencer by the relatives until after 11th September 1985?
Why is it, that it was a long time after 11th September 1985, before police were asking Ann Eaton to make a statement about the find of the silencer on 10th August? Why wouldn`t the police be interested in a silencer found by the relatives on 10th August, until a month later, if the silencer relatives found was the same one police had already sent to the lab` on 13th and 30th August 1985? It. Doesn`t add up or make sense...
-
The 1635 action reports connected with the investigations into these five deaths:-
Here is a list of all the relevant action reports instigated by Essex police in connection with this case, somewhere amongst all these enquiries, lies the truth about what really did occur with respect to these murders,and how the police gathered evidence for use in Jeremy Bambers prosecution and conviction...
I have most of the hand written action reports, in my possession, but some are obviously missing and unaccounted for, some have been withheld under pii. I could post some of them, if relevant..
Have a look at the sequence with which these contemporaneously recorded action reports are logged for any information relating to the alleged find of the silencer by the relatives? Why is it that the police appear not to show any interest in the find of the silencer by the relatives until after 11th September 1985?
Why is it, that it was a long time after 11th September 1985, before police were asking Ann Eaton to make a statement about the find of the silencer on 10th August? Why wouldn`t the police be interested in a silencer found by the relatives on 10th August, until a month later, if the silencer relatives found was the same one police had already sent to the lab` on 13th and 30th August 1985? It. Doesn`t add up or make sense...
All the handwritten action reports are dated, timed and signed, and so specific dates when police became interested in doing things, and when specific things got done, can be verified...
-
The 1635 action reports connected with the investigations into these five deaths:-
Here is a list of all the relevant action reports instigated by Essex police in connection with this case, somewhere amongst all these enquiries, lies the truth about what really did occur with respect to these murders,and how the police gathered evidence for use in Jeremy Bambers prosecution and conviction...
I have most of the hand written action reports, in my possession, but some are obviously missing and unaccounted for, some have been withheld under pii. I could post some of them, if relevant..
Have a look at the sequence with which these contemporaneously recorded action reports are logged for any information relating to the alleged find of the silencer by the relatives? Why is it that the police appear not to show any interest in the find of the silencer by the relatives until after 11th September 1985?
Why is it, that it was a long time after 11th September 1985, before police were asking Ann Eaton to make a statement about the find of the silencer on 10th August? Why wouldn`t the police be interested in a silencer found by the relatives on 10th August, until a month later, if the silencer relatives found was the same one police had already sent to the lab` on 13th and 30th August 1985? It. Doesn`t add up or make sense...
All the handwritten action reports are dated, timed and signed, and so specific dates when police became interested in doing things, and when specific things got done, can be verified...
Police would not be asking Ann Eaton at sometime after 11th September 1985, to make a statement about finding the silencer on 10th August, because Ann did not find any of the two silencers, and she only handed over the silencer to the police on 11th September, she did not purportedly hand over a silencer to DS `Stan` Jones` on evening of 12th August, it was supposedly Peter Eaton who handed over a silencer, which David allegedly found on 10th August, so why would the police want a statement from Ann Eaton?
-
What also becomes clear, upon reading Julie Mugfords Diary notes, if they are to be treated as being truthful, is that she did not come forward voluntarily, but rather that she was pressurised by her friend`Lizzie` to come forward to spill the beans, which throws a completely different light on the evidence she gave to the court whilst testifying...
These notes contain evidence to show that JulIe Mugford deceived the court about her reasons for coming forward. She has made it absolutely clear by cross referencing what she wrote in these notes, against which she gave whilst testifying, that she is a compulsive liar, and extremely manipulative...
-
What also becomes clear, upon reading Julie Mugfords Diary notes, if they are to be treated as being truthful, is that she did not come forward voluntarily, but rather that she was pressurised by her friend`Lizzie` to come forward to spill the beans, which throws a completely different light on the evidence she gave to the court whilst testifying...
These notes contain evidence to show that JulIe Mugford deceived the court about her reasons for coming forward. She has made it absolutely clear by cross referencing what she wrote in these notes, against which she gave whilst testifying, that she is a compulsive liar, and extremely manipulative...
Some sense can now be made, regarding why a police action report came into being, begging the question, as to why Julie Mugfords first confession statement is written out in the third person?
Obviously, some input from `Lizzie`, or someone else in the know...
-
What also becomes clear, upon reading Julie Mugfords Diary notes, if they are to be treated as being truthful, is that she did not come forward voluntarily, but rather that she was pressurised by her friend`Lizzie` to come forward to spill the beans, which throws a completely different light on the evidence she gave to the court whilst testifying...
These notes contain evidence to show that JulIe Mugford deceived the court about her reasons for coming forward. She has made it absolutely clear by cross referencing what she wrote in these notes, against which she gave whilst testifying, that she is a compulsive liar, and extremely manipulative...
Some sense can now be made, regarding why a police action report came into being, begging the question, as to why Julie Mugfords first confession statement is written out in the third person?
Obviously, some input from `Lizzie`, or someone else in the know...
I ask you. Mugford is a head in a school in Canada. Does that look like a girl who was "led astray" by Jeremy? No. It indicates that she is a natural leader.
-
What also becomes clear, upon reading Julie Mugfords Diary notes, if they are to be treated as being truthful, is that she did not come forward voluntarily, but rather that she was pressurised by her friend`Lizzie` to come forward to spill the beans, which throws a completely different light on the evidence she gave to the court whilst testifying...
These notes contain evidence to show that JulIe Mugford deceived the court about her reasons for coming forward. She has made it absolutely clear by cross referencing what she wrote in these notes, against which she gave whilst testifying, that she is a compulsive liar, and extremely manipulative...
Some sense can now be made, regarding why a police action report came into being, begging the question, as to why Julie Mugfords first confession statement is written out in the third person?
Obviously, some input from `Lizzie`, or someone else in the know...
I ask you. Mugford is a head in a school in Canada. Does that look like a girl who was "led astray" by Jeremy? No. It indicates that she is a natural leader.
Reason why this first confession statement written in third person has never yet been disclosed despite some 26 years having elapsed since someone else put words into Julie Mugfords mouth, now becomes clear - it has been deliberately withheld under the guise of pii, since to disclose it would expose Julie Mugford as a liar, because the reason for her coming forward when she did, was most definitely untruthful...
Now that the contents of these handwritten notes made by Mugford have identified the real reason why Mugford came forward, steps should be taken by those responsible for presenting a case for Jerremys case to be sent back to appeal, to obtain access to that first confessional statement written in the third person...
-
The 1635 action reports connected with the investigations into these five deaths:-
Here is a list of all the relevant action reports instigated by Essex police in connection with this case, somewhere amongst all these enquiries, lies the truth about what really did occur with respect to these murders,and how the police gathered evidence for use in Jeremy Bambers prosecution and conviction...
I have most of the hand written action reports, in my possession, but some are obviously missing and unaccounted for, some have been withheld under pii. I could post some of them, if relevant..
Have a look at the sequence with which these contemporaneously recorded action reports are logged for any information relating to the alleged find of the silencer by the relatives? Why is it that the police appear not to show any interest in the find of the silencer by the relatives until after 11th September 1985?
Why is it, that it was a long time after 11th September 1985, before police were asking Ann Eaton to make a statement about the find of the silencer on 10th August? Why wouldn`t the police be interested in a silencer found by the relatives on 10th August, until a month later, if the silencer relatives found was the same one police had already sent to the lab` on 13th and 30th August 1985? It. Doesn`t add up or make sense...
All the handwritten action reports are dated, timed and signed, and so specific dates when police became interested in doing things, and when specific things got done, can be verified...
Police would not be asking Ann Eaton at sometime after 11th September 1985, to make a statement about finding the silencer on 10th August, because Ann did not find any of the two silencers, and she only handed over the silencer to the police on 11th September, she did not purportedly hand over a silencer to DS `Stan` Jones` on evening of 12th August, it was supposedly Peter Eaton who handed over a silencer, which David allegedly found on 10th August, so why would the police want a statement from Ann Eaton?
Because I assume Ann was there when the silencer was found.
-
What also becomes clear, upon reading Julie Mugfords Diary notes, if they are to be treated as being truthful, is that she did not come forward voluntarily, but rather that she was pressurised by her friend`Lizzie` to come forward to spill the beans, which throws a completely different light on the evidence she gave to the court whilst testifying...
These notes contain evidence to show that JulIe Mugford deceived the court about her reasons for coming forward. She has made it absolutely clear by cross referencing what she wrote in these notes, against which she gave whilst testifying, that she is a compulsive liar, and extremely manipulative...
Some sense can now be made, regarding why a police action report came into being, begging the question, as to why Julie Mugfords first confession statement is written out in the third person?
Obviously, some input from `Lizzie`, or someone else in the know...
I ask you. Mugford is a head in a school in Canada. Does that look like a girl who was "led astray" by Jeremy? No. It indicates that she is a natural leader.
Reason why this first confession statement written in third person has never yet been disclosed despite some 26 years having elapsed since someone else put words into Julie Mugfords mouth, now becomes clear - it has been deliberately withheld under the guise of pii, since to disclose it would expose Julie Mugford as a liar, because the reason for her coming forward when she did, was most definitely untruthful...
Now that the contents of these handwritten notes made by Mugford have identified the real reason why Mugford came forward, steps should be taken by those responsible for presenting a case for Jerremys case to be sent back to appeal, to obtain access to that first confessional statement written in the third person...
I was just wondering if Mugford went to the cops before the deal with the NOW, or after.
-
This must by now be the longest topic thread of the whole forum.....
-
This must by now be the longest topic thread of the whole forum.....
Yep. And I'm still none the wiser ;)
-
This must by now be the longest topic thread of the whole forum.....
Yep. And I'm still none the wiser ;)
What about the report of 10 photographs listed as being of Sheila with a rifle on her in the kitchen. etc etc..
Or will it be a claim..of until I see it I won't believe it"...though the readiness to believe other claims without proof from liars ...somewhat undermines such a position being taken.
-
Question for Mike - What is the opinion of your informant with regard to this case?
Thankyou.
-
I am troubled by this 22 air rifle. I assume this was a BSA airsporter. I have owned a couple of these.
What makes the difference between an air rifle, and a firearm is the psi.
Now I have never ever seen an air weapon that a silencer could be screwed onto. It would be pointless because it makes little noise.
Someone posted on here that they had, or did have this rifle. Can this person tell us if it would be capable of having a silencer attatchment, or are we being fed another load of crap.
I have seen the latest air weapons that you can attach a silencer to, but we are talking about an air weapon in the late seventies/early eighties. Forgot to say I had BSA meteor as well.[no silencer attachment].
-
What also becomes clear, upon reading Julie Mugfords Diary notes, if they are to be treated as being truthful, is that she did not come forward voluntarily, but rather that she was pressurised by her friend`Lizzie` to come forward to spill the beans, which throws a completely different light on the evidence she gave to the court whilst testifying...
These notes contain evidence to show that JulIe Mugford deceived the court about her reasons for coming forward. She has made it absolutely clear by cross referencing what she wrote in these notes, against which she gave whilst testifying, that she is a compulsive liar, and extremely manipulative...
Some sense can now be made, regarding why a police action report came into being, begging the question, as to why Julie Mugfords first confession statement is written out in the third person?
Obviously, some input from `Lizzie`, or someone else in the know...
I ask you. Mugford is a head in a school in Canada. Does that look like a girl who was "led astray" by Jeremy? No. It indicates that she is a natural leader.
Reason why this first confession statement written in third person has never yet been disclosed despite some 26 years having elapsed since someone else put words into Julie Mugfords mouth, now becomes clear - it has been deliberately withheld under the guise of pii, since to disclose it would expose Julie Mugford as a liar, because the reason for her coming forward when she did, was most definitely untruthful...
Now that the contents of these handwritten notes made by Mugford have identified the real reason why Mugford came forward, steps should be taken by those responsible for presenting a case for Jerremys case to be sent back to appeal, to obtain access to that first confessional statement written in the third person...
I was just wondering if Mugford went to the cops before the deal with the NOW, or after.
Well, what we do know, is that the first confession statement made by Mugford to the police was written in the third person, or in other words, somebody was responsible for putting words into Mugfords mouth, and that on its own says a great deal about the state of play at that crucial time...
According to her own notes, Mugford did not go to the police voluntarily, she was pressurised into going to the police by her close friend "Lizzie". Why would she need to be pressurised by somebody else to go to the police if what she has been saying was true? I think these comments in her notes, give a clear indication that what she had to say was just a story, nothing more, nothing less...
-
I am troubled by this 22 air rifle. I assume this was a BSA airsporter. I have owned a couple of these.
What makes the difference between an air rifle, and a firearm is the psi.
Now I have never ever seen an air weapon that a silencer could be screwed onto. It would be pointless because it makes little noise.
Someone posted on here that they had, or did have this rifle. Can this person tell us if it would be capable of having a silencer attatchment, or are we being fed another load of crap.
I have seen the latest air weapons that you can attach a silencer to, but we are talking about an air weapon in the late seventies/early eighties. Forgot to say I had BSA meteor as well.[no silencer attachment].
There were 2 types of BSA Meteor...the type we are concerned with.
The normal type back then could not be fitted with a silencer without modifiacation.
The carbine type BSA Meteor had provision for a silencer.
Which type the one was that was kept at WHF needs to be established to either progress or dismiss this line of theory.
-
Yes, but it was Lizzie that done the fiddling not Mugford, so the question is still not answered.
Did Mugford go to the cops with a 25 grand promise in her pocket. She had the motive to do so.
-
The 1635 action reports connected with the investigations into these five deaths:-
Here is a list of all the relevant action reports instigated by Essex police in connection with this case, somewhere amongst all these enquiries, lies the truth about what really did occur with respect to these murders,and how the police gathered evidence for use in Jeremy Bambers prosecution and conviction...
I have most of the hand written action reports, in my possession, but some are obviously missing and unaccounted for, some have been withheld under pii. I could post some of them, if relevant..
I would just like to put some met onto the skeleton details contained in these police action reports, posting copies of the hand written versions of some, to illustrate the date when they came into existence. I could post everyone in my possession but that would take forever - perhaps I might produce a schedule showing the date and time in the hand written versions of these action reports?
Here is police action report 200, instigated on 14th September 1985, at 16.50hrs, DC Thomerson:- here are details where a request is being made for David Boutflour to make a statement about finding the silencer, and ammunition, but why wait until 14th September 1985 for such a statement to be made considering that it has been claimed that the silencer was found on 10th August 1985, and it had been sent to the lab' on two occasions, namely on 13th and 30th August 1985?
For me, it does not ring true about claiming that the relatives found the silencer on 10th August 1985, and that it was sent to the lab' on two occasions in the meantime, and it was not until month later that police were trying to find out about when the silencer was found, and when?
-
http://www.bsaguns.co.uk/chronology.php#
http://www.bsaguns.co.uk/PDFS/BSA%20spring%20guns.pdf
http://www.bsaguns.co.uk/silencers.php
http://www.aceros-de-hispania.com/bsa-airguns.htm
http://www.solware.co.uk/air-pistol-air-rifle/air-rifle-silencer.shtml
-
For once I am speechless. Keira has taken the wind out of my sails. I will tiptoe now. ;)
-
Message Form 71
this is a copy recorded on a message form, bearing the identifying number 71, which relates to a request for police to meet David Boutflour at whf to collect further property on 14th September 1985, at 13:00hrs, which is accompanied by police action report number 195, dated, 14th September 1985, timed at 14:15hrs...
Boutflour gave police two different versions of what he found inside the gun cupboard, tell you what - why not let him have another five or six accounts, because this really is unacceptable...
-
Message form 49
DCI "Taff" Jones intention to hand back keys to executor on 13th September 1985, with attached action report number 156, relating to same matter...
-
I see DB managed to find another spot of blood. F*** me, the man is a blood hound
-
ACTION REPORTS, by date and time:-
this list will be updated daily as and when I come across the relevant information, so please keep checking back for updated account...
Action Report Number
102 18th September 1985 @ 10;05hrs
107 13th September 1985 @ 15;30hrs
108 13th September 1985 @ 15;40hrs
109 12th September 1985 @ 11;55hrs
110 14th September 1985 @ 09;40hrs
111 13th September 1985 @ 09;00hrs
112 13th September 1985 @ 09;00hrs
113 13th September 1985 @ 14;45hrs
133 13th September 1985 @ 15;40hrs
144 13th September 1985 @ 12;30hrs
147 13th September 1985 @ 14;30hrs
148 13th September 1985 @ 10;25hrs
149 18th September 1985 @ 10;05hrs
156 13th September 1985 @
160 13th September 1985 @ 14;30hrs
171 13th September 1985 @ 14;20hrs
172 13th September 1985 @ 14;20hrs
173 13th September 1985 @ 14;20hrs
182 13th September 1985 @ 18;00hrs
183 13th September 1985 @ 18;00hrs
188 14th September 1985 @ 12;30hrs
192 1st October 1985 @ 10;30hrs
195 14th September 1985 @ 14;15hrs
198 14th September 1985 @ 17;30hrs
200 14th September 1985 @ 16;15hrs
213 15th September 1985 @ 09;15hrs
218 15th September 1985 @ 10;50hrs
221 20th September 1985 @ 11;30hrs
222 21st September 1985 @ 09;30hrs
236 16th September 1985 @ 09;50hrs
240 15th September 1985 @ 16;40hrs
242 16th September 1985 @ 11;10hrs
245 16th September 1985 @ 11;25hrs
246 16th September 1985 @ 11;25hrs
247 16th September 1985 @ 11;25hrs
248 16th September 1985 @ 11;20hrs
249 16th September 1985 @ 11;20hrs
250 17th September 1985 @ 10;10hrs
-
I see DB managed to find another spot of blood. F*** me, the man is a blood hound
Hardly a difficult task. As the place was covered with blood.
-
Police obtained details of all local calls made from whf, and Jeremy Bambers cottage, at 9 Head Street:-
-
They claimed there was no local phone records for the telephone at whf, but they lied about it (see police action 185)...
Essex police proved a call was made, from whf to Jeremy's cottage at a specific time, but they thought Jeremy could have used his answer machine to receive the call, so they seized it and examined it but found no evidence that it had been used in that manner or for that purpose...
-
I am in Colchester tomorrow, and Witham, chance to meet up with old friends and have a chat about ongoing things connected with the case...
-
I am in Colchester tomorrow, and Witham, chance to meet up with old friends and have a chat about ongoing things connected with the case...
Have you ever had the feeling that you are being followed around?
-
I am in Colchester tomorrow, and Witham, chance to meet up with old friends and have a chat about ongoing things connected with the case...
Well I hope you have a productive day Mike.....
-
I am in Colchester tomorrow, and Witham, chance to meet up with old friends and have a chat about ongoing things connected with the case...
Have you ever had the feeling that you are being followed around?
Last time it felt as bad as this, was back in the mid eighties, when the No.3 Regional crime squad were following me about...
-
I am in Colchester tomorrow, and Witham, chance to meet up with old friends and have a chat about ongoing things connected with the case...
Well I hope you have a productive day Mike.....
thanks...
We may be paying a visit to Maldon area, got to see a man about a dog...
Then off to Goldhanger, and Tolleshunt D'Arcy, St Nicholas's Church - warden was very nice to me the last time I went there, she invited me back any time for a look around and a chat, mind you she knows who I am now, might be different tomorrow when I turn up? Then again, might give it a miss...
-
I am in Colchester tomorrow, and Witham, chance to meet up with old friends and have a chat about ongoing things connected with the case...
Have you ever had the feeling that you are being followed around?
Last time it felt as bad as this, was back in the mid eighties, when the No.3 Regional crime squad were following me about...
They will be in your phones and computers also mate.
-
I am in Colchester tomorrow, and Witham, chance to meet up with old friends and have a chat about ongoing things connected with the case...
Well I hope you have a productive day Mike.....
thanks...
We may be paying a visit to Maldon area, got to see a man about a dog...
Then off to Goldhanger, and Tolleshunt D'Arcy, St Nicholas's Church - warden was very nice to me the last time I went there, she invited me back any time for a look around and a chat, mind you she knows who I am now, might be different tomorrow when I turn up? Then again, might give it a miss...
Must remember to take my camera...
-
I am in Colchester tomorrow, and Witham, chance to meet up with old friends and have a chat about ongoing things connected with the case...
Well I hope you have a productive day Mike.....
thanks...
We may be paying a visit to Maldon area, got to see a man about a dog...
Then off to Goldhanger, and Tolleshunt D'Arcy, St Nicholas's Church - warden was very nice to me the last time I went there, she invited me back any time for a look around and a chat, mind you she knows who I am now, might be different tomorrow when I turn up? Then again, might give it a miss...
Grahame and I can wave to you from the kerbside.....
-
I am in Colchester tomorrow, and Witham, chance to meet up with old friends and have a chat about ongoing things connected with the case...
Have you ever had the feeling that you are being followed around?
Last time it felt as bad as this, was back in the mid eighties, when the No.3 Regional crime squad were following me about...
They will be in your phones and computers also mate.
yep, I know they will, that is why I have access to another computer that is not registered to me, and other phones, also not registered to me...
-
I am in Colchester tomorrow, and Witham, chance to meet up with old friends and have a chat about ongoing things connected with the case...
Well I hope you have a productive day Mike.....
thanks...
We may be paying a visit to Maldon area, got to see a man about a dog...
Then off to Goldhanger, and Tolleshunt D'Arcy, St Nicholas's Church - warden was very nice to me the last time I went there, she invited me back any time for a look around and a chat, mind you she knows who I am now, might be different tomorrow when I turn up? Then again, might give it a miss...
Must remember to take my camera...
Mike until this country is ruled by 10 tanks per civilian you can do as you like, ive used a camera everywhere sometimes i ask depends where, been to Colchester only one time to buy a reel to reel tape machine bout 3yr ago.
-
I am in Colchester tomorrow, and Witham, chance to meet up with old friends and have a chat about ongoing things connected with the case...
Have you ever had the feeling that you are being followed around?
Last time it felt as bad as this, was back in the mid eighties, when the No.3 Regional crime squad were following me about...
They will be in your phones and computers also mate.
yep, I know they will, that is why I have access to another computer that is not registered to me, and other phones, also not registered to me...
I remember an occasion years ago when the No.3 Regional Crime squad were using tracking devices on two cars that I had access to, and I found out by pure accident that my car was being tracked because i went to have a new stereo system fitted in one of them, and the technician who was fitting the system found the black box and pointed it out to me. He was a friend of mine and he told me that the police were using these devices to follow criminals about and to keep tabs on them, so jokingly I said to him, so why are they following me around, because I ain't no criminal? Anyway, as a result of finding this out I checked our other car and found a similar device stuck to the underside of it, and later that night I took the one off my car and hid it in the garden shed, and took the other from the other car and stuck it onto my own car. Anyway guess what the buggers did? They only broke into my garden shed in the middle of the night and stole the device back...
Crafty buggers them coppers...
-
I am in Colchester tomorrow, and Witham, chance to meet up with old friends and have a chat about ongoing things connected with the case...
Have you ever had the feeling that you are being followed around?
Last time it felt as bad as this, was back in the mid eighties, when the No.3 Regional crime squad were following me about...
They will be in your phones and computers also mate.
yep, I know they will, that is why I have access to another computer that is not registered to me, and other phones, also not registered to me...
I remember an occasion years ago when the No.3 Regional Crime squad were using tracking devices on two cars that I had access to, and I found out by pure accident that my car was being tracked because i went to have a new stereo system fitted in one of them, and the technician who was fitting the system found the black box and pointed it out to me. He was a friend of mine and he told me that the police were using these devices to follow criminals about and to keep tabs on them, so jokingly I said to him, so why are they following me around, because I ain't no criminal? Anyway, as a result of finding this out I checked our other car and found a similar device stuck to the underside of it, and later that night I took the one off my car and hid it in the garden shed, and took the other from the other car and stuck it onto my own car. Anyway guess what the buggers did? They only broke into my garden shed in the middle of the night and stole the device back...
Crafty buggers them coppers...
They are something else as well and it ends in holes.
-
I am in Colchester tomorrow, and Witham, chance to meet up with old friends and have a chat about ongoing things connected with the case...
Have you ever had the feeling that you are being followed around?
Last time it felt as bad as this, was back in the mid eighties, when the No.3 Regional crime squad were following me about...
They will be in your phones and computers also mate.
yep, I know they will, that is why I have access to another computer that is not registered to me, and other phones, also not registered to me...
I remember an occasion years ago when the No.3 Regional Crime squad were using tracking devices on two cars that I had access to, and I found out by pure accident that my car was being tracked because i went to have a new stereo system fitted in one of them, and the technician who was fitting the system found the black box and pointed it out to me. He was a friend of mine and he told me that the police were using these devices to follow criminals about and to keep tabs on them, so jokingly I said to him, so why are they following me around, because I ain't no criminal? Anyway, as a result of finding this out I checked our other car and found a similar device stuck to the underside of it, and later that night I took the one off my car and hid it in the garden shed, and took the other from the other car and stuck it onto my own car. Anyway guess what the buggers did? They only broke into my garden shed in the middle of the night and stole the device back...
Crafty buggers them coppers...
Theft, tut tut.....
-
On another occasion...
before I found out that our cars were bugged, I used to use both cars at different times, and unbeknown to me at that time, I was being followed around by the No.3 RCS, and they had a sighting of me somewhere near a place called Penistone at a specific time (I found this out years later when surveillance details were released as part of the case against me). However, six minutes later, there was an alleged sighting of me, in Derbyshire over 35 miles away, which puzzled me until I realized they were basing one of the sightings on information received via their tracking device fitted to one of the cars I had access to, and the other was a visual sighting of me in the flesh, so to speak...
They had me thinking I had a doppelgänger lurking around in these Yorkshire parts...
-
Car 54 where are you
-
I must remember to stop at Cambridge services for a coffee, on my way down there in the early hours of the morning...
-
Mike will you be taking pictures in Goldhanger ?
-
I must remember to stop at Cambridge services for a coffee, on my way down there in the early hours of the morning...
What's the chances of some of Z's mates jumping ship also? (Not that I'm 100% convinced of Z mind).
-
Mike will you be taking pictures in Goldhanger ?
No, not in Goldhanger on this occasion, only at Witham - I am on a mission tomorrow morning, its so top secret that I can't tell anybody about it, nobody is supposed to know I am going down there tomorrow, not even the police, so please everybody - keep this under your hat...
-
Mike will you be taking pictures in Goldhanger ?
No, not in Goldhanger on this occasion, only at Witham - I am on a mission tomorrow morning, its so top secret that I can't tell anybody about it, nobody is supposed to know I am going down there tomorrow, not even the police, so please everybody - keep this under your hat...
Mum's the word Mike.....
-
I must remember to stop at Cambridge services for a coffee, on my way down there in the early hours of the morning...
What's the chances of some of Z's mates jumping ship also? (Not that I'm 100% convinced of Z mind).
No, none of 'Z' 's mates, I am not due to meet 'Z' again until later in the week...
-
keep it under wraps Mike best way
-
Mike will you be taking pictures in Goldhanger ?
No, not in Goldhanger on this occasion, only at Witham - I am on a mission tomorrow morning, its so top secret that I can't tell anybody about it, nobody is supposed to know I am going down there tomorrow, not even the police, so please everybody - keep this under your hat...
I hope the police arent reading this thread then mike!
-
I am in Colchester tomorrow, and Witham, chance to meet up with old friends and have a chat about ongoing things connected with the case...
Have you ever had the feeling that you are being followed around?
Last time it felt as bad as this, was back in the mid eighties, when the No.3 Regional crime squad were following me about...
They will be in your phones and computers also mate.
yep, I know they will, that is why I have access to another computer that is not registered to me, and other phones, also not registered to me...
I remember an occasion years ago when the No.3 Regional Crime squad were using tracking devices on two cars that I had access to, and I found out by pure accident that my car was being tracked because i went to have a new stereo system fitted in one of them, and the technician who was fitting the system found the black box and pointed it out to me. He was a friend of mine and he told me that the police were using these devices to follow criminals about and to keep tabs on them, so jokingly I said to him, so why are they following me around, because I ain't no criminal? Anyway, as a result of finding this out I checked our other car and found a similar device stuck to the underside of it, and later that night I took the one off my car and hid it in the garden shed, and took the other from the other car and stuck it onto my own car. Anyway guess what the buggers did? They only broke into my garden shed in the middle of the night and stole the device back...
Crafty buggers them coppers...
I always check the underside of my car every time I get in it. Habit I suppose. It's ok until you get a face full of rust. ::)
-
Spent morning thus far, meeting with informant, at Witham Police station, and adjoining Magistrates court, as a result of which went to the masonic hall on Maldon road, only half a mile from cop shop...
Took some pictures with camera settings on GPS...
-
Spent morning thus far, meeting with informant, at Witham Police station, and adjoining Magistrates court, as a result of which went to the masonic hall on Maldon road, only half a mile from cop shop...
Took some pictures with camera settings on GPS...
That was a bit risky wasn't it Mike?
-
Just over 9 miles from. WHF
-
Spent morning thus far, meeting with informant, at Witham Police station, and adjoining Magistrates court, as a result of which went to the masonic hall on Maldon road, only half a mile from cop shop...
Took some pictures with camera settings on GPS...
That was a bit risky wasn't it Mike?
It was awesomely poetic, and somewhat foolish, a bit like going into the lions den, and there was me stomping around on the doorstep of former DCI `Taff` Jones castle - can you imagine the scene, there was I walking into Witham police station asking for information on how to find the local masonic hall, situated on Maldon Road?
-
We are close to whf at the moment, wonder if Pete and Annie would invite us in for a chat about the second silencer, over a coffee?
-
Anyone for tea, and biscuits?
-
Anyone for tea, and biscuits?
DON'T DRINK THE TEA MIKE!. ;D
-
According to information given to me today,` round the table talks`, involving senior officers and members of the raid team, which was pencilled in to take place at Witham police station in mid September (1985), took place at the masonic hall just around the corner, the meeting chaired by DCS `Mick` Ainsley...
Masonic hall is only half a mile from Witham police station - it was at this meeting that words were put into the mouths of the raid team, by senior officers, which ended up being the version they adopted in their statements...`
-
I think this photograph and the word marked on the road outside Witham police station adequately describes Essex police's ability to investigate these five deaths at whf properly - "SLOW"...
In Jeremy's case, they have not been forthcoming in disclosing thousands of documents to his legal team, choosing to withhold them under pii, as an excuse, because the real reason is that they are naturally "SLOW", behind the door, inadequate - at least they were between August and September 1985, and since then...
-
The othjer words written/painted onthe road directly outside Witham police station, say it all - "SLOW, KEEP CLEAR"...
As if anybody needed any warning about how incompetent they were in dealing with this case...
Witham Police station, Essex
"SLOW
KEEP
CLEAR"
-
You would be well advised not to visit Witham police station if you are lost, or you need any information of directions, council printed a message on the road warning any would be candidates, to stay well clear of the police at this police station...
-
Witham Magistrates court, where Ralph Bamber used to be a justice of the peace (building next to cop shop)...
-
Just around the corner, about half a mile away, on the Maldon road, is the masonic hall, where police got their heads together to cover up the suspicious circumstances with which Sheila Caffell had died inside whf on the morning of 7th August 1985...
-
Information about masonic halls, in and around Witham:-
Please click on following links:-
(1) http://www.google.co.uk/#q=witham+masonic+hall&hl=en&rlz=1C2CHMC_en-GBGB443GB455&prmd=imvns&source=univ&tbm=plcs&tbo=u&ei=JlvBTpKHOtL18QPAlIHBBA&sa=X&oi=local_group&ct=more-results&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDMQtQMwAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=86125fae6af4c9c7&biw=1242&bih=714
(2) http://about-freemasonry.co.uk/masonic-lodge-town.php?Town=Witham
(3) http://about-freemasonry.co.uk/freemasons-handshake.php
(4) http://about-freemasonry.co.uk/uk-lodges.php
(5) http://about-freemasonry.co.uk/dictionary.php
(6) http://about-freemasonry.co.uk/masonic-lodge-details.php?Masonic_Lodge_Ref=Boswells%20Lodge%20Number%207759
(7) http://about-freemasonry.co.uk/famous-freemasons/index.php
-
Latest News from Jeremy...
-
Truth about hand swab kit (75), it was not taken at all before 13th August 1985, other hand swab kit (item 17 ) was taken at mortuary on 7th August 1985, sent to the lab' on 9th August and rejected because of possible contamination with firearms...
Here is documentary proof that by 13th August 1985, police had not taken any new hand swabs yet, but that they were considering doing so:-
-
Here...
Ballistic expert, Fletcher confirms that police want to know if FDR kit from Sheila to be done? What is strange about this, is that these notes were drafted up on 13th August 1985, and the hand swab kit was supposedly taken on 7th August 1985, but clearly this was not true...
-
Here is another hand written note, which talks about June Bambers nightdress being missing from its packaging?
-
Here...
Ballistic expert, Fletcher confirms that police want to know if FDR kit from Sheila to be done? What is strange about this, is that these notes were drafted up on 13th August 1985, and the hand swab kit was supposedly taken on 7th August 1985, but clearly this was not true...
To me it reads that he wants to know if the swabs from Sheila were to be tested at all...despite them being submitted as though there were problems with them.
-
Mike, did you make any other visits today whilst in Essex?
Thankyou.
-
Mike, did you make any other visits today whilst in Essex?
Thankyou.
Yes, to Library in Witham, with intention of viewing microfiche files of newspaper reports from era...
Also, along pages lane to sea wall, and path Jeremy was alleged to have taken on night of shootings to get from whf back to his cottage at 9 Head Street...
-
Mike, did you make any other visits today whilst in Essex?
Thankyou.
Yes, to Library in Witham, with intention of viewing microfiche files of newspaper reports from era...
Also, along pages lane to sea wall, and path Jeremy was alleged to have taken on night of shootings to get from whf back to his cottage at 9 Head Street...
Well done, Mike! Remember though, the path as it is now is not as it was in 1985. Radical improvements have been made in recent times to make the sea wall path meet modern health and safety standards which simply weren't around in the 80s. You can see the difference if you look at the photograph I've posted of the path as it was prior to these improvements.
-
Mike, did you make any other visits today whilst in Essex?
Thankyou.
Yes, to Library in Witham, with intention of viewing microfiche files of newspaper reports from era...
Also, along pages lane to sea wall, and path Jeremy was alleged to have taken on night of shootings to get from whf back to his cottage at 9 Head Street...
You were only 5 miles from me Mike. You should have come round for a cuppa.
-
COLP (1991) Interviews of DI COOK (SOC):_
-
Mike, can you post the rest of this interesting statement please.?
-
Silencer, DB/1?
You will please note, that PC Bird had recorded the seizure of exhibit bearing identifying mark of DB/1, twice in his pocketbook, which he put down to a mental abberation, which he had in September 1985...
Oh yeah...
And pigs can fly...
-
Relatives motivated by monies owned (refers land deal) to Ralph Bamber estate - monies which they would have had to pay back if Jeremy inherited:_
-
Mike, can you post the rest of this interesting statement please.?
Yes, I have now completed this task (refer to original post which has been updated to include all relevant pages)...
-
Silencer, DB/1?
You will please note, that PC Bird had recorded the seizure of exhibit bearing identifying mark of DB/1, twice in his pocketbook, which he put down to a mental abberation, which he had in September 1985...
Oh yeah...
And pigs can fly...
It is too much of a coincidence, for PC Bird, to record the taking of exhibit DB/1 twice, at a time when relatives found the second silencer at whf on 11th September 1985...
-
Love them of loathe them... Z's thread is as suspected, the top thread on the forum. But only by replies and not by views.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=stats
-
Masonic Link to case?:-
This came about because the principle police officers (and one relative) involved in the cover up, were Freemasons, not because it was primarily a masonic cover up...
Relative who was a Freemason, was Robert Woodwis Boutfloyur, details of police officers who were/are Freemasons to be provided, but includes ACC peter Simpson (now deceased)...
-
Love them of loathe them... Z's thread is as suspected, the top thread on the forum. But only by replies and not by views.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=stats
'Z' is a real person, who was involved in the , the identity of 'Z' will never be revealed because I have been contacted and I receive information on a confidential basis...
Time is getting closer to date when CCRC makes its decision, and 'Z' is trying to provide information to justify sending Jeremy's back to the court of appeal, and to safeguard the position of surviving members of the firearms team, that was forced to lie by pressure exerted upon them by senior officers...
I will confirm at this stage that my informant is male rather than female, since the only member of the firearms team who was female was WPC Julia Jeapes, and I can confirm, and do confirm, that my informant is definitely not her...
-
Silencer, DB/1?
You will please note, that PC Bird had recorded the seizure of exhibit bearing identifying mark of DB/1, twice in his pocketbook, which he put down to a mental abberation, which he had in September 1985...
Oh yeah...
And pigs can fly...
It is too much of a coincidence, for PC Bird, to record the taking of exhibit DB/1 twice, at a time when relatives found the second silencer at whf on 11th September 1985...
Please...
No jokes about " The flying squad"...
-
Love them of loathe them... Z's thread is as suspected, the top thread on the forum. But only by replies and not by views.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=stats
'Z' is a real person, who was involved in the , the identity of 'Z' will never be revealed because I have been contacted and I receive information on a confidential basis...
Time is getting closer to date when CCRC makes its decision, and 'Z' is trying to provide information to justify sending Jeremy's back to the court of appeal, and to safeguard the position of surviving members of the firearms team, that was forced to lie by pressure exerted upon them by senior officers...
I will confirm at this stage that my informant is male rather than female, since the only member of the firearms team who was female was WPC Julia Jeapes, and I can confirm, and do confirm, that my informant is definitely not her...
Interesting Mike. I've got my doubts about the CCRC. Transgressing somewhat, I've just seen this on Bambertweet twitpics about the land deal (not sure if this document is on the forum already)...
-
Consider this:- The ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, has gone on record as saying that bullet PV/20, was Whole in appearance, yet according to lab' records, made in his handwriting, dated, 9th October 1985, he accepts that PV/20, was three large plus number of small possible bullet type fragments (117) in the right side of her neck?
-
How can he go on to describe bullet PV/20 as a whole bullet, in view of his own findings, relating to the same (PV/20), 0n 9th October 1985?
-
My apologies...
That last doc related to the land deal. This one, also pinched from Bambertweets twitpics, is allegedly linked to the 1996 destruction of evidence...
-
How can he go on to describe bullet PV/20 as a whole bullet, in view of his own findings, relating to the same (PV/20), 0n 9th October 1985?
Clearly, based upon his own conclusions and findings on 9th October 1985, bullet PV/20 was not whole, but rather was a fragmented bullet, which had broken into three main pieces and several other small pieces...
Do Essex police and the DPP think we are all fucking thick, or what?
What a load of utter of bollocks, and bunkum...
Either it was a fragmented bullet, (PV/20), which had broken into three main parts plus several pieces, or it was a whole bullet...
It can't have been both...
-
Do Essex police, the DPP, and this expert witness, (Malcom Fletcher), think we are thick, or what?
-
Mike, do you know anything about John Soames - Special Branch?
Re your question about these people thinking we are thick. They have got away with it so far haven't they? And if the CCRC refuse to refer on Dec 9th then they will continue to get away with it also. So maybe it's not so much that they think we are thick. Maybe it's just that they can rely on public interest not having yet reached critical mass. And maybe they also feel some security in the knowledge of the brazened lengths already entered in to, in order cover up this scandal.
-
Mike, do you know anything about John Soames - Special Branch?
Re your question about these people thinking we are thick. They have got away with it so far haven't they? And if the CCRC refuse to refer on Dec 9th then they will continue to get away with it also. So maybe it's not so much that they think we are thick. Maybe it's just that they can rely on public interest not having yet reached critical mass. And maybe they also feel some security in the knowledge of the brazened lengths already entered in to, in order cover up this scandal.
Only that he is/was a colleague of PS WOODCOCK, who I am reliably informed was responsible for handling the rifle, which fired the fatal shot, that killed Sheila in the bedroom...
-
Cat is out of the bag, who actually fired the shot, that killed Sheila Caffell, in the bedroom at whf:-
It was none other than "PS Paul WOODCOCK"... (accidentally)
Paul WOODCOCK fired the shot which killed Sheila in the bedroom (ACCORDING TO MY INFORMANT)...
-
Cat is out of the bag, who actually fired the shot, that killed Sheila Caffell, in the bedroom at whf:-
It was none other than "PS Paul WOODCOCK"... (accidentally)
Paul WOODCOCK fired the shot which killed Sheila in the bedroom (ACCORDING TO MY INFORMANT)...
By my own reckoning he was my number one prime suspect as to who fired the shot....now how did I know that....how did I work it out and come to that conclusion.
-
Cat is out of the bag, who actually fired the shot, that killed Sheila Caffell, in the bedroom at whf:-
It was none other than "PS Paul WOODCOCK"... (accidentally)
Paul WOODCOCK fired the shot which killed Sheila in the bedroom (ACCORDING TO MY INFORMANT)...
By my own reckoning he was my number one prime suspect as to who fired the shot....now how did I know that....how did I work it out and come to that conclusion.
Smiffy...
You are onto it...
If PI Montgomery removed the rifle from Sheila's body, (According to PI Montgomery's, and DI COOKS, statement) how could, PS Woodcock, be responsible for doing the same thing, later...
-
Mike, sorry to ask again. But do you know anything about John Soames (Special Branch) and his role in ordering the destruction of exhibits in 1996?
Yes, I Have copy documents relating to this...
-
Sorry I didn't see your first answer. Why would Soames (Special Branch) be ordering the destruction of exhibits in 1996, 11 years after the tragedy?
-
Mike, do you know how Woodcock accidentally fired the fatal shot, was there a strugle or did the gun go off by accident ?
-
Mike, do you know how Woodcock accidentally fired the fatal shot, was there a strugle or did the gun go off by accident ?
We've been waiting for this point to come along for a long time. Does this mean both shots were fired upstairs (as per circular blood spatter on carpet)? What's the story behind that stain just under the blue bible (the one that looks a bit like the word 'Sin')?
-
My point of view on the second shot..
thoughts...
Bullet wounds to the neck unless superficial are highly likely to be fatal.
The first wound was going to be fatal...it was only a matter of time..
the second wound only speeded up her passing...
-
My point of view on the second shot..
thoughts...
Bullet wounds to the neck unless superficial are highly likely to be fatal.
The first wound was going to be fatal...it was only a matter of time..
the second wound only speeded up her passing...
What, you mean they administered a mercy shot? But in what context to the first shot? Do you mean that they were responsible in some way for the first shot having took place?
-
I am very interested to learn more about the involvement of Special Branch. Does anyone have any further information about this?
-
I am very interested to learn more about the involvement of Special Branch. Does anyone have any further information about this?
Chief Inspector John Soames gets a mention here, in Essex Police's edition of The Law (September 1996). It's on page 4, small boxed column on the left:
http://www.essex.police.uk/museum/thelaw/n_9609lw.pdf
-
I am very interested to learn more about the involvement of Special Branch. Does anyone have any further information about this?
There's also a mention of him on page 7,bottom and middle of the page, of the same publication, in relation to the covert activities of Special Branch during a hijack at Stansted Airport.
-
I am very interested to learn more about the involvement of Special Branch. Does anyone have any further information about this?
Police sergeant Paul Woodcock, the person who I have received information about, who was responsible for mishandling the loaded rifle that fired the fatal bullet under Sheila`s chin, worked for special branch, and I have been told that a full file (SC/688 and SC/786) including copies of all 581 photographs, and the missing negative, are in the possession, and under the control of special branch. They have it all, including the original autopsy notes written up by the pathologist, Peter Venezis - which supposedly were stolen out of his loft during a burlary for whioch there is, and never has been allocated, a corresponding croime reference number?
-
Mike, do you have more than one informant?
Thankyou.
-
I am very interested to learn more about the involvement of Special Branch. Does anyone have any further information about this?
Police sergeant Paul Woodcock, the person who I have received information about, who was responsible for mishandling the loaded rifle that fired the fatal bullet under Sheila`s chin, worked for special branch, and I have been told that a full file (SC/688 and SC/786) including copies of all 581 photographs, and the missing negative, are in the possession, and under the control of special branch. They have it all, including the original autopsy notes written up by the pathologist, Peter Venezis - which supposedly were stolen out of his loft during a burglary for which there is, and never has been allocated, a corresponding crime reference number?
I've been waiting for ages for somebody to mention this again. Funny thing to steal during a burglary. Is it true that the Coroners report or the Pathologists report re DCI Taff Jones is also withheld in some form, e.g. PII?
-
I am very interested to learn more about the involvement of Special Branch. Does anyone have any further information about this?
Police sergeant Paul Woodcock, the person who I have received information about, who was responsible for mishandling the loaded rifle that fired the fatal bullet under Sheila`s chin, worked for special branch, and I have been told that a full file (SC/688 and SC/786) including copies of all 581 photographs, and the missing negative, are in the possession, and under the control of special branch. They have it all, including the original autopsy notes written up by the pathologist, Peter Venezis - which supposedly were stolen out of his loft during a burglary for which there is, and never has been allocated, a corresponding crime reference number?
I've been waiting for ages for somebody to mention this again. Funny thing to steal during a burglary. Is it true that the Coroners report or the Pathologists report re DCI Taff Jones is also withheld in some form, e.g. PII?
I know! Bizarre eh? What is it about this case that caused so much covering up and subterfuge- it can't all be coincidence. Or is this just par for the course with the Police?
-
I know! Bizarre eh? What is it about this case that caused so much covering up and subterfuge- it can't all be coincidence. Or is this just par for the course with the Police?
I suspect that the cops must have known exactly how to cover something up when the need arises. However, I also suspect that they had not encountered the need to envisage a cover up as monumental as this one. And you have to ask your self... why go to such lengths? If the ends justify the means... and such lengths as these have been gone to... then I am led to also suspect that whatever took place at the farmhouse must have been very serious.
-
Mike, do you have more than one informant?
Thankyou.
Yes...
-
Request should be made to CCRC to obtain file from Special Branch, and information about the lectures which ACC Peter Simpson was giving using the withheld crime scene photographs?
These persons who took part in these lectures have seen crime scene photographs of Sheila's body on the bed, with one wound to her neck, and with two wounds on her neck, before the police moved her body to the bedroom floor, where they stage managed her body again, using one of the two bibles, and the rifle with its barrel in at least two different positions against her neck...
-
Confirmation that some photographs were missing along with negatives under the control of ACC Peter Simpson, for lecture purposes...
COLP knew about this in 1991...
-
Lecture purposes? That's got to be absolute bollocks though hasn't it?
-
Lecture purposes? That's got to be absolute bollocks though hasn't it?
Sorry, cross posted. I didn't see your notes.
-
Lecture purposes? That's got to be absolute bollocks though hasn't it?
Well...
we now know that ACC Peter Simpson, had an album containing all 581 photographs which had been taken in connection with these investigations (SC/688/85 and SC/786/85), the full contents of which have so far not yet been disclosed. We know that this album of 581 pictures was called "THE SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM", but nobody has claimed to be the one who put it all together...
It is believed that Robert BOUTFLOUR got wind of the existence of this album under the control of ACC SIMPSON, and that this is what he was armed with (information about its existence) when he went to see him on 6th September 1985, and got him to change his mind and instigate a fresh investigation...
Boutflour received information about this covert photographic album (581) from police officers who were in on the cover up, and who were also freemason colleagues, of himself, Ralph Bamber and Simpson...
-
Copies of GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS of interest:-
-
Lecture purposes? That's got to be absolute bollocks though hasn't it?
Well...
we now know that ACC Peter Simpson, had an album containing all 581 photographs which had been taken in connection with these investigations (SC/688/85 and SC/786/85), the full contents of which have so far not yet been disclosed. We know that this album of 581 pictures was called "THE SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM", but nobody has claimed to be the one who put it all together...
It is believed that Robert BOUTFLOUR got wind of the existence of this album under the control of ACC SIMPSON, and that this is what he was armed with (information about its existence) when he went to see him on 6th September 1985, and got him to change his mind and instigate a fresh investigation...
Boutflour received information about this covert photographic album (581) from police officers who were in on the cover up, and who were also freemason colleagues, of himself, Ralph Bamber and Simpson...
Right. We need to settle this for once and all. I have questions.
-
SHEILA CAFFELLS nightdress - Exhibit Ref:- ND/3
Why no blood staining mentioned as being present upon it?
-
Ralph Bambers pyjama top:-
-
Glynis Howard experiments with gun and silencer...
-
Lecture purposes? That's got to be absolute bollocks though hasn't it?
Well...
we now know that ACC Peter Simpson, had an album containing all 581 photographs which had been taken in connection with these investigations (SC/688/85 and SC/786/85), the full contents of which have so far not yet been disclosed. We know that this album of 581 pictures was called "THE SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM", but nobody has claimed to be the one who put it all together...
It is believed that Robert BOUTFLOUR got wind of the existence of this album under the control of ACC SIMPSON, and that this is what he was armed with (information about its existence) when he went to see him on 6th September 1985, and got him to change his mind and instigate a fresh investigation...
Boutflour received information about this covert photographic album (581) from police officers who were in on the cover up, and who were also freemason colleagues, of himself, Ralph Bamber and Simpson...
Right. We need to settle this for once and all. I have questions.
Do you have access to a register which lists the names of all freemasons, and the lodges they frequent? If you did then that would be a good starting point - check the names of all the police officers involved in the case against such a register, and check out Robert Boutflour, and Ralf Baber, and the trial judge, and the judges of appeal, and those in control at the DPP/CPS, the list is potentially endless...
-
Out and about...
I am off up to Scotland in a few minutes, Stirlingshire, Aberdeenshire, but will have my trusted Blackberry with me throughout the night, so I can log in and debate...
I will post more revealing documents tomorrow once I return...
-
Lecture purposes? That's got to be absolute bollocks though hasn't it?
Well...
we now know that ACC Peter Simpson, had an album containing all 581 photographs which had been taken in connection with these investigations (SC/688/85 and SC/786/85), the full contents of which have so far not yet been disclosed. We know that this album of 581 pictures was called "THE SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM", but nobody has claimed to be the one who put it all together...
It is believed that Robert BOUTFLOUR got wind of the existence of this album under the control of ACC SIMPSON, and that this is what he was armed with (information about its existence) when he went to see him on 6th September 1985, and got him to change his mind and instigate a fresh investigation...
Boutflour received information about this covert photographic album (581) from police officers who were in on the cover up, and who were also freemason colleagues, of himself, Ralph Bamber and Simpson...
Right. We need to settle this for once and all. I have questions.
Do you have access to a register which lists the names of all freemasons, and the lodges they frequent? If you did then that would be a good starting point - check the names of all the police officers involved in the case against such a register, and check out Robert Boutflour, and Ralf Baber, and the trial judge, and the judges of appeal, and those in control at the DPP/CPS, the list is potentially endless...
No I do not. But I have questions about RWB vs ACC Simpson.
-
Don't overdo it Mike, take it easy xx
-
Who is saying that RWB is believed to have got wind of the SIO? That's not been mentioned before.
If RWB is aware of some form concealment via withheld photos re events at WHF, is it not likely that he would demand to know the nature of the concealment / photographs?
Is the suggestion that RWB demanded such answers but such answers were not forthcoming from ACC Simpson? That doesn't work for me. Since that would involve RWB having only limited knowledge that all was not what it should be regarding the raid and/or Sheila's death. Yet still demanding Jeremy be put in the frame for the killings? (There would be a doubt in RWB's mind whether Jeremy was involved, yet he would ignore that doubt and insist Jeremy was investigated??)
Or is the suggestion that RWB received the answers that he had sought regarding the contents of the SIO and events at WHF? I find that difficult to believe also. Because that scenario would lead to an utter callousness on the part of RWB. Since he would then be knowingly insisting that an innocent Jeremy be put in the frame for the killings.
-
Who is saying that RWB is believed to have got wind of the SIO? That's not been mentioned before.
If RWB is aware of some form concealment via withheld photos re events at WHF, is it not likely that he would demand to know the nature of the concealment / photographs?
Is the suggestion that RWB demanded such answers but such answers were not forthcoming from ACC Simpson? That doesn't work for me. Since that would involve RWB having only limited knowledge that all was not what it should be regarding the raid and/or Sheila's death. Yet still demanding Jeremy be put in the frame for the killings? (There would be a doubt in RWB's mind whether Jeremy was involved, yet he would ignore that doubt and insist Jeremy was investigated??)
Or is the suggestion that RWB received the answers that he had sought regarding the contents of the SIO and events at WHF? I find that difficult to believe also. Because that scenario would lead to an utter callousness on the part of RWB. Since he would then be knowingly insisting that an innocent Jeremy be put in the frame for the killings.
RWB was being given information by various friends and contacts who were mason colleagues, and some who were poilice officers, others still who were family of serving police officers, like Jim Carr whose son, Robbie, worked for the Met` police, was a typical source where RWB found out useful information that he later put to use in persuading his friend, Peter Simpson, to commence an investigation into the handling of the investigation thus far, RWB did not go there to ask Simpson to arrest Jeremy, he went there to lodge a complaint against DCI `Taff` Jones, and to remonstrate over the things brought to his attention by informants in the know...
The investigation did not miraculously alter course on the day RWB confronted Simpson, this is borne out by the fact that DCS `Mick` Ainsleys appointment did not take effect, until after a brief investigation by another senior officer was duly carried out. It was not until mid September, and after the first arrest and release of Bamber on 13th September, that Ainsley took over officially...
The complaints made by RWB were serious ones, for example, he was aware that Sheila`s body had been found downstairs, and that Sheila was still alive, long after Dr Craig, the police surgeon, had pronounced her as being dead...
-
Don't overdo it Mike, take it easy xx
Thanks...
Currently at PenrIth, having a coffee...
-
If police had already got the silencer evidence in the bag, and also Julie Mugfords party piece to boot, by the time they released him on bail, on 13 September, what was the purpose of arresting him in the first place?
-
Why wasn't the bloodied silencer, and julie Mugfords evidence, good enough to keep Bamber in custody, on and by 13th September 1985?
Was it because the words which were put into Julie Mugfirds mouth were unsatisfactory, and needed to be re-worded, to make the evidence her own? And, was it because the silencer found by the relatives, had not been sent to the lab` yet, and statements had not been made by the firearms team outlining what they found upon entering the farmhouse?
Funny how. All these crucial pieces of evidence, did not come into existence, until after Bamber was released on bail on 13th September...
Everything that needed to happen, happened and actually came into being, and occurred, right on cue between 13th and 29th September, just in time to arrest Bamber at Dover and charge him, witout mention of the use o a silencer, any blood found inside it, no mention of any paint on it - no interview at all regarding these things, they just arrested him and charged him with the murders, without putting any of this nonsense to him in interviews?
What kind of justice does this amount to?
-
Who is saying that RWB is believed to have got wind of the SIO? That's not been mentioned before.
If RWB is aware of some form concealment via withheld photos re events at WHF, is it not likely that he would demand to know the nature of the concealment / photographs?
Is the suggestion that RWB demanded such answers but such answers were not forthcoming from ACC Simpson? That doesn't work for me. Since that would involve RWB having only limited knowledge that all was not what it should be regarding the raid and/or Sheila's death. Yet still demanding Jeremy be put in the frame for the killings? (There would be a doubt in RWB's mind whether Jeremy was involved, yet he would ignore that doubt and insist Jeremy was investigated??)
Or is the suggestion that RWB received the answers that he had sought regarding the contents of the SIO and events at WHF? I find that difficult to believe also. Because that scenario would lead to an utter callousness on the part of RWB. Since he would then be knowingly insisting that an innocent Jeremy be put in the frame for the killings.
RWB was being given information by various friends and contacts who were mason colleagues, and some who were poilice officers, others still who were family of serving police officers, like Jim Carr whose son, Robbie, worked for the Met` police, was a typical source where RWB found out useful information that he later put to use in persuading his friend, Peter Simpson, to commence an investigation into the handling of the investigation thus far, RWB did not go there to ask Simpson to arrest Jeremy, he went there to lodge a complaint against DCI `Taff` Jones, and to remonstrate over the things brought to his attention by informants in the know...
The investigation did not miraculously alter course on the day RWB confronted Simpson, this is borne out by the fact that DCS `Mick` Ainsleys appointment did not take effect, until after a brief investigation by another senior officer was duly carried out. It was not until mid September, and after the first arrest and release of Bamber on 13th September, that Ainsley took over officially...
The complaints made by RWB were serious ones, for example, he was aware that Sheila`s body had been found downstairs, and that Sheila was still alive, long after Dr Craig, the police surgeon, had pronounced her as being dead...
Firstly, this other senior officer who looked in to things in the wake of RWB's visit to ACC Simpson: Do you know who this officer was... and is there any information to suggest that he was given info either before or during his own investigations, as to what had actually taken place at WHF? The very man who has appointed this other officer was afterall, in the know him self. So was this other officer sent on a goose chase or was he briefed on true events?
Secondly, this does not look good for RWB if he knew about the anomalies listed above. How could he still genuinely suspect jeremy, if he knew also about these things? What evidence do you have that would suggest that RWB knew of these precise anomalies (i.e. info that detracted from the official version of events)?
This is a time period which I feel needs to be examined more closely on the forum. Exaxtly how and why did the case turn?
-
Who is saying that RWB is believed to have got wind of the SIO? That's not been mentioned before.
If RWB is aware of some form concealment via withheld photos re events at WHF, is it not likely that he would demand to know the nature of the concealment / photographs?
Is the suggestion that RWB demanded such answers but such answers were not forthcoming from ACC Simpson? That doesn't work for me. Since that would involve RWB having only limited knowledge that all was not what it should be regarding the raid and/or Sheila's death. Yet still demanding Jeremy be put in the frame for the killings? (There would be a doubt in RWB's mind whether Jeremy was involved, yet he would ignore that doubt and insist Jeremy was investigated??)
Or is the suggestion that RWB received the answers that he had sought regarding the contents of the SIO and events at WHF? I find that difficult to believe also. Because that scenario would lead to an utter callousness on the part of RWB. Since he would then be knowingly insisting that an innocent Jeremy be put in the frame for the killings.
RWB was being given information by various friends and contacts who were mason colleagues, and some who were poilice officers, others still who were family of serving police officers, like Jim Carr whose son, Robbie, worked for the Met` police, was a typical source where RWB found out useful information that he later put to use in persuading his friend, Peter Simpson, to commence an investigation into the handling of the investigation thus far, RWB did not go there to ask Simpson to arrest Jeremy, he went there to lodge a complaint against DCI `Taff` Jones, and to remonstrate over the things brought to his attention by informants in the know...
The investigation did not miraculously alter course on the day RWB confronted Simpson, this is borne out by the fact that DCS `Mick` Ainsleys appointment did not take effect, until after a brief investigation by another senior officer was duly carried out. It was not until mid September, and after the first arrest and release of Bamber on 13th September, that Ainsley took over officially...
The complaints made by RWB were serious ones, for example, he was aware that Sheila`s body had been found downstairs, and that Sheila was still alive, long after Dr Craig, the police surgeon, had pronounced her as being dead...
Firstly, this other senior officer who looked in to things in the wake of RWB's visit to ACC Simpson: Do you know who this officer was... and is there any information to suggest that he was given info either before or during his own investigations, as to what had actually taken place at WHF? The very man who has appointed this other officer was afterall, in the know him self. So was this other officer sent on a goose chase or was he briefed on true events?
Secondly, this does not look good for RWB if he knew about the anomalies listed above. How could he still genuinely suspect jeremy, if he knew also about these things? What evidence do you have that would suggest that RWB knew of these precise anomalies (i.e. info that detracted from the official version of events)?
This is a time period which I feel needs to be examined more closely on the forum. Exaxtly how and why did the case turn?
I will be home in a couple of hours, or three, I will be in a much better position to give a more comprehensive answer, so bear with me...
-
Who is saying that RWB is believed to have got wind of the SIO? That's not been mentioned before.
If RWB is aware of some form concealment via withheld photos re events at WHF, is it not likely that he would demand to know the nature of the concealment / photographs?
Is the suggestion that RWB demanded such answers but such answers were not forthcoming from ACC Simpson? That doesn't work for me. Since that would involve RWB having only limited knowledge that all was not what it should be regarding the raid and/or Sheila's death. Yet still demanding Jeremy be put in the frame for the killings? (There would be a doubt in RWB's mind whether Jeremy was involved, yet he would ignore that doubt and insist Jeremy was investigated??)
Or is the suggestion that RWB received the answers that he had sought regarding the contents of the SIO and events at WHF? I find that difficult to believe also. Because that scenario would lead to an utter callousness on the part of RWB. Since he would then be knowingly insisting that an innocent Jeremy be put in the frame for the killings.
RWB was being given information by various friends and contacts who were mason colleagues, and some who were poilice officers, others still who were family of serving police officers, like Jim Carr whose son, Robbie, worked for the Met` police, was a typical source where RWB found out useful information that he later put to use in persuading his friend, Peter Simpson, to commence an investigation into the handling of the investigation thus far, RWB did not go there to ask Simpson to arrest Jeremy, he went there to lodge a complaint against DCI `Taff` Jones, and to remonstrate over the things brought to his attention by informants in the know...
The investigation did not miraculously alter course on the day RWB confronted Simpson, this is borne out by the fact that DCS `Mick` Ainsleys appointment did not take effect, until after a brief investigation by another senior officer was duly carried out. It was not until mid September, and after the first arrest and release of Bamber on 13th September, that Ainsley took over officially...
The complaints made by RWB were serious ones, for example, he was aware that Sheila`s body had been found downstairs, and that Sheila was still alive, long after Dr Craig, the police surgeon, had pronounced her as being dead...
Firstly, this other senior officer who looked in to things in the wake of RWB's visit to ACC Simpson: Do you know who this officer was... and is there any information to suggest that he was given info either before or during his own investigations, as to what had actually taken place at WHF? The very man who has appointed this other officer was afterall, in the know him self. So was this other officer sent on a goose chase or was he briefed on true events?
Secondly, this does not look good for RWB if he knew about the anomalies listed above. How could he still genuinely suspect jeremy, if he knew also about these things? What evidence do you have that would suggest that RWB knew of these precise anomalies (i.e. info that detracted from the official version of events)?
This is a time period which I feel needs to be examined more closely on the forum. Exaxtly how and why did the case turn?
I will be home in a couple of hours, or three, I will be in a much better position to give a more comprehensive answer, so bear with me...
Firstly, I think the identity of the senior police officer who was appointed to investigate RWB complaints, is mentioned in a confidential report, entitled "REVIEW OF THE INVESTIGATION BY ESSEX POLICE INTO THE MURDERS BY JEREMY BAMBER", or a similar document currently in my possession..
-
There must be more to this Stokenchurch investigation than just the COLP enquiry, if that name is still in use for a date as late as that?
-
(1) Part one of investigation - four murders and a suicide, under SC/688/85, between 7th August 1985 and 6th September 1985, (headed by DCI "Taff" Jones)...
(2) interim period where internal review of police handling of investigation took place, headed by senior police officer?
(3) Part two of investigation - five murders, under SC/786/85, which came into force on a date to be identified, by cross referencing all other crime reference numbers issued to other cases, in particular, bearing references, SC/785/85 and SC/787/85, (SC/786/85 - headed by DCS "Mick" Ainsley)...
-
There must be more to this Stokenchurch investigation than just the COLP enquiry, if that name is still in use for a date as late as that?
I will post copies of the full reports in due course, once I have sourced the other supporting documents in my possession...
-
Thanks Mike. Did you get where I'm coming from re RWB?
-
Thanks Mike. Did you get where I'm coming from re RWB?
RWB had it in his mind that Jeremy had got something to do with the shootings, he could not get it out of his mind what June Bamber had told him about Jeremy wanting to show Sheila how to load the .22 rifle with bullets, and it was this feature which convinced him, that even if Sheila had shot anybody, that Jeremy was involved in some way for the reasons given, which was a different matter entirely from the issue of the police mistaking Sheila as being dead downstairs at the scene, and she ending up being shot upstairs in the bedroom (on an occasion after armed police had entered the house)...
-
Thanks Mike. Did you get where I'm coming from re RWB?
RWB had it in his mind that Jeremy had got something to do with the shootings, he could not get it out of his mind what June Bamber had told him about Jeremy wanting to show Sheila how to load the .22 rifle with bullets, and it was this feature which convinced him, that even if Sheila had shot anybody, that Jeremy was involved in some way for the reasons given...
Ok. I accept that Jeremy had entered a downward spiral in RWB's estimations. Dropping out of the young farmers' club etc. But surely RWB must have questioned the dynamics of a potential incident with police and why Jeremy (if he was behind it) would leave Sheila alive (i.e. had such an incident with police taken place)? Surely in the scenario you mention, an attempt would be made to accuse Jeremy of manipulating a mentally ill Sheila? Yet Jeremy is prosecuted and convicted of carrying out the killings him self, in the first person?
-
Thanks Mike. Did you get where I'm coming from re RWB?
RWB had it in his mind that Jeremy had got something to do with the shootings, he could not get it out of his mind what June Bamber had told him about Jeremy wanting to show Sheila how to load the .22 rifle with bullets, and it was this feature which convinced him, that even if Sheila had shot anybody, that Jeremy was involved in some way for the reasons given...
Ok. I accept that Jeremy had entered a downward spiral in RWB's estimations. Dropping out of the young farmers' club etc. But surely RWB must have questioned the dynamics of a potential incident with police and why Jeremy (if he was behind it) would leave Sheila alive (i.e. had such an incident with police taken place)? Surely in the scenario you mention, an attempt would be made to accuse Jeremy of manipulating a mentally ill Sheila? Yet Jeremy is prosecuted and convicted of carrying out the killings him self, in the first person?
In the mind of RWB, Jeremy was somehow involved with the shooting of the other four victims, forget about Sheila for the moment, lets just say that RWB might have thought Jeremy had not sought or set out to kill her, but rather to leave her alive as a convenient scapegoat, held accountable for the other murders, and of course if true she might be excluded from benefiting from her parents estates, because should would have been responsible for their deaths?
RWB was convinced that Jeremy had played some role in the deaths of the other four victims, and so although he was armed with information about how Sheila was shot and killed in the bedroom during some sort of mishap, and the fact that police stage managed her body to make it look like she had taken her own life...
Although RWB felt these things, about the role which Jeremy had played in the shootings of the others, he kept these thoughts to himself, and kicked up a stink about the handling of the crime scene, and the investigation in general, trying to force an opening in the investigation for the police to eventually have to admit or suspect Jeremy had played some role in the shootings, albeit not necessarily the shooting of Sheila Caffell?
-
Here was/is one/two sources where RWB was getting his in formation from, from as early as 12th August 1985:-
-
Note...
There is no mention of the find of a silencer having been made by the relatives, in Jim Carrs note to RWB, about PC Robert Carrs (Met' Pol') visit to Witham police station, on 12th August 1985?...
-
One thing we can be certain about, and that is that as of 13th September 1985, if Essex police had had possession of a silencer found by the relatives a month earlier, and Julie Mugford coming forward as she did - it did not amount to anyrhing of substance to warrant Bamber being charged with the murders, or with the need to detain him further at that stage...
-
A key feature not yet explored, concerns handwritten notes made by Ann Eaton, at the time Jeremy was under arrest and in custody, when jeremy was wanting someone to stand as surety for bail, relatives made it clear that they were not prepared to be guarantors, which is not surprising, considering that they were wanting the police to keep Jeremy locked up, rather than give him bail, and to release him?
At this juncture...
Ann wrote that her brother David had told her, “ Not to worry because he had got something up my sleeve“...
Now...
I wonder what that could have been?
-
A key feature not yet explored, concerns handwritten notes made by Ann Eaton, at the time Jeremy was under arrest and in custody, when jeremy was wanting someone to stand as surety for bail, relatives made it clear that they were not prepared to be guarantors, which is not surprising, considering that they were wanting the police to keep Jeremy locked up, rather than give him bail, and to release him?
At this juncture...
Ann wrote that her brother David had told her, “ Not to worry because he had got something up my sleeve“...
Now...
I wonder what that could have been?
What did David Boutfour mean, when he told Ann, that he had got something up his sleeve?
What did Ann Eaton, think her brother meant, when he told her those words?
-
"Iv'e got something up my sleeve”, could have been a reference to anything, however, in view of the timing of them, one can be left in no doubt whatsoever, that it might have got something to do with trying to keep Jeremy in custody?
-
"Iv'e got something up my sleeve”, could have been a reference to anything, however, in view of the timing of them, one can be left in no doubt whatsoever, that it might have got something to do with trying to keep Jeremy in custody?
In my book...
The following features, have Yet to be properly or adequately explained, and one or other of these features could be linked to David Boutrflours, comments...
“Not to worry, Iv'e got something up my sleeve”...
-
(1) Date silencer was found, and when it was sent to lab...
(2) Where did small flake of blood which produced blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1, originate from?
(3) When did David Boutflour use a razor blade to scrape a small flake of dried blood off the silencer he found? What did he do with this flake of blood once he had recovered it?
(4) According to what he told COLP (1991), Essex police were fully aware of what he had done, but which Essex police officers did he tell, and what action if any was taken by the police to recover the aforementioned flake?
(5) Would Essex police leave Boutflour in possession of such a crucial piece of bloodied flake?
(6) Did Essex police contact lab` about this flake?
(7) Was this the flake, analyzed between 12th and 19th September, which produced the crucial blood group activity?
(8) Does the exhibit reference, DRB/1, actually relate to the submission of the flake to the lab' on 11th September, followed on 20th September, by submission of the silencer to be checked for blood and fibres?
(9) At what stage did the additional marks that materialized on the front face of the kitchen aga, first appear?
(10) Was Boutflour in possession of silencer at time additional marks were made on aga?
(11) Why was a silencer which was sent to the lab` to be checked for blood and fibres, on and by 20th September, only to be contaminated with paint from the aga, in the kitchen?
(12) How could two separate silencers (the one sent to lab` on 30th August, and the other silencer sent there on 20th September), both have paint on them from the aga, if this was only a one gun crime?
(13) If the silencer which police sent to lab` on 20th September to be checked for blood and fibres, only had paint from the aga upon it, how could the crucial flake of blood, which produced the same blood group activity from Sheila,
have been found inside it, if the silencer in question, was not even present at the lab`, to enable blood to be found inside it?
-
Rules for being human:-
-
And so, COLP (1991) spoke to DS Davidson, (SOC), and DC Hammersley, (SOC),:-
-
Coroners court document forms:-
-
I cant help feeling that Stokenchurch opened a can of worms that nobody quite knew how to put the lid on, except to deceive (or collude with) superiors in to authorising PII. I'd love to see the full Stokenchurch files.
-
I cant help feeling that Stokenchurch opened a can of worms that nobody quite knew how to put the lid on, except to deceive (or collude with) superiors in to authorising PII. I'd love to see the full Stokenchurch files.
I may post them all, in good time...
-
Supervision of Bamber Case:-
-
Repeated references in police statements, to seeing body of Sheila in bedroom, which "APPEARED TO BE DEAD", not that she was dead...
-
Police Interviews of Jeremy Bamber, 8th September, 1985:-
Interview (1)
Commenced at 12:20hrs and concluded at 13:45hrs
-
Police Interviews of Jeremy Bamber, 8th September, 1985:-
Interview (2)
Commenced at 17:38hrs and concluded at 18:28hrs
-
Police Interviews of Jeremy Bamber, 9th September, 1985:-
Interview (3)
Commenced at 12:50hrs and concluded at 14:25hrs
-
Police Interviews of Jeremy Bamber, 12th September, 1985:-
Interview (4)
Commenced at 12:05hrs and concluded at 23:03hrs
-
Visit to the wood:-
-
Why are the police saying that when they saw Sheila`s body, that it appeared that she was dead?
-
Why are the police saying that when they saw Sheila`s body, that it appeared that she was dead?
I have a feeling you're gonna tell us why. I still cant get my head around how RWB can have knowledge of Police v Sheila and still run with his self convinced obsession that Jeremy was behind it all. It's not like the original response from the police wasn't vehemently opposed to his suspicions. That.. and the information he may have received from Carr etc. should have been enough to plant at least a seed of doubt in his own mind, regarding the validity of his suspicions?
-
Ripped from Bambertweets Twitpics:
Not heard in Court...
http://twitpic.com/7fgjm7
-
Countryside visits:-
Perception...
-
I saw this car which was covered in artificial grass, whilst in the Chiswick, earlier today...
For sale, at a cut price...
Excellent trim features...
Driven by a clever sod...
Runs on unleaded grass...
Owner purchased this car with a low cost lawn...
"Flymo", is an optional extra, grass trimmed twice a week in height of summer...
-
What really happened according to Jeremy:-
What really happened?
1. Before-the-TFG entered WHF, Collins and Delgado looked through the kitchen window. Collins reports by radio that two bodies, one female and one male, have been seen in the kitchen. Both appeared to be dead.
2. Collins, Delgado and others briefly enter the kitchen and confirm the two bodies by radio and telephone. They then continue to search the much of the downstairs and the back of the house upstairs.
3. At some point, Sheila recovers consciousness, staggers upstairs to the main bedroom and shoots herself with the rifle which WPC Jeapes had seen leaning against the window.
4. To conceal their incompetence, TFG officers, probably in collusion with Inspector Montgomery and Ps Adams, decide to 'cover up' that SC had first been seen in the kitchen. At this stage, it was only a mild manipulation of the truth; she had, as they announced publicly, committed suicide upstairs, in the main bedroom.
5. Accordingly, Collins and Delgado omit from their statements any reference to looking through the kitchen window and seeing SC's body there; only one body, NB's, was in the kitchen and they first saw that after they had entered WHF.
6. All went well; the inquest ruled that SC had killed her parents and two sons and then committed suicide.
7. As August advanced, the police found themselves facing increasing difficulties. JB's relatives were determined to establish his guilt and began to demand a full murder investigation. Detective Chief Inspector 'Taff Jones knew that JB was innocent but to explain why he was so sure he would have to admit that SC was alive when the police entered WHF and that the police had concealed this. He would also have been concerned that information about the contamination of the crime scene by more officers being drafted in for training exercises using the bodies in situ was going to become public making a mockery of crime scene preservation and showing utter disrespect for Jeremy Bamber's dead family.
8. 'Taff Jones is delighted to be removed from heading the investigation. He is replaced by Ainsley, who had the reputation of being tough and ruthless. These qualities are required to prevent the police being exposed for concealing the truth about S C.
i. First line of defence: all records of police radio and telephone communications indicating that SC was still alive when the police entered WHF to be withheld from the defence.
ii. Second line of defence: in case JB's defence got wind of any of these radio or telephone messages, select TFG statements to mention mistaking NB's body for a woman.
9. Highly irregularly, the coroner took home with him all papers relating to the inquest into the deaths of NB, June, SC and her sons. The inquest, it will be recalled, had endorsed the 'four murders and one suicide' interpretation of the deaths at WHF. The prosecution only called one firearms officer as witness at JB's trial. This spared them the choice between committing perjury or exposing the truth.
10. At least eight or nine, perhaps a dozen or so, EP officers know the truth about WHF and that JB did not murder SC. I am told they were frightened by Andrew Hunter’s revelations in the House of Commons in 2005 but they are more frightened of losing their police pensions or even imprisonment. One has 'come out' over an important minor detail (the issue of silencers) but will say no more. Another has allegedly confessed to a third party that he feels dreadful guilt about JB's imprisonment.
All of the above is supported by documentary evidence.
-
Jeremy's take on the telephones in use/not in use at whf:-
Telephones at White House Farm
There has recently been much discussion over the telephones at White House Farm. This was brought up at the 1986 Trial of Jeremy Bamber. Key witnesses made statements and gave testimony about the phones that were at the farm.
Firstly there were usually three phones at White House Farm; a cream dial phone in the master bedroom; a blue digital dial one in the upstairs office; and a cordless phone which was kept in the kitchen. There was also another phone at the Farm that was a ‘fawn’ colour and it also had a digital key pad and it is unclear where this phone was usually kept although it was found in the kitchen under some magazines.
There had been a thunderstorm which had caused damage to the phone system and an engineer called Mr Pike made a statement that he took away the cordless phone and that he did not leave a replacement. The farm secretary Mrs Wilson had been on holiday and was not entirely sure where the phones were moved to as a result of this storm. Nevertheless Mrs Jean Bouttell testified in court that the phones had gone wrong so many times in the past year that she described it as “musical phones” when asked in court simply because the phones were moved around so frequently by the Bamber Family. She said it was common practice for the cream phone from the bedroom to be moved down into the kitchen.
After the tragedies happened on the 7th of August 1985, Chief Supt Harris used the phone to call Assistant Chief Constable Simpson on that morning before SOCO carried out their search of the house but this was denied at the 2002 appeal, evidence released in 2004 now proves he did make this call using the cream telephone in the kitchen. When the police finished their SOCO investigations and handed the keys to the family, by the weekend of the 10th of August Ann Eaton and Jean Bouttell started cleaning the house. Additionally numbers of people had been in and around the house including, Basil Cock, Barbara Wilson, Robert Boutflour, Pamela Boutflour, Chris Nevill, David Boutflour, Karen Boutflour and Anthony Pargeter.
On the 23rd of August Jeremy had been back to the farm, Barbara Wilson had commenced her duties as farm secretary reporting to Jeremy. Jean Bouttell had also commenced her regular cleaning duties. Jeremy had increased the wages of the farm workers during this time. And he asked Barbara Wilson to clear out many of the papers in the office for him. It was on this date that he asked Jean Bouttell to clear out other belongings in the house. As we all know after a family member has died we have to face the difficult task of removing their belongings from our lives and Jeremy was no different from any other person in facing the emotional and practical difficulties of doing this.
Jean Bouttell testified that Jeremy had asked her to remove the pile of magazines in the kitchen and it was during this clear out that she found the fawn coloured phone. She said that she asked Jeremy what she should do with it and he replied that it was just a spare. When she later checked the phone some three weeks later at the request of the police she found that it was working. Barbara Wilson also states that she checked the phone and found it to be working. Neither of these witnesses stated that Jeremy had told them that the phone was broken. The police asked Jean to check the phone some three weeks later and she found it to be working.
It has been suggested that Jeremy deliberately removed the phone from the bedroom that his father slept in so that he could not call the police when Jeremy allegedly broke into the house to kill the family. Firstly, Jeremy could not be responsible for the storm which had again damaged the telephone equipment and secondly is Jeremy expected to remember where each phone was at each moment when he didn’t even live in the house? Is it reasonable to expect Jeremy to know which phones were supposed to be where at this time? Is it not a reasonable assumption that if the Bamber’s phone was broken that one of them would take a phone from the upstairs bedroom and use it to replace the broken one? Particularly if, amongst the piles of untidy clutter littered throughout the house they didn’t know where the spare phone was.
Considering the number of moves that the telephones had made during the last year which seems to have been at least two or three times up until the 7th of August is it not reasonable that Jeremy wouldn’t have spent his days thinking about where the phone was? Is it not reasonable to wonder at how many people had been in the house ‘looking for evidence’ long after the initial police SOCO search between the 7th of August and the 23rd of August? Is it not reasonable to assume that the ‘spare’ phone could have been moved at any time by anyone to its position under the magazines during Ann Eaton’s clean up of the farm house?
The other area for concern is the amount of rumour which has emerged into the media since the trial of Jeremy Bamber. Barbara Wilson made no less than 14 statements to the police before Jeremy’s trial all dated 16.12.85, 05.10.85, 06.10.85, 11.10.85, 17.09.85, 19.09.85, 22.11.85, another on 05.10.85, and more on 08.11.85, 12.09.85, 16.11.85, 25.10.85, 26.11.85, and 27.09.85. In one statement she even described Jeremy as "a likeable young man". Out of all of these statements she never mentioned at any time that Nevill had told her that Jeremy had intended to kill him or anything which could be interpreted as such, Nevill had no premonition whatsoever that he might die in the near future. Neither did Barbara Wilson mention this at trial. If Nevill Bamber had told an employee such a thing why did this employee not mention this at trial to assist in the conviction of Jeremy Bamber and why did she not go to the police with this ‘story’ on the 7th of August? It is only in the Roger Wilkes book and on various television programmes that this has been suggested and we will leave you to make your own conclusions about why this story has been invented for various forms of media.
-
Two silencers - Jeremy's take on this feature:-
Two Moderators
So why was the silencer's reference number tampered with? Simply because the second silencer had been found much later than the Police originally stated. The Police merged the two silencers together to try to create continuity of the trail of evidence.
But this was difficult, all documents relating to finding the silencer had to be backdated, as there were none that were written on the 10th of August when it was supposed to have been found.
The moderator which was found at the farm originally had been taken for forensic examination and it was not considered to have been used in the shootings.
Updated 23/06/10
The latest evidence to emerge in this case is the startling fact that the original exhibit labels for the Sound Moderator contained the wrong case reference number, this highlights the backdating of evidence by Police.
The first exhibit label shown on here is one fabricated by Essex Police to give a false ‘chain of evidence’ trail. Key to showing that this is a faked document is that its case number is SC/786/85 which DID NOT exist on 13th August 1985. This case number was not allocated to the investigation until after 7thSeptember 1985.
From the 8th August 1985 to 7th September 1985 this case was numbered SC/688/85. So if this exhibit label was a genuine original it would have the case number SC/688/85 on it and not SC/786/85. A Police Inspector saidhe produced this exhibit label on 13th August 1985.
So why did the Police backdate evidence? Clearly they didn’t find this sound moderator at the scene because if they had it would have the original case number on it and not one that hadn’t even been assigned to the case at the time it was supposed to have been found.
This is quite simply a disgrace. Backdating evidence in this way is a serious offence. The CCRC have had this document for some considerable amount of time and still nothing has been done.
14/06/10
The evidence of the photographic specialist Peter Suthurst is supported by a large number of documents which also prove that the scratches were made the following month and not on the 7th August 1985.
So why is the silencer so important in this case?
The 1986 trial the judge stated that it is “inconceivable” that Sheila committed the killings. This is because it would have meant her attaching the sound moderator the gun, fighting in the kitchen, going upstairs shooting herself with the silencer attached to the gun, going back downstairs, putting the silencer away in the cupboard, going back upstairs to shoot herself and this time fatally.
The judge goes on to repeat this four times saying each time “Is it conceivable” or it is “inconceivable” stating that the defence case upon this red/paint/silencer/scratch mark issue alone has no merit at all, and over two pages he instructs the jury to accept the prosecutions case as it is inconceivable that Sheila was in any way responsible for the killings.
We now know that in fact the silencer did not make those scratch marks in the paint on the underside of the mantle shelf until sometime after all the crime scene photographs had been taken, rendering the judges summing up to be factually incorrect, and therefore the trial unfair.
The silencer was hugely important to the prosecution because blood which allegedly came from Sheila was found inside on the baffle plates. As the scratches on the mantle are proven to have been made after the first crime scene photographs were taken, the evidence of the silencer is now invalid, this includes the paint on the silencer, and the blood inside the silencer too.
-
Two silencers - Jeremy's take on this feature:-
Two Moderators
So why was the silencer's reference number tampered with? Simply because the second silencer had been found much later than the Police originally stated. The Police merged the two silencers together to try to create continuity of the trail of evidence.
But this was difficult, all documents relating to finding the silencer had to be backdated, as there were none that were written on the 10th of August when it was supposed to have been found.
The moderator which was found at the farm originally had been taken for forensic examination and it was not considered to have been used in the shootings.
Updated 23/06/10
The latest evidence to emerge in this case is the startling fact that the original exhibit labels for the Sound Moderator contained the wrong case reference number, this highlights the backdating of evidence by Police.
The first exhibit label shown on here is one fabricated by Essex Police to give a false ‘chain of evidence’ trail. Key to showing that this is a faked document is that its case number is SC/786/85 which DID NOT exist on 13th August 1985. This case number was not allocated to the investigation until after 7thSeptember 1985.
From the 8th August 1985 to 7th September 1985 this case was numbered SC/688/85. So if this exhibit label was a genuine original it would have the case number SC/688/85 on it and not SC/786/85. A Police Inspector saidhe produced this exhibit label on 13th August 1985.
So why did the Police backdate evidence? Clearly they didn’t find this sound moderator at the scene because if they had it would have the original case number on it and not one that hadn’t even been assigned to the case at the time it was supposed to have been found.
This is quite simply a disgrace. Backdating evidence in this way is a serious offence. The CCRC have had this document for some considerable amount of time and still nothing has been done.
14/06/10
The evidence of the photographic specialist Peter Suthurst is supported by a large number of documents which also prove that the scratches were made the following month and not on the 7th August 1985.
So why is the silencer so important in this case?
The 1986 trial the judge stated that it is “inconceivable” that Sheila committed the killings. This is because it would have meant her attaching the sound moderator the gun, fighting in the kitchen, going upstairs shooting herself with the silencer attached to the gun, going back downstairs, putting the silencer away in the cupboard, going back upstairs to shoot herself and this time fatally.
The judge goes on to repeat this four times saying each time “Is it conceivable” or it is “inconceivable” stating that the defence case upon this red/paint/silencer/scratch mark issue alone has no merit at all, and over two pages he instructs the jury to accept the prosecutions case as it is inconceivable that Sheila was in any way responsible for the killings.
We now know that in fact the silencer did not make those scratch marks in the paint on the underside of the mantle shelf until sometime after all the crime scene photographs had been taken, rendering the judges summing up to be factually incorrect, and therefore the trial unfair.
The silencer was hugely important to the prosecution because blood which allegedly came from Sheila was found inside on the baffle plates. As the scratches on the mantle are proven to have been made after the first crime scene photographs were taken, the evidence of the silencer is now invalid, this includes the paint on the silencer, and the blood inside the silencer too.
This exhibit label could not have been signed by any of the relatives until after 20th September 1985, when the silencer which was found by the relatives on 11th September 1985, was first submitted to the lab', to be checked for blood and fibres, but upon which was only found to be paint from the deliberate scratching of the aga in the kitchen at the scene...
-
On the other hand, this exhibit label, is the one signed by all the experts at the lab' after its submission on 30th August 1985, or is it?
-
I am convinced that the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, did not find the small flake of blood (which produced the blood group activity, matching Sheila's) trapped inside the baffle plates of the silencer he dismantled after it had been returned to the lab' by DI Cook (SOC) on 30th August 1985. I arrive at this conclusion after careful study of all the facts relating to the dismantling of the same silencer by Cook (S)C) on 29th August 1985, activities which Cook photographed - if there had been a small dried flake of blood inside the baffle plates on 29th August 1985, Cook would not only have found it whilst dismantling the silencer, but he would have photographed the flake, and it would have been given an exhibit reference, linking it to him?
I cannot see how when Cook could have been dismantled the silencer on 29th August 1985, and there be no small flake of blood found inside it, yet once it was rebuilt and sent to the lab' how could such a small dried flake suddenly and unexpectedly materialize there?
I am drawn to the strong possibility that the flake of blood tested at the lab' between 12th and 19th September 1985, was the one which David Boutflour scraped from the silencer he found at whf, on 11th September 1985, by use of an hacksaw blade...
The only thing I am not 100% sure about, is whether or not this small flake of dried blood, in question, had the exhibit reference of either DB/1, or DRB/1?
I am almost certain that this flake of blood, originally had the exhibit reference of DB/1, and that the silencer found at the scene by the relatives on 11th September, and subsequently sent to the lab' on 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres, had the exhibit reference of DRB/1...
I have strong reasons for believing this to be true...
-
I am convinced that the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, did not find the small flake of blood (which produced the blood group activity, matching Sheila's) trapped inside the baffle plates of the silencer he dismantled after it had been returned to the lab' by DI Cook (SOC) on 30th August 1985. I arrive at this conclusion after careful study of all the facts relating to the dismantling of the same silencer by Cook (S)C) on 29th August 1985, activities which Cook photographed - if there had been a small dried flake of blood inside the baffle plates on 29th August 1985, Cook would not only have found it whilst dismantling the silencer, but he would have photographed the flake, and it would have been given an exhibit reference, linking it to him?
I cannot see how when Cook could have been dismantled the silencer on 29th August 1985, and there be no small flake of blood found inside it, yet once it was rebuilt and sent to the lab' how could such a small dried flake suddenly and unexpectedly materialize there?
I am drawn to the strong possibility that the flake of blood tested at the lab' between 12th and 19th September 1985, was the one which David Boutflour scraped from the silencer he found at whf, on 11th September 1985, by use of an hacksaw blade...
The only thing I am not 100% sure about, is whether or not this small flake of dried blood, in question, had the exhibit reference of either DB/1, or DRB/1?
I am almost certain that this flake of blood, originally had the exhibit reference of DB/1, and that the silencer found at the scene by the relatives on 11th September, and subsequently sent to the lab' on 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres, had the exhibit reference of DRB/1...
I have strong reasons for believing this to be true...
Silencer bearing the mark SBJ/1 appears to have been sent to the lab' twice, once on 13th August 1985, and secondly, on 30th August 1985...
Small flake of blood scraped from the silencer by use of a razor blade which was handed in by the relatives on 11th September 1985, was taken to the lab' and analysed, by the blood expert, John Hayward, between 12th and 19th August 1985...
Silencer bearing the mark DRB/1, from which this flake was allegedly scraped, by David Boutflour, was subsequently sent to klab' to be checked for blood and fibres, on 20th September 1985, and paint from aga surround found upon it...
-
I am uploading the remainder of the interview records between Essex police, and Jeremy Bamber - on original thread as we speak:-
-
Good shadow pics Mike. Sort of says something. Maybe shadowing the case for so many years and getting closer to the truth? Or shadowing all those individuals who acted against the interests of truth?
I hope you're doing a lone working risk assessment before going to these meetings? If anything should happen... That's the forum and research up the spout.
-
I am uploading the remainder of the interview records between Essex police, and Jeremy Bamber - on original thread as we speak:-
Now uploaded completely...
-
Good shadow pics Mike. Sort of says something. Maybe shadowing the case for so many years and getting closer to the truth? Or shadowing all those individuals who acted against the interests of truth?
I hope you're doing a lone working risk assessment before going to these meetings? If anything should happen... That's the forum and research up the spout.
Symbolic, as you say...
Forum is strong, because those running it, and those who partake in it, will have unrestricted access to over 50,000 case documents (and photographs), from time to time, with a view of facilitating debate...
-
Lets analyse what Jeremy had to say when he was interviewed by the police (before he was released from custody without any charge connected to the five deaths):-
Here is what Jeremy had to say about what he was doing during the day at whf...
He arrived at whf, on 6th August 1985, at about 7:30am, and worked until about 9pm (he left at about 9:30pm)...
He had spent the day carting grain back to the grain store, from the fields, using tractor and trailer...
-
Jeremy's handling of .22 rifle evening before shootings:-
(taken from the Police interview of Jeremy Bamber)...
There was no silencer, or telescopic site fitted to the rifle on that occasion, nor did he fit either of these accessories to the weapon, at that stage...
-
This is where Jeremy told the police he had placed the rifle upon his return from rabbit hunting...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
The seat to which Jeremy is referring is that shown in the attached photograph (apologies for the quality of the picture)...
-
According to Jeremy, everyone was present inside whf, when Jeremy returned from rabbit hunting:-
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
Children were already in bed, on the last occasion Jeremy came back to the farmhouse, before leaving to go home (about 9:30pm)...
-
Topic of conversation, between family members ongoing when Jeremy returned to farmhouse that evening:-
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
Topic of conversation, between family members ongoing when Jeremy returned to farmhouse that evening:-
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
Jeremy's recollection about talk of "fostering out the children", has a ring of truth about it, considering that police obtained a wealth of evidence (after the shootings) confirming the involvement by social services with the welfare and care, of the Caffell children (over a period of time)...
-
This is where Jeremy told the police he had placed the rifle upon his return from rabbit hunting...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
The seat to which Jeremy is referring is that shown in the attached photograph (apologies for the quality of the picture)...
You can see the rear door through which Jeremy came through, when he came back into the farmhouse after rabbit hunting...
-
Jeremy told the police that he was not still present at the farmhouse when his auntie "PAM", made a telephone call to June Bamber (her sister), which the police knew (from police records obtained) had taken place at about 10pm...
Jeremy had not seen anybody he knew on the way home, to the best of his recollection, not any neighbours, and neither had anyone purportedly seen him going home, save for a neighbour at the farm cottages who had heard the sound of the engine of his astra, leaving the farmhouse at about 9:30pm...
Therefore, Jeremy was not present at the farmhouse when the witness, Smith, heard a shotgun blast, at about 10pm...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
Recent photographs, taken of pet dog, and silhouetted images of the same, with yours truly:-
I purchased pet, from a sanctuary in Lincolnshire, and donated £100 for the privilege of taking her away, there and then, as a pup who was only weeks old. She is a cross between a "collie" and a "Labrador", and she is named, "MISTY"...
-
Jeremy's routine, after he arrived home at 9 Head street, Goldhanger, from a long day working at whf (evening of 6th August 1985):-
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
When Jeremy spoke to his girlfriend, Julie Mugford that evening, they generally talked about the kind of day each had had, as confirmed by what Jeremy told the police whilst being questioned:-
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
Jeremy denied killing members of his family, or of having any involvement with getting someone else to carry out the killings:-
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
When Questioned about whether or not he knew someone called Matthew, and whether or not, Matthew was a mercenary, Jeremy had the following to say:-
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
When questioned about a burglary at Osea road camp site, Jeremy immediately admitted to being involved in carrying it out:-
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
Mike, FABULOUS DOG!
I used to have a Colloie Labrador cross.
Also thought your photos were very atmospheric as the "Shadow man".
Summer :)
-
He's coughed up to burglary at the first time of asking? Interesting.
Mike, who is/was Helen Grimster? She gave a statement about Sheila but she didn't testify in court. I posted an excerpt from it further back on this thread.
-
Jeremy told police that nobody could prove he committed the burglary at Osea Road, Camp site:-
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
I have a feeling that Julie Mugford may have used her knowledge of this burglary which they committed together, and Jeremy's belief that nobody could prove he had committed it, to incorporate it into her story about Jeremy having had some involvement in the shootings, which she later introduced, and relied upon...
-
Mike, FABULOUS DOG!
I used to have a Colloie Labrador cross.
Also thought your photos were very atmospheric as the "Shadow man".
Summer :)
Thanks...
-
He's coughed up to burglary at the first time of asking? Interesting.
Mike, who is/was Helen Grimster? She gave a statement about Sheila but she didn't testify in court. I posted an excerpt from it further back on this thread.
She was a friend of Sheila's...
-
When asked if he mentioned to Julie on the phone (6th August 1985) if he told her words to the effect, "tonight's the night", Jeremy denied ever having said such a thing to Julie...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
Jeremy spoke to police about the phone call he received from his farther (Ralph) at about 3 O'clock - stating that he could not remember the time of the call at that stage (over a month had elapsed by the time he was being questioned, and a lot of water had passed under the bridge. He did, however, qualify this by saying that the time of the call would be recorded in his original statement)...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
Jeremy told the police that he often used his redial facility to call back numbers, suggesting that he had done so on this occasion, and that he had kept getting the engaged tone/signal...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
Jeremy describes making a call to his girlfriend Julie, and then to calling the police...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
He's coughed up to burglary at the first time of asking? Interesting.
Mike, who is/was Helen Grimster? She gave a statement about Sheila but she didn't testify in court. I posted an excerpt from it further back on this thread.
She was a friend of Sheila's...
Any idea why she didn't testify? Was her statement taken by the police as opposed to the defence?
-
He's coughed up to burglary at the first time of asking? Interesting.
Mike, who is/was Helen Grimster? She gave a statement about Sheila but she didn't testify in court. I posted an excerpt from it further back on this thread.
She was a friend of Sheila's...
Any idea why she didn't testify? Was her statement taken by the police as opposed to the defence?
Her statement was taken by the police, but formed part of the undisclosed material, as far as I know. I have a list somewhere which has her name upon it, relating to all unused material and witnesses who statements were not disclosed to the defence...
-
Jeremy told interviewing officers that he was put on hold for five minutes after contacting the police...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
Either they are not recording verbatim or Jeremy is giving plain 'matter of fact' answers. Nowhere does he appear to stutter or stall.
-
Jeremy denied making all these calls, as part of a cover up for his involvement in the killing of his family...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
Either they are not recording verbatim or Jeremy is giving plain 'matter of fact' answers. Nowhere does he appear to stutter or stall.
let us also not forget, that Jeremy has since passed a lie detector test, where he was asked similar questions, and gave similar answers...
-
Jeremy describes to the police having had sight of the contents of his fathers will, (some years previously), which was kept under a drawer in the family safe...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
It is interesting to note, that Jeremy refers to his fathers estate passing to his wife (June) if she was still around...
-
This is what Jeremy had to say to the police, when questioned whether or not he had seen a copy of his mothers will?
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
Jeremy told police, that Sheila was to have the freehold of the caravan site, and that he, Jeremy, was to have her shares in the caravan site, in the event of her death...
-
Police spoke to Jeremy about the possibility that his mother (June) would donate her wealth (in her will) to the church upon her death:-
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
Police questioned Jeremy about a recent altercation between Julie Mugford, and himself, where Mugford smashed a mirror...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
This is what Jeremy had to say, about Julie Mugford going to the police about what she knew about his families deaths, but Jeremy denied this had taken place, or that she had made such threats...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
When asked about him ever offering violence to Julie in the past, this is what Jeremy had to say...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
Jeremy denied any involvement in the shooting of his family, he told the police he had got nothing to do with arranging for anyone at all to kill his family...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
No matter how many times police asked Jeremy if he had got anything to do with killing his family, or the killing of 5 people, he repeatedly told them, "No"...
(This answer was/is consistent with replies Jeremy gave when he recently took a lie detector test, which he passed with flying colours)...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
Jeremy explained how he and Julie Mugford had met, and how they had become boyfriend, and girlfriend, in 1983...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
According to what the police told Jeremy during interview, Julie Mugford had made a 30 page statement by that stage, including details of how Jeremy had made arrangements for him to kill his family, a claim which Jeremy refuted...
(This 30 page statement, must be the original one which was recorded in the third person, which has so far not yet been disclosed - so who put the words into Julie Mugfords mouth?)...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
Jeremy told police that he did not understand the mental illness that Sheila was suffering from, and that he "loved" his sister...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
Jeremy describes how Sheila had once hit him, a couple of times, after an argument whilst they were travelling in a car...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
Good posts, Mike. Jeremy's prompt, clear, largely 'yes' or 'no' answers to Jones' questions are impressive in my opinion.
Contrast Jeremy's answers with JM's.
Asked if she she'd got her claims together in her mind when Jeremy was ditching her, she replies:
' have not rehearsed what I am going to tell the jury'!
-
Good posts, Mike. Jeremy's prompt, clear, largely 'yes' or 'no' answers to Jones' questions are impressive in my opinion.
Contrast Jeremy's answers with JM's.
Asked if she she'd got her claims together in her mind when Jeremy was ditching her, she replies:
' have not rehearsed what I am going to tell the jury'!
We may not have persuaded everyone that JB is innocent. But I think you will find that after exposing JM as a lier and a cheat that there are not many antis who defend her now.
-
Good posts, Mike. Jeremy's prompt, clear, largely 'yes' or 'no' answers to Jones' questions are impressive in my opinion.
Contrast Jeremy's answers with JM's.
Asked if she she'd got her claims together in her mind when Jeremy was ditching her, she replies:
' have not rehearsed what I am going to tell the jury'!
We may not have persuaded everyone that JB is innocent. But I think you will find that after exposing JM as a lier and a cheat that there are not many antis who defend her now.
That's very true, Grahame, and I recall when a number of antis did defend her.
-
At 11am, on 11th September 1985, police told Jeremy in an interview that it had now been proved that Sheila had not killed herself, but by that stage no evidence had been obtained or existed, so why did DS "Stan" Jones, lie about this during the interview?
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
Also attached, for consideration, is a copy of the front page of DS "Stan" Jones, pocketbook which contained all his evidence in connection with this case, including the interview on 11th September 1985, at 11am, when he told Jeremy that police could now prove that Sheila had in fact been murdered, but police had no such proof at that time, or stage, so he is/was lying. Look at the dates on the front cover of his pocketbook, see how he has changed these, does it not give a clear indication that he has re-written his notes, and got all muddled up about when the book was issued and entries recorded inside it?
-
At 11am, on 11th September 1985, police told Jeremy in an interview that it had now been proved that Sheila had not killed herself, but by that stage no evidence had been obtained or existed, so why did DS "Stan" Jones, lie about this during the interview?
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
Also attached, for consideration, is a copy of the front page of DS "Stan" Jones, pocketbook which contained all his evidence in connection with this case, including the interview on 11th September 1985, at 11am, when he told Jeremy that police could now prove that Sheila had in fact been murdered, but police had no such proof at that time, or stage, so he is/was lying. Look at the dates on the front cover of his pocketbook, see how he has changed these, does it not give a clear indication that he has re-written his notes, and got all muddled up about when the book was issued and entries recorded inside it?
The official Essex police stamp shows the date it was issued to DS "Stan" Jones, as 5th November 1984, yet Jones has altered this to 5th April 1985, so as to allow him to accommodate evidence in this case (whf) which did not commence until 7th August 1985, including the interview on 11th September 1985, at 11am, when Jones told Jeremy that police could prove at that stage that Sheila had been murdered...
So...
Where is the evidence that DS "Stan" Jones, was talking about?
11th September 1985, was a pivotal date in the time line of the investigation, because this was the occasion when the relatives found the second silencer in the gun cupboard at whf, which was handed to the police by Ann Eaton, on that date...
No blood had been analysed by that stage, or produced any blood group activity linking it to Sheila, and so Jones must have been referring to the find of the second silencer by the relatives, or perhaps to the fact that by that stage he was aware of the small flake of blood which David Boutflour had scraped off it, which was handed to the police. Jones would also perhaps have been aware that the silencer found by the relatives at the scene that day, had red paint ingrained upon it, as a result of either the relatives or the police deliberately making an additional mark on the front face of the aga surround in the kitchen at whf, with the intention iof trying to show that the silencer had been fitted to the guns barrel at the time of the shootings?
-
DS "Stan" Jones, was at the heart of the silencer evidence, he was convinced Jeremy had got something to do with the shootings, he pressurized Julie Mugford into making several different versions of witness statements until she had got her script off to a tee, and he falsified his pocketbook entries, so as to cover up the role he played in it all...
Let us also not forget, that on 7th August 1985, he recovered a number of exhibits bearing the identifying marks of SBJ/4, SBJ/3 and SBJ/2 from the scene...
Since, we now know that the original silencer had the identifying mark of SBJ/1, it does not require any of us to be a genius to work it out that DS "Stan" the man, Jones, did find and take possession of the original silencer from the scene, which turned out to be a different silencer to the one (DRB/1) found later by the relatives on 11th September 1985...
-
Jeremy discusses with police his income...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
Jeremy tells police how much money he had in his bank account...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
At 11am, on 11th September 1985, police told Jeremy in an interview that it had now been proved that Sheila had not killed herself, but by that stage no evidence had been obtained or existed, so why did DS "Stan" Jones, lie about this during the interview?
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
Also attached, for consideration, is a copy of the front page of DS "Stan" Jones, pocketbook which contained all his evidence in connection with this case, including the interview on 11th September 1985, at 11am, when he told Jeremy that police could now prove that Sheila had in fact been murdered, but police had no such proof at that time, or stage, so he is/was lying. Look at the dates on the front cover of his pocketbook, see how he has changed these, does it not give a clear indication that he has re-written his notes, and got all muddled up about when the book was issued and entries recorded inside it?
The official Essex police stamp shows the date it was issued to DS "Stan" Jones, as 5th November 1984, yet Jones has altered this to 5th April 1985, so as to allow him to accommodate evidence in this case (whf) which did not commence until 7th August 1985, including the interview on 11th September 1985, at 11am, when Jones told Jeremy that police could prove at that stage that Sheila had been murdered...
So...
Where is the evidence that DS "Stan" Jones, was talking about?
11th September 1985, was a pivotal date in the time line of the investigation, because this was the occasion when the relatives found the second silencer in the gun cupboard at whf, which was handed to the police by Ann Eaton, on that date...
No blood had been analysed by that stage, or produced any blood group activity linking it to Sheila, and so Jones must have been referring to the find of the second silencer by the relatives, or perhaps to the fact that by that stage he was aware of the small flake of blood which David Boutflour had scraped off it, which was handed to the police. Jones would also perhaps have been aware that the silencer found by the relatives at the scene that day, had red paint ingrained upon it, as a result of either the relatives or the police deliberately making an additional mark on the front face of the aga surround in the kitchen at whf, with the intention iof trying to show that the silencer had been fitted to the guns barrel at the time of the shootings?
::) http://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/p/kitchen-mantle.html
-
When questioned again, about telling Julie in 1984, about killing all of his family, Jeremy tells the police, "She's lying"...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
At 11am, on 11th September 1985, police told Jeremy in an interview that it had now been proved that Sheila had not killed herself, but by that stage no evidence had been obtained or existed, so why did DS "Stan" Jones, lie about this during the interview?
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
Also attached, for consideration, is a copy of the front page of DS "Stan" Jones, pocketbook which contained all his evidence in connection with this case, including the interview on 11th September 1985, at 11am, when he told Jeremy that police could now prove that Sheila had in fact been murdered, but police had no such proof at that time, or stage, so he is/was lying. Look at the dates on the front cover of his pocketbook, see how he has changed these, does it not give a clear indication that he has re-written his notes, and got all muddled up about when the book was issued and entries recorded inside it?
The official Essex police stamp shows the date it was issued to DS "Stan" Jones, as 5th November 1984, yet Jones has altered this to 5th April 1985, so as to allow him to accommodate evidence in this case (whf) which did not commence until 7th August 1985, including the interview on 11th September 1985, at 11am, when Jones told Jeremy that police could prove at that stage that Sheila had been murdered...
So...
Where is the evidence that DS "Stan" Jones, was talking about?
11th September 1985, was a pivotal date in the time line of the investigation, because this was the occasion when the relatives found the second silencer in the gun cupboard at whf, which was handed to the police by Ann Eaton, on that date...
No blood had been analysed by that stage, or produced any blood group activity linking it to Sheila, and so Jones must have been referring to the find of the second silencer by the relatives, or perhaps to the fact that by that stage he was aware of the small flake of blood which David Boutflour had scraped off it, which was handed to the police. Jones would also perhaps have been aware that the silencer found by the relatives at the scene that day, had red paint ingrained upon it, as a result of either the relatives or the police deliberately making an additional mark on the front face of the aga surround in the kitchen at whf, with the intention iof trying to show that the silencer had been fitted to the guns barrel at the time of the shootings?
::) http://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/p/kitchen-mantle.html
Good work, and highly significant...
My question would be, what was the delay between both of these photographs being taken? Since, the two identified marks on the second negative must have been made at a time when police were present at the scene. It would be very interesting to know or to find out when both of these photographs were taken, to see if they match up with or can be linked to the date when the second silencer was submitted to the lab' on 20th September 1985, and examined and found to contain paint from the aga surround on 25th September 1985?
Evidence now exists, to show that additional marks were not only made on the upper forward face of the aga, but that additional marks were also made on the left hand panel...
Of interest to this particular feature...
If there was only one silencer, which wended uop with red paint from the aga ingrained upon it, and this silencer was handed to DS "Stan the man" Jones, by Peter Eaton, on evening of 12th August 1985, which ended up at the lab' on 30th August 1985, where it remained until it was produced at the trial in October 1986, what the hell could have been used to make these additional marks on the front face of the aga surround?
THE SECOND SILENCER of course, the one found at the scene by the relatives on 11th September 1985, the one which did not get sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres, but upon which no such evidence was found, save for some red matching paint from the aga...
DS "Stan the man" Jones, had involvement in producing this falsified evidence which was relied upion to successfully prosecute and convict Jeremy Bamber for these murders. Jones was one of the key witnesses who helped to introduce and to produce this evidence to the court which tried and convicted Bamber for these murders, there can be little doubt that "Stan the man" Jones, was deeply involved with others, who all conspired to pervert the course of justice, by introducing false evidence relating to the discovery of two separate silencers, one which "Stan the man" Jones found at the scene (SBJ/1), on 7th August 1985, and another found there by the relatives (DRB/1), on 11th September 1985...
The additional mark on the front upper fascia of the aga surround, and one of the additional marks made on the left hand fascia of the same aga (in September 1985) appear to have been made by the same instrument, possibly the end of a silencer, so as to transport paint from the aga into its knurled end, so that by the time the silencer which was used to make these additional marks there in September 1985, was sent to the lab' to be checked for paint and fibres, ended up having paint from the aga surround upon it, not surprising then in view of the fact that the second silencer (DRB/1) was used to make these additional marks there, on an occasion liong after the shootings, with a view of introducing such evidence to indicate that the silencer must have been fitted to the barrel of the gun at the time of the shootings?
-
At 11am, on 11th September 1985, police told Jeremy in an interview that it had now been proved that Sheila had not killed herself, but by that stage no evidence had been obtained or existed, so why did DS "Stan" Jones, lie about this during the interview?
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
Also attached, for consideration, is a copy of the front page of DS "Stan" Jones, pocketbook which contained all his evidence in connection with this case, including the interview on 11th September 1985, at 11am, when he told Jeremy that police could now prove that Sheila had in fact been murdered, but police had no such proof at that time, or stage, so he is/was lying. Look at the dates on the front cover of his pocketbook, see how he has changed these, does it not give a clear indication that he has re-written his notes, and got all muddled up about when the book was issued and entries recorded inside it?
I wonder what the delay was, between the taking of the photographs at the scene in September 1985, which show the additional marks on the aga, and the informing of Jeremy Bamber in interview, by "Stan" the man, DS Jones, telling Jeremy during interview, that it could know be proved that Sheila was murdered?
-
At 11am, on 11th September 1985, police told Jeremy in an interview that it had now been proved that Sheila had not killed herself, but by that stage no evidence had been obtained or existed, so why did DS "Stan" Jones, lie about this during the interview?
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
Also attached, for consideration, is a copy of the front page of DS "Stan" Jones, pocketbook which contained all his evidence in connection with this case, including the interview on 11th September 1985, at 11am, when he told Jeremy that police could now prove that Sheila had in fact been murdered, but police had no such proof at that time, or stage, so he is/was lying. Look at the dates on the front cover of his pocketbook, see how he has changed these, does it not give a clear indication that he has re-written his notes, and got all muddled up about when the book was issued and entries recorded inside it?
I wonder what the delay was, between the taking of the photographs at the scene in September 1985, which show the additional marks on the aga, and the informing of Jeremy Bamber in interview, by "Stan" the man, DS Jones, telling Jeremy during interview, that it could know be proved that Sheila was murdered?
There has got to be a link, between what DS Jones told Jeremy during that interview, and the sudden appearance of these additional marks on the aga surround in the kitchen at whf, and the later discovery and conformation that paint found on the end of a silencer, matched paint where those marks had been made...
I would bet my bottom dollar that this proves to turn out to be the case...
-
Jeremy explains how much it cost to furnish his cottage, and how it was financed...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
-
Silencer SBJ/1 / DB/1 was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, so it could not have been the second silencer (DRB/1) found by the relatives at the scene on 11th September 1985, handed to the police by Ann Eaton that same date, and which was used to deliberately make additional marks on the front face of the aga surround in the kitchen at whf, as shown in recent images taken at the scene in September 1985, by DI Cook, (SOC) and PC Bird (SOC)...
-
It is known that there should have been two silencers kept at whf, around the time of the shootings - (1) belonging to Anthony Pargeter (relative) and (2) the other belonging to Ralph Bamber, one which was normally kept in the downstairs toilet, and the other normally kept in the gun cupboard. DS "Stan" Jones found the first silencer (SBJ/1) and the relatives found the second silencer (DRB/1)...
Nobody has asked questions about what happened to the silencer belonging to Pargeter, where it was at the material time, and at what stage police spoke to Pargeter about it?
Relatives have not even raised any questions about the existence of this second silencer, even though they must know by now, that it should have been at the scene at the time of these shootings?
-
When questioned again, about telling Julie in 1984, about killing all of his family, Jeremy tells the police, "She's lying"...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
By the way, honey, just thought I'd mention that I'm going to kill my family.
?
-
When questioned again, about telling Julie in 1984, about killing all of his family, Jeremy tells the police, "She's lying"...
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
By the way, honey, just thought I'd mention that I'm going to kill my family.
?
Don't be stupid. I don't want hear any more tittle tattle like that.
-
Some months later....
'I'm sick of all of them, you know, I am really am going to kill them.'
'Tittle tattle! Shut up. You know I don't like to hear of that.'
-
Some months later....
'Did you bring the sleeping pills?'
'Why do you want them?'
'Oh, nothing really, I thought I'd just have a dry run at drugging all of my family to see if it would be feasible to do this, then burn the house down with them inside.'
That beautiful house and all of those antiques! You're going to burn the lot? How could you!'
-
Those bl**dy sleeping pills of yours didn't work.'
'I told you that, why don't you ever listen....anyway, why did you want them? You sleep like a top.'
'I told you that! I want to use them to help me kill my family.'
'You're talking nonsense again...'
'Look at the bottle.'
'....do stop it, what's the good of that?............Honey...................?
this bottle's empty...'
-
Two weeks later.....
'Hello, JM, good to see you, how are you?'
'I'm very well, thank you, Mr Bamber, how are you?'
Later that evening....
'Honey...?'
'Yes, darling...?
'You didn't mean what you said, did you? You know, about killing your family?
'Yes, as a matter of interest, I did, darling. Actually, I thought I might drug them and shoot them.'
Two weeks later, the telephone rings at 9 Head Street.....
'Hello, JM, how are you?'
'I'm very well, thank you, Mr Bamber, how are you?'
'Could I speak to Jeremy?'
'He's out, I'm afraid. I'll tell him you called.'
'Thank you....oh, by the way, are you coming at Christmas?'
'Yes, I'll be there, thank you for inviting me...'
-
No, no, no! I don't buy this. No one in their right mind would have been deceived by this. No one in their right mind would have carried on as normal and would have said nothing if all of this murderous plotting was going on.'
-
Jeremy Bambers convictions, revolve around the manipulation of two different silencers, SBJ/1 and DRB/1 - which have been merged into the same silencer, to allow blood group evidence (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) and paint from the aga where scratch marks were found/created, to somehow prove the silencer was fitted to the guns barrel at the time of a struggle in the Kitchen between Ralph and his killer, and also at the time Sheila was killed in the bedroom?
Two silencers, not one...
Blood has been attributed to a silencer (DRB/1) which had not even been sent to the lab' (20th September 1985) until after the blood was grouped (between 12th and 19th September 1985), and paint found on the end of one of these silencers (DRB/1) could not have been present on the end of the first silencer sent to the lab' on 30th august 1985, because the additional marks were not scratched onto the aga surround, until September 1985, as confirmed by reference to the recent photographs taken at the scene by DI Cook (SOC) and PC Bird (SOC)...
In a nutshell...
Blood could not have been found in a silencer which did not get sent to the lab' until a date after the blood group evidence had already been obtained. Secondly, paint did not get onto the end of the silencer (DRB/1) until September 1985, and therefore there could not have been any paint on the end of the silencer submitted to the lab' on 30th August 1985...
What the police did, therefore, is to merge both silencers (SBJ/1 and DRB/1) into being the same silencer, so that they could suggest that the blood and paint had been found ion the same silencer, when in fact, it could not have been, and was of course not...
-
Jeremy Bambers convictions, revolve around the manipulation of two different silencers, SBJ/1 and DRB/1 - which have been merged into the same silencer, to allow blood group evidence (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) and paint from the aga where scratch marks were found/created, to somehow prove the silencer was fitted to the guns barrel at the time of a struggle in the Kitchen between Ralph and his killer, and also at the time Sheila was killed in the bedroom?
Two silencers, not one...
Blood has been attributed to a silencer (DRB/1) which had not even been sent to the lab' (20th September 1985) until after the blood was grouped (between 12th and 19th September 1985), and paint found on the end of one of these silencers (DRB/1) could not have been present on the end of the first silencer sent to the lab' on 30th august 1985, because the additional marks were not scratched onto the aga surround, until September 1985, as confirmed by reference to the recent photographs taken at the scene by DI Cook (SOC) and PC Bird (SOC)...
In a nutshell...
Blood could not have been found in a silencer which did not get sent to the lab' until a date after the blood group evidence had already been obtained. Secondly, paint did not get onto the end of the silencer (DRB/1) until September 1985, and therefore there could not have been any paint on the end of the silencer submitted to the lab' on 30th August 1985...
What the police did, therefore, is to merge both silencers (SBJ/1 and DRB/1) into being the same silencer, so that they could suggest that the blood and paint had been found ion the same silencer, when in fact, it could not have been, and was of course not...
Once you tamper with these two silencers, and the blood, and the paint, and the marks on the aga which were added much later, it has a direct effect upon the credibility of the other evidence linked to, or by which a reliance upon the use of a silencer might imply? For example, length of weapon with silencer fitted to the end of its barrel, was introduced to show that the gun so configured would have been much too long to allow Sheila an opportunity to shoot herself even if she had wanted to? Then of course, there was the suggestion that somebody else must have removed the silencer after Sheila was shot and killed in the bedroom, and taken that silencer all the way downstairs to hide and conceal it in the gun cupboard, because Sheila could not very well have done that herself because she was already dead?
Without the silencer evidence in, the prosecutions case would have been very weak indeed...
-
Some months later....
'Did you bring the sleeping pills?'
'Why do you want them?'
'Oh, nothing really, I thought I'd just have a dry run at drugging all of my family to see if it would be feasible to do this, then burn the house down with them inside.'
That beautiful house and all of those antiques! You're going to burn the lot? How could you!'
It's like a Whitehall farce, isn't it? Or scenes out of Arsenic and Old Lace?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy4BRNRwgo0&feature=related
-
Jeremy Bambers convictions, revolve around the manipulation of two different silencers, SBJ/1 and DRB/1 - which have been merged into the same silencer, to allow blood group evidence (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) and paint from the aga where scratch marks were found/created, to somehow prove the silencer was fitted to the guns barrel at the time of a struggle in the Kitchen between Ralph and his killer, and also at the time Sheila was killed in the bedroom?
Two silencers, not one...
Blood has been attributed to a silencer (DRB/1) which had not even been sent to the lab' (20th September 1985) until after the blood was grouped (between 12th and 19th September 1985), and paint found on the end of one of these silencers (DRB/1) could not have been present on the end of the first silencer sent to the lab' on 30th august 1985, because the additional marks were not scratched onto the aga surround, until September 1985, as confirmed by reference to the recent photographs taken at the scene by DI Cook (SOC) and PC Bird (SOC)...
In a nutshell...
Blood could not have been found in a silencer which did not get sent to the lab' until a date after the blood group evidence had already been obtained. Secondly, paint did not get onto the end of the silencer (DRB/1) until September 1985, and therefore there could not have been any paint on the end of the silencer submitted to the lab' on 30th August 1985...
What the police did, therefore, is to merge both silencers (SBJ/1 and DRB/1) into being the same silencer, so that they could suggest that the blood and paint had been found ion the same silencer, when in fact, it could not have been, and was of course not...
Once you tamper with these two silencers, and the blood, and the paint, and the marks on the aga which were added much later, it has a direct effect upon the credibility of the other evidence linked to, or by which a reliance upon the use of a silencer might imply? For example, length of weapon with silencer fitted to the end of its barrel, was introduced to show that the gun so configured would have been much too long to allow Sheila an opportunity to shoot herself even if she had wanted to? Then of course, there was the suggestion that somebody else must have removed the silencer after Sheila was shot and killed in the bedroom, and taken that silencer all the way downstairs to hide and conceal it in the gun cupboard, because Sheila could not very well have done that herself because she was already dead?
Without the silencer evidence in, the prosecutions case would have been very weak indeed...
Blood group evidence (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) on its own would not have been sufficient to convict Jeremy, it had to be allocated to the silencer, a silencer which did not get sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985, the details of which were altered to suggest that it had been sent there on 30th August 1985, and that the crucial flake of blood had been found inside it, when of course it could not have been, because that silencer was not actually sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985. This throws up a huge question mark about where the crucial flake of blood came from? The most obvious answer would be was that it was the flake of blood which Boutflour claims he scraped from the silencer using a razor blade...
Flake of blood scraped from one of the silencers by David Boutflour using a razor blade?
Whilst being interviewed by COLPin 1991, David Boutflour told them that Essex police dealing with the shootings, knew about the flake and the fact that he had scraped it from the silencer using a razor blade, yet he id not identify to COLP which police officers he was referring to, or even at what stage he had scraped off the flake of blood from the silencer? In my opinion, it is odds on, that Boutflour scraped the flake off the second silencer, on an occasion after the other silencer was already at the lab' where it had been since and from 30th August 1985...
It is odds on, that the flake which was examined at the lab' between 12th and 19th September 1985, was the one which Boutflour had introduced, and that this was the reason why on the 20th September 1985, this second silencer was sent to the lab' to be checked for blood?
Once it was received at the lab', the date of its submission from 20th September 1985, to 30th August 1985, was easily rectified, just a simple matter of altering a few exhibit references on lab' documents, where SBJ/1, became DB/1, and then DRB/1, retrospectively (where DB/1 was the actual identifying mark of the flake handed over to the police by David Boutflour)...
-
Odd...
how Julie Mugford never once mentioned, in all the versions of her evidence, the use of a silencer in the shootings?
-
`Z` - Silencer found by relatives did not come into the equation, until after its submission to the lab` on 20th September 1985, contaminated with Paint from the forward face of the aga, at the scene in September, whilst police were present taking pictures. Once the silencer found by the relatives arrived at the lab` on 20th September, the small flake of blood from which had been obtained the blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1, (between 12th and 19th September), was thus attributed, by claiming the silencer which relatives found on 11th September, had been submitted to the lab`, on a much earlier occasion, (30th September)...
By making these alterations, it enabled the blood with Sheila`s groups, and paint from the scratch marks on the aga, to be presented as cohesive evidence to support the case for this silencer (DRB/1) to have been fitted to the barrel of the rifle, at the time of a purported struggle in the kitchen between Ralph and his killer, and to be fitted to the guns barrel at the time Sheila was shot and killed in the bedroom...
It is now possible, to name the individual Conspirators, who took part in this deception:-
(1) David Boutflour
(2) Ann Eaton
(3) Anthony Pargeter
(4) Robert Boutflour
(5) DI Ronald Walter Cook (SOC)
(6) PC David Bird (SOC)
(7) DS`Stan` Jones
(8) DC Hammersley (SOC)
(9) DS Davidson (SOC)
(10) DS Eastwood
(11) PI `Bob` Miller
(12) DCI `Taff` Jones
(13) DCS `Mick` Ainsley
(14) ACC `Peter` Simpson
(15) Malcolm Fletcher (ballistics)
(16) Glynis Howard (blood)
(17) John Hayward (blood)
(18) DC Oakley
Others who took part in the seizure, retention, storage, transportation, examination and disposal of the two silencers, with the specific intention of enforcing a deception on the court where both silencers became merged together as the same one, will also be named in due course...
-
Key witnesses, to the fact that there not only existed a second silencer which had found its way into police possession by 13th September 1985, which in turn was submitted to the lab` to be checked for blood and fibres, on 20th September, are:-
(1) DS Davidson (SOC)
(2) DS Eastwood
Both of these police officers have signed a `General Examination Record` relating to this second silencer which was still in police possession between 13th and 20th September, at a time when the first silencer was already at the lab`, and which had been there ever since, 30th August...
-
The scratch pictures of the left side(as viewed) of the aga surround Mike posted up are most interesting.
It seems the photograph showing no scratches must be from when Jean Boutell had cleaned up and laid the kitchen out as it normally was...we have the date for that.
The second picture showing the 2 distinct pieces of damage must have been taken on a date later than that.
HOWEVER..of even greater interest on this issue is what covered at least one of those scratch areas at the time of the murder. A calender covers one of those scratches...gauge height by door catch...
So at the time of the murder ..nothing should have made that scratch...PERFECT!
apolologies for black and white piccy of Ralph...
-
The scratch pictures of the left side(as viewed) of the aga surround Mike posted up are most interesting.
It seems the photograph showing no scratches must be from when Jean Boutell had cleaned up and laid the kitchen out as it normally was...we have the date for that.
The second picture showing the 2 distinct pieces of damage must have been taken on a date later than that.
HOWEVER..of even greater interest on this issue is what covered at least one of those scratch areas at the time of the murder. A calender covers one of those scratches...gauge height by door catch...
So at the time of the murder ..nothing should have made that scratch...PERFECT!
apolologies for black and white piccy of Ralph...
It should be possible for an expert like Mr Sutherst, to enlarge the image of the calender, by use of available negative, to check surface of the calender, for any sign of corresponding damage, either to help establish marks were made later, or if any damage is visible on the surface of the calender, it might be possible to identify the object which struck it, for example, something other than the end of a silencer?
I personally do not think the surface of the calender was damaged at all on the morning of the shootings...
-
Come to think of it, I have a feeling that police seized that calender, and made it an exhibit, it could have been one of DS `Stan` Jones, SBJ, exhibits, which police conveniently disposed of once the nature of the investigation changed...
-
A clear picture has emerged concerning three main areas of the aga surround where scratch marks have been found at one time or another. These areas can be identified as follows:-
(1) Underneath mantle shelf
(2) Upper front right hand face of aga
(3) Left hand side face of aga
Marks made at (2) and (3) were not present on the morning of the shootings, but were deliberately made there when someone deliberately scratched the end of a silencer against it...
It must follow, therefore, that the only marks which could have been present at the time of the shootings, were those underneath the mantelpiece. This being the case, one is then left to contemplate what DS Davidson told COLP in his 1990 interviews, about the reason why a paint sample, RC/1, was taken from underneath the aga by DI Cook (SOC), on 8th August - because some similar red paint had been found to be present on the end of a guns barrel...
When asked by COLP whether he was referring to paint found on the end of the silencer, Davidson responded by saying, "No”, some paint had been found on the end of a guns barrel, a gun which had been found downstairs, not upstairs...
It must follow then, by a reliance on the power of deduction, that a silencer did not make the marks underneath the aga mantelpiece, but that the end of a guns barrel did...
Moreover, the gun in question was one which was found downstairs at the scene, not upstairs...
It must also follow, based on logic, that the marks on these other two areas of the aga, (2) and (3), were made by a silencer striking the aga, on an occasion long after the shootings, and that this leads to the inevitable conclusion that there was no silencer fitted to the barrel of the gun which struck the aga, during a purported struggle involving Ralph and his killer, which is contrary to what the prosecution alleged during the trial...
It is possible to reconstruct when one or more of the prosecutions witnesses deliberately contaminated the end of the silencer, so that it could allow the court to be deceived into accepting that a silencer was used in these shootings, which produced other advantages to the prosecution case, but which was grossly unfair to the defendant...
-
Rather more interestingly...
The two damaged areas (2) and (3) of the aga, were protected at the time of the shootings, by a blue striped jacket, and a calender, which would have prevented any direct contact between the end of any silencer and either area described...
More importantly, photographs taken at the scene, show the two aforementioned areas to be unmarked, on occasions prior to further pictures which were took, showing marks there...
It is safe to assume, therefore, that somebody with a vested interest in wanting there to be paint from the aga to be found on the end of a silencer, which got there when marks were made upon it, deliberately falsified this evidence.
..
-
One thing we can all be certain about, is the fact that marks on the left hand panel, were made at the time police were at the scene this can be proven by reference to the negatives numbered 7 and 9 - which show no marks at the time the former was taken, but which had materialised there by the time the latter one (9) was taken. Opne is left to wonder if the materialisation of these marks has got anything at all top do with comments made to Ann Eaton by the police, during a visit to the. Scene, where police told her that she had not seen what they had been doing, but if anyone asked, she was to say police had been taking measurements around the aga...
-
Comments made by police to Ann Eaton, `You haven`t seen what we are doing`, and the sudden appearance of scratch marks, on the left panel as detailed in negative 9, which are absent in negative 7, can be dated and if as suspected the photographs were taken in September 1985, it exposes another part of case which has been falsified relating to the find of the silencer by the relatives, which we now know was moved forward a month, from its actual recovery from the scene on 11th September, to 10th August...
-
Comments made by police to Ann Eaton, `You haven`t seen what we are doing`, and the sudden appearance of scratch marks, on the left panel as detailed in negative 9, which are absent in negative 7, can be dated and if as suspected the photographs were taken in September 1985, it exposes another part of case which has been falsified relating to the find of the silencer by the relatives, which we now know was moved forward a month, from its actual recovery from the scene on 11th September, to 10th August...
Was that statement made to COLP or was it in her notes? Seems an odd statement for her to make, if she had been involved with the falsification process at some point. It is a statement which leaves a potential marker for others later attempting to solve what took place. Why leave a marker like that?
-
Comments made by police to Ann Eaton, `You haven`t seen what we are doing`, and the sudden appearance of scratch marks, on the left panel as detailed in negative 9, which are absent in negative 7, can be dated and if as suspected the photographs were taken in September 1985, it exposes another part of case which has been falsified relating to the find of the silencer by the relatives, which we now know was moved forward a month, from its actual recovery from the scene on 11th September, to 10th August...
According to Robert Boutflours typed notes, which date back to 7 August 1985, but which in fact were not typed out until late September 1985, Ann was asked by the police to open up whf, and she was told by the police that she had not seen what they had done, or what they were doing, on 14th August, burt this could easily have taken place in September...
-
Robert Boutflour recorded In his notes that silencer was found on Sunday 11th August...
-
Robert Boutflour recorded In his notes that silencer was found on Sunday 11th August...
How can the same silencer have been found in the gun cupboard on two different dates, involving the same people, once on 10th August 1985, and once on 11th August 1985?
-
Silencer found by relatives on 11th September 1985, was not sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985:-
-
At 11am, on 11th September 1985, police told Jeremy in an interview that it had now been proved that Sheila had not killed herself, but by that stage no evidence had been obtained or existed, so why did DS "Stan" Jones, lie about this during the interview?
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
Also attached, for consideration, is a copy of the front page of DS "Stan" Jones, pocketbook which contained all his evidence in connection with this case, including the interview on 11th September 1985, at 11am, when he told Jeremy that police could now prove that Sheila had in fact been murdered, but police had no such proof at that time, or stage, so he is/was lying. Look at the dates on the front cover of his pocketbook, see how he has changed these, does it not give a clear indication that he has re-written his notes, and got all muddled up about when the book was issued and entries recorded inside it?
The official Essex police stamp shows the date it was issued to DS "Stan" Jones, as 5th November 1984, yet Jones has altered this to 5th April 1985, so as to allow him to accommodate evidence in this case (whf) which did not commence until 7th August 1985, including the interview on 11th September 1985, at 11am, when Jones told Jeremy that police could prove at that stage that Sheila had been murdered...
So...
Where is the evidence that DS "Stan" Jones, was talking about?
11th September 1985, was a pivotal date in the time line of the investigation, because this was the occasion when the relatives found the second silencer in the gun cupboard at whf, which was handed to the police by Ann Eaton, on that date...
No blood had been analysed by that stage, or produced any blood group activity linking it to Sheila, and so Jones must have been referring to the find of the second silencer by the relatives, or perhaps to the fact that by that stage he was aware of the small flake of blood which David Boutflour had scraped off it, which was handed to the police. Jones would also perhaps have been aware that the silencer found by the relatives at the scene that day, had red paint ingrained upon it, as a result of either the relatives or the police deliberately making an additional mark on the front face of the aga surround in the kitchen at whf, with the intention iof trying to show that the silencer had been fitted to the guns barrel at the time of the shootings?
::) http://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/p/kitchen-mantle.html
Good work, and highly significant...
My question would be, what was the delay between both of these photographs being taken? Since, the two identified marks on the second negative must have been made at a time when police were present at the scene. It would be very interesting to know or to find out when both of these photographs were taken, to see if they match up with or can be linked to the date when the second silencer was submitted to the lab' on 20th September 1985, and examined and found to contain paint from the aga surround on 25th September 1985?
Evidence now exists, to show that additional marks were not only made on the upper forward face of the aga, but that additional marks were also made on the left hand panel...
Of interest to this particular feature...
If there was only one silencer, which wended uop with red paint from the aga ingrained upon it, and this silencer was handed to DS "Stan the man" Jones, by Peter Eaton, on evening of 12th August 1985, which ended up at the lab' on 30th August 1985, where it remained until it was produced at the trial in October 1986, what the hell could have been used to make these additional marks on the front face of the aga surround?
THE SECOND SILENCER of course, the one found at the scene by the relatives on 11th September 1985, the one which did not get sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres, but upon which no such evidence was found, save for some red matching paint from the aga...
DS "Stan the man" Jones, had involvement in producing this falsified evidence which was relied upion to successfully prosecute and convict Jeremy Bamber for these murders. Jones was one of the key witnesses who helped to introduce and to produce this evidence to the court which tried and convicted Bamber for these murders, there can be little doubt that "Stan the man" Jones, was deeply involved with others, who all conspired to pervert the course of justice, by introducing false evidence relating to the discovery of two separate silencers, one which "Stan the man" Jones found at the scene (SBJ/1), on 7th August 1985, and another found there by the relatives (DRB/1), on 11th September 1985...
The additional mark on the front upper fascia of the aga surround, and one of the additional marks made on the left hand fascia of the same aga (in September 1985) appear to have been made by the same instrument, possibly the end of a silencer, so as to transport paint from the aga into its knurled end, so that by the time the silencer which was used to make these additional marks there in September 1985, was sent to the lab' to be checked for paint and fibres, ended up having paint from the aga surround upon it, not surprising then in view of the fact that the second silencer (DRB/1) was used to make these additional marks there, on an occasion liong after the shootings, with a view of introducing such evidence to indicate that the silencer must have been fitted to the barrel of the gun at the time of the shootings?
Here are some more images taken of the relevant parts of the aga surround where someone made additional scratch marks after the date of the shootings:-
-
None of us should be in any doubt that there were no visible scratch marks on two crucial areas of the aga on the morning of the shootings. These two areas were deliberately marked by someone who wanted the silencer to be fitted to the guns barrel, and to try and prove this they scratched the aga surround with the end of the silencer, later on...
-
None of us should be in any doubt that there were no visible scratch marks on two crucial areas of the aga on the morning of the shootings. These two areas were deliberately marked by someone who wanted the silencer to be fitted to the guns barrel, and to try and prove this they scratched the aga surround with the end of the silencer, later on...
Three important events
(1) date photographs were taken at scene on 7th August 1985
(2) date photographs were taken at scene when house cleaner reconstructed kitchen
(3) date photographs were taken showing marks on other areas of aga at scene
-
None of us should be in any doubt that there were no visible scratch marks on two crucial areas of the aga on the morning of the shootings. These two areas were deliberately marked by someone who wanted the silencer to be fitted to the guns barrel, and to try and prove this they scratched the aga surround with the end of the silencer, later on...
Three important events
(1) date photographs were taken at scene on 7th August 1985
(2) date photographs were taken at scene when house cleaner reconstructed kitchen
(3) date photographs were taken showing marks on other areas of aga at scene
When you then do, is factor in the date when the relatives found the silencer in the gun cupboard (11th September 1985), when Ann Eaton handed it over to the police (same date), and the date it was sent to the lab' (20th September 1985). This provides a window of opportunity for the conspirators to use the silencer to deliberately make the additional marks on the aga surround, so that by the time the case came to trial the existence of the scratch marks on the aga, and the corresponding paint from the aga on the end of the silencer, were persuasive enough to fool the court into accepting that the silencer must have been fitted to the gun at the time of a purported struggle in the kitchen between Ralph and his killer...
-
None of us should be in any doubt that there were no visible scratch marks on two crucial areas of the aga on the morning of the shootings. These two areas were deliberately marked by someone who wanted the silencer to be fitted to the guns barrel, and to try and prove this they scratched the aga surround with the end of the silencer, later on...
Three important events
(1) date photographs were taken at scene on 7th August 1985
(2) date photographs were taken at scene when house cleaner reconstructed kitchen
(3) date photographs were taken showing marks on other areas of aga at scene
When you then do, is factor in the date when the relatives found the silencer in the gun cupboard (11th September 1985), when Ann Eaton handed it over to the police (same date), and the date it was sent to the lab' (20th September 1985). This provides a window of opportunity for the conspirators to use the silencer to deliberately make the additional marks on the aga surround, so that by the time the case came to trial the existence of the scratch marks on the aga, and the corresponding paint from the aga on the end of the silencer, were persuasive enough to fool the court into accepting that the silencer must have been fitted to the gun at the time of a purported struggle in the kitchen between Ralph and his killer...
You then associate the blood evidence obtained from the small flake, to the silencer found by the relatives on 11th September 1985 (which was not sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985), so that the court can be fooled into accepting that the silencer was also fitted to the guns barrel at the time Sheila was shot and killed in the bedroom, and that whoever killed her, must have removed the silencer from the guns barrel after Sheila was shot and killed and that the killer took the silencer downstairs to the gun cupboard to hide it inside the gun cupboard where it remained until relatives found it on 11th September 1985 (date of find altered and brought forward a month to accommodate the evidence of the paint and the blood)...
-
None of us should be in any doubt that there were no visible scratch marks on two crucial areas of the aga on the morning of the shootings. These two areas were deliberately marked by someone who wanted the silencer to be fitted to the guns barrel, and to try and prove this they scratched the aga surround with the end of the silencer, later on...
Three important events
(1) date photographs were taken at scene on 7th August 1985
(2) date photographs were taken at scene when house cleaner reconstructed kitchen
(3) date photographs were taken showing marks on other areas of aga at scene
When you then do, is factor in the date when the relatives found the silencer in the gun cupboard (11th September 1985), when Ann Eaton handed it over to the police (same date), and the date it was sent to the lab' (20th September 1985). This provides a window of opportunity for the conspirators to use the silencer to deliberately make the additional marks on the aga surround, so that by the time the case came to trial the existence of the scratch marks on the aga, and the corresponding paint from the aga on the end of the silencer, were persuasive enough to fool the court into accepting that the silencer must have been fitted to the gun at the time of a purported struggle in the kitchen between Ralph and his killer...
You then associate the blood evidence obtained from the small flake, to the silencer found by the relatives on 11th September 1985 (which was not sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985), so that the court can be fooled into accepting that the silencer was also fitted to the guns barrel at the time Sheila was shot and killed in the bedroom, and that whoever killed her, must have removed the silencer from the guns barrel after Sheila was shot and killed and that the killer took the silencer downstairs to the gun cupboard to hide it inside the gun cupboard where it remained until relatives found it on 11th September 1985 (date of find altered and brought forward a month to accommodate the evidence of the paint and the blood)...
By adopting this approach...
Prosecution was able to rely upon all manner of deceptions to persuade the jury that Jeremy Bamber had killed Sheila, and that it was he who had stage managed her body in the bedroom to make it look like she had taken her own life, and they were also able to argue that with the silencer fitted to the guns barrel, the overall length of the weapon would have been too long to allow her to shoot herself even if she had wanted to?
-
Silencer/Paint/blood evidence is fundamentally flawed
The Crowns case can no longer justify relying upon the evidence of the silencer/paint/blood, to sustain these convictions, for the following reasons:-
Scratch marks on aga, and paint ingrained onto/into end of silencer
The aga at the scene was deliberately scratched on an occasion after the shootings, at a time when there must have been transference of red paint from the aga onto the silencer, as evidenced by a reliance on crime scene photographs taken on 7th August 1985, and other dates in September 1985, showing that additional marks have been made. By the time the silencer fell to be examined, and by the time red [paint was identified as being present upon the silencers end cap (25th September 1985) it was not possible to establish that any paint which was present upon the silencer had got there before or during the shootings, or afterwards, since there were by that stage three areas upon the saga where scratch marks existed, two of which were not marked on the morning of the shootings...
How was it possible, therefore, to say with a degree of certainty that the paint which was present on the end of the silencer (as of 25th September 1985, when the silencer was examined at the lab), came from any area, other than either of the two areas upon the aga surround where marks had been made and added later on?
fo
Sheila Caffells blood Group activity (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) obtained from flake
Sheila Caffells blood was obtained from the examination of a small flake of dried blood said to have been found inside a silencer which had been sent to the lab', on 30th August 1985. It was supposedly found by the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, when he dismantled the silencer. He handed the flake to the blood expert, John Hayward, who proceeded over a number of days between 12th and 19th September 1985, to examine and analyse the blood for blood group activity. This examination produced the blood groups, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1, which was all finalized by 19th September 1985. By this stage, the silencer found by the relatives had not yet even been sent to the lab', and would not be sent there until the following day (20th September 1985). This silencer was not therefore the silencer inside which was found the crucial flake of blood which produced the blood group activity (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) of Sheila Caffell...
Furthermore, once the silencer which had been found by the relatives at the scene on 11th September 1985, was received at the lab', it was examined on 25th September 1985, and no blood at all was found inside it, only paint ingrained into or upon its end cap...
Conclusions
(1) Paint on silencer from scratch marks on aga, got there on an occasion long after the date of the shootings, but was wrongly attributed as having got there at the time of the shootings...
(2) Blood belonging to Sheila Caffell, was obtained from somewhere else, other than it having been found inside the silencer which the relatives found at the scene on 11th September 1985...
Lets get things into perspective, so that there can be no room at all for any doubt - David Boutflour did not contact Essex police about finding a silencer inside the gun cupboard at whf until 11th September 1985, as evidenced by police records giving details of phone messages received in connection with the case:-
-
Silencer/Paint/blood evidence is fundamentally flawed
The Crowns case can no longer justify relying upon the evidence of the silencer/paint/blood, to sustain these convictions, for the following reasons:-
Scratch marks on aga, and paint ingrained onto/into end of silencer
The aga at the scene was deliberately scratched on an occasion after the shootings, at a time when there must have been transference of red paint from the aga onto the silencer, as evidenced by a reliance on crime scene photographs taken on 7th August 1985, and other dates in September 1985, showing that additional marks have been made. By the time the silencer fell to be examined, and by the time red [paint was identified as being present upon the silencers end cap (25th September 1985) it was not possible to establish that any paint which was present upon the silencer had got there before or during the shootings, or afterwards, since there were by that stage three areas upon the saga where scratch marks existed, two of which were not marked on the morning of the shootings...
How was it possible, therefore, to say with a degree of certainty that the paint which was present on the end of the silencer (as of 25th September 1985, when the silencer was examined at the lab), came from any area, other than either of the two areas upon the aga surround where marks had been made and added later on?
fo
Sheila Caffells blood Group activity (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) obtained from flake
Sheila Caffells blood was obtained from the examination of a small flake of dried blood said to have been found inside a silencer which had been sent to the lab', on 30th August 1985. It was supposedly found by the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, when he dismantled the silencer. He handed the flake to the blood expert, John Hayward, who proceeded over a number of days between 12th and 19th September 1985, to examine and analyse the blood for blood group activity. This examination produced the blood groups, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1, which was all finalized by 19th September 1985. By this stage, the silencer found by the relatives had not yet even been sent to the lab', and would not be sent there until the following day (20th September 1985). This silencer was not therefore the silencer inside which was found the crucial flake of blood which produced the blood group activity (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) of Sheila Caffell...
Furthermore, once the silencer which had been found by the relatives at the scene on 11th September 1985, was received at the lab', it was examined on 25th September 1985, and no blood at all was found inside it, only paint ingrained into or upon its end cap...
Conclusions
(1) Paint on silencer from scratch marks on aga, got there on an occasion long after the date of the shootings, but was wrongly attributed as having got there at the time of the shootings...
(2) Blood belonging to Sheila Caffell, was obtained from somewhere else, other than it having been found inside the silencer which the relatives found at the scene on 11th September 1985...
Lets get things into perspective, so that there can be no room at all for any doubt - David Boutflour did not contact Essex police about finding a silencer inside the gun cupboard at whf until 11th September 1985, as evidenced by police records giving details of phone messages received in connection with the case:-
If David Boutflour did not contact the police about finding the silencer in the gun cupboard at whf, until 11th September 1985, how could the same silencer have already been sent to the lab' by the police, on 13th August 1985, and 30th August 1985? How could the silencer Boutflour contacted the police about finding on 11th September 1985, have already been fingerprinted by the police on 15th August 1985 (oblique light test) and on 23rd August 1985 (super glue treatment), and have been dismantled by DI Cook, on 29th August 1985, before he rebuilt it and sent it to the lab', on the following day?
David Boutflour had not yet reported finding the silencer to the police until long after these dates, and his sister did not hand it over to the police until 11th September 1985 - a silencer which was not sent to the lab' to be examined until 20th September 1985?
-
ANYTHING RELATING TO A SILENCER BEFORE THESE (11th / 20th September 1985) DATES, COULD NOT RELATE TO THE SILENCER FOUND BY THE RELATIVES
Paint evidence on silencer,and scratch marks on aga surround are dodgy, and have got nothing at all to do with the shootings...
Blood group evidence originating from Sheila Caffell, was not found inside the silencer found by the relatives on 11th September 1985...
-
ANYTHING RELATING TO A SILENCER BEFORE THESE (11th / 20th September 1985) DATES, COULD NOT RELATE TO THE SILENCER FOUND BY THE RELATIVES
Paint evidence on silencer,and scratch marks on aga surround are dodgy, and have got nothing at all to do with the shootings...
Blood group evidence originating from Sheila Caffell, was not found inside the silencer found by the relatives on 11th September 1985...
I say, arrest all those who are involved in this conspiracy, including police officers, scientists and relatives, including anybody else in high office, or elsewhere, who has systematically sought to cover up this evidence scandal...
-
Authorities have shown already, they are not prepared to address this scandal via the 'proper channels'. In the absence of any precedent regarding the offer of an amnesty in exchange for the truth, in my opinion there exists only one channel for the defence. Exposure via direct means to the british Public via the media and especially via a top quality documentary. Even better if it is one that has to be shown abroad and is banned from being broadcast over here.
-
If you deliberately use a silencer to make scratch marks on the aga, on some later occasion, (after 7th August 1985) and then attribute those marks there to a time beforehand, (before the death of Ralph Bamber occurred) and the corresponding paint on the end of the silencer, (25th September 1985), as proof positive that this silencer was fitted to the guns barrel at the time of a purported struggle between Ralph Bamber, and his killer, during the early hours of 7th August 1985, it amounts to falsified evidence, which has been wrongly used to support the prosecutions case, and these convictions should be set aside, as soon as possible, because the court has been fooled and deceived, on this point..
-
Questions now need to be asked, regarding at what stage the paint found on the end of the silencer, got there?
Before, during or after the purported struggle involving Ralph Bamber and his killer?
Nobody has yet addressed this particular issue, which is a very important one...
-
Questions now need to be asked, regarding at what stage the paint found on the end of the silencer, got there?
Before, during or after the purported struggle involving Ralph Bamber and his killer?
Nobody has yet addressed this particular issue, which is a very important one...
Scientists who examined the silencer on 25th September 1985, and afterwards, do not say at what stage the paint which was found to be present there on the end of the silencer got there, or from which area of the aga surround it originated from?
-
Questions now need to be asked, regarding at what stage the paint found on the end of the silencer, got there?
Before, during or after the purported struggle involving Ralph Bamber and his killer?
Nobody has yet addressed this particular issue, which is a very important one...
Scientists who examined the silencer on 25th September 1985, and afterwards, do not say at what stage the paint which was found to be present there on the end of the silencer got there, or from which area of the aga surround it originated from?
Scientists acting on behalf of the prosecution, have not yet excluded for the possibility that the paint found on the end of a silencer (25th September 1985) did not originate from the areas where marks later materialized (as confirmed by reference to crime scene photographs) on the aga...
-
The police fiction about a struggle by the aga.
The total lack of a single drop of blood would suggest in the supposed struggle by the aga not cuts were made....and that this had to have happened well before he was supposedly shot 4 times in the bedroom and then miraculously made his way downstairs back to the kitchen with none of the 5 wounds from the 4 bullets leaving a drop of blood along the way....
I dont buy it and only the most corrupt and perverted could claim it to be credible.
-
The police fiction about a struggle by the aga.
The total lack of a single drop of blood would suggest in the supposed struggle by the aga not cuts were made....and that this had to have happened well before he was supposedly shot 4 times in the bedroom and then miraculously made his way downstairs back to the kitchen with none of the 5 wounds from the 4 bullets leaving a drop of blood along the way....
I dont buy it and only the most corrupt and perverted could claim it to be credible.
The only blood found in the kitchen, was (a) on the kitchen floor around the base of the coal bucket, also (b) on the edge of the worktop near the box of bullets, and the telephone, and (c) blood on the kitchen floor directly beneath where the bloodied fingerprints were, aforementioned...
Seems to me, like Ralph got non fatally wounded whilst he was in the kitchen, near to the handset of the telephone, that he shed blood as a result of being shot in the kitchen, and that after he was shot there, he could have struggled to his feet, and received further shots which ultimately killed him in the kitchen, there was none of his blood found anywhere upstairs to suggest that he could have been shot upstairs at all...
-
The police fiction about a struggle by the aga.
The total lack of a single drop of blood would suggest in the supposed struggle by the aga not cuts were made....and that this had to have happened well before he was supposedly shot 4 times in the bedroom and then miraculously made his way downstairs back to the kitchen with none of the 5 wounds from the 4 bullets leaving a drop of blood along the way....
I dont buy it and only the most corrupt and perverted could claim it to be credible.
The only blood found in the kitchen, was (a) on the kitchen floor around the base of the coal bucket, also (b) on the edge of the worktop near the box of bullets, and the telephone, and (c) blood on the kitchen floor directly beneath where the bloodied fingerprints were, aforementioned...
Seems to me, like Ralph got non fatally wounded whilst he was in the kitchen, near to the handset of the telephone, that he shed blood as a result of being shot in the kitchen, and that after he was shot there, he could have struggled to his feet, and received further shots which ultimately killed him in the kitchen, there was none of his blood found anywhere upstairs to suggest that he could have been shot upstairs at all...
'O' type blood found on the wall paper at the top of the stairs or on the stairs could have been blood which originated from the shooting of the two children, who both had'O' type blood...
-
The police fiction about a struggle by the aga.
The total lack of a single drop of blood would suggest in the supposed struggle by the aga not cuts were made....and that this had to have happened well before he was supposedly shot 4 times in the bedroom and then miraculously made his way downstairs back to the kitchen with none of the 5 wounds from the 4 bullets leaving a drop of blood along the way....
I dont buy it and only the most corrupt and perverted could claim it to be credible.
The only blood found in the kitchen, was (a) on the kitchen floor around the base of the coal bucket, also (b) on the edge of the worktop near the box of bullets, and the telephone, and (c) blood on the kitchen floor directly beneath where the bloodied fingerprints were, aforementioned...
Seems to me, like Ralph got non fatally wounded whilst he was in the kitchen, near to the handset of the telephone, that he shed blood as a result of being shot in the kitchen, and that after he was shot there, he could have struggled to his feet, and received further shots which ultimately killed him in the kitchen, there was none of his blood found anywhere upstairs to suggest that he could have been shot upstairs at all...
'O' type blood found on the wall paper at the top of the stairs or on the stairs could have been blood which originated from the shooting of the two children, who both had'O' type blood...
Since there is no trial of blood from Ralph leading from upstairs to downstairs, it is much more likely that Ralph, did not get shot upstairs, at all - but rather that he could have been frogmarched downstairs at the point of a gun, where he was made to phone Jeremy to try and lure him to the farm, just like DCI 'Taff' Jones said it had happened...
-
The police fiction about a struggle by the aga.
The total lack of a single drop of blood would suggest in the supposed struggle by the aga not cuts were made....and that this had to have happened well before he was supposedly shot 4 times in the bedroom and then miraculously made his way downstairs back to the kitchen with none of the 5 wounds from the 4 bullets leaving a drop of blood along the way....
I dont buy it and only the most corrupt and perverted could claim it to be credible.
The only blood found in the kitchen, was (a) on the kitchen floor around the base of the coal bucket, also (b) on the edge of the worktop near the box of bullets, and the telephone, and (c) blood on the kitchen floor directly beneath where the bloodied fingerprints were, aforementioned...
Seems to me, like Ralph got non fatally wounded whilst he was in the kitchen, near to the handset of the telephone, that he shed blood as a result of being shot in the kitchen, and that after he was shot there, he could have struggled to his feet, and received further shots which ultimately killed him in the kitchen, there was none of his blood found anywhere upstairs to suggest that he could have been shot upstairs at all...
'O' type blood found on the wall paper at the top of the stairs or on the stairs could have been blood which originated from the shooting of the two children, who both had'O' type blood...
Since there is no trial of blood from Ralph leading from upstairs to downstairs, it is much more likely that Ralph, did not get shot upstairs, at all - but rather that he could have been frogmarched downstairs at the point of a gun, where he was made to phone Jeremy to try and lure him to the farm, just like DCI 'Taff' Jones said it had happened...
No blood trail which originated from Ralph from upstairs to downstairs, is consistent with Ralph having not been shot before he made the call to Jeremy, since there was no blood found on the handset of the telephone which was found off its cradle, and resting on the kitchen worktop very close to where the bloodied fingermarks were photographed on the edge of the kitchen worktop, and spare ammunition...
-
The police fiction about a struggle by the aga.
The total lack of a single drop of blood would suggest in the supposed struggle by the aga not cuts were made....and that this had to have happened well before he was supposedly shot 4 times in the bedroom and then miraculously made his way downstairs back to the kitchen with none of the 5 wounds from the 4 bullets leaving a drop of blood along the way....
I dont buy it and only the most corrupt and perverted could claim it to be credible.
The only blood found in the kitchen, was (a) on the kitchen floor around the base of the coal bucket, also (b) on the edge of the worktop near the box of bullets, and the telephone, and (c) blood on the kitchen floor directly beneath where the bloodied fingerprints were, aforementioned...
Seems to me, like Ralph got non fatally wounded whilst he was in the kitchen, near to the handset of the telephone, that he shed blood as a result of being shot in the kitchen, and that after he was shot there, he could have struggled to his feet, and received further shots which ultimately killed him in the kitchen, there was none of his blood found anywhere upstairs to suggest that he could have been shot upstairs at all...
'O' type blood found on the wall paper at the top of the stairs or on the stairs could have been blood which originated from the shooting of the two children, who both had'O' type blood...
Since there is no trial of blood from Ralph leading from upstairs to downstairs, it is much more likely that Ralph, did not get shot upstairs, at all - but rather that he could have been frogmarched downstairs at the point of a gun, where he was made to phone Jeremy to try and lure him to the farm, just like DCI 'Taff' Jones said it had happened...
No blood trail which originated from Ralph from upstairs to downstairs, is consistent with Ralph having not been shot before he made the call to Jeremy, since there was no blood found on the handset of the telephone which was found off its cradle, and resting on the kitchen worktop very close to where the bloodied fingermarks were photographed on the edge of the kitchen worktop, and spare ammunition...
we have three general areas of blood inside whf:-
(1) Main bedroom
(2) Children's bedroom
(3) Kitchen
There are no trails of blood, leading from one room to another, to suggest that anybody who was wounded at one place, walked or ran or moved to another room...
-
Good afternoon all
Mike, has your informant(s) told you the whole story now of what happened, or is there more to come?
Thankyou.
-
The police fiction about a struggle by the aga.
The total lack of a single drop of blood would suggest in the supposed struggle by the aga not cuts were made....and that this had to have happened well before he was supposedly shot 4 times in the bedroom and then miraculously made his way downstairs back to the kitchen with none of the 5 wounds from the 4 bullets leaving a drop of blood along the way....
I don't buy it and only the most corrupt and perverted could claim it to be credible.
The only blood found in the kitchen, was (a) on the kitchen floor around the base of the coal bucket, also (b) on the edge of the worktop near the box of bullets, and the telephone, and (c) blood on the kitchen floor directly beneath where the bloodied fingerprints were, aforementioned...
Seems to me, like Ralph got non fatally wounded whilst he was in the kitchen, near to the handset of the telephone, that he shed blood as a result of being shot in the kitchen, and that after he was shot there, he could have struggled to his feet, and received further shots which ultimately killed him in the kitchen, there was none of his blood found anywhere upstairs to suggest that he could have been shot upstairs at all...
'O' type blood found on the wall paper at the top of the stairs or on the stairs could have been blood which originated from the shooting of the two children, who both had'O' type blood...
Since there is no trial of blood from Ralph leading from upstairs to downstairs, it is much more likely that Ralph, did not get shot upstairs, at all - but rather that he could have been frogmarched downstairs at the point of a gun, where he was made to phone Jeremy to try and lure him to the farm, just like DCI 'Taff' Jones said it had happened...
No blood trail which originated from Ralph from upstairs to downstairs, is consistent with Ralph having not been shot before he made the call to Jeremy, since there was no blood found on the handset of the telephone which was found off its cradle, and resting on the kitchen worktop very close to where the bloodied fingermarks were photographed on the edge of the kitchen worktop, and spare ammunition...
we have three general areas of blood inside whf:-
(1) Main bedroom
(2) Children's bedroom
(3) Kitchen
There are no trails of blood, leading from one room to another, to suggest that anybody who was wounded at one place, walked or ran or moved to another room...
Mike, I thought there was a blood smear (possibly from Nevill) on the hall / main stairs wall?
-
In the court transcript this is described more...(Hammersleys)...by all accounts it was a very small spot of blood , 5ft high up the wall and from it no direction could be acertained etc...so it was a small spot of blood...easily missed....who knows ..it could have been an old spot of blood that could have been on the wall for weeks or months.
Hammersley did not specify exact size even when asked if half or quarter of an inch.
so to most people a smear would mean something more than just a tiny spot... ie misleading lingo use...people meant to form the wrong impression by its mention as being a smear...and on this forum many have fell for it prior to the truth being let out...myself included.
-
Good afternoon all
Mike, has your informant(s) told you the whole story now of what happened, or is there more to come?
Thankyou.
I have received other information recently, which I will divulge shortly...
-
As Mike describes the blood reported in the kitchen ....between the two locations...bit by the phone..ie the print on side of worktop and blood spots beneath on floor etc and the spot where Ralph is photographed .....WELL THE PROBLEM for me is there is a GAP....there should be a trail...where has it gone? Did someone clean it up...
(assuming the print to be Ralph's...no reason not to).
Ralph had lost enough blood by where the hand print was to be loosing enough to form a trail..so we should see it.
What is also alarming about the hand print (it does extend onto the drawer) is that it is only on the edge of the worktop...ie his fingers do not curl round onto the upper surface...suggesting either the bits on the edge were near enough his finger tips ...OR someone wiped the surface clean prior to photography....
So was it an attempt to get up from off the floor or just pressing against it to steady himself maybe...
Thinking about it....Ralph, could have been lying on his back when he made that handprint ..or if in crawling type position his arm would be bent at the elbow.
-
Good afternoon all
Mike, has your informant(s) told you the whole story now of what happened, or is there more to come?
Thankyou.
I have received other information recently, which I will divulge shortly...
Many thanks Mike, I await with interest.....
-
It would be helpful if we can establish whether this hand print was the left hand or the right hand.
The pathologist reported an injury by the 5th digit of his right palm. One would expect this to bleed more and be a highlight on the print if it was the right hand and not long after the cut on the right hand was formed.
-
Considering the person who made the handprint had to be lying down on their back or crawling type position or crouched when they made it...there seems to be no good reason for a killer or a policeman to be doing that at the scene...which more or less just leaves Ralph with suitably sized hands making the bloodied handprint.
-
Brigadier?
'Z' has told me of involvement of the army in the investigation of this case, and the controlling influence of some Brigadier, or other, who has been pulling the strings?
You may all be wondering what the British Army were doing getting involved in the investigation of this case, and the cover up which has been ongoing for over 26 years? The very same could be said for why Special branch also took an interest in this case...
-
Well if it's Brig. Lethbridge Stewart, then that might explain how the silencer seems to have travelled in time and space....
-
Well if it's Brig. Lethbridge Stewart, then that might explain how the silencer seems to have travelled in time and space....
Perhaps it wasn't Dr Craig afterall, but another more famous Dr - who would that be you might ask?!!
;D ;D
-
Questions now need to be asked, regarding at what stage the paint found on the end of the silencer, got there?
Before, during or after the purported struggle involving Ralph Bamber and his killer?
Nobody has yet addressed this particular issue, which is a very important one...
Scientists who examined the silencer on 25th September 1985, and afterwards, do not say at what stage the paint which was found to be present there on the end of the silencer got there, or from which area of the aga surround it originated from?
-
Police knew about silencer (SBJ/1) before alleged find by relatives of silencer, as confirmed by what DS "Stan" Jones, told COLP in his 1991 interviews:-
If you are a police officer and you are visiting Jeremy Bamber on 9th August 1985, and are speaking to him at that stage, about the silencer for the gun being on the rifle or not, then you obviously do know about a silencer by that stage. This took place one day before the alleged find of the silencer at the scene by the relatives, and three days before relatives allegedly handed over a silencer to the police on the evening of 12th August: four days before same silencer was allegedly sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985: six days before same silencer was allegedly fingerprinted by oblique light test on 15th August 1985: thirteen days before alleged same silencer was fingerprinted by super glue treatment on 23rd August 1985: seventeen days before DI Cook (SOC) dismantled the alleged same silencer on 29th August 1985: eighteen days before same alleged silencer was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, inside which the ballistic expert allegedly found the crucial flake of Sheila's blood...
Of course, this is all false because there was not only one silencer, and that silencer was not the one found at the scene by the relatives, this silencer (the one referred to in all these events) was the one found at the scene by DS "Stan" Jones, SBJ/1, a silencer the police had possession of before the opening of the inquest, a silencer which had been sent to the lab' twice, once on 13th and secondly on 30th August 1985, a silencer which had been fingerprinted twice, once on 15th August 1985, and secondly on 23rd August 1985, a silencer which had been dismantled and rebuilt by DI Cook (SOC) on 29th August 1985, and upon being received at the lab' on 30th August 1985, a silencer which had been dismantled yet again by the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, to enable him to find the oh so crucial flake of blood that contained the blood group activity which made it unique to Sheila; a silencer which was in the words of Fletcher, handed over to the blood expert, John Hayward on 11th September 1985, along with the flake, to allow him to carry out an analysis between 12th and 19th September 1985...
All these events took place long before the second silencer (DRB/1) found by the relatives on 11th September 1985, eventually found its way to the lab' on 20th September 1985, a silencer which had become contaminated with red paint from deliberately having been scratched against the aga surround, with no blood found upon or inside it at all...
Police and relatives changed the date of the find of the second silencer, and falsely attributed the blood evidence to it, which together with the paint from the aga became a compelling argument to help persuade the court that the silencer was fitted to the barrel of the gun at the time of the shootings...
Two silencers, not one...
(1) The PARGETER SILENCER
(2) The BAMBER SILENCER
Amen...
-
Correct Interpretation?
Does DS "Stan" Jones, tell COLP (1991) that "HE FOUND ONE" (silencer) or that "HE FOUND THE" (silencer)?
-
OTHER "SBJ" EXHIBITS, TAKEN FROM SCENE, by DS "Stan" JONES:-
(1) SBJ/4
(2) SBJ/3
(3) SBJ/2
(4) SBJ/1
-
Correct Interpretation?
Does DS "Stan" Jones, tell COLP (1991) that "HE FOUND ONE" (silencer) or that "HE FOUND THE" (silencer)?
Neither, he says "he [RB) related that the family had found the silencer" and that blown up bit you posted says "I had not drawn any significance in relation to the silencer as I knew the" ("as I knew the" is crossed out).
Or is that not the bit you meant?
-
Correct Interpretation?
Does DS "Stan" Jones, tell COLP (1991) that "HE FOUND ONE" (silencer) or that "HE FOUND THE" (silencer)?
Neither, he says "he [RB) related that the family had found the silencer" and that blown up bit you posted says "I had not drawn any significance in relation to the silencer as I knew the" ("as I knew the" is crossed out).
Or is that not the bit you meant?
What was it that DS "Stan" Jones, "knew" about the silencer on 9th August 1985?
According to these notes, DCI Jones,and DS Jones, went to 9 head street, Goldhanger, to see Jeremy at 7:30pm, and questioned Jeremy about the silencer, now how could the police know about the silencer the day before the relatives supposedly found it in the gun cupboard?
On the other hand...
If you pay particular notice to the actual date these notes refer to, you will see that DS Jones, gets the actual date of these events wrong by a year...
Her refers to the date being 09/08/86, when the actual date was 09/08/85. The mistake is compounded in relation to the other supposed dates when he carried out actions in connection with the investigation of this case...
Perhaps that has got something to do with why he had to alter the commencement date recorded on the front of his pocketbook twice, and why the first entries in it are some "five months" or so out of synchronisation?
-
The original date on the front of the pocketbook is not in his handwriting and is the same date as the stamp. The two dates in his handwriting are only a day apart.
And speaking of 'his' handwriting, the notes you've posted appear to mention both DCI Jones and DS Jones in the third person, but refer to themselves in the first person so I'm confused as to whose notes they are supposed to be.
-
The original date on the front of the pocketbook is not in his handwriting and is the same date as the stamp. The two dates in his handwriting are only a day apart.
And speaking of 'his' handwriting, the notes you've posted appear to mention both DCI Jones and DS Jones in the third person, but refer to themselves in the first person so I'm confused as to whose notes they are supposed to be.
for the purpose of being specific, although the first date, and the last date are only one day apart, there is a difference of some five months between either of these dates, and the original one sandwiched in-between either, which also corresponds with the date of the official Essex police stamp upon the same front cover. It was inside the cover of this pocketbook that the evidence of DS Jones was recorded in connection with this case, so how was it possible for DS Jones to cram all the detail's relating to his involvement in this investigation between 7th August 1985 and October 1986 (the start of the trial), into this book?
Why would anyone other than DS "Stan" Jones, alter the dates on the front cover of his own pocketbook? Why would DS Jones allow anyone else to alter those dates on his pocketbook? Senior officers involved in this cover up, knew what DS Jones had done, they knew he found the original silencer, they knew that in order to pull off the deception involving the second silencer being referred to as the only silencer involved the co-operation of DS Jones, and that is why they allowed him to tamper with the notes that he wrote in this pocketbook. Jones had to re-write his notes later, to remove all the damning evidence which he had originally recorded in his original pocketbook entries...
Police had access to spare pocketbooks, in which they often recorded details and evidence upon which they could rely on whilst testifying at court, by claiming these notes were recorded contemporaneously but which in fact were not. However, when a police officer claimed he made such notes up contemporaneously, a judge usually grants permission for that officer to read verbatim from the notebook in question - this was one of those cases which DS Jones had prepared for...
-
If you look very closely at the original date, 5th November 1984, and the finish date of 7th May 1986, it would suggest that details relating to duties performed by DS Jones, between 5th November 1984 and 7th May 1986, were recorded inside the covers of this pocketbook - that covers a period of over 17 months...
Lets be honest with each other, there is no way that a police officer could keep the same pocketbook and record details inside it for a period as long as that? He has definitely tampered with the details recorded within the cover of this particular pocketbook,and the evidence of his invovlement in this case, is recorded within its pages...
This is the same chap who took possession of exhibits SBJ/4, SBJ/3 and SBJ/2, from the scene on 7th August 1985, and of course the original silencer bearing the corresponding identifying mark of SBJ/1...
So work it out for yourself, his evidence is dodgy, to say the least...
-
I'm probably being thick but I appear to be missing your point. Those pages of notes you posted clearly didn't come from that pocketbook.
-
I'm probably being thick but I appear to be missing your point. Those pages of notes you posted clearly didn't come from that pocketbook.
No, they are the notes written by COLP of what DS Jones told them when they were interviewing him in 1991...
-
By a stroke of luck, Anthony Pargeters silencer was normally kept in the downstairs toilet at the scene along with his .22 bolt action rifle, and lo and behold, DS Jones took a photograph of the toilet, a photograph which never found its way into PC Birds MASTER COPY ALBUM, (223) or his court album (50)...
Now...
Did it formed part and parcel of THE SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM (581)?
I wonder why that should be so?
-
I'm probably being thick but I appear to be missing your point. Those pages of notes you posted clearly didn't come from that pocketbook.
No, they are the notes written by COLP of what DS Jones told them when they were interviewing him in 1991...
I have copies of the entries written into DS "Stan" Jones, pocketbook...
-
Why would DS "Stan" Jones be taking a photograph (SBJ/3) of the downstairs toilet?
-
Why would DS "Stan" Jones be taking a photograph (SBJ/3) of the downstairs toilet, on 7th August 1985?
Where is the exhibit he took possession of from the scene that same day, bearing the identifying mark of SBJ/1?
-
Why would DS "Stan" Jones be taking a photograph (SBJ/3) of the downstairs toilet, on 7th August 1985?
Where is the exhibit he took possession of from the scene that same day, bearing the identifying mark of SBJ/1?
Why are these negatives (taken of the downstairs toilet by DS Jones) missing?
-
Try this link:-
(1) http://www.justjustice.org/algebra.html
(2) http://www.homepage-link.to/JUSTICE/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
According to DI Cook, when he looked inside the gun cupboard on 7th August 1985, he did not see a silencer, but if he had had seen a silencer he would have taken it for takings sake...
-
How strange..
That on a date in September 1985, when police attend scene and take two pictures of the left hand leg of the aga surround in the kitchen at whf, one photograph (negative 7) does not show any scratch marks, but the other suddenly shows scratch marks (negative 9)? At a time when the first silencer was already at the lab`, which had been there ever since 30th August 1985, so it can`t have been that silencer which made the additional marks on the aga, it had to be the second silencer which relatives found at the scene in September...
-
How strange..
That on a date in September 1985, when police attend scene and take two pictures of the left hand leg of the aga surround in the kitchen at whf, one photograph (negative 7) does not show any scratch marks, but the other suddenly shows scratch marks (negative 9)? At a time when the first silencer was already at the lab`, which had been there ever since 30th August 1985, so it can`t have been that silencer which made the additional marks on the aga, it had to be the second silencer which relatives found at the scene in September...
PC Bird, who took both photographs (negatives 7 and 9) must know who made those marks, and what was used to make them? The most important feature being that it should be possible to determine the exact date and time when someone scratched the aga surround with a silencer (which was a different silencer) already at the lab` from as long ago, as 30th August 1985...
-
How strange..
That on a date in September 1985, when police attend scene and take two pictures of the left hand leg of the aga surround in the kitchen at whf, one photograph (negative 7) does not show any scratch marks, but the other suddenly shows scratch marks (negative 9)? At a time when the first silencer was already at the lab`, which had been there ever since 30th August 1985, so it can`t have been that silencer which made the additional marks on the aga, it had to be the second silencer which relatives found at the scene in September...
PC Bird, who took both photographs (negatives 7 and 9) must know who made those marks, and what was used to make them? The most important feature being that it should be possible to determine the exact date and time when someone scratched the aga surround with a silencer (which was a different silencer) already at the lab` from as long ago, as 30th August 1985...
How strange...
That these additional scratch marks should be made on the aga surround, at around the time the relatrives found the silencer at the scene, which coincides with David Boutflour contacting Essex police by phone in September, to tell them that he had found a silencer in the gun cupboard, and that all these associated events and happenings, took place, or occurred prior to 25th September, when the silencer found by the relatives was first examined at the lab`, and paint was noted for the very first time upon any silencer...
It would not be until 1st october 1985, before cast impressions were taken from the damaged aga surround at the scene, and the need to make mention of paint having been found on the other silencer which had been at the lab` from as long ago as 30th August 1985...
Mention of paint on this other silencer, was dealt with by someone adding handwritten notes onto the original General Examination record, dated, 13th August, which simply says that paint was noted on the silencer once it had been returned to the lab` after fingerprinting - this was with reference to the original silencer found by DS Jones...
-
From Bird's evidence in court he claimed to be at WHF on the 10th, 11th and 12th of september.
on both the 10th and 11th he created exhibit DB/1 , a soil sample, in his notebook ...and cannot explain why this was so...thinks he had a mental block..??? oh yeah..pigs might fly.... He claims he took the aga surround pictures on the 12th...erm the same day he also claims to collect the blue socks (DB/6).
-
I was gripped by this
Police setting someone up in the name of justice
Sometimes when they are not even guilty like Jeremy Bamber
Roy Whiting The Algebra of Justice
THE CASE OF THE SOHAM BADGERS - Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr
Before Tony Blair got into 10 Downing Street, our knowledge of stranger killers was that they always repeated their crimes and that they were very difficult to identify or catch. They were a faceless, nameless malignancy in a national multitude and they always had the upper hand. Their capture depended on police patience, vigilance and luck, or error on the part of the criminal. But since the Spin-and-Salary maestro invaded 10 Downing Street, this has all switched around. Now stranger killers are always locals, and they never repeat their crimes because the police always catch their man immediately after his first murder. Our police have become super-detectives, and instead of experiencing the nervous breakdown symptoms as before, our senior police officers appear to be developing psychopathic tendencies themselves.
There have been many examples of this new style of killer in recent convictions, including Sion Jenkins, Barry George, Roy Whiting and Ian Huntley for instance. In the cases of Whiting and Huntley, the crimes for which they are convicted were part of a series of child abductions and murders in the south east of England, which the police had begun prosecuting before the series was allowed to reveal its proper character. In Ian Huntley's case, a most interesting view of modern police procedure is traceable which enables us to understand why this change in our understanding of stranger killers has occurred.
The collective picture of the killer that emerged with this series of child murders was that he was a prowling hunter and traveller (as they usually are); that he came from around the Cheshire area (judging by his reaction to the Cheshire witness sighting in the Sarah Payne case); that he stole the Birmingham Cathedral Book of Condolences in the Jessica and Holly case (only their killer would have done this) and that therefore he is playing around with the press and the police (this type of killer usually does); that he has a cavalier attitude to the law generally and that he changes vehicles; that he is in middle age.
The collective picture that we get from the police prosecutions, however, is that he is several locals, some of whom had friendly relations with the victim, as in the cases of Danielle Jones' uncle and in Maxine Carr and Ian Huntley, and that he confined his hunting to his own back yard, even in the case of a village.
Police prosecutions then have changed these crimes from the extremely difficult to detect to the very easy, and we need to look at the evidence that has been used to produce this effect.
In Roy Whiting's case, there is a perfect stitch-up in forensic evidence, with hair and fibres from Whiting's clothes and white van connecting the corpse to the defendant and vice versa. This arrangement eliminates the possibility of accidental contamination in the forensic evidence and leaves only two possible interpretations, these being either Whiting's guilt or else a fitting up by the police. And since only the Not Guilty would plead not guilty to a jury in the face of such insurmountable evidence, the only logical explanation must be a fitting up by the police. A guilty person pleading not guilty to such evidence would be wasting his defence. Defendants are advised by lawyers not to accuse the police of fraud as this would prejudice the jury against them, so the innocent would have no defence in this situation.
In Ian Huntley's case we have the same thing again, only this time the circumstances around the fraud are astonishing. The style of evidence is the same as before, but now it includes fireproof hair, watered-down petrol, and a cool and calculating killer using an autopsy surgeon's technique and scissors to remove the clothes from not one but two dead bodies, including underwear and shoes, purely in order to leave them in a place and a situation where the police can link him to the crimes and use them as forensic evidence against him in a prosecution. All of which is patently absurd. Despite our knowledge of such killers, here we are required to believe that a stranger killer would do all this purely to convenience the police.
The most remarkable thing about this case, however, is that if the police did commit fraud with this evidence, then the fraud has supernatural powers of clairvoyance behind it. This is because the police arrested Huntley for the murders of the missing girls in the early hours of the 17th of August, at four o'clock in the morning, and they had their forensic evidence for the prosecution in his caretaker bin that night, but the public did not find the two bodies until many hours later, at one o'clock the following afternoon. So if Ian Huntley was fitted up, where did the police get the evidence from?
If Huntley had not fitted himself up himself, we need to investigate how the police might have recovered that evidence before the public found the bodies.
Newmarket
If we go back in the investigation three days, to August 13th, we can find a possible explanation for this police clairvoyance. On that day, a local jogger reported to the police having seen two mounds of recently disturbed ground at Warren Hill in Newmarket. These were thought to be shallow graves, and so they must have looked like it. This same jogger had also reported, a week before, having heard child-like screams from this area three hours after the abductions, so that the timing and place are significant. The police had five hours of daylight in which to investigate these mounds, but they spent all night there, in fact thirteen hours, and they didn't emerge until six-thirty in the morning, "covered in twigs and soil" as a reporter put it, to announce that these mounds were only badger setts.
However, these mounds surely could not have been badger setts, as badger setts would not be confusable with graves, and nor would it take thirteen hours to find that they were badger setts. Both mounds were recent disturbances, and it is inconceivable that two badger setts or inlets could both have resembled shallow graves. They were 30 metres apart, and this must be too close together for badger setts.
The possibility that these mounds were actually where the police found the bodies would explain where the police acquired the forensic evidence, and why they were able to know that the girls were dead before the public found the bodies at Lakenheath. It would also show that the placing of the bodies at Lakenheath was part of the fraud against Huntley, because this is near the place where Maxine Carr had taken her adopted surname (a lake called The Carr) and where Ian Huntley's father and grandmother lived. This design corresponds with that of the forensic evidence itself, connecting the dead bodies to the defendants in the same way.
The discovery of the bodies at Warren Hill on the 13th of August corresponds with the finding of the coroner, who judged that the bodies had been moved to the woodland at Lakenheath and that the victims almost certainly had not been killed where their bodies were found. If the typical prowler killer had murdered them, they would most certainly have been killed where they were dumped, which site could have been at Warren Hill.
The Newmarket taxi driver Ian Webster reported to the police having seen at the time of the abductions (approx 7 pm) a metallic green saloon car which was being driven erratically and suicidally down the A142, the road that runs between Soham and Newmarket where Warren Hill stands. Ian Webster had been following this car and had pulled back two hundred yards because of the dangerous driving. Mr Webster reported seeing the driver careering into the curbs on both sides of the road while struggling with two children in his car. The driver was reaching out backwards over his seat and flapping at something in the hands of a child in the back seat. Mr Webster said that this child had brown hair, and that he thought there was another child in the front seat. Given the fact that the driver was driving in this way with children in his car, his behaviour cannot have been any other than that of the abductor himself, and given the timing also, this incident cannot describe any other situation than the abduction. The girl with the brown hair in the back seat would have been Jessica and she was the one with the mobile phone. The abductor would not have been able to stop his car to deal with any problem with this because the girls would have been able to get out of the car and run away.
In sum, the geography, timing, circumstantial factors and behavioural features of this incident can leave no doubt that Mr Webster had witnessed the actual abduction. His experience links Warren Hill and Newmarket with Soham through a rather different style of killer than Ian Huntley, just as the forensic evidence and the dumping of the bodies at Lakenheath linked them together in a case against him.
Jessica's mobile phone contacted the mast at Burwell when it was switched off, and this is half-way between Soham and Newmarket. This circumstance connects the jogger incident with that of Ian Webster and the abductions at Soham.
The police lost interest in Mr Webster's testimony, despite its irrefutable authenticity, when it was discovered that a passenger's mobile phone bill had clocked the incident at 6 pm instead of 7 pm. This technical anomaly cannot discount Mr Webster's driver as an obvious suspect, and the timing of the mobile phone call would have to be questioned or distrusted. Their disregarding the facts of the incident instead shows that the police are allowing juries and trial procedure to determine how they detect their crimes rather than the events themselves.
Soham
Witnesses back in Soham had reported seeing a man and a woman in a dark green car staring at two girls that afternoon. Earlier in May that year a similar couple had attempted to abduct a child at an under-fives play group near where Jessica and Holly disappeared. A strange woman entered the play group and asked to take a child away, claiming that she belonged to a friend of hers. But the woman got the child's name wrong and didn't know the name of the mother, and when the staff saw a man acting suspiciously outside they called the police. When Jessica and Holly were snatched the police naturally connected the two incidents.
Several witnesses reported seeing the girls in Soham at the time that they are alleged to have died in Huntley's house, and there are doubts about the time that they actually disappeared from Soham. Ian Webster's testimony would indicate 6.50 as being the approximate time of the abductions, and this corresponds with the police claim that Jessica's mobile phone was switched off at 6.46, which would explain what Ian Webster's erratic driver was flapping at in the back seat of his car. The phone mast at Burwell would indicate that she was out of Soham by then.
Huntley's first statement to the police was a voluntary witness statement, which he made when he realized that the two girls who had called to see Maxine Carr at 6:00 that evening had been the two that the police were looking for. He had told the girls that Maxine wasn't in and they left in the direction of College Road, which leads directly to the War Memorial, where four witnesses reported seeing the girls at 6:45, the time that the prosecution case alleged they had died in Huntley's house. If the girls had been abducted at the War Memorial, the killer would have had a direct route to the A142 where the taxi driver Ian Webster encountered his suspect.
The police arrested Huntley on suspicion of murder nine hours before the public found the bodies, and the public understood that it was now a murder investigation before the bodies were thus discovered. The prosecution case was that the police had found the girls' clothes in one of Huntley's caretaker's bins at the school. These clothes were the basis of the arrest and subsequent prosecution, yet the Manchester United shirts lacked any DNA from the victims' bodies. It is just as unlikely that the girls could have lived and died and their bodies had decomposed in those shirts without leaving any DNA in them as it is that a local killer would fit himself up with forensic evidence for the police, or that a trophy killer would use scissors and forensic techniques to remove his trophies. The only logical explanation for this surely must be that the police had found the bodies before the public did, but couldn't use the shirts as they found them because they were saturated with evidence that the girls had been buried underground.
The fictional nature of the forensic evidence against Ian Huntley would explain why he switched to a fictional defence two weeks prior to his trial. The evidence determined his response and his defence reflects the fictional character of the evidence. And the finding of the bodies at Warren Hill would explain why the police kept the bodies out in the August heat for thirty hours at Lakenheath instead of passing them straight away for an autopsy examination, which a proper examination would have required. This delay would have been to over-emphasize the point in the public eye that this site (Lakenheath) was where the bodies were officially found.
If we consider that the police had found the bodies at Warren Hill and had misinformed the public about what they had found there, then the mad-looking appeal to the killer on our TV sets by a senior detective becomes transformed with sense and meaning. While listening to this the killer would in that case have known that the police had found his bodies and were hiding the fact from everybody, and in the light of this the wording of this appeal becomes full of new significance:
"I appeal to you again to work with me to stop this getting any worse than it is. You do have a way out. I have left a personal message and text message on Jessica's phone. Listen to that message. It will tell you how to contact me so we can stop this now. You have the opportunity to speak to me. This is the time to use it."
The wording in the appeal offers a serial killer a way out. The implication in these words is of a deal with the killer to stop the series of crimes in exchange for non-prosecution. The police motive for such a deal would be that if the killer were ever publicly caught, the frauds in the previous prosecutions in the series would become evident, with no hope of using accidental contamination as an explanation for them. And again, the trouble that the police would have found themselves in would have been caused by their practise of using their experience of juries and prosecution procedure to determine how they detect their cases nowadays.
Any such deal with the killer would explain the mysterious cessation of the series of murders since this appeal was made. In attempting such a deal, the police would have been protecting themselves from the trouble caused to them by modern police procedure, which allows jury foible and prosecution procedure to determine how they detect their crimes. They are under a great deal of personal pressure via the press to secure convictions from the very thing that creates their problem – the juries and their inadequacy as judges in a justice system.
Immediately following their TV appeal, the police appear to have ended their detection of the case and begun their prosecution. Firstly, they turned the community of Soham against itself by telling its people that one of them was responsible and to watch their neighbours. Then, while the inhabitants of Soham were doing this, the police snatched away the two newest and weakest members of the community, and put one of them in a mental institution where friends and journalists couldn’t get to him, and the other in prison in London where friends and relatives couldn’t get to her, and so Ian Huntley was charged with the murders.
The arrests
The night before Ian Huntley was arrested, the police broke into his car on the pretence that the two girls were in danger in there (this was two weeks after the girls had disappeared and when the official police view had switched to a belief that the girls were now dead). This break-in was a civil rights abuse against Huntley and his property, and it should be illegal. A second such abuse occurred the following morning, when the police arrested him at his father's house at the unseemly hour of four in the morning on suspicion of murder.
Maxine Carr was implicated because she gave the police a false alibi for Huntley who was worried because the missing girls had called at their house. She told the police that she was with him at the time but it was revealed that she had been at Grimsby.
Huntley and Carr were taken to separate police stations for questioning, and Huntley was later taken to a psychiatric hospital where he was charged with the murders. The police gave as their explanation for this strategy that he didn't seem to understand why he was being charged with the murders, so his "treatment" in that hospital was for symptoms of innocence. He was deemed by the doctors to be unfit to be seen by the magistrates yet.
The police kept Maxine Carr in prison for eighteen months on an accessory charge purely on the strength of their prosecution case against Ian Huntley, who promptly went on hunger strike. And all this happened it must be said before an entire nation of journalists and jurors, and perhaps more importantly, before a government too, none of whom appear to have noticed that there was anything wrong. The prosecution of Maxine Carr shows that there is no tolerance in Tony Blair's Britain for a lover's trust and protective instinct.
Worse still, there was no inquest into the Soham murders. The coroner deferred the inquest in favour of the police prosecution of Ian Huntley and then abandoned it after Huntley’s conviction. Inquests are needed for an unbiased view and record of the facts relating to a death or murder, and they are needed to prevent a biased or malicious presentation of the facts relating to a murder.
The forensics
At the trial, a forensic expert testified that the clothes found in Huntley's caretaker's bin had been cut off, apparently in a hurry, and in a manner similar to the way that medics cut clothes off in emergencies. There was no DNA evidence, and the clothes had been burned and drenched in water and showed signs of soot and charred markings. All of them were wet or damp and smelled of an accelerant such as petrol.
Another expert reported finding five of Huntley's head hairs on the clothes, but any such hairs would surely be destroyed immediately by the heat of the fire, which left smoke discoloration on cobwebs on a lamp overhead. These smoke stains also show that the clothes were set alight inside the bin, and after removing Huntley's black bin liner, and that the wetness would be caused by putting the fire out so that Huntley's bin liner with his fingerprints on it could be replaced over the evidence.
So, we are required to accept that, in fitting himself up with this evidence, Huntley had gone to a lot of trouble to remove all the clothes from the bodies, including the shoes, and this in a hurry, and set fire to them to destroy them even further as trophies, and put the fire out quickly so as not to destroy them as evidence for the prosecution.
The forensic evidence linked Huntley to the bodies in several ways. Firstly there was the heat-resistant head hairs on the clothes; then there was the placing of the clothes in his caretaker's bin; then there was the fire itself, because peculiarly, the girls' bodies were partially burned too, destroying the other potential source for DNA evidence, so that his bin was connected to the bodies also by the absence of DNA from the bodies or from the carrier. Then there was the suggestion put to the jury by the prosecution that they might believe that when placing the bodies on Lakenheath, Huntley had used his black bin liners over his shoes to account for the absence of his shoe prints there, which uses his bin liners to connect the placing of the bodies on Lakenheath with the fire in his bin. So, in fitting himself up with the forensic evidence in his bin, the jury were also invited to believe that he forgot to remove his bin liners from his feet when he got into his car, because traces of the soil at Lakenheath were found in his car, and this after he was supposed to have spring-cleaned his car and his house (and his dog). The prosecution also linked him to the bodies geographically as well, because the public found the bodies very near his father's house (where he was arrested), and nearby the lake where Maxine Carr took her name (The Carr).
Aside from the black bin liners, the prosecution used another colour link-up between Huntley and the victims, in the red of their Manchester United shirts and the red of his petrol can, which he had been seen with on the Wednesday after the abduction, and which the prosecution "suggested" he had used to set fire to the bodies.
The smell of petrol was present at both the body site and at Huntley's caretaker's bin, and this formed another link-up between the two, which shows that the fitting up was done shortly before the public found the bodies.
The prosecution case had no evidence of Huntley at Lakenheath, except for the "motorbility" evidence of Lakenheath mud taken from his car after he had spring-cleaned it, and the Lakenheath botanical evidence attached to his petrol can. The evidence of the mud in his car is connected with an illegal break-in into his car by the police.
As occurred in the Roy Whiting case, the prosecution case had fibres from some of the victims' clothes allegedly found in Huntley's house, and fibres from his house allegedly found on their clothes, with a complete set of fibre colours from his carpet (five) to avoid any doubts with the jury as to proof. These 154 invisible fibres were allegedly found after months of painstaking searching while Huntley was being held in custody on the strength of the caretaker's bin find, and all this is supposed to have survived his house cleaning and the fires and water and weather exposure.
So the prosecution linked Huntley to the murders by smell, by colour (the red of the petrol can and the girls' shirts), by profession and by colour again (his caretaker's black bin liners), by domestic circumstances (the bodies being found near his father's house and near the lake known as The Carr), by fire (at the body site and at his bin), and by fibres from his house. And all of this was signatured by his fire-proof hair and fingerprints and rounded off with an illegal break-in into his car.
If intelligence seems to sink into this absurd deception, well, that is the purpose of the design. And that must be the proof of the design. This case has Huntley fitted up to the crime geographically, domestically, professionally, forensically, and artistically as well.
During the trial, a police officer testified that a few days after the abductions, when Huntley's home was being searched, Huntley had said to him, "You think I have done it." The policeman testified that he had told him not to "persecute" himself. This is a strange word for a policeman to use for his reply, and it is the key to the whole case, because the forensic evidence shows that either Ian Huntley has persecuted himself for the prosecution case, or else that the police have done it for him instead.
Night of terror
During the week prior to his arrest, Huntley's parents had comforted Maxine Carr amd their son over their concern about the media coverage that the school was getting and Huntley's fear that he would be blamed for the disappearances because his witness statement had left him the last person known to have spoken to the two girls. On the Friday afternoon, the day before the arrests, as they were driving home, his parents received a telephone call from a friend telling them that their son had been taken in for questioning by the police. When they spoke to Huntley on the telephone later that day he was angry and upset at being held in a "safe" house. In the early hours of the next day, Saturday the 17th of August, Huntley turned up at their house in a very distressed state, saying that he had something to talk to them about, but he did not have the time to explain before the police arrived and used their authority to force their way into the house and arrest him at four-thirty in the morning. Not very far from his parents' house, the bodies of the two girls were lying in a ditch waiting to be discovered by the public.
Huntley was held for questioning until the early hours of Tuesday the 20th, when he was snaffled away to Rampton high security hospital at five-thirty in the morning, and he was charged with the murders at ten o'clock that night. The timings of the arrests and the murder charge shows that the police and doctors found his condition to be robust, but the doctors would not allow the magistrates to see him giving the grounds that he was unfit to appear.
Ian Huntley's sleep had been ruined at both ends of the day that he was charged, and he was charged at the very point at which the police were legally obliged either to charge him or else to release him. The magistrates were not allowed to see him until he had been conditioned by the doctors at Rampton, when apparently he was no longer able to defend himself. If Huntley was fit to be charged with murder he should have been fit to be seen by the magistrates.
Jury policing
In any deception, further deceptions are needed to protect the first, and this looks to be what has happened in this series of child murders. The case against Roy Whiting is logically fraudulent, and the case against the prosecution of Ian Huntley has the police committing a further fraud to protect the earlier frauds.
If all this seems rather spectacular, it is no different in effect or value for the police than what happened to Timothy Evans. It is the same as happens in all miscarriages of justice, with the innocent being convicted and the guilty getting away with it, and the police being the instrument of the injustice. The police have been living with this problem for decades and cannot entirely be blamed for being corrupted by it.
The prosecution of Ian Huntley reveals the appalling standard of intelligence that the police have had to face when using the jury system to resolve the detection of crimes. In this case, in order to convict a killer in our jury system, the police have had to present to the jury a case in which the killer has fitted himself up with the forensic evidence and with the disposal of the bodies, while all the deceptions presented to the jury have gone way over their heads, and over the heads of the public at large, who of course are our juries.
The reason for this gullibility is apparent in the public's predilection for detective fiction, in which an author commits a murder at the start of his novel and reveals the fictional character that he has selected for his murderer at the end, while misleading the reader with red herrings and deceptions in between. The public has come to accept this procedure as detection in non-fictional situations such as the Ian Huntley case. Originally the literary detective was at odds with traditional police detection, but now this form of detection has been absorbed into the police in the same way.
Since the early 1980s the police have complained about the difficulty of putting prosecution cases against criminals in the proper way because of the juries' inability to evaluate the facts properly, a matter that is examined in The Algebra of Justice, and now they appear to be using this fault for their own convenience. Nowadays, instead of appealing to the intelligence of juries, the police have to present a complete map of forensic evidence, leaving no need for jury intelligence, and this has the value of negating any intelligence in the jury and any need of it in the trial process. It is this tactic that has introduced the potential for frauds in our justice system.
A fault in criminal prosecutions nowadays is that since the advent of Thatcherism, prosecutors have been putting their cases to juries as statements of fact rather than as cases or contentions, even when the defendant is pleading Not Guilty. They are taking the presumption that their prosecution case is the absolute truth, when it should be up to the jury to decide whether their case is the truth. By doing this, prosecutors are either actually in breach of the Oath of Truth when putting their cases, or else they are prepared to be in breach of it. Allowing this practise must degrade the integrity of trial procedures and their decisions, and this must affect policing also. Exploitism in criminal prosecutions has become rife since the early 1980s and it is endemic in Thatcherist courts.
When giving in to the evidence, psychopaths attack their victims by blaming them for what had happened. This is because their motive for murder is their psychopathic psychology. In contrast, Ian Huntley’s fictional defence consists of a farcical accident, and there is no sign of a psychosis in it anywhere. This defence appears to be the only way that he could accommodate his innocence to forensic evidence that his defence team couldn’t defend him against. His switching to a fictional defence shows that he was not defended adequately, and evidence of this occurred a year earlier, when he accepted the charge of perverting the course of justice by lying to the police. If he were not guilty of the murders as he had been pleading, and if the police were barking up the wrong suspect, then he would not have been perverting the course of justice by lying to them to defend himself. His accepting this charge undermined his not guilty plea and no doubt contributed to his switching to a fictional defence shortly before the trial.
The evidence in the Ian Huntley case has been designed for a justice system in which the decisions are made by juries who are not able to resolve the equations presented to them correctly, and by lawyers and judges whose heads are stuffed full and bound by law. This case shows that neither is adequate any longer. That justice system has long been inured to miscarriages of justice, and it even protects them after the event. It has become a facility for mob rule and for public lynchings.
Concerning the trial of Ian Huntley
The trial of Ian Huntley must be unlawful and illegal. It seems to have broken all the rules of criminal trial procedure and it was in breach of the Oath of Truth on several counts (part two of the Oath being "the whole truth").
There was no inquest into the deaths of Jessica and Holly before the trial. This responsibility was left to the prosecution of Ian Huntley. The purpose of an inquest is to provide an unbiased overview of the circumstances and witnesses relating to a death, and it is essential for a fair trial. Crown prosecutions in the UK use the adversarial system to examine the facts of a case and this consists of a counterbalance of potential biases. Since the prosecution produces all the evidence, a fair trial needs an adequate inquest.
An inquest would have called up many witnesses who did not appear at the trial.
The taxi driver, Ian Webster, whose evidence is mentioned above, was not called as a witness.
The evidence of a witness who was reported seeing the two girls in the High Street after they are supposed to have died in Huntley's house (the witness was with her husband and knew the girls), was not used in the trial.
The four witnesses who were reported seeing the two girls at the War Memorial at around the time that they are supposed to have died in Huntley's house did not appear in the trial. Their testimony confirms Huntley's original witness statement.
The witness who was reported seeing a man and a woman in a green car (metallic green?) staring at two girls in the High Street did not appear at the trial. This evidence is important because two kidnappers might well be needed to control two children.
The several witnesses who saw a green car acting suspiciously around Soham at the time were not called to the trial.
Ian Huntley's legal defence was incompetent, and on this ground alone the trial judgment should be scrapped. No defence witnesses were used. The only defence witnesses that appeared were Maxine Carr, who didn't know anything, and Ian Huntley, who only had the prosecution case to defend himself with. The legal defence acted throughout as though Huntley was guilty even while he was protesting his innocence. His defence even caused him to accept the charge of perverting the course of justice when he was pleading innocence, and this undermined his Not Guilty plea to the murder charge. He did not change this defence until a year later and two weeks before his trial.
At his trial, Huntley testified that he suffered a memory loss while in the psychiatric hospital, and that when he recovered afterwards he found it very difficult to tell the difference between reality and imagined things. This means that he was "mentally" unfit to defend himself or stand trial, and his prosecutors were responsible for this condition. He also testified that he remembered hearing a voice telling him "you pushed her" which would have come from his prosecutors. This formed the basis of his changed defence at his trial.
The magistrates were not allowed to see Huntley until after he had been conditioned by the doctors at Rampton. If he was fit to be charged with murder he was surely fit to be seen by the magistrates.
Huntley's confession at his trial resembles Timothy Evans's behaviour at the police station when he was presented with the evidence of his wife's and baby daughter's murders.
Ian Huntley's witness statement
Ian Huntley's first statement to the police was a voluntary witness statement which was made shortly after the girls disappeared. It established him as the last known person to have had contact with them before their disappearance. His statement went like this:
"On Sunday (August 4th) I was standing out front of my house, brushing my dog. I saw two girls approach at about 6pm from the area of the college. One asked me about my partner, Maxine Carr. Maxine worked at St Andrews, but had had to reapply for her job and had not been given the job. I did not know either of the girls. They obviously knew Maxine and obviously wanted to speak to her. They obviously knew where she lived. One asked how Maxine was. I told her she was not very happy, as she had not been given the job. They said they were very sorry, and walked off in the direction of College Road. I did not see them again. Both were wearing Manchester United tops with Beckham at the back."
College Road leads directly to the War Memorial, where four witnesses reported seeing the two girls at about 6:45, which corroborates his witness statement. His not knowing the two girls despite their familiarity with Maxine and his house shows that he was not socially interested in the school girls.
The bleeding nose
According to Maxine Carr, Huntley had told her the day after the girls' disappearance that they had been inside their house with a nose bleed, and that they had left shortly afterwards. Her false alibi that she had been in Soham with Huntley on the night that the two girls called on the house might have been due to this and her story could account for the cleaning activity. However, if the girls did go into the house with a nose bleed, this doesn't make him the murderer, it simply means that his witness statement to the police would be incomplete. He would have told them just what they needed to know.
Huntley has expressed the belief that the killer must have followed the girls to his house, which suggests that he believes that they were taken soon after leaving. He also believes that the killer himself must have fitted him up with the forensic evidence.
Cracked bath theory
The trial of Ian Huntley featured the plastic bath from his house, which was cracked. This was paraded in the court as evidence that a ten year-old girl had died in his house. Maxine Carr had told the police in interviews that this damage was caused by their dog, which was an alsation, and that it weighed eight and a half stone. The question that must spring to a juror's mind is: How heavy is a ten year-old girl, and how powerful? On average a girl of this age weighs up to five and a half stone, or three stone less than the alsation. Therefore Maxine Carr's is the satisfactory explanation for this damage, and the cracked bath tub display in the courtroom shows that the prosecution of Ian Huntley was not based on detective principles or reasoning.
Reported last sightings of Jessica and Holly:
18.15 - Two girls wearing red tops were seen walking along the main road between school and the town centre, though police were reported not to be treating this as a confirmed sighting.
18.17 - CCTV cameras at the Ross Peers sports centre, on a nearby college campus, showed the girls crossing the centre's car park. They were seen entering the car park via an alleyway, Gidney Lane, from the main road, Sand Street.
Approx. 18.30 - There were four separate sightings of the pair walking along Sand Street towards the town centre, but the time given by the witnesses may not be accurate. However, four separate witnesses are not likely to be equally far out, so the timing should be approximately accurate.
Approx. 18.30 - Staff at the sports centre say that the girls came in at around this time to buy sweets from a vending machine in the entrance lobby.
18.45 - Staff at the centre believed that the girls left the college grounds via College Way, and the next confirmed sighting was at 1845 in the town centre nearby.
Four separate witnesses saw the pair in the vicinity of the town's war memorial, in Red Lion square, by the High Street.
One more witness reported seeing two girls fitting the description of Holly and Jessica at the southern end of Soham, a considerable distance from the town centre.
19.00 - The girls were reportedly seen at 1900 on the A142, near the Q8 garage, at the Downfield Roundabout, walking south in the direction of Newmarket. The police said that this report is unconfirmed at this stage. This sighting however corresponds in direction and place with the car incident reported by taxi driver Ian Webster.
These sightings correspond with Ian Huntley's witness statement. The trail goes progressively away from his house.
The Dustatic 101
While Huntley was working as the caretaker and manager of a team of cleaners in Soham Village College he sent a memo to the headmaster criticising the rotary floor polishers which sprayed a lot of dust around. He constructed a makeshift electro-static device and installed it on one of these polishers, and he found that it magnetically collected a lot of this dust. He applied for a patent in 2001 and approached the manufacturer of the polishers to make a deal whereby he would get royalties per unit. He was due to attend a meeting with the company in September 2002 when he was arrested for the Soham murders in August. In 2005 the UK Intellectual Property Office granted the patent. The company, Numatic International, has commented favourably about his invention, but in his new personality as the Soham murderer and reported homosexual and Islam convert in prison he refuses to allow any commercial company to develop his invention.
So there is a detectable hypocrisy in the prosecution case here, in the contradiction between the conscientious and resourceful caretaker behind the Dustatic invention, and the forensic evidence in which Huntley has fitted himself up with the black bin liner farce in his caretaker's bin.
Concerning the 1983 Mental Health Act
The Ian Huntley case shows that there needs to be a reform of the 1983 Mental Health Act. This Act enables anyone in Britain to be detained in a psychiatric hospital against his will, regardless of whether he has committed an offence. This is called sectioning, the grounds for which include the person's confusion (such as his not understanding why he is being charged with murder), or personality disorders, such as genius (Syd Barrett, Alfred Jarry, Peter Sellers), or that the person is suffering from the damaging effects of Thatcherism on his quality of life and society. Nowadays symptoms of innocence are confused with signs of psychopathy by criminal profilers.
Since Thatcherism is the cause of most social disorders nowadays, such as paranoias, conspiracy delusions and conspiracies, depressions, social dysfunctions, social and national alienation etc, then Thatcherism has been shovelling members of the public into the growing maw of allopathic psychiatry ever since. Ian Huntley's experience shows that psychiatrists have no restraint from capitalizing on this lucrative bonanza and it is flourishing with Thatcherism. Anti-psychotic drugs are also being used to immobilize dementia cases for the convenience of care workers, for instance.
A TV programme in the late 1990s featured a psychiatrist visiting a client that he wished to take back into his hospital against his will. He took with him a police SWAT team, and the neighbours stood about in the street watching in disbelief as the police crashed their way into the patient's front door with a copious tinkling of smashed glass. This TV programme showed that one of the problems with allopathic psychiatry is that customers who believe they need to be admitted to hospital can't have it, while those who don't want it have to. This psychiatrist said that he'd rather give drugs to nine people who didn't need them than not give them to the one that does. It is difficult to conceive who might benefit from this sort of treatment. With psychiatry, allopathic drugs turn illnesses that are caused by environmental factors into addictive biological disorders, and so they are very dangerous to the public. In Ian Huntley's case this treatment was nothing less than a chemical assault.
This TV programme shows that in Ian Huntley's case the police have used the psychiatrists as the psychiatrists have been using them.
The series of murders
The series of murders involving Jessica and Holly began with the victim's body (Sarah Payne) being dumped out in the open in the holiday area that she was taken from (this presumably to throw the police and public off the scent regarding the Cheshire sighting), and it ended with the bodies of Jessica and Holly being dumped out in the open, minus the forensic evidence (the clothes) for the prosecution of Ian Huntley. In between, the cases of Milly Dowler and Danielle Jones indicate that the series killer would tend to bury or conceal his victims, which corresponds with the two areas of disturbed ground on Warren Hill outside Newmarket that the jogger reported to the police in the Jessica and Holly case.
The series began with defendant Roy Whiting pleading Not Guilty against a perfect stitch-up in forensic evidence (with hairs and fibres from the victim on the defendant's white van etc, and vice versa), and ends with Ian Huntley pleading Not Guilty (and changing his plea two weeks before his trial) against forensic evidence with which he is supposed to have fitted himself up.
David Dixon - 2004-9
For the Roy Whiting case and the rest of the series click here.
For the allegations against Ian Huntley click here.
For the Algebra of Justice click here.
[email protected]
Police deciding who they want to be guilty
-
From Bird's evidence in court he claimed to be at WHF on the 10th, 11th and 12th of september.
on both the 10th and 11th he created exhibit DB/1 , a soil sample, in his notebook ...and cannot explain why this was so...thinks he had a mental block..??? oh yeah..pigs might fly.... He claims he took the aga surround pictures on the 12th...erm the same day he also claims to collect the blue socks (DB/6).
If PC Bird took those two photographs (negatives 7 and 9) on 12th September 1985, what this tells me is that once Ann Eaton had handed over the silencer to the police on 11th September, police took the silencer in question back to whf, and they scratched the aga surround with it, making the additional marks shown in the photographs, taken on that date (12th September), which ensured that paint from the aga surround was ingrained into the gnarled end of the silencer, which was subsequently sent to the lab` on 20th September, and not actually examined until the 25th September, by which stage paint was noted...
-
From Bird's evidence in court he claimed to be at WHF on the 10th, 11th and 12th of september.
on both the 10th and 11th he created exhibit DB/1 , a soil sample, in his notebook ...and cannot explain why this was so...thinks he had a mental block..??? oh yeah..pigs might fly.... He claims he took the aga surround pictures on the 12th...erm the same day he also claims to collect the blue socks (DB/6).
Cook in his COLP interview stated
"DC Bird's responsibilty was photographs and he would not have acted on his own accord in respect of exhibits. This did not occur."
Statement analysis wise the speculative "would not" is poor. A good answer for the truth should be "did not" or "had not". that he repeats a form of denial suggests his early claim (silencer DB/1 found by Bird on 7/8/95) is actually very weak or not believed by himself (Cook).
However, after digressing, the issue here....IF ITS TRUE that Bird would not act of his own accord as far as exhibits were concerned then we can take it that Cook himself instructed the taking of the DB/1 to DB/6 exhibits between the 10th and 12 th of september by Bird. Did Cook have a reason in mind for why Bird suddenly needed to start taking exhibits that is related to those dates?
-
From Bird's evidence in court he claimed to be at WHF on the 10th, 11th and 12th of september.
on both the 10th and 11th he created exhibit DB/1 , a soil sample, in his notebook ...and cannot explain why this was so...thinks he had a mental block..??? oh yeah..pigs might fly.... He claims he took the aga surround pictures on the 12th...erm the same day he also claims to collect the blue socks (DB/6).
If PC Bird took those two photographs (negatives 7 and 9) on 12th September 1985, what this tells me is that once Ann Eaton had handed over the silencer to the police on 11th September, police took the silencer in question back to whf, and they scratched the aga surround with it, making the additional marks shown in the photographs, taken on that date (12th September), which ensured that paint from the aga surround was ingrained into the gnarled end of the silencer, which was subsequently sent to the lab` on 20th September, and not actually examined until the 25th September, by which stage paint was noted...
PC Birds (DB/1) double blunder (pocketbook entries for 12th September) are so obviously linked to the silencer found by the relatives, and the small flek of dried blood which Boutflour scraped from the silencer using a razor blade...
-
From Bird's evidence in court he claimed to be at WHF on the 10th, 11th and 12th of september.
on both the 10th and 11th he created exhibit DB/1 , a soil sample, in his notebook ...and cannot explain why this was so...thinks he had a mental block..??? oh yeah..pigs might fly.... He claims he took the aga surround pictures on the 12th...erm the same day he also claims to collect the blue socks (DB/6).
If PC Bird took those two photographs (negatives 7 and 9) on 12th September 1985, what this tells me is that once Ann Eaton had handed over the silencer to the police on 11th September, police took the silencer in question back to whf, and they scratched the aga surround with it, making the additional marks shown in the photographs, taken on that date (12th September), which ensured that paint from the aga surround was ingrained into the gnarled end of the silencer, which was subsequently sent to the lab` on 20th September, and not actually examined until the 25th September, by which stage paint was noted...
PC Birds (DB/1) double blunder (pocketbook entries for 12th September) are so obviously linked to the silencer found by the relatives, and the small flek of dried blood which Boutflour scraped from the silencer using a razor blade...
Was PC Bird designated to officially take possession of the small flek of blood which David Boutflour claims he had scraped off the silencer using a razor blade? Is this what was behind the (DB/1) double blunder? Was the small flek of blood handed over to the police by Boutflour, and was it originally given the exhibit reference of DB/1?
Or...
Was the silencer which was used to deliberately scratch the aga surround, intended to have the exhibit reference, DB/1?
Or, both?
-
From Bird's evidence in court he claimed to be at WHF on the 10th, 11th and 12th of september.
on both the 10th and 11th he created exhibit DB/1 , a soil sample, in his notebook ...and cannot explain why this was so...thinks he had a mental block..??? oh yeah..pigs might fly.... He claims he took the aga surround pictures on the 12th...erm the same day he also claims to collect the blue socks (DB/6).
If PC Bird took those two photographs (negatives 7 and 9) on 12th September 1985, what this tells me is that once Ann Eaton had handed over the silencer to the police on 11th September, police took the silencer in question back to whf, and they scratched the aga surround with it, making the additional marks shown in the photographs, taken on that date (12th September), which ensured that paint from the aga surround was ingrained into the gnarled end of the silencer, which was subsequently sent to the lab` on 20th September, and not actually examined until the 25th September, by which stage paint was noted...
PC Birds (DB/1) double blunder (pocketbook entries for 12th September) are so obviously linked to the silencer found by the relatives, and the small flek of dried blood which Boutflour scraped from the silencer using a razor blade...
Was PC Bird designated to officially take possession of the small flek of blood which David Boutflour claims he had scraped off the silencer using a razor blade? Is this what was behind the (DB/1) double blunder? Was the small flek of blood handed over to the police by Boutflour, and was it originally given the exhibit reference of DB/1?
Or...
Was the silencer which was used to deliberately scratch the aga surround, intended to have the exhibit reference, DB/1?
Or, both?
The first thing which needs to be done, is David Boutflour should be arrested immediately, and questioned in depth about when, where and how he managed to scrape the blood from the silencer? He needs to be questioned about the date he performed this act? He needs to explain what he did with the flake? He needs to identify the police officers he told, and asked to give an account about their reaction to him tampering with the silencer in this way? He needs to be asked if anyone witnessed him scraping the flek of blood from the silencer?
-
From Bird's evidence in court he claimed to be at WHF on the 10th, 11th and 12th of september.
on both the 10th and 11th he created exhibit DB/1 , a soil sample, in his notebook ...and cannot explain why this was so...thinks he had a mental block..??? oh yeah..pigs might fly.... He claims he took the aga surround pictures on the 12th...erm the same day he also claims to collect the blue socks (DB/6).
If PC Bird took those two photographs (negatives 7 and 9) on 12th September 1985, what this tells me is that once Ann Eaton had handed over the silencer to the police on 11th September, police took the silencer in question back to whf, and they scratched the aga surround with it, making the additional marks shown in the photographs, taken on that date (12th September), which ensured that paint from the aga surround was ingrained into the gnarled end of the silencer, which was subsequently sent to the lab` on 20th September, and not actually examined until the 25th September, by which stage paint was noted...
PC Birds (DB/1) double blunder (pocketbook entries for 12th September) are so obviously linked to the silencer found by the relatives, and the small flek of dried blood which Boutflour scraped from the silencer using a razor blade...
Was PC Bird designated to officially take possession of the small flek of blood which David Boutflour claims he had scraped off the silencer using a razor blade? Is this what was behind the (DB/1) double blunder? Was the small flek of blood handed over to the police by Boutflour, and was it originally given the exhibit reference of DB/1?
Or...
Was the silencer which was used to deliberately scratch the aga surround, intended to have the exhibit reference, DB/1?
Or, both?
The first thing which needs to be done, is David Boutflour should be arrested immediately, and questioned in depth about when, where and how he managed to scrape the blood from the silencer? He needs to be questioned about the date he performed this act? He needs to explain what he did with the flake? He needs to identify the police officers he told, and asked to give an account about their reaction to him tampering with the silencer in this way? He needs to be asked if anyone witnessed him scraping the flek of blood from the silencer?
My informant tells me that it was the flek of blood which Boutflour claims he scraped from the silencer which was analyzed at the lab', and attributed to the silencer. Informant says flake had original exhibit reference DB/1, along with silencer relatives found at scene in September 1985, both were originally marked, DB/1, but later silencer was changed to DRB/1, and blood was said to have been found inside it when it was dismantled at the lab' by the ballistic expert, which proved problematic and led to find of silencer by relatives having to be brought forward a month...
-
Find of silencer (1) - SBJ/1, by DS "Stan" Jones at scene on 7th August 1985...
Find of silencer (2) - DB/1 - DRB/1, by David Boutflour, at scene on 11th September 1985, small flek of blood scraped off silencer (claim) made by Boutflour, was originally given identifying mark of DB/1, silencer he found was later given identifying mark of DRB/1...
Date when silencer (2) was found was brought forward a month, so that silencer (DRB/1) which was found at the scene on 11th September 1985, was now being touted as having been found on 10th August 1985, and various attempts to alter the documentation at the lab' and in witness statements were duly carried out, for the purpose of merging both of these silencers, and the events which related to both, as being a reference to the same silencer...
Details relating to the find of the original silencer (SBJ/1) by DS "Stan" Jones, was buried in the file, and everyone proceeded as though it had never happened...
-
Shedule
07th August 1985 - silencer (1) found by DS "Stan" Jones, at whf on this date
09th August 1985 - silencer (1) police spoke to Jeremy about silencer
13th August 1985 - silencer (1) sent to lab' and checked by Glynis Howard
15th August 1985 - silencer (1) checked for fingerprints, oblique light test
23rd August 1985 - silencer (1) checked for fingerprints by super glue treatment
29th August 1985 - silencer (1) dismantled, rebuilt, screwed onto gun by DI Cook
30th August 1985 - silencer (1) resubmitted to lab'
(a) Flake of blood originating from Sheila Caffell, claim to have been found inside silencer sent to lab' on 30th August 1985
11th September 1985 - silencer (2) found by David Boutflour, at whf on this date
(b) Additional scratch marks made on aga surround by use of silencer
12th September 1985 - silencer (2) silencer used to make additional marks on aga
13th September 1985 - silencer (2) fingerprinted by SOC
20th September 1985 - silencer (2) sent to Lab' for first time, re blood/fibres
25th September 1985 - silencer (2) paint found to be present on silencer at this time
-
Shedule
07th August 1985 - silencer (1) found by DS "Stan" Jones, at whf on this date
09th August 1985 - silencer (1)
13th August 1985 - silencer (1)
15th August 1985 - silencer (1)
23rd August 1985 - silencer (1)
29th August 1985 - silencer (1)
30th August 1985 - silencer (1)
(a) Flake of blood originating from Sheila Caffell, claim to have been found inside silencer sent to lab' on 30th August 1985
11th September 1985 - silencer (2) found by David Boutflour, at whf on this date
(b) paint found on end of silencer, which came from additional scratch marks made on aga surround
12th September 1985 - silencer (2)
13th September 1985 - silencer (2)
20th September 1985 - silencer (2)
25th September 1985 - silencer (2)
In order to make the silencer (2), blood and paint evidence work in helping to convict "JB" for the murders, it was necessary to bring forward the date of its find, so that altered records suggested it had been sent to the lab' a month earlier:-
10th August 1985 - silencer (2) This silencer was not found on this occasion
12th August 1985 - silencer (2) This silencer was not handed over on this occasion
13th August 1985 - silencer (2) This silencer was not sent to lab' on this occasion
15th August 1985 - silencer (2) This silencer was not fingerprinted on this occasion
23rd August 1985 - silencer (2) This silencer was not fingerprinted on this occasion
29th August 1985 - silencer (2) This silencer was not dismantled, rebuilt, on this occasion
30th August 1985 - silencer (2) This silencer was not sent to the lab' on this occasion, it had not been found by this stage
(a) Flake of blood originating from Sheila Caffell, claim to have been found inside silencer sent to lab' on 30th August 1985
(b) paint found on end of silencer, which came from additional scratch marks made on aga surround
Sheila's blood was not found inside the silencer (2) found at the scene by David Boutflour, and the paint found ingrained into the end cap of the silencer (2) got there long after the shootings had taken place
-
Shedule
07th August 1985 - silencer (1) found by DS "Stan" Jones, at whf on this date
09th August 1985 - silencer (1)
13th August 1985 - silencer (1)
15th August 1985 - silencer (1)
23rd August 1985 - silencer (1)
29th August 1985 - silencer (1)
30th August 1985 - silencer (1)
(a) Flake of blood originating from Sheila Caffell, claim to have been found inside silencer sent to lab' on 30th August 1985
11th September 1985 - silencer (2) found by David Boutflour, at whf on this date
(b) paint found on end of silencer, which came from additional scratch marks made on aga surround
12th September 1985 - silencer (2)
13th September 1985 - silencer (2)
20th September 1985 - silencer (2)
25th September 1985 - silencer (2)
In order to make the silencer (2), blood and paint evidence work in helping to convict for the murders, it was necessary to bring forward the date of its find, so that altered records suggested it had been sent to the lab' a month earlier:-
10th August 1985 - silencer (2)
12th August 1985 - silencer (2)
13th August 1985 - silencer (2)
15th August 1985 - silencer (2)
23rd August 1985 - silencer (2)
29th August 1985 - silencer (2)
30th August 1985 - silencer (2)
(a) Flake of blood originating from Sheila Caffell, claim to have been found inside silencer sent to lab' on 30th August 1985
(b) paint found on end of silencer, which came from additional scratch marks made on aga surround
Sheila's blood was not found inside the silencer (2) found at the scene by David Boutflour, and the paint found ingrained into the end cap of the silencer (2) got there long after the shootings had taken place
Bringing forward the date when the relatives found silencer (2) by a month, made it appear as though it was not until much later that Sheila's blood had been found inside it, and that paint from the aga surround had got onto the end cap of the silencer during a struggle in the kitchen between Ralph Bamber, and his killer?
-
Both silencers (1) and (2) were eventually merged into one, where blood from Sheila was purportedly found inside it, and paint from the aga, found upon it...
It is now possible to reconstruct exactly what took place, and to identify those who conspired together with a view to pulling the wool over the eyes of the jury, to make them believe that there had been a silencer fitted to the gun during a struggle in the kitchen, between Ralph and his killer, and also at the time Sheila was shot and killed in the main bedroom, and that the killer had to have removed it from the gun after Sheila was killed, and the only person who could have done that was ...
Add to this...
Overall length of weapon so configured would have been too long to allow Sheila an opportunity to shoot herself even if she had wanted to...
-
Only one of these two silencers was coated in super glue residue, after it was exposed to super glue treatment on 23rd August 1985:-
(a) Silencer (1)
Relatives did not find this silencer, and David Boutflour did not scrape blood off this silencer using a razor blade...
-
Silencer (2) which was checked for DNA as part of the 2002 appeal application, was not coated in super glue residue, because it was not the actual silencer which had been exposed to super glue treatment on 23rd August 1985, by virtue of the fact that it had not yet been found by the relatives by that stage
-
Anthony Pargeter has never once given an explanation during the past 26 years or so, about the whereabouts of his Parker hale silencer, at the time of the shootings, inside whf?
It is high time he gave such an explanation, otherwise he may find himself becoming more deeply entangled in the conspiracy surrounding its possible use, and misuse...
-
Silencer (2) found by relatives on 11th September 1985, was not coated in super glue residue...
-
Various members of SOC became major players in the silencer debacle, which allowed them to merge two identical looking Parker hale silencers into one...
-
Key feature;_
(a) SILENCER (1) - coated in cynoacrylate (super glue) fumes
(b) SILENCER (2) - not coated in super glue
-
Silencer (2) which was examined for DNA, did not have any blood inside it...
The reason for this, was because it was not used in the shootings...
-
Silencer (2) which was examined for DNA, did not have any blood inside it...
The reason for this, was because it was not used in the shootings...
At the 2002 appeal, the judges rejected DNA evidence, on the basis that it was not obtained from blood, which had all been tested to destruction from inside the silencer - but the simple truth is, that there never was any blood at all in the silencer (2) found at the scene by relatives, on 11th September...
-
Silencer (2) which was examined for DNA, did not have any blood inside it...
The reason for this, was because it was not used in the shootings...
At the 2002 appeal, the judges rejected DNA evidence, on the basis that it was not obtained from blood, which had all been tested to destruction from inside the silencer - but the simple truth is, that there never was any blood at all in the silencer (2) found at the scene by relatives, on 11th September...
No super glue residue was found on the silencer (2) which was examined for DNA (200)- since, silencer (2) had not even been found by the time the other silencer (1) had been exposed to super glue treatment, on 23rd August 1985...
-
No police records existed to confirm that the silencer found at the scene by relatives, had ever been in the possion of the police at any stage prior to 11th September. This was because silencer (2) was not found or handed over to the police until the date of its find...
-
According to Essex police, there was never an original file for the first part of the investigation under a crime reference of SC/688/85, four murders and a suicide, and the COLP (1990) enquiry failed to find it. But one must have existed, but it has been deliberately withheld under pii...
-
Whilst COLP were interviewing SOC officers in 1991, they referred to the silencer that was subject of questioning, as "THE SIGNED SILENCER”, which gives the impression that COLP knew about a second silencer, that could be referred to as "THE UNSIGNED SILENCER”...
-
Whilst COLP were interviewing SOC officers in 1991, they referred to the silencer that was subject of questioning, as "THE SIGNED SILENCER”, which gives the impression that COLP knew about a second silencer, that could be referred to as "THE UNSIGNED SILENCER”...
Why would COLP be seeking to distinguish the silencer, in these interviews, by referring to it as ”THE SIGNED SILENCER”, if there was in truth only one?
-
In Davidsons COLP interview he was asked by Supt. McKay
"Knowing there was one silencer there did you have knowledge at all of the second silencer"
PROOF INDEED that COLP knew of the second silencer by use of the word "the" which has to relate to an identified item.
If COLP were unaware of a second silencer the question would be addressed using an "a" to cover any silencer and thus show doubt of its existence.
-
In Davidsons COLP interview he was asked by Supt. McKay
"Knowing there was one silencer there did you have knowledge at all of the second silencer"
PROOF INDEED that COLP knew of the second silencer by use of the word "the" which has to relate to an identified item.
If COLP were unaware of a second silencer the question would be addressed using an "a" to cover any silencer and thus show doubt of its existence.
Even if they had used an 'a' instead of a 'the' ... alarm bells ringing.
-
Cook and paint sample RC/1.
lets see documentation all says taken on the 8th of august...yet Cook in his COLP interview makes claims that he did not take the sample that day but took it on the 14 th.
Cook suggests the date of the 8th is a typo...from typing pool or some other such error...he seems to agree the entry on the original form could indeed by Davidsons writing.....
OK maybe we can buy Cook's explanation for the wrong day and the paint sample was taken on the 14th.
Davidson is totally clear he was handed a paint sample and a reason for its taking (paint on barrel of weapon found downstairs that had taken a knock). He is sure on this.
Who is correct....ANSWER Davidson.
why....
Davidson was on duty on the 8th august....
he was not on duty on the 13th and 14 th of august (his days off as mentioned in his COLP interview.
SO IT HAD TO BE THE 8TH AUGUST.
Cook LIED when he claims it was the 14th....
-
Not only did COLP know about the existence of two identical looking Parker hale silencers which were at the heart of this investigation, they knew that one of the silencers (1) had been recovered from the scene at a very early stage, by DS ”Stan” Jones, and that the other silencer (2), had been found by the relatives a month later. COLP also knew that the two silencers which should have been present at the scene at the material time, were in fact both present...
-
Cook and paint sample RC/1.
lets see documentation all says taken on the 8th of august...yet Cook in his COLP interview makes claims that he did not take the sample that day but took it on the 14 th.
Cook suggests the date of the 8th is a typo...from typing pool or some other such error...he seems to agree the entry on the original form could indeed by Davidsons writing.....
OK maybe we can buy Cook's explanation for the wrong day and the paint sample was taken on the 14th.
Davidson is totally clear he was handed a paint sample and a reason for its taking (paint on barrel of weapon found downstairs that had taken a knock). He is sure on this.
Who is correct....ANSWER Davidson.
why....
Davidson was on duty on the 8th august....
he was not on duty on the 13th and 14 th of august (his days off as mentioned in his COLP interview.
SO IT HAD TO BE THE 8TH AUGUST.
Cook LIED when he claims it was the 14th....
Cook made a false entry in his pocketbook for 14th August 1985, relating to the alleged taking of a paint sample (RWC/1), which is an entry he squeezed in later, once the additional scratch marks had been made on the aga surround, on 12th September (when Cook and Bird were both present at the scene). Whereas, by that stage any marks found on the aga, were known to have been made by the end of a guns barrel, in keeping with what DS Davidson told COLP in his 1991 intervie...
The paint on silencer (2), and scratch marks on the aga surround, only became an issue, once additional marks were made on the aga surround, on 12th September 1985...
It was at some stage after those additional marks were made on the aga surround, that Cook sought to introduce the reference to paint sample RWC/1 on 14th August, since before marks were added on 12th September, there simply would have been no need to take a paInt sample to compare against paint from the aga on a silencer, because by that stage, a guns barrel had made marks there, not a silencer...
-
In her COLP interview Ann refers to a question posed to her about the 14th.
In the question the silencer is referred to as "a silencer"...indicating any silencer ..ie more silencers involved than just one. If only one silencer had been involved then they would have used "the" silencer in being able to be specific as this one silencer if true and been handed to police by the relatives should be the only one.
thus again COLP demonstrate knowledge that more than one silencer was involved in the case.
on a sidebar....Ann Eaton, DS Jone and Miller all fall into colluding in the same false story of Cook's about a paint sample being taken on the 14th of August.
-
If Cook took two paint samples, he took RC/1 from aga surround (whf) on 8th August, and other (RWC/1) from a similar location on 12th September...
I personally think he only took one paint sample (RC/1) on 8th August, that was later altered to RWC/1, and the date it was taken was altered to 14th August...
-
On 21st December 1998, Martyn Ismail, received the sound moderator in an unsealed box. There was no identifying mark upon or with it, and so it is not possible to say which of the two silencers (1 or 2) it is/was?
Here is a copy of a letter addressed to Ms dawn Butler, CCRC, dated 22nd March, 2000:-
Please note, that on 29th March 1999, in the company of Mark Webster, he examined the moderator for blood, and that no blood was detected on the inside and outside of the moderator body or on the seventeen internal discs.
-
On 21st December 1998, Martyn Ismail, received the sound moderator in an unsealed box. There was no identifying mark upon or with it, and so it is not possible to say which of the two silencers (1 or 2) it is/was?
Here is a copy of a letter addressed to Ms dawn Butler, CCRC, dated 22nd March, 2000:-
Please note, that on 29th March 1999, in the company of Mark Webster, he examined the moderator for blood, and that no blood was detected on the inside and outside of the moderator body or on the seventeen internal discs.
There was supposed to be a considerable amount of blood in the silencer, so where did all of it go to?
Unless, of course, this was the other silencer (2), the one found by the relatives on 11th September 1985, which did not get sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985, and which was examined on 25th September 1985, and paint found upon it (but no blood)?
-
David Boutflour recovers guns and ammunition, on 10th August 1985, from the scene:-
Supposed to be 4 pages, but there are only two....
-
On 21st December 1998, Martyn Ismail, received the sound moderator in an unsealed box. There was no identifying mark upon or with it, and so it is not possible to say which of the two silencers (1 or 2) it is/was?
Here is a copy of a letter addressed to Ms dawn Butler, CCRC, dated 22nd March, 2000:-
Please note, that on 29th March 1999, in the company of Mark Webster, he examined the moderator for blood, and that no blood was detected on the inside and outside of the moderator body or on the seventeen internal discs.
There was supposed to be a considerable amount of blood in the silencer, so where did all of it go to?
Unless, of course, this was the other silencer (2), the one found by the relatives on 11th September 1985, which did not get sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985, and which was examined on 25th September 1985, and paint found upon it (but no blood)?
Does it surprise any of you to learn, that Martyn Ismail, and Mark Webster, should be checking the outside of the silencer for blood, if this was the very same silencer (1) which on 23rd August 1985, was exposed to, and saturated with cynoacrylate fumes (super glue treatment)? You would think that experts such as these would be able to tell, and should have been informed that if this was the first silencer (1) which found its way into the possession of Essex police, it would obviously be coated completely on the outside with super glue residue, and of course, you would not be expected to detect or find any trace of blood - yet these experts did not even recognise that any part of the silencer (2) which they examined, was coated with any trace of super glue residue, and so a huge question mark hangs over its identity?
-
Another David Boutflour statement:-
-
Report submitted by DI Cook (SOC) for the attention of DCS "Mick" Ainsley, after nature of investigation changed/altered:-
“However before undertaking such examinations it is the usual practice, as in this case, to submit the items to the forensic Science Laboratory to make an initial examination as chemicals involved in any fingerprint treatment may have a possible adverse effect on Laboratory examinations, i.e. blood grouping etc.”
-
The crucial blood group evidence ( A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) was not obtained (between 12th and 19th September 1985) until after the silencer had been exposed to cynoacrylate fumes on 23rd August 1985, contradicting what Cook wrote to Ainsley about - in other words, the blood group activity obtained after 23rd August 1985, was at peril of having been adversely effected, yet the jury were not told about this, either by the police who testified, or by the experts who also testified in support of the prosecutions case...
-
The crucial blood group evidence ( A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) was not obtained (between 12th and 19th September 1985) until after the silencer had been exposed to cynoacrylate fumes on 23rd August 1985, contradicting what Cook wrote to Ainsley about - in other words, the blood group activity obtained after 23rd August 1985, was at peril of having been adversely effected, yet the jury were not told about this, either by the police who testified, or by the experts who also testified in support of the prosecutions case...
Worse still...
silencer (2) which was found by the relatives on 11th September 1985, was not submitted to the lab' until 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres, resulting in none of this being found to be present, only paint from the aga surround, which as we now know came about because somebody deliberately scratched the aga surround by use of it, on 12th September 1985...
In this instance, therefore...
Silencer (2) was sent to the lab' (20th September 1985) to be checked, long after the other silencer (1) had been exposed to super glue treatment on 23rd August 1985, making a mockery of what DI Cook, wrote to DCS "Mick" Ainsley, about...
-
Essex police SOC Dept' suspected of being corrupt?
West Midland serious crime squad, was exposed as a corrupted gang of legalized criminals who thought nothing of fabricating evidence to suit their purpose, and there seems to be evidence that Essex police Scenes of crime, (SOC), operated with the same disregard for honesty, as their counterparts...
-
Essex police SOC Dept' suspected of being corrupt?
West Midland serious crime squad, was exposed as a corrupted gang of legalized criminals who thought nothing of fabricating evidence to suit their purpose, and there seems to be evidence that Essex police Scenes of crime, (SOC), operated with the same disregard for honesty, as their counterparts...
Should there be an independent enquiry into the activities of Essex police SOC Dept', in the way they have mishandled several high-profile investigations?
-
Sheila Caffell letter, addressed to Peter, dated, 5th November, 1982:-
-
This event was at the very heart of the conspiracy involving the silencers:-
Here is DI Cook (SOC) telling the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, to amend the silencer reference to DB/1, on 17th October 1985?
Which silencer, (1) or (2)?
-
We can be absolutely certain, therefore, that the exhibit reference for the silencer (which silencer, 1 or 2) was not altered from SBJ/1 to DB/1, until on or after 17th October 1985, by reference to this handwritten note, from Cook to Fletcher...
-
The dodgy silencer/blood/paint evidence should never have been relied upon to back up the proseutions claim that Jeremy killed his family...
I personally do not think the silencer was used on the gun at the time of the second fatal shot under the chin, was fired...
-
Ok. I have been gone for a while and obviously have missed much. Can anybody sum it up for me pleae?
-
Ok. I have been gone for a while and obviously have missed much. Can anybody sum it up for me pleae?
Bamber gets new highly respected solicitor. Developments occur regarding the release of a load more PII material, including some original statements. Still loads withheld. Some FSS scientists don't come out it very well. Mike alleges at least one police informant (Z). Some regular guilty camp posters implode. Not easy to tell whether this is due to conflict on forum or their margins for argument diminishing. Some innocent posters also scornful re (Z). Posters from both sides cite the Ali Bongo affair as Mike having 'previous' as long as his arm. Facebook Innocent and official campaign crowd appear to be in some kind of power balance maneuver, with alleged poor cousins the forum taking the silver medal as per usual. In the process, questions arise over Jeremy Bamber's loyalties / support / advice. Relatives and prosecution witnesses believed to be genuinely disposed towards Jeremy's guilt. Stan Jones believed to be behind much of this. RWB and Freemasons remain menacingly in the background. Special branch also rear their head. Silencer evidence confirmed as even more crooked than fork lightening. Defence allege progress in scratch marks issue. Lamberton's alternative forum draws some attention.
-
Ok. I have been gone for a while and obviously have missed much. Can anybody sum it up for me pleae?
Bamber gets new highly respected solicitor. Developments occur regarding the release of a load more PII material, including some original statements. Still loads withheld. Some FSS scientists don't come out it very well. Mike alleges at least one police informant (Z). Some regular guilty camp posters implode. Not easy to tell whether this is due to conflict on forum or their margins for argument diminishing. Some innocent posters also scornful re (Z). Posters from both sides cite the Ali Bongo affair as Mike having 'previous' as long as his arm. Facebook Innocent and official campaign crowd appear to be in some kind of power balance maneuver, with alleged poor cousins the forum taking the silver medal as per usual. In the process, questions arise over Jeremy Bamber's loyalties / support / advice. Relatives and prosecution witnesses believed to be genuinely disposed towards Jeremy's guilt. Stan Jones believed to be behind much of this. RWB and Freemasons remain menacingly in the background. Special branch also rear their head. Silencer evidence confirmed as even more crooked than fork lightening. Defence allege progress in scratch marks issue. Lamberton's alternative forum draws some attention.
Some great summing up..... :D
-
David Boutflour tells police there are marks on underside of aga in kitchen at whf, to the right:-
-
Police seize silencer at scene on 7th August 1985, 9am:-
-
How some of the documents came into my possession, in 2003:-
As per, February and June 2003...
-
Trap door in roof of farmhouse:-
-
Here is a schedule produced by the ballistic exert, Malcolm Fletcher, about ranges at which the various wounds were inflicted at the time each victim was shot (he based these opinions on examination of photographs taken at the mortuary:-
-
Two pictures taken at scene by police on morning of shootings:-
Apologies for poor quality...
-
Jeremy under police surveillance, on 15th September 1985:-
Here is a copy of the relevant handwritten log for that operation...
-
Schedule, relating to both silencers, (1 and 2), which were eventually merged into the same one, to accommodate the blood and paint evidence, to help convict "JB" for these murders:-
Ask yourself this question - how could the silencer (1) which was sent to the lab' on 13th and 30th August 1985, be accepted at the lab', on two occasions before David Boutflour even reported that he had found a silencer (2) in the gun cupboard to the police, in a telephone call he made to them, on 11th September 1985, which was handed over to the police by Ann Eaton, that same day, and which did not get sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985, and which was not actually examined for the very first time until 25th September 1985, if it was not properly packaged and labelled?
-
Schedule, relating to both silencers, (1 and 2), which were eventually merged into the same one, to accommodate the blood and paint evidence, to help convict "JB" for these murders:-
Ask yourself this question - how could the silencer (1) which was sent to the lab' on 13th and 30th August 1985, be accepted at the lab', on two occasions before David Boutflour even reported that he had found a silencer (2) in the gun cupboard to the police, in a telephone call he made to them, on 11th September 1985, which was handed over to the police by Ann Eaton, that same day, and which did not get sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985, and which was not actually examined for the very first time until 25th September 1985, if it was not properly packaged and labelled?
How could the ballistic expert (Fletcher) find the crucial flake of blood which turns out to have originated from Sheila, inside a silencer (2) which had not yet been submitted to the lab', and which would not be submitted to the lab', until after the blood he found on 11th September 1985, had been identified by blood expert, John Hayward, as Sheila Caffells, by 19th September 1985?
It would have been physically impossible to find the blood inside a silencer (2) which he did not yet have possession of, or access to at the alleged material time (11th September 1985)...
Fletcher could only have found or discovered blood inside the other silencer (1), which had been at the lab' from 30th August 1985 (which was the silencer found at the scene by DS Jones)...
-
As far as exposing the silencer (2) to super glue treatment is/was concerned, no such treatment was ever carried out with regards to this particular silencer, after its find on 11th September 1985, or prior to its submission to the lab' on 20th September 1985...
-
As far as exposing the silencer (2) to super glue treatment is/was concerned, no such treatment was ever carried out with regards to this particular silencer, after its find on 11th September 1985, or prior to its submission to the lab' on 20th September 1985...
yet...
other silencer (1) was exposed to super glue treatment on 23rd August 1985, which occurred long before the second silencer (2) was found at the scene (11th September 1985), therefore, this silencer (2) is not coated by super glue residue, whereas, the other silencer (1) is...
-
This is the view police would have had when looking through the kitchen window, and seeing the body of a dead female (behind the pantry door):-
-
Working out the position of the kitchen table, by reference to these two images:-
-
This is the view police would have had when looking through the kitchen window, and seeing the body of a dead female (behind the pantry door):-
If you look through the kitchen window, in the direction of the arrow (inserted) you would get a view into the pantry through the pantry door opposite - this is where I believe the body of the female was seen by the police at the window, since if you go by the position of Ralph's body as per PC Tingeys diagram, Ralph's body was not behind the internal door...
-
By reference to PC Tingeys diagram, and a directional arrow from the position of the kitchen window, one cane see that the position of Ralph Bambers body, could not be described as being behind the internal kitchen door...
-
On the other hand...
the position of the directional arrow, shows the view which would have been offered to the police at the kitchen window, who could have seen the body of a female behind the pantry door...
-
To be pondered is how the three bullet cases ended up atop the kitchen table, if Ralph Bamber was shot in the position his body was photographed in, as per the position depicted, in PC Tingeys diagram?
Spent cartridge cases are ejected forward and to the right, after each shot is discharged from the .22 Anshulz rifle...
-
Wooden chair was in a different position, than shown in PC Tingeys diagram, as shown in the crime scene photograph:-
-
In order for the three spent bullet cases (DRH/19, DRH/20 and DRH/41) to end up atop the kitchen table, the position of Ralph Bambers head would have had to be upright, sideways on, and falling forwards, at the time he was shot four times in the head...
-
Presence of bullet case DRH/41 atop the kitchen table is puzzling, because it was not recovered from the scene until 8th August 1985, whereas the other two bullet cases (DRH/19 and DRH/20) were found on 7th August 1985?
How could SOC have missed bullet case DRH/41 atop the kitchen table, on 7th August 1985?
-
Position of Ralph Bambers body, and view from the vantage point outside the kitchen window looking in direction of pantry door, behind which was seen the body of dead female...
-
You only have to see the angle (1,2 and 3,4) at which the four head shots were inflicted to realize that the corresponding bullet cases should not have ended up atop the kitchen table, and that somebody stage managed the scene in the kitchen...
-
And considering Ralph only, there are 5 missing bullet cases and one missing bullet.
-
I think there is sufficient evidence available to give a very strong indication that Ralph Bamber did use the telephone hand set, which was photographed off its cradle in a position close to the tipped out ammunition on the worktop, and the bloodied fingermarks on the edge of worktop, along with the multiple spots of blood on the floor directly beneath. These bloodied fingermarks, and the blood on the floor beneath, could only have come from Ralph Bamber - which in my view places him in close proximity to the place where the telephone handset, ended up being photographed. What these features also indicate to me, is that Ralph was not shot at all until he was downstairs in the kitchen, and that this took place in the area of the kitchen where the telephone was situated. The multiple spots of blood on the kitchen floor (in that particular area) along with the bloodied fingermarks on the edge of the worktop, suggest in the strongest possible terms that Ralph was non fatally shot downstairs, and that this occurred after he was knocked, or fell to the floor, but from which he could possibly have been trying to get up to his feet? The blood on the floor and on the edge of the worktop in this area, confirm one thing which we would all do well to recognise, Ralph did not die instantaneously from being shot on this occasion, because he got upright afterwards, and his body did not end up on the kitchen floor in that part of the kitchen...
What this means...
is that somebody has tampered with the displacement of bullet cases supposedly found in the bedroom, because the prosecution alleged that four of the bullet cases found in the bedroom, originated or were associated with the four non fatal wounds, sustained by Ralph whilst he was upstairs, in the bedroom...
Not to be overlooked either...
is that although PC Bird photographed the position of all the recovered bullets cases at the scene, that these photographs were not relied upon, or made available to the court - there may have been good reason for this not being done, since such photographic material would almost inevitably have provided proof positive that police stage managed the scene...
Instead...
Court had to rely upon diagrams which were produced by PC Tingey to show the positions where bullet cases were supposedly recovered or found?
-
Why wasn't the bloodied fingermarks on the edge of the kitchen worktop, and the area of multiple spots of blood on that area of kitchen floor, shown to the court? Why wasn't any photograph showing these features part of the court album?
I think this did not happen because such evidence was capable of giving a clear indication that Ralph was non fatally shot downstairs in the kitchen, not upstairs in the bedroom...
There is no corresponding blood trail leading from upstairs to downstairs, which anyone could associate to the four non fatal wounds sustained by Ralph Bamber...
Ralph must have still been alive after he was sot in this area of the kitchen, because his body ended up in another part of the same kitchen, as shown by reference to this diagram...
-
Why wasn't the bloodied fingermarks on the edge of the kitchen worktop, and the area of multiple spots of blood on that area of kitchen floor, shown to the court? Why wasn't any photograph showing these features part of the court album?
I think this did not happen because such evidence was capable of giving a clear indication that Ralph was non fatally shot downstairs in the kitchen, not upstairs in the bedroom...
There is no corresponding blood trail leading from upstairs to downstairs, which anyone could associate to the four non fatal wounds sustained by Ralph Bamber...
Ralph must have still been alive after he was sot in this area of the kitchen, because his body ended up in another part of the same kitchen, as shown by reference to this diagram...
This helps to discredit that part of the prosecutions case, which alleged Ralph had been shot up to four times non fatally in the bed bedroom, therefore jury was deceived by the prosecutions case in this respect...
-
One of the four non fatal shots received upstairs in the bedroom, was the shot Ralph Bamber received "to his jaw", which the prosecution alleged would have prevented him from being able to speak on the telephone, if he made any call to Jeremy?
For example...
The bloodied fingerprints on the edge of the kitchen worktop, and the area of multiple spots of blood on the kitchen floor in the same general area beneath, could be blood from the injury of the jaw. Since, if shot in the jaw, Ralph could have put his hand to the injured area, and then placed his bloodied fingers on the edge of the worktop. If true, then of course, Ralph could have spoken to Jeremy on the telephone, and the absence of any blood on the handset of the telephone would be consistent with Ralph not having been shot at all, until after he made the call to Jeremy...
Consider the distances which the ballistic expert (Malcolm Fletcher) says all these shots were made from, in particular, the four fatal shots to the head, and the one to the jaw?
-
The police deception of claiming to have found 4 bullet cases in the bedroom when they did not was purely aimed at trying to support the notion that Ralph did not make the phone call to JB when they knew for a fact from BT records that Ralph did do this.
The police had one agenda and that was to prevent the truth of that incident not being discovered...ie that they were responsible for Sheila's death.
They screwed up the Sheila's committed suicide cover up so were forced to blame JB as priority one was to cover up and look after EP's own interests.
-
The police deception of claiming to have found 4 bullet cases in the bedroom when they did not was purely aimed at trying to support the notion that Ralph did not make the phone call to JB when they knew for a fact from BT records that Ralph did do this.
The police had one agenda and that was to prevent the truth of that incident not being discovered...ie that they were responsible for Sheila's death.
They screwed up the Sheila's committed suicide cover up so were forced to blame JB as priority one was to cover up and look after EP's own interests.
In a nutshell, this is precisely what they did...
-
Available police action reports exist between ref', 1 to 1635, which relate to an occasion after the nature of the investigation changed/altered, from SC/688/85 to SC/786/85, as per police action reports, numbered, 1 to 1635...
-
why is there no action reports between 7th August 1985, and 6th September 1985?
-
why is there no action reports between 7th August 1985, and 6th September 1985?
In the eyes of some, I may be a "scum bag criminal", but I know what is right, and what is wrong, and in this case (Bamber case), I know there are very serious discrepancies, which do not justify , him being convicted for these murders...
-
I spent over two years , or so, at HMP Full Sutton (maximum security prison), and in that period I had considerable time, to talk to many inmates about the crimes they were convicted of committing...
"JB" was just one of the many inmates, I had an opportunity to speak to...
As far as I am concerned, Jeremy has always told the truth, he played no role in the deaths of any members of his family. I arrive at this conclusion after close study, and interaction on a "one to one basis", over a long period of time, between one alleged criminal, and another...
-
I have spoken to many convicted criminals, who pleaded, "Not Guilty", at their trials, but who admitted to me (privately), that they had in fact committed the offences, for which they had been convicted of...
In almost all of these cases, the inmates who had actually been responsible for committing the offences for which they stood convicted of, told me that police had fabricated the evidence, that was used during the trial, and relied upon, to secure the convictions...
"JB", was not "one of these convicted criminals"...
-
I have spoken to many convicted criminals, who pleaded, "Not Guilty", at their trials, but who admitted to me (privately), that they had in fact committed the offences, for which they had been convicted of...
In almost all of these cases, the inmates who had actually been responsible for committing the offences for which they stood convicted of, told me that police had fabricated the evidence, that was used during the trial, and relied upon, to secure the convictions...
"JB", was not "one of these convicted criminals"...
In all of these cases, "Noble cause, corruption", springs to mind, where police introduced falsified evidence, for the "sole purpose", of securing a conviction...
-
In many of the cases, I have personal knowledge of, relating to convictions, where at the end of the day, a defendant was responsible for the commissioning of such a crime, (whatever that crime was/is) but where police had falsified the evidence, does it make it right, that police should be allowed to falsify such evidence, for the purpose of achieving a conviction?
"I think not"...
But...
"others may take a different view"...
-
In many of the cases, I have personal knowledge of, relating to convictions, where at the end of the day, a defendant was responsible for the commissioning of such a crime, (whatever that crime was/is) but where police had falsified the evidence, does it make it right, that police should be allowed to falsify such evidence, for the purpose of achieving a conviction?
"I think not"...
But...
"others may take a different view"...
When you are an inmate, convicted of such a crime, and whilst being approached on the basis that "You might as well tell me the truth, because I will not let/allow you, to "pull the wool over my eyes", it becomes clear that police know what to do, and what to say, in order to secure a conviction...
-
In many of the cases, I have personal knowledge of, relating to convictions, where at the end of the day, a defendant was responsible for the commissioning of such a crime, (whatever that crime was/is) but where police had falsified the evidence, does it make it right, that police should be allowed to falsify such evidence, for the purpose of achieving a conviction?
"I think not"...
But...
"others may take a different view"...
When you are an inmate, convicted of such a crime, and whilst being approached on the basis that "You might as well tell me the truth, because I will not let/allow you, to "pull the wool over my eyes", it becomes clear that police know what to do, and what to say, in order to secure a conviction...
The case of Jeremy Bamber, is "not" and "never has been", one of these such cases...
-
In many of the cases, I have personal knowledge of, relating to convictions, where at the end of the day, a defendant was responsible for the commissioning of such a crime, (whatever that crime was/is) but where police had falsified the evidence, does it make it right, that police should be allowed to falsify such evidence, for the purpose of achieving a conviction?
"I think not"...
But...
"others may take a different view"...
I agree with you Mike. So called "noble cause corruption" is dangerous because it is based upon the opinions of the police about an individual and it denies the accused a fair trial. The police are not objective and should never take it upon themselves to falsify evidence where they do not believe they have sufficient legitimate evidence to prosecute. I have seen this happen in many cases where the police have been convinced that a defendant committed a specific crime and have beefed up the case with false evidence to secure the conviction. That is bad enough, but even worse is the case where the police do not even believe the defendant has committed the offence with which he is charged, but fabricate evidence because the defendant is regarded as a "target criminal", usually based upon information provided by a paid police informant, and the defendant is "about due" to be convicted. From what I have read of your own case Mike it is clear that you were a victim of this type of police corruption. I do not use the words "noble cause" in describing it, corruption is what it is and it is disgraceful and unacceptable whenever it occurs. I cannot stand bent police.
-
The case of "the bomber", who blew off Eileen Caultons, hand...
A typical example of this, involved a case (Whilst at HMP Full Sutton), where I was approached, and I spoke to the convicted prisoner, who was convicted of delivering the "parcel bomb" which was responsible for blowing off, Mrs Eileen Caultons, hand (Sheffield)...
-
In many of the cases, I have personal knowledge of, relating to convictions, where at the end of the day, a defendant was responsible for the commissioning of such a crime, (whatever that crime was/is) but where police had falsified the evidence, does it make it right, that police should be allowed to falsify such evidence, for the purpose of achieving a conviction?
"I think not"...
But...
"others may take a different view"...
I agree with you Mike. So called "noble cause corruption" is dangerous because it is based upon the opinions of the police about an individual and it denies the accused a fair trial. The police are not objective and should never take it upon themselves to falsify evidence where they do not believe they have sufficient legitimate evidence to prosecute. I have seen this happen in many cases where the police have been convinced that a defendant committed a specific crime and have beefed up the case with false evidence to secure the conviction. That is bad enough, but even worse is the case where the police do not even believe the defendant has committed the offence with which he is charged, but fabricate evidence because the defendant is regarded as a "target criminal", usually based upon information provided by a paid police informant, and the defendant is "about due" to be convicted. From what I have read of your own case Mike it is clear that you were a victim of this type of police corruption. I do not use the words "noble cause" in describing it, corruption is what it is and it is disgraceful and unacceptable whenever it occurs. I cannot stand bent police.
There is a part of me, that says that if a person did commit the crime alleged, it does not matter if the police falsified the evidence, to get him/her convicted of the offences for which they end up becoming convicted of, but at the the end of the day, I am utterly opposed to, any reliance upon falsifisd evidence, whether or not, it amounts to so called "noble cause corruption"...
What matters to me...
is whether or not "a defendant, any defendant, receives a just, and a fair trial"...
Amen...
-
In many of the cases, I have personal knowledge of, relating to convictions, where at the end of the day, a defendant was responsible for the commissioning of such a crime, (whatever that crime was/is) but where police had falsified the evidence, does it make it right, that police should be allowed to falsify such evidence, for the purpose of achieving a conviction?
"I think not"...
But...
"others may take a different view"...
I agree with you Mike. So called "noble cause corruption" is dangerous because it is based upon the opinions of the police about an individual and it denies the accused a fair trial. The police are not objective and should never take it upon themselves to falsify evidence where they do not believe they have sufficient legitimate evidence to prosecute. I have seen this happen in many cases where the police have been convinced that a defendant committed a specific crime and have beefed up the case with false evidence to secure the conviction. That is bad enough, but even worse is the case where the police do not even believe the defendant has committed the offence with which he is charged, but fabricate evidence because the defendant is regarded as a "target criminal", usually based upon information provided by a paid police informant, and the defendant is "about due" to be convicted. From what I have read of your own case Mike it is clear that you were a victim of this type of police corruption. I do not use the words "noble cause" in describing it, corruption is what it is and it is disgraceful and unacceptable whenever it occurs. I cannot stand bent police.
There is a part of me, that says that if a person did commit the crime alleged, it does not matter if the police falsified the evidence, to get him/her convicted of the offences for which they end up becoming convicted of, but at the the end of the day, I am utterly opposed to, any reliance upon falsifisd evidence, whether or not, it amounts to so called "noble cause corruption"...
What matters to me...
is whether or not "a defendant, any defendant, receives a just, and a fair trial"...
Amen...
When a defendant receives such a fair trial, he/she can have no complaint, and must accept the reality and lawfullness, of such a coviction ...
(1) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890829&id=fDNAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RVkMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1566,4680623
(2) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890824&id=gBI1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=waULAAAAIBAJ&pg=6860,3270418
(3) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890830&id=hRI1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=waULAAAAIBAJ&pg=6539,5101124
(4) https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=834518
(5) http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-283104.html
-
Snapshot, of who is on line at any moment in time:-
1 - (between 5;18 and 5;32pm, on 26th November 2011)...
2 - (between 5;29 and 5;40pm, on 26th November 2011)..
You can view who is on line at any moment, by clicking on " Jeremy Bamber Forum", and then clicking on the subheading, "Guests"...
Mike, two questions please. Firstly, how can guests post on topics? Secondly, you have posted some of the diagrams regarding the trajectories of head shots to Nevill. Are you able to locate the diagram which portrays Nevill sitting up right in the chair with the kitchen door ajar behind him and the trajectory of head shots?
p.s. Everyone's IP number is visible on your screen grabs.
-
In many of the cases, I have personal knowledge of, relating to convictions, where at the end of the day, a defendant was responsible for the commissioning of such a crime, (whatever that crime was/is) but where police had falsified the evidence, does it make it right, that police should be allowed to falsify such evidence, for the purpose of achieving a conviction?
"I think not"...
But...
"others may take a different view"...
I agree with you Mike. So called "noble cause corruption" is dangerous because it is based upon the opinions of the police about an individual and it denies the accused a fair trial. The police are not objective and should never take it upon themselves to falsify evidence where they do not believe they have sufficient legitimate evidence to prosecute. I have seen this happen in many cases where the police have been convinced that a defendant committed a specific crime and have beefed up the case with false evidence to secure the conviction. That is bad enough, but even worse is the case where the police do not even believe the defendant has committed the offence with which he is charged, but fabricate evidence because the defendant is regarded as a "target criminal", usually based upon information provided by a paid police informant, and the defendant is "about due" to be convicted. From what I have read of your own case Mike it is clear that you were a victim of this type of police corruption. I do not use the words "noble cause" in describing it, corruption is what it is and it is disgraceful and unacceptable whenever it occurs. I cannot stand bent police.
There is a part of me, that says that if a person did commit the crime alleged, it does not matter if the police falsified the evidence, to get him/her convicted of the offences for which they end up becoming convicted of, but at the the end of the day, I am utterly opposed to, any reliance upon falsifisd evidence, whether or not, it amounts to so called "noble cause corruption"...
What matters to me...
is whether or not "a defendant, any defendant, receives a just, and a fair trial"...
Amen...
When a defendant receives such a fair trial, he/she can have no complaint, and must accept the reality and lawfullness, of such a coviction ...
(1) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890829&id=fDNAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RVkMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1566,4680623
(2) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890824&id=gBI1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=waULAAAAIBAJ&pg=6860,3270418
(3) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890830&id=hRI1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=waULAAAAIBAJ&pg=6539,5101124
(4) https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=834518
I was on the very same wing (B wing, HMP Full Sutton), as "CAPTAIN", who was convicted of being the courier rider, who delivered the parcel bomb, that blew off Eileen Caultons, hand...
I had an opportunity to speak to him, over a long period of time, about the offences for which he was/had been convicted, and I managed to provide him with reasonable grounds for getting his conviction, quashed on appeal...
-
Snapshot, of who is on line at any moment in time:-
1 - (between 5;18 and 5;32pm, on 26th November 2011)...
2 - (between 5;29 and 5;40pm, on 26th November 2011)..
You can view who is on line at any moment, by clicking on " ", and then clicking on the subheading, "Guests"...
Mike, two questions please. Firstly, how can guests post on topics? Secondly, you have posted some of the diagrams regarding the trajectories of head shots to Nevill. Are you able to locate the diagram which portrays Nevill sitting up right in the chair with the kitchen door ajar behind him and the trajectory of head shots?
p.s. Everyone's IP number is visible on your screen grabs.
Firstly, Guests cannot post replies - they need to become members of the forum, in order to be able to do that...
Secondly...
Every bodies IP address, is visible on screen grabs, but at the same time, so are the IP addresses of the guests...
At the end of the day, all forum members need to know, who these guests are, and the only way of doing this, to be transparent, was for me to post the IP addresses of everybody, at a given moment, or point in time...
Sorry if this upset anybody...
-
Snapshot, of who is on line at any moment in time:-
1 - (between 5;18 and 5;32pm, on 26th November 2011)...
2 - (between 5;29 and 5;40pm, on 26th November 2011)..
You can view who is on line at any moment, by clicking on " ", and then clicking on the subheading, "Guests"...
Mike, two questions please. Firstly, how can guests post on topics? Secondly, you have posted some of the diagrams regarding the trajectories of head shots to Nevill. Are you able to locate the diagram which portrays Nevill sitting up right in the chair with the kitchen door ajar behind him and the trajectory of head shots?
p.s. Everyone's IP number is visible on your screen grabs.
Firstly, Guests cannot post replies - they need to become members of the forum, in order to be able to do that...
Secondly...
Every bodies IP address, is visible on screen grabs, but at the same time, so are the IP addresses of the guests...
At the end of the day, all forum members need to know, who these guests are, and the only way of doing this, to be transparent, was for me to post the IP addresses of everybody, at a given moment, or point in time...
Sorry if this upset anybody...
Thanks Mike, but it does state that guest are posting. I can only assume this to be a glitch? Another glitch is when it shows guests printing? The topics being printed sometimes have specific relevance to the case while at other times, do not. It's very strange.
-
Snapshot, of who is on line at any moment in time:-
1 - (between 5;18 and 5;32pm, on 26th November 2011)...
2 - (between 5;29 and 5;40pm, on 26th November 2011)..
You can view who is on line at any moment, by clicking on " ", and then clicking on the subheading, "Guests"...
Mike, two questions please. Firstly, how can guests post on topics? Secondly, you have posted some of the diagrams regarding the trajectories of head shots to Nevill. Are you able to locate the diagram which portrays Nevill sitting up right in the chair with the kitchen door ajar behind him and the trajectory of head shots?
p.s. Everyone's IP number is visible on your screen grabs.
Firstly, Guests cannot post replies - they need to become members of the forum, in order to be able to do that...
Secondly...
Every bodies IP address, is visible on screen grabs, but at the same time, so are the IP addresses of the guests...
At the end of the day, all forum members need to know, who these guests are, and the only way of doing this, to be transparent, was for me to post the IP addresses of everybody, at a given moment, or point in time...
Sorry if this upset anybody...
One way in which guests could make replies on the forum, is for them to temporarily become a member of the forum, and then after they have made a comment, unsuscribe, and simply become a guest, again...
-
Snapshot, of who is on line at any moment in time:-
1 - (between 5;18 and 5;32pm, on 26th November 2011)...
2 - (between 5;29 and 5;40pm, on 26th November 2011)..
You can view who is on line at any moment, by clicking on " ", and then clicking on the subheading, "Guests"...
Mike, two questions please. Firstly, how can guests post on topics? Secondly, you have posted some of the diagrams regarding the trajectories of head shots to Nevill. Are you able to locate the diagram which portrays Nevill sitting up right in the chair with the kitchen door ajar behind him and the trajectory of head shots?
p.s. Everyone's IP number is visible on your screen grabs.
Firstly, Guests cannot post replies - they need to become members of the forum, in order to be able to do that...
Secondly...
Every bodies IP address, is visible on screen grabs, but at the same time, so are the IP addresses of the guests...
At the end of the day, all forum members need to know, who these guests are, and the only way of doing this, to be transparent, was for me to post the IP addresses of everybody, at a given moment, or point in time...
Sorry if this upset anybody...
Thanks Mike, but it does state that guest are posting. I can only assume this to be a glitch? Another glitch is when it shows guests printing? The topics being printed sometimes have specific relevance to the case while at other times, do not. It's very strange.
I assume...
that if a guest temporarily joins as a member, and as such is able to make a post, (as you are suggesting), once they post a reply, they then unsuscribe, the software must be picking up the IP Address of the guest, and recording the fact that they have been able to post a reply...
-
In many of the cases, I have personal knowledge of, relating to convictions, where at the end of the day, a defendant was responsible for the commissioning of such a crime, (whatever that crime was/is) but where police had falsified the evidence, does it make it right, that police should be allowed to falsify such evidence, for the purpose of achieving a conviction?
"I think not"...
But...
"others may take a different view"...
I agree with you Mike. So called "noble cause corruption" is dangerous because it is based upon the opinions of the police about an individual and it denies the accused a fair trial. The police are not objective and should never take it upon themselves to falsify evidence where they do not believe they have sufficient legitimate evidence to prosecute. I have seen this happen in many cases where the police have been convinced that a defendant committed a specific crime and have beefed up the case with false evidence to secure the conviction. That is bad enough, but even worse is the case where the police do not even believe the defendant has committed the offence with which he is charged, but fabricate evidence because the defendant is regarded as a "target criminal", usually based upon information provided by a paid police informant, and the defendant is "about due" to be convicted. From what I have read of your own case Mike it is clear that you were a victim of this type of police corruption. I do not use the words "noble cause" in describing it, corruption is what it is and it is disgraceful and unacceptable whenever it occurs. I cannot stand bent police.
There is a part of me, that says that if a person did commit the crime alleged, it does not matter if the police falsified the evidence, to get him/her convicted of the offences for which they end up becoming convicted of, but at the the end of the day, I am utterly opposed to, any reliance upon falsifisd evidence, whether or not, it amounts to so called "noble cause corruption"...
What matters to me...
is whether or not "a defendant, any defendant, receives a just, and a fair trial"...
Amen...
When a defendant receives such a fair trial, he/she can have no complaint, and must accept the reality and lawfullness, of such a coviction ...
(1) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890829&id=fDNAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RVkMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1566,4680623
(2) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890824&id=gBI1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=waULAAAAIBAJ&pg=6860,3270418
(3) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890830&id=hRI1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=waULAAAAIBAJ&pg=6539,5101124
(4) https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=834518
I was on the very same wing (B wing, HMP Full Sutton), as "CAPTAIN", who was convicted of being the courier rider, who delivered the parcel bomb, that blew off Eileen Caultons, hand...
I had an opportunity to speak to him, over a long period of time, about the offences for which he was/had been convicted, and I managed to provide him with reasonable grounds for getting his conviction, quashed on appeal...
An appeal which proved to be successful...
-
In many of the cases, I have personal knowledge of, relating to convictions, where at the end of the day, a defendant was responsible for the commissioning of such a crime, (whatever that crime was/is) but where police had falsified the evidence, does it make it right, that police should be allowed to falsify such evidence, for the purpose of achieving a conviction?
"I think not"...
But...
"others may take a different view"...
I agree with you Mike. So called "noble cause corruption" is dangerous because it is based upon the opinions of the police about an individual and it denies the accused a fair trial. The police are not objective and should never take it upon themselves to falsify evidence where they do not believe they have sufficient legitimate evidence to prosecute. I have seen this happen in many cases where the police have been convinced that a defendant committed a specific crime and have beefed up the case with false evidence to secure the conviction. That is bad enough, but even worse is the case where the police do not even believe the defendant has committed the offence with which he is charged, but fabricate evidence because the defendant is regarded as a "target criminal", usually based upon information provided by a paid police informant, and the defendant is "about due" to be convicted. From what I have read of your own case Mike it is clear that you were a victim of this type of police corruption. I do not use the words "noble cause" in describing it, corruption is what it is and it is disgraceful and unacceptable whenever it occurs. I cannot stand bent police.
There is a part of me, that says that if a person did commit the crime alleged, it does not matter if the police falsified the evidence, to get him/her convicted of the offences for which they end up becoming convicted of, but at the the end of the day, I am utterly opposed to, any reliance upon falsifisd evidence, whether or not, it amounts to so called "noble cause corruption"...
What matters to me...
is whether or not "a defendant, any defendant, receives a just, and a fair trial"...
Amen...
When a defendant receives such a fair trial, he/she can have no complaint, and must accept the reality and lawfullness, of such a coviction ...
(1) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890829&id=fDNAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RVkMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1566,4680623
(2) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890824&id=gBI1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=waULAAAAIBAJ&pg=6860,3270418
(3) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890830&id=hRI1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=waULAAAAIBAJ&pg=6539,5101124
(4) https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=834518
I was on the very same wing (B wing, HMP Full Sutton), as "CAPTAIN", who was convicted of being the courier rider, who delivered the parcel bomb, that blew off Eileen Caultons, hand...
I had an opportunity to speak to him, over a long period of time, about the offences for which he was/had been convicted, and I managed to provide him with reasonable grounds for getting his conviction, quashed on appeal...
An appeal which proved to be successful...
Successful because. jury returned a "Not Guilty" verdict, on count 1, (that he conspired to murder Eileen Caulton), but that he was convicted on count 2, that he attempted to murder her...
-
In many of the cases, I have personal knowledge of, relating to convictions, where at the end of the day, a defendant was responsible for the commissioning of such a crime, (whatever that crime was/is) but where police had falsified the evidence, does it make it right, that police should be allowed to falsify such evidence, for the purpose of achieving a conviction?
"I think not"...
But...
"others may take a different view"...
I agree with you Mike. So called "noble cause corruption" is dangerous because it is based upon the opinions of the police about an individual and it denies the accused a fair trial. The police are not objective and should never take it upon themselves to falsify evidence where they do not believe they have sufficient legitimate evidence to prosecute. I have seen this happen in many cases where the police have been convinced that a defendant committed a specific crime and have beefed up the case with false evidence to secure the conviction. That is bad enough, but even worse is the case where the police do not even believe the defendant has committed the offence with which he is charged, but fabricate evidence because the defendant is regarded as a "target criminal", usually based upon information provided by a paid police informant, and the defendant is "about due" to be convicted. From what I have read of your own case Mike it is clear that you were a victim of this type of police corruption. I do not use the words "noble cause" in describing it, corruption is what it is and it is disgraceful and unacceptable whenever it occurs. I cannot stand bent police.
There is a part of me, that says that if a person did commit the crime alleged, it does not matter if the police falsified the evidence, to get him/her convicted of the offences for which they end up becoming convicted of, but at the the end of the day, I am utterly opposed to, any reliance upon falsifisd evidence, whether or not, it amounts to so called "noble cause corruption"...
What matters to me...
is whether or not "a defendant, any defendant, receives a just, and a fair trial"...
Amen...
When a defendant receives such a fair trial, he/she can have no complaint, and must accept the reality and lawfullness, of such a coviction ...
(1) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890829&id=fDNAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RVkMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1566,4680623
(2) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890824&id=gBI1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=waULAAAAIBAJ&pg=6860,3270418
(3) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890830&id=hRI1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=waULAAAAIBAJ&pg=6539,5101124
(4) https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=834518
I was on the very same wing (B wing, HMP Full Sutton), as "CAPTAIN", who was convicted of being the courier rider, who delivered the parcel bomb, that blew off Eileen Caultons, hand...
I had an opportunity to speak to him, over a long period of time, about the offences for which he was/had been convicted, and I managed to provide him with reasonable grounds for getting his conviction, quashed on appeal...
An appeal which proved to be successful...
Successful because. jury returned a "Not Guilty" verdict, on count 1, (that he conspired to murder Eileen Caulton), but that he was convicted on count 2, that he attempted to murder her...
Courier admitted to me, that he delivered the parcel (bomb) that blew Eileen Caultons hand off, but denied being put up to do it by Terry THORNTON, in the knowledge that it was a parcel bomb designed to cause or inflict catastrophic damage to the recipient...
-
In many of the cases, I have personal knowledge of, relating to convictions, where at the end of the day, a defendant was responsible for the commissioning of such a crime, (whatever that crime was/is) but where police had falsified the evidence, does it make it right, that police should be allowed to falsify such evidence, for the purpose of achieving a conviction?
"I think not"...
But...
"others may take a different view"...
I agree with you Mike. So called "noble cause corruption" is dangerous because it is based upon the opinions of the police about an individual and it denies the accused a fair trial. The police are not objective and should never take it upon themselves to falsify evidence where they do not believe they have sufficient legitimate evidence to prosecute. I have seen this happen in many cases where the police have been convinced that a defendant committed a specific crime and have beefed up the case with false evidence to secure the conviction. That is bad enough, but even worse is the case where the police do not even believe the defendant has committed the offence with which he is charged, but fabricate evidence because the defendant is regarded as a "target criminal", usually based upon information provided by a paid police informant, and the defendant is "about due" to be convicted. From what I have read of your own case Mike it is clear that you were a victim of this type of police corruption. I do not use the words "noble cause" in describing it, corruption is what it is and it is disgraceful and unacceptable whenever it occurs. I cannot stand bent police.
There is a part of me, that says that if a person did commit the crime alleged, it does not matter if the police falsified the evidence, to get him/her convicted of the offences for which they end up becoming convicted of, but at the the end of the day, I am utterly opposed to, any reliance upon falsifisd evidence, whether or not, it amounts to so called "noble cause corruption"...
What matters to me...
is whether or not "a defendant, any defendant, receives a just, and a fair trial"...
Amen...
When a defendant receives such a fair trial, he/she can have no complaint, and must accept the reality and lawfullness, of such a coviction ...
(1) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890829&id=fDNAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RVkMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1566,4680623
(2) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890824&id=gBI1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=waULAAAAIBAJ&pg=6860,3270418
(3) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890830&id=hRI1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=waULAAAAIBAJ&pg=6539,5101124
(4) https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=834518
I was on the very same wing (B wing, HMP Full Sutton), as "CAPTAIN", who was convicted of being the courier rider, who delivered the parcel bomb, that blew off Eileen Caultons, hand...
I had an opportunity to speak to him, over a long period of time, about the offences for which he was/had been convicted, and I managed to provide him with reasonable grounds for getting his conviction, quashed on appeal...
An appeal which proved to be successful...
Successful because. jury returned a "Not Guilty" verdict, on count 1, (that he conspired to murder Eileen Caulton), but that he was convicted on count 2, that he attempted to murder her...
Courier admitted to me, that he delivered the parcel (bomb) that blew Eileen Caultons hand off, but denied being put up to do it by , in the knowledge that it was a parcel bomb designed to cause or inflict catastrophic damage to the recipient...
Like so many other cases, which I became aware of, the truth was twisted and portrayed as being something entirely different by the police, and the prosecuting authorities...
-
Here are all the police action report references to the silencer, which all came into being after the nature of the investigation changed/altered on 6th September 1985:-
Action 88 - collection of silencer from Ann Eaton, on 11th September 1985
Action 181 - check silencer for fibres
Action 200 - David Boutflour re cuts and silencer
Action 274 - SOC to examine Agar, re scarring undersides, allocated 18/09/85, to copy
Action 1190 - Peter EATON. Date when DS Jones took silencer. To copy
Action 1345 - see if silencer fits rifle
Action 1537 - T/ST Ann EATON re finding of silencer on 10/08/85
Action 1549 - T/ST HO forensic re properties of silencer. Hard metal
-
Here are all the police action report references to the silencer, which all came into being after the nature of the investigation changed/altered on 6th September 1985:-
Action 88 - collection of silencer from Ann Eaton, on 11th September 1985
Action 181 - check silencer for fibres
Action 200 - David Boutflour re cuts and silencer
Action 274 - SOC to examine Agar, re scarring undersides, allocated 18/09/85, to copy
Action 1190 - Peter EATON. Date when DS Jones took silencer. To copy
Action 1345 - see if silencer fits rifle
Action 1537 - T/ST Ann EATON re finding of silencer on 10/08/85
Action 1549 - T/ST HO forensic re properties of silencer. Hard metal
Several action reports are missing and appear to have been deliberately blanked out and could be subject of pii, as follows:-
Action - 290
Action - 302
Action - 554
Action - 564
Action - 579
Action - 760
Action - 1001
Action - 1289
Action - 1336
Action - 1367 - Pii
Action - 1494
Action - 1694 to 1700 (inclusive)
-
Here are all the police action report references to the silencer, which all came into being after the nature of the investigation changed/altered on 6th September 1985:-
Action 88 - collection of silencer from Ann Eaton, on 11th September 1985
Action 181 - check silencer for fibres
Action 200 - David Boutflour re cuts and silencer
Action 274 - SOC to examine Agar, re scarring undersides, allocated 18/09/85, to copy
Action 1190 - Peter EATON. Date when DS Jones took silencer. To copy
Action 1345 - see if silencer fits rifle
Action 1537 - T/ST Ann EATON re finding of silencer on 10/08/85
Action 1549 - T/ST HO forensic re properties of silencer. Hard metal
Several action reports are missing and appear to have been deliberately blanked out and could be subject of pii, as follows:-
Action - 290
Action - 302
Action - 554
Action - 564
Action - 579
Action - 760
Action - 1001
Action - 1289
Action - 1336
Action - 1367 - Pii
Action - 1494
Action - 1694 to 1700 (inclusive)
(1) Police took a video of the crime scene, but no-one appears to accept responsibility for the taking of it?
(2) Also note, police were aware of threats to kill Ralph Bamber, by Eden?
Action 399 - Murder scene video. To copy
Action 382 - Eden threats to kill. To copy
-
Here are all the police action report references to the silencer, which all came into being after the nature of the investigation changed/altered on 6th September 1985:-
Action 88 - collection of silencer from Ann Eaton, on 11th September 1985
Action 181 - check silencer for fibres
Action 200 - David Boutflour re cuts and silencer
Action 274 - SOC to examine Agar, re scarring undersides, allocated 18/09/85, to copy
Action 1190 - Peter EATON. Date when DS Jones took silencer. To copy
Action 1345 - see if silencer fits rifle
Action 1537 - T/ST Ann EATON re finding of silencer on 10/08/85
Action 1549 - T/ST HO forensic re properties of silencer. Hard metal
Several action reports are missing and appear to have been deliberately blanked out and could be subject of pii, as follows:-
Action - 290
Action - 302
Action - 554
Action - 564
Action - 579
Action - 760
Action - 1001
Action - 1289
Action - 1336
Action - 1367 - Pii
Action - 1494
Action - 1694 to 1700 (inclusive)
(1) Police took a video of the crime scene, but no-one appears to accept responsibility for the taking of it?
(2) Also note, police were aware of threats to kill Ralph Bamber, by Eden?
Action 399 - Murder scene video. To copy
Action 382 - Eden threats to kill. To copy
(3) Local resident who heard shotgun blast coming from direction of whf, around 10:15pm, on evening of 6th August 1985?
(4) Note, Susan Battesby and Julie Mugford were interviewed by police on 23rd September 1985, but interview details have never yet been disclosed?
Action 407 - Brian Smith
Action 426 - Batt and JM interview, 23/9. To copy
-
Good evening all
Action no. 401 (above) states SC nicotine fingers. Wasn't it reported that Sheila's fingers were "spotless" ?
-
Here are all the police action report references to the silencer, which all came into being after the nature of the investigation changed/altered on 6th September 1985:-
Action 88 - collection of silencer from Ann Eaton, on 11th September 1985
Action 181 - check silencer for fibres
Action 200 - David Boutflour re cuts and silencer
Action 274 - SOC to examine Agar, re scarring undersides, allocated 18/09/85, to copy
Action 1190 - Peter EATON. Date when DS Jones took silencer. To copy
Action 1345 - see if silencer fits rifle
Action 1537 - T/ST Ann EATON re finding of silencer on 10/08/85
Action 1549 - T/ST HO forensic re properties of silencer. Hard metal
Several action reports are missing and appear to have been deliberately blanked out and could be subject of pii, as follows:-
Action - 290
Action - 302
Action - 554
Action - 564
Action - 579
Action - 760
Action - 1001
Action - 1289
Action - 1336
Action - 1367 - Pii
Action - 1494
Action - 1694 to 1700 (inclusive)
(1) Police took a video of the crime scene, but no-one appears to accept responsibility for the taking of it?
(2) Also note, police were aware of threats to kill Ralph Bamber, by Eden?
Action 399 - Murder scene video. To copy
Action 382 - Eden threats to kill. To copy
(3) Local resident who heard shotgun blast coming from direction of whf, around 10:15pm, on evening of 6th August 1985?
(4) Note, Susan Battesby and Julie Mugford were interviewed by police on 23rd September 1985, but interview details have never yet been disclosed?
Action 407 - Brian Smith
Action 426 - Batt and JM interview, 23/9. To copy
(5) Police received information or were aware that Sheila could have been shown how to load bullets into the gun
Action 462 - T/ST from RB re conversation. JB loading gun with SC. To copy
-
Good evening all
Action no. 401 (above) states SC nicotine fingers. Wasn't it reported that Sheila's fingers were "spotless" ?
Yes...
-
Action 185 is very interesting!
-
Here are all the police action report references to the silencer, which all came into being after the nature of the investigation changed/altered on 6th September 1985:-
Action 88 - collection of silencer from Ann Eaton, on 11th September 1985
Action 181 - check silencer for fibres
Action 200 - David Boutflour re cuts and silencer
Action 274 - SOC to examine Agar, re scarring undersides, allocated 18/09/85, to copy
Action 1190 - Peter EATON. Date when DS Jones took silencer. To copy
Action 1345 - see if silencer fits rifle
Action 1537 - T/ST Ann EATON re finding of silencer on 10/08/85
Action 1549 - T/ST HO forensic re properties of silencer. Hard metal
Several action reports are missing and appear to have been deliberately blanked out and could be subject of pii, as follows:-
Action - 290
Action - 302
Action - 554
Action - 564
Action - 579
Action - 760
Action - 1001
Action - 1289
Action - 1336
Action - 1367 - Pii
Action - 1494
Action - 1694 to 1700 (inclusive)
(1) Police took a video of the crime scene, but no-one appears to accept responsibility for the taking of it?
(2) Also note, police were aware of threats to kill Ralph Bamber, by Eden?
Action 399 - Murder scene video. To copy
Action 382 - Eden threats to kill. To copy
(3) Local resident who heard shotgun blast coming from direction of whf, around 10:15pm, on evening of 6th August 1985?
(4) Note, Susan Battesby and Julie Mugford were interviewed by police on 23rd September 1985, but interview details have never yet been disclosed?
Action 407 - Brian Smith
Action 426 - Batt and JM interview, 23/9. To copy
(5) Police received information or were aware that Sheila could have been shown how to load bullets into the gun
Action 462 - T/ST from RB re conversation. JB loading gun with SC. To copy
(6) Police received information about Sheila Caffells abortions
Action 510 - T/ST Mrs Robinson, re Sheila Caffells abortions. To copy
-
Here are all the police action report references to the silencer, which all came into being after the nature of the investigation changed/altered on 6th September 1985:-
Action 88 - collection of silencer from Ann Eaton, on 11th September 1985
Action 181 - check silencer for fibres
Action 200 - David Boutflour re cuts and silencer
Action 274 - SOC to examine Agar, re scarring undersides, allocated 18/09/85, to copy
Action 1190 - Peter EATON. Date when DS Jones took silencer. To copy
Action 1345 - see if silencer fits rifle
Action 1537 - T/ST Ann EATON re finding of silencer on 10/08/85
Action 1549 - T/ST HO forensic re properties of silencer. Hard metal
Several action reports are missing and appear to have been deliberately blanked out and could be subject of pii, as follows:-
Action - 290
Action - 302
Action - 554
Action - 564
Action - 579
Action - 760
Action - 1001
Action - 1289
Action - 1336
Action - 1367 - Pii
Action - 1494
Action - 1694 to 1700 (inclusive)
(1) Police took a video of the crime scene, but no-one appears to accept responsibility for the taking of it?
(2) Also note, police were aware of threats to kill Ralph Bamber, by Eden?
Action 399 - Murder scene video. To copy
Action 382 - Eden threats to kill. To copy
(3) Local resident who heard shotgun blast coming from direction of whf, around 10:15pm, on evening of 6th August 1985?
(4) Note, Susan Battesby and Julie Mugford were interviewed by police on 23rd September 1985, but interview details have never yet been disclosed?
Action 407 - Brian Smith
Action 426 - Batt and JM interview, 23/9. To copy
(5) Police received information or were aware that Sheila could have been shown how to load bullets into the gun
Action 462 - T/ST from RB re conversation. JB loading gun with SC. To copy
(6) Police received information about Sheila Caffells abortions
Action 510 - T/ST Mrs Robinson, re Sheila Caffells abortions. To copy
(7) tape of call Jeremy made to police wiped clean, because investigating officers did not request it?
Action 449 - Tape of call not requested - wiped. To copy
-
Here are all the police action report references to the silencer, which all came into being after the nature of the investigation changed/altered on 6th September 1985:-
Action 88 - collection of silencer from Ann Eaton, on 11th September 1985
Action 181 - check silencer for fibres
Action 200 - David Boutflour re cuts and silencer
Action 274 - SOC to examine Agar, re scarring undersides, allocated 18/09/85, to copy
Action 1190 - Peter EATON. Date when DS Jones took silencer. To copy
Action 1345 - see if silencer fits rifle
Action 1537 - T/ST Ann EATON re finding of silencer on 10/08/85
Action 1549 - T/ST HO forensic re properties of silencer. Hard metal
Several action reports are missing and appear to have been deliberately blanked out and could be subject of pii, as follows:-
Action - 290
Action - 302
Action - 554
Action - 564
Action - 579
Action - 760
Action - 1001
Action - 1289
Action - 1336
Action - 1367 - Pii
Action - 1494
Action - 1694 to 1700 (inclusive)
(1) Police took a video of the crime scene, but no-one appears to accept responsibility for the taking of it?
(2) Also note, police were aware of threats to kill Ralph Bamber, by Eden?
Action 399 - Murder scene video. To copy
Action 382 - Eden threats to kill. To copy
(3) Local resident who heard shotgun blast coming from direction of whf, around 10:15pm, on evening of 6th August 1985?
(4) Note, Susan Battesby and Julie Mugford were interviewed by police on 23rd September 1985, but interview details have never yet been disclosed?
Action 407 - Brian Smith
Action 426 - Batt and JM interview, 23/9. To copy
(5) Police received information or were aware that Sheila could have been shown how to load bullets into the gun
Action 462 - T/ST from RB re conversation. JB loading gun with SC. To copy
(6) Police received information about Sheila Caffells abortions
Action 510 - T/ST Mrs Robinson, re Sheila Caffells abortions. To copy
(7) tape of call Jeremy made to police wiped clean, because investigating officers did not request it?
Action 449 - Tape of call not requested - wiped. To copy
(8) Police intended to carry out tests on the telephones at whf
Action 671 - Tests to be carried out on telephones at WHF
-
Here are all the police action report references to the silencer, which all came into being after the nature of the investigation changed/altered on 6th September 1985:-
Action 88 - collection of silencer from Ann Eaton, on 11th September 1985
Action 181 - check silencer for fibres
Action 200 - David Boutflour re cuts and silencer
Action 274 - SOC to examine Agar, re scarring undersides, allocated 18/09/85, to copy
Action 1190 - Peter EATON. Date when DS Jones took silencer. To copy
Action 1345 - see if silencer fits rifle
Action 1537 - T/ST Ann EATON re finding of silencer on 10/08/85
Action 1549 - T/ST HO forensic re properties of silencer. Hard metal
Several action reports are missing and appear to have been deliberately blanked out and could be subject of pii, as follows:-
Action - 290
Action - 302
Action - 554
Action - 564
Action - 579
Action - 760
Action - 1001
Action - 1289
Action - 1336
Action - 1367 - Pii
Action - 1494
Action - 1694 to 1700 (inclusive)
(1) Police took a video of the crime scene, but no-one appears to accept responsibility for the taking of it?
(2) Also note, police were aware of threats to kill Ralph Bamber, by Eden?
Action 399 - Murder scene video. To copy
Action 382 - Eden threats to kill. To copy
(3) Local resident who heard shotgun blast coming from direction of whf, around 10:15pm, on evening of 6th August 1985?
(4) Note, Susan Battesby and Julie Mugford were interviewed by police on 23rd September 1985, but interview details have never yet been disclosed?
Action 407 - Brian Smith
Action 426 - Batt and JM interview, 23/9. To copy
(5) Police received information or were aware that Sheila could have been shown how to load bullets into the gun
Action 462 - T/ST from RB re conversation. JB loading gun with SC. To copy
(6) Police received information about Sheila Caffells abortions
Action 510 - T/ST Mrs Robinson, re Sheila Caffells abortions. To copy
(7) tape of call Jeremy made to police wiped clean, because investigating officers did not request it?
Action 449 - Tape of call not requested - wiped. To copy
(8) Police intended to carry out tests on the telephones at whf
Action 671 - Tests to be carried out on telephones at WHF
(9) Why was original confession statement made in name of Julie Mugford, written in third person?
(10) Officers report, relating to shooting incident in the kitchen, has still not yet been disclosed?
Action 1600 - T/ST Julie Mugford. (1) Why is the confession in the third person? (2) Why did she not tell police for a month? Statement obtained. To copy
Action 1612 - Officers report re shooting in kitchen
-
Am I reading 1606 properly? Is the scientist referring to such a transfer as a process occurring during the shootings?
-
Am I reading 1606 properly? Is the scientist referring to such a transfer as a process occurring during the shootings?
Which silencer is the signed one, being referred to?
-
Nobody could have done more than you
Incredible hard work especially when you have been poorly
-
Am I reading 1606 properly? Is the scientist referring to such a transfer as a process occurring during the shootings?
Which silencer is the signed one, being referred to?
"Method by which blood was transfered to inside of signed moderator"
Method? If the scientist was referring to a naturally occurring process, would they use the term 'method' to describe that process?
-
Am I reading 1606 properly? Is the scientist referring to such a transfer as a process occurring during the shootings?
Which silencer is the "signed" one, being referred to?
Which one would be the "unsigned silencer"?
-
Am I reading 1606 properly? Is the scientist referring to such a transfer as a process occurring during the shootings?
Which silencer is the signed one, being referred to?
"Method by which blood was transfered to inside of signed moderator"
Method? If the scientist was referring to a naturally occurring process, would they use the term 'method' to describe that process?
It all sounds dodgy to me...
-
Here are all the police action report references to the silencer, which all came into being after the nature of the investigation changed/altered on 6th September 1985:-
Action 88 - collection of silencer from Ann Eaton, on 11th September 1985
Action 181 - check silencer for fibres
Action 200 - David Boutflour re cuts and silencer
Action 274 - SOC to examine Agar, re scarring undersides, allocated 18/09/85, to copy
Action 1190 - Peter EATON. Date when DS Jones took silencer. To copy
Action 1345 - see if silencer fits rifle
Action 1537 - T/ST Ann EATON re finding of silencer on 10/08/85
Action 1549 - T/ST HO forensic re properties of silencer. Hard metal
Several action reports are missing and appear to have been deliberately blanked out and could be subject of pii, as follows:-
Action - 290
Action - 302
Action - 554
Action - 564
Action - 579
Action - 760
Action - 1001
Action - 1289
Action - 1336
Action - 1367 - Pii
Action - 1494
Action - 1694 to 1700 (inclusive)
(1) Police took a video of the crime scene, but no-one appears to accept responsibility for the taking of it?
(2) Also note, police were aware of threats to kill Ralph Bamber, by Eden?
Action 399 - Murder scene video. To copy
Action 382 - Eden threats to kill. To copy
(3) Local resident who heard shotgun blast coming from direction of whf, around 10:15pm, on evening of 6th August 1985?
(4) Note, Susan Battesby and Julie Mugford were interviewed by police on 23rd September 1985, but interview details have never yet been disclosed?
Action 407 - Brian Smith
Action 426 - Batt and JM interview, 23/9. To copy
(5) Police received information or were aware that Sheila could have been shown how to load bullets into the gun
Action 462 - T/ST from RB re conversation. JB loading gun with SC. To copy
(6) Police received information about Sheila Caffells abortions
Action 510 - T/ST Mrs Robinson, re Sheila Caffells abortions. To copy
(7) tape of call Jeremy made to police wiped clean, because investigating officers did not request it?
Action 449 - Tape of call not requested - wiped. To copy
(8) Police intended to carry out tests on the telephones at whf
Action 671 - Tests to be carried out on telephones at WHF
(9) Why was original confession statement made in name of Julie Mugford, written in third person?
(10) Officers report, relating to shooting incident in the kitchen, has still not yet been disclosed?
Action 1600 - T/ST Julie Mugford. (1) Why is the confession in the third person? (2) Why did she not tell police for a month? Statement obtained. To copy
Action 1612 - Officers report re shooting in kitchen
(11) Pair of socks found on sea wall of no evidential value?
Action 1021 - socks re C wall. No value
-
Here are all the police action report references to the silencer, which all came into being after the nature of the investigation changed/altered on 6th September 1985:-
Action 88 - collection of silencer from Ann Eaton, on 11th September 1985
Action 181 - check silencer for fibres
Action 200 - David Boutflour re cuts and silencer
Action 274 - SOC to examine Agar, re scarring undersides, allocated 18/09/85, to copy
Action 1190 - Peter EATON. Date when DS Jones took silencer. To copy
Action 1345 - see if silencer fits rifle
Action 1537 - T/ST Ann EATON re finding of silencer on 10/08/85
Action 1549 - T/ST HO forensic re properties of silencer. Hard metal
Several action reports are missing and appear to have been deliberately blanked out and could be subject of pii, as follows:-
Action - 290
Action - 302
Action - 554
Action - 564
Action - 579
Action - 760
Action - 1001
Action - 1289
Action - 1336
Action - 1367 - Pii
Action - 1494
Action - 1694 to 1700 (inclusive)
(1) Police took a video of the crime scene, but no-one appears to accept responsibility for the taking of it?
(2) Also note, police were aware of threats to kill Ralph Bamber, by Eden?
Action 399 - Murder scene video. To copy
Action 382 - Eden threats to kill. To copy
(3) Local resident who heard shotgun blast coming from direction of whf, around 10:15pm, on evening of 6th August 1985?
(4) Note, Susan Battesby and Julie Mugford were interviewed by police on 23rd September 1985, but interview details have never yet been disclosed?
Action 407 - Brian Smith
Action 426 - Batt and JM interview, 23/9. To copy
(5) Police received information or were aware that Sheila could have been shown how to load bullets into the gun
Action 462 - T/ST from RB re conversation. JB loading gun with SC. To copy
(6) Police received information about Sheila Caffells abortions
Action 510 - T/ST Mrs Robinson, re Sheila Caffells abortions. To copy
(7) tape of call Jeremy made to police wiped clean, because investigating officers did not request it?
Action 449 - Tape of call not requested - wiped. To copy
(8) Police intended to carry out tests on the telephones at whf
Action 671 - Tests to be carried out on telephones at WHF
(9) Why was original confession statement made in name of Julie Mugford, written in third person?
(10) Officers report, relating to shooting incident in the kitchen, has still not yet been disclosed?
Action 1600 - T/ST Julie Mugford. (1) Why is the confession in the third person? (2) Why did she not tell police for a month? Statement obtained. To copy
Action 1612 - Officers report re shooting in kitchen
(11) Pair of socks found on sea wall of no evidential value?
Action 1021 - socks re C wall. No value
(12) Bunting refuses to name persons to police, who handed guns that belonged at WHF?
Action 1477 - Bunting refuses to give details of person who deposited guns with him
-
Here are all the police action report references to the silencer, which all came into being after the nature of the investigation changed/altered on 6th September 1985:-
Action 88 - collection of silencer from Ann Eaton, on 11th September 1985
Action 181 - check silencer for fibres
Action 200 - David Boutflour re cuts and silencer
Action 274 - SOC to examine Agar, re scarring undersides, allocated 18/09/85, to copy
Action 1190 - Peter EATON. Date when DS Jones took silencer. To copy
Action 1345 - see if silencer fits rifle
Action 1537 - T/ST Ann EATON re finding of silencer on 10/08/85
Action 1549 - T/ST HO forensic re properties of silencer. Hard metal
Several action reports are missing and appear to have been deliberately blanked out and could be subject of pii, as follows:-
Action - 290
Action - 302
Action - 554
Action - 564
Action - 579
Action - 760
Action - 1001
Action - 1289
Action - 1336
Action - 1367 - Pii
Action - 1494
Action - 1694 to 1700 (inclusive)
(1) Police took a video of the crime scene, but no-one appears to accept responsibility for the taking of it?
(2) Also note, police were aware of threats to kill Ralph Bamber, by Eden?
Action 399 - Murder scene video. To copy
Action 382 - Eden threats to kill. To copy
(3) Local resident who heard shotgun blast coming from direction of whf, around 10:15pm, on evening of 6th August 1985?
(4) Note, Susan Battesby and Julie Mugford were interviewed by police on 23rd September 1985, but interview details have never yet been disclosed?
Action 407 - Brian Smith
Action 426 - Batt and JM interview, 23/9. To copy
(5) Police received information or were aware that Sheila could have been shown how to load bullets into the gun
Action 462 - T/ST from RB re conversation. JB loading gun with SC. To copy
(6) Police received information about Sheila Caffells abortions
Action 510 - T/ST Mrs Robinson, re Sheila Caffells abortions. To copy
(7) tape of call Jeremy made to police wiped clean, because investigating officers did not request it?
Action 449 - Tape of call not requested - wiped. To copy
(8) Police intended to carry out tests on the telephones at whf
Action 671 - Tests to be carried out on telephones at WHF
(9) Why was original confession statement made in name of Julie Mugford, written in third person?
(10) Officers report, relating to shooting incident in the kitchen, has still not yet been disclosed?
Action 1600 - T/ST Julie Mugford. (1) Why is the confession in the third person? (2) Why did she not tell police for a month? Statement obtained. To copy
Action 1612 - Officers report re shooting in kitchen
(11) Pair of socks found on sea wall of no evidential value?
Action 1021 - socks re C wall. No value
(12) Bunting refuses to name persons to police, who handed guns that belonged at WHF?
Action 1477 - Bunting refuses to give details of person who deposited guns with him
(13) Discrepancies about telephones at whf?
(14) Fostering issues?
Action 1416 - Resolve discrepancies between Jean Boutell and Barbara Wilson re telephones at WHF. Allocated to DS Jones. To copy
Action 1432 - Stephen Lister and Susan Lister. To copy re fostering
-
Here are all the police action report references to the silencer, which all came into being after the nature of the investigation changed/altered on 6th September 1985:-
Action 88 - collection of silencer from Ann Eaton, on 11th September 1985
Action 181 - check silencer for fibres
Action 200 - David Boutflour re cuts and silencer
Action 274 - SOC to examine Agar, re scarring undersides, allocated 18/09/85, to copy
Action 1190 - Peter EATON. Date when DS Jones took silencer. To copy
Action 1345 - see if silencer fits rifle
Action 1537 - T/ST Ann EATON re finding of silencer on 10/08/85
Action 1549 - T/ST HO forensic re properties of silencer. Hard metal
Several action reports are missing and appear to have been deliberately blanked out and could be subject of pii, as follows:-
Action - 290
Action - 302
Action - 554
Action - 564
Action - 579
Action - 760
Action - 1001
Action - 1289
Action - 1336
Action - 1367 - Pii
Action - 1494
Action - 1694 to 1700 (inclusive)
(1) Police took a video of the crime scene, but no-one appears to accept responsibility for the taking of it?
(2) Also note, police were aware of threats to kill Ralph Bamber, by Eden?
Action 399 - Murder scene video. To copy
Action 382 - Eden threats to kill. To copy
(3) Local resident who heard shotgun blast coming from direction of whf, around 10:15pm, on evening of 6th August 1985?
(4) Note, Susan Battesby and Julie Mugford were interviewed by police on 23rd September 1985, but interview details have never yet been disclosed?
Action 407 - Brian Smith
Action 426 - Batt and JM interview, 23/9. To copy
(5) Police received information or were aware that Sheila could have been shown how to load bullets into the gun
Action 462 - T/ST from RB re conversation. JB loading gun with SC. To copy
(6) Police received information about Sheila Caffells abortions
Action 510 - T/ST Mrs Robinson, re Sheila Caffells abortions. To copy
(7) tape of call Jeremy made to police wiped clean, because investigating officers did not request it?
Action 449 - Tape of call not requested - wiped. To copy
(8) Police intended to carry out tests on the telephones at whf
Action 671 - Tests to be carried out on telephones at WHF
(9) Why was original confession statement made in name of Julie Mugford, written in third person?
(10) Officers report, relating to shooting incident in the kitchen, has still not yet been disclosed?
Action 1600 - T/ST Julie Mugford. (1) Why is the confession in the third person? (2) Why did she not tell police for a month? Statement obtained. To copy
Action 1612 - Officers report re shooting in kitchen
(11) Pair of socks found on sea wall of no evidential value?
Action 1021 - socks re C wall. No value
(12) Bunting refuses to name persons to police, who handed guns that belonged at WHF?
Action 1477 - Bunting refuses to give details of person who deposited guns with him
(13) Discrepancies about telephones at whf?
(14) Fostering issues?
Action 1416 - Resolve discrepancies between Jean Boutell and Barbara Wilson re telephones at WHF. Allocated to DS Jones. To copy
Action 1432 - Stephen Lister and Susan Lister. To copy re fostering
(15) family conference?
(16) Reason why June Bamber did not attend bible class, evening before shootings?
Action 1212 - T/ST Betty Howie. V. imp. information to Howie via Pamela Boutflour re family conference re Sheila on night before deaths. To copy. To trace.
Action 1217 - Enq re June Bambers failure to attend bible reading class
-
Statement from DC Hammersley, dated, 16th May 1986, about bloodstained wallpaper and carpets, that he took from the scene on Friday, 9th August 1985:-
-
Statement from pathologist about four fatal wounds inflicted to Ralph Bambers head:-
-
'Very important info to Howie via Pamela Boutflour re family conference re Sheila on night before deaths'
Wonder what that means. I still cant get over my shock re 1606.
-
Two of the four bibles which were known to be kept and in use at WHF were seized by police, (1) Blue covered Bible, (2) Black covered bible...
Two exhibit references were given to a bible:-
(1) DRH/44
(2) DRH/33
Police have not yet released any information about the black covered bible, nor any photographs, but exhibit reference DRH/33 was later given to hand swabs, or because hand swabs were rejected when sent to lab' on 9th August 1985, under lab' item 17 (DRH/33), this was given to the black covered bible, afterwards, only to be switched back to the hand swabs, once they were resubmitted weeks later...
-
Two of the four bibles which were known to be kept and in use at WHF were seized by police, (1) Blue covered Bible, (2) Black covered bible...
Two exhibit references were given to a bible:-
(1) DRH/44
(2) DRH/33
Police have not yet released any information about the black covered bible, nor any photographs, but exhibit reference DRH/33 was later given to hand swabs, or because hand swabs were rejected when sent to lab' on 9th August 1985, under lab' item 17 (DRH/33), this was given to the black covered bible, afterwards, only to be switched back to the hand swabs, once they were resubmitted weeks later...
What do we know about the black bible?
-
What does T/ST signify on the left of those action reports?
-
Two of the four bibles which were known to be kept and in use at WHF were seized by police, (1) Blue covered Bible, (2) Black covered bible...
Two exhibit references were given to a bible:-
(1) DRH/44
(2) DRH/33
Police have not yet released any information about the black covered bible, nor any photographs, but exhibit reference DRH/33 was later given to hand swabs, or because hand swabs were rejected when sent to lab' on 9th August 1985, under lab' item 17 (DRH/33), this was given to the black covered bible, afterwards, only to be switched back to the hand swabs, once they were resubmitted weeks later...
What do we know about the black bible?
I have some information, which i will be posting in due course, but what I can reveal is that this black covered bible, was June Bambers personal one, and when PS Adams was spoken to by COLP in 1991, he makes mention of a discussion he had with other firearms officers who entered the bedroom, and the fact that they believed that Sheila and June had been sat up reading bibles, now this suggests that there were in fact two bibles found inside the bedroom, (1) the blue covered bible, and (2) the black covered bible. Essex police told Jeremy's solicitor that no photographs of the bible existed, and that it had in fact been destroyed - so it looks to me like police did not want Jeremy or anyone representing him to know about any significance this black covered bible had in the proceedings?
-
What does T/ST signify on the left of those action reports?
T/ST - "take statement"...
-
Jeremy's custody record, relating to his first arrest, and subsequent release on bail, between 8th September 1985, and 13th September 1985:-
-
Viewing of deceased bodies by Julie Mugford, on 8th August 1985:-
-
Damning Evidence of a Conspirator, inserts that were designed to merge the two different silencers into one, handwritten notes of PI "Bob" Miller...
Shows how silencers exhibit references were systematically altered, from:-
(1) SBJ/1
(2) DB/1
(3) DRB/1
-
By the time of the experts (Elliot) visit to the kitchen at whf, on 1st October 1985, there were several scratch marks on different areas of the aga surround, yet Elliot only reports seeing the one underneath the mantelpiece - very odd...
Lets look at some photographs first of all, followed by Elliots statement relating to this visit to the scene on 1st October 1985:-
-
Two of the four bibles which were known to be kept and in use at WHF were seized by police, (1) Blue covered Bible, (2) Black covered bible...
Two exhibit references were given to a bible:-
(1) DRH/44
(2) DRH/33
Police have not yet released any information about the black covered bible, nor any photographs, but exhibit reference DRH/33 was later given to hand swabs, or because hand swabs were rejected when sent to lab' on 9th August 1985, under lab' item 17 (DRH/33), this was given to the black covered bible, afterwards, only to be switched back to the hand swabs, once they were resubmitted weeks later...
What do we know about the black bible?
I have some information, which i will be posting in due course, but what I can reveal is that this black covered bible, was June Bambers personal one, and when PS Adams was spoken to by COLP in 1991, he makes mention of a discussion he had with other firearms officers who entered the bedroom, and the fact that they believed that Sheila and June had been sat up reading bibles, now this suggests that there were in fact two bibles found inside the bedroom, (1) the blue covered bible, and (2) the black covered bible. Essex police told Jeremy's solicitor that no photographs of the bible existed, and that it had in fact been destroyed - so it looks to me like police did not want Jeremy or anyone representing him to know about any significance this black covered bible had in the proceedings?
I know there exists a photocopy of a bloodied hand print which is duplicated on the opposite page as a result opf the bible being open when the bloodied print was made, but closed soon afterwards, so that it became duplicated on the opposite palge. This was found to be on the pages of june Bambers black bible, not the blue covered bible which was photographed next to Sheila's body on the bedroom floor...
Black bible was apparently found on bed along with bodies of June and Sheila...
Early rumours which circulated suggested that this (black) bible had been found on Sheila`s chest but I have received information that it was found on the bed...
-
The unsavoury practice of a persons wItness statement being (a) made by, (b) edited by, (c) para phrased by , and or (d) re-written, by another, in the absence of a witness, should cease and be discouraged immediately, and in instances where the case against a defendant relied upon such material (retrospectively), and where convictions have been secured because of it, those convictions should all be set aside, on the basis that the convictions are unsafe, and that the Criminal justice system has been brought into disrepute, by the introduction and reliance
Upon such evidence...
-
The unsavoury practice of a persons wItness statement being (a) made by, (b) edited by, (c) para phrased by , and or (d) re-written, by another, in the absence of a witness, should cease and be discouraged immediately, and in instances where the case against a defendant relied upon such material (retrospectively), and where convictions have been secured because of it, those convictions should all be set aside, on the basis that the convictions are unsafe, and that the Criminal justice system has been brought into disrepute, by the introduction and reliance
Upon such evidence...
Evidence from witnesses should be tape recorded, in the same way suspects are interviewed under caution, where every question and every response is properly documented, and where the police cannot paraphrase what a witness says, or has said...
-
The unsavoury practice of a persons wItness statement being (a) made by, (b) edited by, (c) para phrased by , and or (d) re-written, by another, in the absence of a witness, should cease and be discouraged immediately, and in instances where the case against a defendant relied upon such material (retrospectively), and where convictions have been secured because of it, those convictions should all be set aside, on the basis that the convictions are unsafe, and that the Criminal justice system has been brought into disrepute, by the introduction and reliance
Upon such evidence...
Evidence from witnesses should be tape recorded, in the same way suspects are interviewed under caution, where every question and every response is properly documented, and where the police cannot paraphrase what a witness says, or has said...
There is too much of this "moulding of the evidence" by the police, and the CPS...
-
I would now like to draw everyone's attention, to the number of message reports, made in connection with this incident (98)...
For some reason, there has been a re-numbering of these messages, which suggests some sort of a cover up:-
-
So...
Where in the sequence of events (1 to 98) does this fit in?
And where are all the other missing message logs?
-
Somebody has been altering the handwritten numbers of the pages...
-
Evidence has emerged, to indicate that there was a degree of unrest amongst the Bamber household on the evening leading up to the shootings....
-
Evidence has emerged, to indicate that there was a degree of unrest amongst the Bamber household on the evening leading up to the shootings....
An eye witness account describes June Bamber as being upset and when asked why, she retorted that the inquirer had no idea what June was having to put up with, or deal with?
Similarly, when Barbara Wilson. Spoke to Ralph Bamber at about 9.30pm, on evening before shootings, she recollected how sharp and dismissive he had been, as though he had got a lot on his mind at that time...
When you couple the mood of the parents at such a crucial time, and you couple this with the fact that June did not attend her regular bible class that evening, and that Jeremy has told of a family discussion where the welfare of the kids was mentioned, along with debate about getting some help for Sheila from `Foster carers`, it provides something of an insight into the state of play, and the conditioning of minds, leading up to the shootings...
Jeremy could not have known, there existed independent evidence, to show the troubled nature of the parents minset, hours before, and leading up to the shootings?
-
I would like to produce the following for everyone to consider - it concerns the actual date when David Boutrflour found or recovered a silencer in the so called gun cupboard in the downstairs office?
There are two schools of thought in this respect, (a) that he found it on 10th August 1985, and that the relatives retained it until 11th September 1985, or (b) that he found it on 11th September, and it was handed over to the police the very same day by his sister, Ann Eaton?
Linked to the truth was the presence of Mr Basil John Cock,, Executor of the Bamber parents `Estates`, since it has been claimed that he was there when a silencer was found, and that this occasion coincided with a presence of 'white dust` that was covering everything arising from a (SOC) fingerprint examination at the scene - unfortunately, for those in favour of a silencer having been found in accordance (a), there was no fingerprint examination at the scene, until after 8th September...
What is common to both scenarios, is that relatives did not hand this silencer over to the police until the 11th September 1985, by which stage, the original silencer had already been submitted to the lab', a nd it had been at the lab` from as long ago as 30th August 1985. Therefore, once this additional. Silencer was handed over to the police by the relatives on 11th September, there existed two identical Parker Hale silencers, one at the lab` which had been there from 30th August 19
85, And a second on e, one which remained in police possession, a under their control, between 11th and 20th September 1985. It was during this period, and under the supervision of DI Cook (SOC) and PC Bird (SOC), that additional marks were made on the aga surround, to which recently disclosed photographs relate...
Police did not have possession of the original silencer after 30th August, and therefore, they could not have marked the aga surround in the kitchen at whf on12th September by use of the original silencer, the marks on the aga could only have been made by use of the second silencer, the one which the relatives did not hand over to the police until 11th September, which was a silencer that was taken to the scene by Cook and Bird, on 12th September, for the purpose of contaminating it. This contaminated silencer was thus sent to the lab `on 20th September, and not checked until 25th September, and paint identified upon it...
Police then took a series of measures to suggest a small flake of blood bearing the same blood group activity as Sheila Caffell had been found inside it, by seeking to merge both silencers into the same one...
-
As things stand, blood which originated from Sheila, and paint from the scratch marks on the aga surround, were found in and on the same silencer, yet the stark truth is that Sheila`s blood could not have been found inside the silencer which the relatives handed over to the police on 11th September, because it was supposed to have been found inside a silencer which had been at the lab` from 30th August 1985...
Furthermore...
Paint from the aga surround could not have been found on the original silencer which police sent to lab`on 13th and 30th August, because scratch marks were not made on the aga surround, until 12th September...
The "silencer/blood and paint evidence", is therefore dodgy , and can no longer be relied upon to support the legitimacy of these convictions...
Who amongst us, would be happy to stand convicted by such concocted/falsified evidence?
-
Lets get the facts right, and let us all sing it from the rooftops, that the cat is out of the bag, and the relatives did not hand over a silencer to the police until 11th September 1985, not a day sooner...
No reliable police records exist to support any suggestion that relatives handed over a silencer to police, on any occasion other than the 11th September 1985...
-
Not sure if you've got this one Mike?
-
Lets get the facts right, and let us all sing it from the rooftops, that the cat is out of the bag, and the relatives did not hand over a silencer to the police until 11th September 1985, not a day sooner...
No reliable police records exist to support any suggestion that relatives handed over a silencer to police, on any occasion other than the 11th September 1985...
Am I right in suggesting that the police handed back to the family a silencer when they took possession of the farm. and pargeter told DB to hand it back to the cops.
-
Copy of Email correspondence, between me and Essex police, about existence of more than one silencer, dated, 20th April 2004:-
RE: White House Farm murders
Hide Details
FROM:
Kim Perks
TO:
michael teskowski
CC:
Win Bernard
Adam Hunt
Message flagged Tuesday, 20 April 2004, 8:28Message Body
Dear Mr Teskowski,
I apologise if there has been a misunderstanding or you didn't receive
my email, but I was of the belief that I had previously provided you
with a response to your interest about three different silencers.
The response was that the information you request is not for public
consumption, hence the reason that I am unable on this occasion to
provide you anymore detail. Those relevant parties such as families and
legal teams involved in the case HAVE been provided all the necessary
information.
I appreciate you have previously had affiliations with Jeremy Bamber and
his defence team but you must likewise appreciate that in order to
protect the interests of everyone, including Jeremy Bamber, we must
follow certain rules and regulations before releasing any information
into the public domain.
As I also previously stated, I have forwarded on all your emails to the
senior investigating officer Det Supt Win Bernard and force solicitor
Adam Hunt and I am sure that if there is anything else they are able to
tell you they will.
Regards
Kim Perks
Press Office
DDI: 01245 452455
Ext 50620
Mobile: 07850 882215
-----Original Message-----
From: michael teskowski [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 19 April 2004 20:06
To: Kim Perks
Subject: RE: White House Farm murders
Dear Kim Perks,
I recently contacted you regarding the question of
three different silencers in existence as part of the
WHF investigation - one that was donated to Essex
police museum and another two which were handed back
to the relatives..
As you know from time to time a silencer has been
referred to by the exhibits reference SBJ/1, DB/1 and
DRB/1.
I have a question, do each of the three aforementioned
exhibit references relate to only one silencer or
sound moderator or has each silencer or sound
moderator been given a separate exhibits reference?
I understand there was an internal police
investigation into the possibility that more than one
silencer was recovered from either WHF or the
relatives which was conducted by COLP, who concluded
that the various exhibits references (SBJ/1, DB/1 and
DRB/1) came about through a misunderdstanding between
the scenes of crime officer and the home office
forensic laboratory staff who recorded the silencer on
their forms as SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1 respectively on
different dates.
That explanation is all very well but it does not go
any way towards explaning how three different
silencers or sound moderastors came into the
possession of Essex police and how two of them were
handed back to the relatives and the third one was
donated to the museum!
I do know that according to the evidence of David
Boutflour and his family that they found a silencer in
the gun cupboard at WHF on saturday 10th August 1985.
This was taken by the family to the home of Christine
and Peter Eaton where it was kept for a period of two
days until 12th August 1985 at which point it was
collected from them by DS Jones who according to his
evidence took it to the scenes of crime dept at Witham
police station and placed it in a locked drawer until
9.15 a.m. the following morning at which point he
handed the aforementioned silencer to DI Cook who took
it immediately to Huntingdon Laboratory where it was
provisionally examined on 13th August 1985.
Now, I am mentioning this for a reason, you see a
couple of months ago, a retired police officer
contacted Jeremy bambers solicitors in Birmingham and
provided some information concerning the whereabouts
of the silencer prior to it going to the lab at
Huntingdon on the very first occasion it was
submitted!
This former police officer arranged to meet Ewen Smith
in London and provided the following information..
Prior to the first time the silencer was sent to the
lab it was kept by the former DCI Jones on his desk at
Witham police station and used as a paper weight!
At one stage PC Whiddon picked up the silencer and
took it to the store room where the rifle was being
kept and screwed it onto the threads of the rifle to
see if it fitted!
Two other police officers were named who witnessed
this occurring!
Now if this information is true then it cannot have
been the same silencer which David Boutflour recovered
from the gun cupboard since there was insufficient
time to allow for the silencer to be used as a paper
weight on top of the former DCI Jones desk at Witham
police station, because according to the evidence of
DS Jones and DI Cook and others, the one found by
David Boutflour was only at Witham police station
overnight and kept in a locked drawer in the scenes of
crime office!
This must mean there were at least two silencers in
Essex police possession, one in the control of the
former DCI Jones and another found by David Boutflour!
What I find interesting about all of this is that
nowhere in the file are there any references to the
former DCI Jones having any involvement with the
silencer used in the prosecution of Jeremy Bamber,
despite him being in overall command of the
investigation. For some reason he is neither shown or
examines the silencer or makes any report about how it
came into police possession!
I am particularly interested in how the silencer he
used as a paper weight on his desk before it was first
submitted to the lab (13th August 1985) came into his
possession?
Could you please shed some light on this matter?
Best wishes
Michael Teskowski.
____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
****************************************
Privileged/Confidential Information and/or Copyright Material may be contained in this e-mail.
The information and Material is intended for the use of the intended addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee, you may not copy or deliver it to anyone else or use it in any unauthorised manner. To do so is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this e-mail by mistake, advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software.
Essex Police operate mail marshal security software which can result in e-mails entering and leaving essex police being retained, opened and assessed to ensure compliance with internal and national policies. This procedure operates to safeguard the integrity of Essex Police information systems and any related links. You are advised to send sensitive material that you consider to be private and confidential by alternative means.
****************************************
-
I sent this (above) to Essex police some seven and a half years ago...
Also note, that EWEN Smith (now a CCRC Commissioner) knows about the "second silencer" that was in the possession of DCI "Taff" Jones...
-
Not sure if you've got this one Mike?
Note:-
Refers to "PAINT SAMPLES", not paint sample...
(1) - RC/1 - 8th August 1985
(2) - RWC/1 - 14th August 1985
additional scratch marks were not made to aga surround until 12th September 1985, so why did police deliberately scratch the aga with the second silencer, on occasions after Cook had already taken paints samples, (1) and (2)?
-
Don't worry it's only been 26 years
No rush then Essex Police
-
Copy of Email correspondence, between me and Essex police, about existence of more than one silencer, dated, 20th April 2004:-
RE: White House Farm murders
Hide Details
FROM:
Kim Perks
TO:
michael teskowski
CC:
Win Bernard
Adam Hunt
Message flagged Tuesday, 20 April 2004, 8:28Message Body
Dear Mr Teskowski,
“The response was that the information you request is not for public
consumption, hence the reason that I am unable on this occasion to
provide you anymore detail. Those relevant parties such as families and
legal teams involved in the case HAVE been provided all the necessary
information”.
Regards
Kim Perks
Press Office
DDI: 01245 452455
Ext 50620
Mobile: 07850 882215
-----Original Message-----
From: michael teskowski [mailto:[email protected]]
For over 7 years, Essex police, the relatives, and the force solicitor, Mr Adam Hunt, have known that those representing Jeremy Bambers interests, cottoned on to the fact that a number of different identical looking Parker hale silencers had all be merged together, with the sole purpose to mislead, and so that it could be argued that crucial blood and paint evidence, was found inside and on the same silencer, which was/is a major deception. Blood from Sheila was not found inside the silencer handed over to the police on 11th September, by virtue of the fact that the ballistic expert claimed the crucial blood had been found inside a silencer sent to the lab' on 30th August. Therefore, the crucial blood evidence must have been found inside a different silencer than the one handed over to police by relatives on 11th September? As I say, blood has been allocated to a silencer, which would be impossible considering that the silencer to which the crucial blood has been allocated, did not get sent to the lab` to be examined until some 10 days after the crucial blood was supposedly already found inside it? How could Sheila's blood be found inside a silencer at the lab' on 11th September, if the silencer in question was not there to enable the ballistic expert to find it there, as alleged?
You then have the problem of the paint from the scratch marks on the aga, which was found to be present on the silencer handed over to the police, by relatives, on 11th September, the crucial blood was not found inside the same silencer that paint was found in...
You have as it were, blood in one silencer, and paint on the other, and in order to maintain that this was a one gun crime, with bullets from the same “Eley” batch, it would not look good for the incriminating blood to be found in one silencer, whilst other incriminating evidence, was found in another, so someone had the not so bright idea, to merge both of these identical looking silencers, together, as the same one...
But this is where they have now come unstuck, since it has now been possible to reconstruct, when these different identical looking silencers were in police possession, and under their control, and more importantly when these different silencers were submitted to the lab` to be examined, etc...
Now that this major deception has been uncovered, no more time should be unnecessarily wasted, Bambers convictions should be quashed immediately, and all those who are involved in this silencer/blood/paint conspiracy, need to be rounded up, and made to face the music, let's give them all a fair crack of the whip and a fair trial, sentence them first to 26 years imprisonment, and let them have as many appeals as they want, just withhold all the evidence that was not used to convict them, under pii...
-
Reader
Thank you for my pm I understand and will do
-
Someone has informed me that Z is a real person, or person(s). And was in the original raid team. I can't tell you more than that because my informant wants to remain anonymous. Sorry about that. It seems that I will become the nut case and deceiver now. ::)
-
I have a meeting with 'Z' tomorrow, in Edinburgh - new information due to be exchanged, I may update using my Blackberry, during the course of the day, depending on what information I am given, or shown...
-
Onwards and upwards Mike.....
-
Onwards and upwards Mike.....
I have received some disturbing information from another source, to the effect that the body of Sheila was not cremated, when alleged?
I am hoping to speak to my informant tomorrow about this...
-
This just seems a nightmare and it worries me that it's Jeremy Bamber v the whole bloody system.
What's going to happen to Ewen Smith
What's going to happen to all the police involved
What's going to happen to all the relatives
What's going to happen to all the forensic scientists
Anyone that believes this conviction will be overturned is living in cloud cuckoo land and I still believe it is public opinion that will bring about the conviction being overturned
The majority of the general public would be horrified if they read half of this but how will they get to find out
-
Onwards and upwards Mike.....
I have received some disturbing information from another source, to the effect that the body of Sheila was not cremated, when alleged?
I am hoping to speak to my informant tomorrow about this...
Why would the authorities deceive Jeremy, and the relatives, and the public at large, that the body of Sheila Caffell, had been cremated, if it had not been? More importantly, how can it be proved that her body was cremated, when alleged, if it was not?
-
Onwards and upwards Mike.....
I have received some disturbing information from another source, to the effect that the body of Sheila was not cremated, when alleged?
I am hoping to speak to my informant tomorrow about this...
Why would the authorities deceive Jeremy, and the relatives, and the public at large, that the body of Sheila Caffell, had been cremated, if it had not been? More importantly, how can it be proved that her body was cremated, when alleged, if it was not?
I was just wondering the same thing Mike.....
-
Onwards and upwards Mike.....
I have received some disturbing information from another source, to the effect that the body of Sheila was not cremated, when alleged?
I am hoping to speak to my informant tomorrow about this...
Why would the authorities deceive Jeremy, and the relatives, and the public at large, that the body of Sheila Caffell, had been cremated, if it had not been? More importantly, how can it be proved that her body was cremated, when alleged, if it was not?
I was just wondering the same thing Mike.....
Information I have received, suggests that her body and organs were donated to some sort of medical study, I was just wondering if anybody has got any ideas about whether or not this sort of thing took place, back in the mid 1980's?
-
I received some additional information a while back, that there was some sort of case study surrounding Sheila Caffells illness, and the possibility that she shot the others, and that she then took her own life, and that this study was purely a psychiatric one? I received this information from a psychiatrist I met quite by chance whilst travelling around in Scotland, a couple of years ago...
If true...
Why had such a study been undertaken?
-
Information I have been given, was that only the bodies of the parents (Ralph and June) were cremated, and the bodies of the two child victims, Nicholas and Daniel, were buried in Tolleshunt D'Arcy, and Highgate Cemetery, respectively...
Sheila's body was donated to some sort of study, some sort of project, does anyone have any ideas about this having possibly occurred?
Link:- (1) http://www.humantruth.info/funerals.html
-
I am off for tonight, I will update during the course of tomorrow, after I have spoken to my informant who I am due to meet in the grounds of Roslyn Chapel (Divinci code territory), or at the in the border country of Scotland...
I will not know the location of our meet until about 5am, tomorrow morning at which stage I will be contacted by separate mobile phone (alternative) belonging to third party, which I have been loaned...
Here are some pictures of , "Samye Ling Centre", from official site:-
-
I am off for tonight, I will update during the course of tomorrow, after I have spoken to my informant who I am due to meet in the grounds of Roslyn Chapel (Divinci code territory)...
And don't forget photos please!
Have a good day Mike xx
-
Sometimes the biggest things can be covered up and we will never know what really happened
What really happened to Princess Diana
Al Fayed put up a million pound reward for the Fiat that supposedly might have caused the crash
Even with a million pound reward the card was never found
I don't believe if that car existed it could not be found
-
I am off for tonight, I will update during the course of tomorrow, after I have spoken to my informant who I am due to meet in the grounds of Roslyn Chapel (Divinci code territory)...
And don't forget photos please!
Have a good day Mike xx
I will be taking pictures, of course, my camera has "GPS" for identifying location, where photographs are taken, I might even take a photograph of my informant, if he agrees to me being allowed to do so, on plot?
-
Sometimes the biggest things can be covered up and we will never know what really happened
What really happened to Princess Diana
Al Fayed put up a million pound reward for the Fiat that supposedly might have caused the crash
Even with a million pound reward the card was never found
I don't believe if that car existed it could not be found
Princess Diana was murdered...
-
I am off for tonight, I will update during the course of tomorrow, after I have spoken to my informant who I am due to meet in the grounds of Roslyn Chapel (Divinci code territory)...
And don't forget photos please!
Have a good day Mike xx
I will be taking pictures, of course, my camera has "GPS" for identifying location, where photographs are taken, I might even take a photograph of my informant, if he agrees to me being allowed to do so, on plot?
Do what you think necessary Mike !!!!!
-
Here are some pictures of Roslyn Chapel:-
-
Have you always been interested in photography Mike?
Some stunning photos there.....
-
Have you always been interested in photography Mike?
Some stunning photos there.....
These are not my photographs, they are from the official sites...
But in response to your query, "no", I have not always been interested in photography, but I am now, for many different reasons...
-
Have you always been interested in photography Mike?
Some stunning photos there.....
These are not my photographs, they are from the official sites...
But in response to your query, "no", I have not always been interested in photography, but I am now, for many different reasons...
I beg your pardon Mike, I thought they were ones you had taken.....
The one taken in the chapel, with a sign "no photograhy" was quite comical !!
-
I have to go now, but as I say I will be in touch during the course of tomorrow via my Blackberry, I honestly do not know where I am going to be, between 5 and 8am?
'Z', has planned it, so that no-one can be sure exactly where he and I are going to be, when we meet up again, tomorrow?
I sometimes wish I wasn't being used like this?
-
Colchester Crematorium will have somewhere in the back where the cremations are done, a ledger or book in that book will be the recent cremations, cremations going back to 1985 will exist, there should be an entry for Sheila Caffel, cremation day, time start -time finish, cremated remains instructions , more importantly will be the cremation number the number of persons cremated to date when the crematorium opened, after the funeral services Nevill June and Sheilas coffins would enter the commital room for holding,depending on cremations on the day there may have been different starting times,once a coffin has been recieved at a crematorium the funeral directors care for the deceased ends.
-
Colchester Crematorium will have somewhere in the back where the cremations are done, a ledger or book in that book will be the recent cremations, cremations going back to 1985 will exist, there should be an entry for Sheila Caffel, cremation day, time start -time finish, cremated remains instructions , more importantly will be the cremation number the number of persons cremated to date when the crematorium opened, after the funeral services Nevill June and Sheilas coffins would enter the commital room for holding,depending on cremations on the day there may have been different starting times,once a coffin has been recieved at a crematorium the funeral directors responsobility ends.
Thank you...
Can someone check this out, because I urgently need to get to the bottom of this information, that I have been given, along the lines that Sheila's body, was not cremated?
-
I need to sleep, will talk more tomorrow - hope to receive more information which could be helpful to Jeremy's cause, for example, that he did not kill his sister, and he did not stage manage her body, to make it look like she committed suicide, but rather that Sheila shot the others, and that she then took her own life...
-
Mike this is quite serious , ive known wrong deceased going to the crematorium , ive seen one coffin opened in the commital room to remove a ring on someones finger, you have to go to the top to do this, Sheilas name might be in the book of rememberance ,they too will exist, and when the twins were buried Sheilas ashes were buried also in a casket, those caskets are heavy and well built, it should still be in the grave,the funeral directors must have to the crematorium to collect the ashes of Sheila, i used to collect many taking a plastc urn and the staff would transfer the ashes or i would back at the funeral home, Colin would have been given a reciept for the ashes of sheila.
-
I need to sleep, will talk more tomorrow - hope to receive more information which could be helpful to Jeremy's cause, for example, that he did not kill his sister, and he did not stage manage her body, to make it look like she committed suicide, but rather that Sheila shot the others, and that she then took her own life...
enjoy your kip mike sounds like you have an early start.
-
I need to sleep, will talk more tomorrow - hope to receive more information which could be helpful to Jeremy's cause, for example, that he did not kill his sister, and he did not stage manage her body, to make it look like she committed suicide, but rather that Sheila shot the others, and that she then took her own life...
enjoy your kip mike sounds like you have an early start.
Thanks, 2:30am start, got to be up at Gretna green (M74) by. 5:15am, to receive mobile phone from "go between", Alan (not real name)...
-
I need to sleep, will talk more tomorrow - hope to receive more information which could be helpful to Jeremy's cause, for example, that he did not kill his sister, and he did not stage manage her body, to make it look like she committed suicide, but rather that Sheila shot the others, and that she then took her own life...
enjoy your kip mike sounds like you have an early start.
Thanks, 2:30am start, got to be up at Gretna green (M74) by. 5:15am, to receive mobile phone from "go between", Alan (not real name)...
Met Alan at TOW LAW, meeting 'Z` later, rendezvous planned to take place, near Roslyn...
-
I need to sleep, will talk more tomorrow - hope to receive more information which could be helpful to Jeremy's cause, for example, that he did not kill his sister, and he did not stage manage her body, to make it look like she committed suicide, but rather that Sheila shot the others, and that she then took her own life...
enjoy your kip mike sounds like you have an early start.
Thanks, 2:30am start, got to be up at Gretna green (M74) by. 5:15am, to receive mobile phone from "go between", Alan (not real name)...
Met Alan at TOW LAW, meeting 'Z` later, rendezvous planned to take place, near Roslyn...
This z don't 'alf get around Mike.
-
Currently in Edinburgh, Princess Street, on my way to meet “Z” at Roslyn...
-
Currently in Edinburgh, Princess Street, on my way to meet “Z” at Roslyn...
Now that was very very interesting...
I am on my way back to meet Alan at TOW LAW to hand back phone...
-
I look forward to the update, I am addicted to this site.....
-
Boheme it's brilliant isn't it !!!
-
I need to sleep, will talk more tomorrow - hope to receive more information which could be helpful to Jeremy's cause, for example, that he did not kill his sister, and he did not stage manage her body, to make it look like she committed suicide, but rather that Sheila shot the others, and that she then took her own life...
enjoy your kip mike sounds like you have an early start.
Thanks, 2:30am start, got to be up at Gretna green (M74) by. 5:15am, to receive mobile phone from "go between", Alan (not real name)...
Met Alan at TOW LAW, meeting 'Z` later, rendezvous planned to take place, near Roslyn...
Not a million miles away from me that place. But Mike, some of your messages were not from your blackberry.
-
Mike, how did you get on today?
Thankyou.
-
Mike, how did you get on today?
Thankyou.
I am still travelling back...
Everything went well, I will tell all later, and post a few pictures - its been a long day, but a very fruitful one...
-
Mike, how did you get on today?
Thankyou.
I am still travelling back...
Everything went well, I will tell all later, and post a few pictures - its been a long day, but a very fruitful one...
I shall look forward to it, take care Mike.
-
Had an in-depth conversation about the DNA evidence which formed part and parcel of the 2002 appeal bid - it seems there were problems obtaining a 100% profile for each of the three adult victims, Ralph, June and Sheila? To get around this problem, DNA swabs were taken from close relatives, such as Pamela Boutflour, the Pargeter family, and Sheila Caffells natural mother?
Why go to all this bother, if the ashes from the cremations of the three adult victims, were buried at Tolleshunt D`arcy, and at Highgate cemetery?
Informant has told me today, that there is no guarantee that the cremation ashes handed over in the names of Ralph, June, and or Sheila, belonged exclusively to them? Hence the reason why samples of cremation ashes, were not relied on to check DNA evidence found inside the silencer, at the 2002 appeal?
Please visit following link address:- (1) http://www.ehow.com/facts_7632747_ashes-mixed-during-cremation-process.html
-
Informant discussed with me the fact that not all the bullet/fragments were recovered from the bodies of the child victims, and his view that if the bodies were exhumed, and the missing pieces of bullet recovered, it would establish that a different weapon had fired some of the shots, that killed them? He said that it would also be possible upon examining such pieces of bullet, to identify who manufactured them, and if they formed part of the same batch of Eley .22 LR subsonic hollow point ammunition, which is supposed to be the sole source of the crime scene ammunition?
-
Visit to Edinburgh, 2nd December 2011:-
Edinburgh Castle, and the "stone of destiny"...
-
Informant discussed with me the fact that not all the bullet/fragments were recovered from the bodies of the child victims, and his view that if the bodies were exhumed, and the missing pieces of bullet recovered, it would establish that a different weapon had fired some of the shots, that killed them? He said that it would also be possible upon examining such pieces of bullet, to identify who manufactured them, and if they formed part of the same batch of Eley .22 LR subsonic hollow point ammunition, which is supposed to be the sole source of the crime scene ammunition?
[/quote
Is your informant suggesting that Sheila used two weapons, or someone else murdered the whole family.
If only fragments remain in the twins bodies, then some has already been recovered, which could be examined. Unless of course the recovered fragments have already been destroyed.
-
Informant discussed with me the fact that not all the bullet/fragments were recovered from the bodies of the child victims, and his view that if the bodies were exhumed, and the missing pieces of bullet recovered, it would establish that a different weapon had fired some of the shots, that killed them? He said that it would also be possible upon examining such pieces of bullet, to identify who manufactured them, and if they formed part of the same batch of Eley .22 LR subsonic hollow point ammunition, which is supposed to be the sole source of the crime scene ammunition?
Why was I under the impression that Ralph and June were buried and not cremated?
-
Great pictures Mike. The first words I read were "Stone of Destiny" then saw that big spike. Of course my mind wanders a bit and I immediately thought of paragliding and landing on that spike. Ouch some destiny. :o
-
Informant discussed with me the fact that not all the bullet/fragments were recovered from the bodies of the child victims, and his view that if the bodies were exhumed, and the missing pieces of bullet recovered, it would establish that a different weapon had fired some of the shots, that killed them? He said that it would also be possible upon examining such pieces of bullet, to identify who manufactured them, and if they formed part of the same batch of Eley .22 LR subsonic hollow point ammunition, which is supposed to be the sole source of the crime scene ammunition?
Why was I under the impression that Ralph and June were buried and not cremated?
Unless i am mistaken only the twins were buried, the rest of the family were cremated, the remains buried and Sheilas ashes buried with the twins.
-
I looked at the forum early this morning and I was surprised that there were over 40 viewings of the photos in two hours which must have been by 'guests'
Seems a lot of 'people' are interested in z and meetings taking place
-
I've never been sure of what to make of (Z). So I have taken a sort of neutral stance, where I give Mike the benefit of the doubt, but only just. Not all of Mike's posts yesterday had the blackberry type mobile icon on them. One of them did but the others did not. I'm not very clued up about those kind of blackberry type mobiles so I don't know whether every single post made from one should have that icon. Nor do I know whether Mike had access to other facilities during his trip. I'm also trying to recall whether I recently saw night time photos from Edinburgh on this forum. I seem to have a vague recollection of such pics but cannot remember the context in which they were posted. I wasn't going to post this on the open forum but in the interests of everyone being up front and straight with each other, I have decided to do so.
I'm afraid the jury's still out for me regarding (Z).
-
I looked at the forum early this morning and I was surprised that there were over 40 viewings of the photos in two hours which must have been by 'guests'
Seems a lot of 'people' are interested in z and meetings taking place
People like pictures. I remember that from my preaching days. People love to look at pictures and Mike's pictures are great. I've never been to Edinburgh myself and so found them very interesting.
-
I've never been sure of what to make of (Z). So I have taken a sort of neutral stance, where I give Mike the benefit of the doubt, but only just. Not all of Mike's posts yesterday had the blackberry type mobile icon on them. One of them did but the others did not. I'm not very clued up about those kind of blackberry type mobiles so I don't know whether every single post made from one should have that icon. Nor do I know whether Mike had access to other facilities during his trip. I'm also trying to recall whether I recently saw night time photos from Edinburgh on this forum. I seem to have a vague recollection of such pics but cannot remember the context in which they were posted. I wasn't going to post this on the open forum but in the interests of everyone being up front and straight with each other, I have decided to do so.
I'm afraid the jury's still out for me regarding (Z).
Dave I agree with you.
I think the main problem with me is z.
Mike may be speaking from the heart, but zzzzzz does nothing for me.
Mike has expouded his views on a number of occasionns.
I trulely hope mike has found someone to back him up. but I truely believe he has not.
I think someone is teasing Mike, but I am not so partisan.
-
I've never been sure of what to make of (Z). So I have taken a sort of neutral stance, where I give Mike the benefit of the doubt, but only just. Not all of Mike's posts yesterday had the blackberry type mobile icon on them. One of them did but the others did not. I'm not very clued up about those kind of blackberry type mobiles so I don't know whether every single post made from one should have that icon. Nor do I know whether Mike had access to other facilities during his trip. I'm also trying to recall whether I recently saw night time photos from Edinburgh on this forum. I seem to have a vague recollection of such pics but cannot remember the context in which they were posted. I wasn't going to post this on the open forum but in the interests of everyone being up front and straight with each other, I have decided to do so.
I'm afraid the jury's still out for me regarding (Z).
Dave I agree with you.
I think the main problem with me is z.
Mike may be speaking from the heart, but zzzzzz does nothing for me.
Mike has expouded his views on a number of occasionns.
I trulely hope mike has found someone to back him up. but I truely believe he has not.
I think someone is teasing Mike, but I am not so partisan.
Ewen Smith (CCRC Commissioner) should be forced to identify the retired police officer who he met in London and told him about the silencer that was kept on DCI "Taff" Jones desk at Witham police station, (he used the silencer as a paper weight), before that silencer was taken to the lab' to be examined in connection with this case. The silencer in question, was not the one sent to the lab' on 13th, and or, 30th August 1985, and can only be a reference to the second silencer which the relatives handed over to the police on 11th September 1985, which was not sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985, and not actually examined until 25th September 1985 (and found to have paint from the aga surround upon it)...
Ewen Smith should also be forced to identify the other two police officers he was told about by his informant, who knew about the existence of the second silencer I am talking about...
-
Now let me see who would I put my money on of getting Jeremy out of prison
the unknown Z
or a bunch of women photocopying in an office
i will put my money on z or the throeies to be derived from 'z'
I think there are many aspects of this case that do not seem possible
i e Sheilas body being shoved about all over the place
policeman attending a mass murder deciding to wave a flag on the roof of WHF like they are attending the olympics
Nothing surprises me in this case but the campaign 'team bamber' keep putting out on bambertweets that they have all the evidence that will get Jeremy his appeal
So maybe Mike should stop travelling all over England and Scotland as Jeremy already has his appeal in the bag
or
maybe Mike is sceptical of 'we have all we need' like myself
I am making a point of seeing Ewen Smith myself so we will see what happens
-
'Z', exists, and he is real, just as real as the retired police officer (named, DAVID) who arranged to meet Ewen Smith (now a CCRC Commissioner) in London, to speak to him about the "second silencer", and the involvement of PC Whiddon with it, and two other police officers who David named as having knowledge of such a second silencer...
I took a photograph of 'Z', after we met in Edinburgh, he is not immediately recognisable from viewing it, but those who know him, will readily know his identity...
I may post a copy of the image, later...
-
'Z', exists, and he is real, just as real as the retired police officer (named, DAVID) who arranged to meet Ewen Smith (now a CCRC Commissioner) in London, to speak to him about the "second silencer", and the involvement of PC Whiddon with it, and two other police officers who David named as having knowledge of such a second silencer...
I took a photograph of 'Z', after we met in Edinburgh, he is not immediately recognisable from viewing it, but those who know him, will readily know his identity...
I may post a copy of the image, later...
But Mike, that's going to defeat the object of retaining anonymity isn't it? What's the point in swapping specifically purchased mobiles around, at pre-arranged meets along the way, if the lad is going to be exposed? And Mike is there an explanation re the blackberry icon quandry I posted about earlier? (If that's what it is, on some of your posts). Sorry to question you in this manner. I am generally supportive as you know.
-
'Z', exists, and he is real, just as real as the retired police officer (named, DAVID) who arranged to meet Ewen Smith (now a CCRC Commissioner) in London, to speak to him about the "second silencer", and the involvement of PC Whiddon with it, and two other police officers who David named as having knowledge of such a second silencer...
I took a photograph of 'Z', after we met in Edinburgh, he is not immediately recognisable from viewing it, but those who know him, will readily know his identity...
I may post a copy of the image, later...
But Mike, that's going to defeat the object of retaining anonymity isn't it? What's the point in swapping specifically purchased mobiles around, at pre-arranged meets along the way, if the lad is going to be exposed? And Mike is there an explanation re the blackberry icon quandry I posted about earlier? (If that's what it is, on some of your posts). Sorry to question you in this manner. I am generally supportive as you know.
Those who do not know 'Z', won't be able to identify him, but those who do, will know that I am in contact with the right person, and that the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, involving several high ranking police officers, and others, is at long last exposed...
The clock is ticking...
Maybe now is the time for the other police officers involved in this conspiracy to jump ship, and come over on the side of what is right and just...
'Z' is not happy with me taking a photograph with him in it, but I told him of my intention to post it, so that those who know him, will recognise him, and that this may force them to also come forward, so that collectively a number of police officers who have been forced to go along with such a charade, can at last clear their consciences...
My meeting recently with 'Z' in Edinburgh, and the use of someone else's mobile phone, was necessary to try and protect the identity of 'Z', from being identified by those who do not know him. It was designed to send out a message to those who do know him, that he has come forward, he has spoken out, and we now know the truth about what took place, and all those who do know his true identity, should think long and hard about remaining silent...
To all those who know the true identity of 'Z', do the right thing, come forward voluntarily...
To all those who do not yet know his identity, I apologise for having to take this course of action, but it was/is necessary at this point in time for me to carry on in this manner...
-
Those who know the identity of 'Z', will recognise him, from viewing this photograph, which I took on Waverley Bridge, Edinburgh, yesterday ( you may have to enlarge it to see him in the flesh so to speak), to those who do not know him, I apologise...
-
Those who know the identity of 'Z', will recognise him, from viewing this photograph, which I took on Waverley Bridge, Edinburgh, yesterday ( you may have to enlarge it to see him in the flesh so to speak), to those who do not know him, I apologise...
Here is the enlargement for those not technically minded, or able:-
-
The information which 'Z' wanted to reveal to me, did not take place until later in the day, at "Roslin Chapel"...
-
One of my contacts says that z is a real person and that he knows where he lives.
-
'Z', exists, and he is real, just as real as the retired police officer (named, DAVID) who arranged to meet Ewen Smith (now a CCRC Commissioner) in London, to speak to him about the "second silencer", and the involvement of PC Whiddon with it, and two other police officers who David named as having knowledge of such a second silencer...
I took a photograph of 'Z', after we met in Edinburgh, he is not immediately recognisable from viewing it, but those who know him, will readily know his identity...
I may post a copy of the image, later...
But Mike, that's going to defeat the object of retaining anonymity isn't it? What's the point in swapping specifically purchased mobiles around, at pre-arranged meets along the way, if the lad is going to be exposed? And Mike is there an explanation re the blackberry icon quandry I posted about earlier? (If that's what it is, on some of your posts). Sorry to question you in this manner. I am generally supportive as you know.
Those who do not know 'Z', won't be able to identify him, but those who do, will know that I am in contact with the right person, and that the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, involving several high ranking police officers, and others, is at long last exposed...
The clock is ticking...
Maybe now is the time for the other police officers involved in this conspiracy to jump ship, and come over on the side of what is right and just...
'Z' is not happy with me taking a photograph with him in it, but I told him of my intention to post it, so that those who know him, will recognise him, and that this may force them to also come forward, so that collectively a number of police officers who have been forced to go along with such a charade, can at last clear their consciences...
My meeting recently with 'Z' in Edinburgh, and the use of someone else's mobile phone, was necessary to try and protect the identity of 'Z', from being identified by those who do not know him. It was designed to send out a message to those who do know him, that he has come forward, he has spoken out, and we now know the truth about what took place, and all those who do know his true identity, should think long and hard about remaining silent...
To all those who know the true identity of 'Z', do the right thing, come forward voluntarily...
To all those who do not yet know his identity, I apologise for having to take this course of action, but it was/is necessary at this point in time for me to carry on in this manner...
One thing is for certain, this is definitely NOT going away.....
-
Well if he's genuine like you say Mike, he's gonna get exposed now. I'm not sure what you're getting at with all this differentiation between those who will know him and those who will not. I can only assume that those who were lower ranking officers are being encouraged to cleave away from those who were higher ranking officers, but surely one way or another, (Z) will get sussed re his ID? And you have not answered my blackberry query. But I wont ask about it again.
At the risk of sounding optimistic, what's the chance we can get Z's crime scene pics uploaded to the forum? In for a penny in for a pound. You and he might as well chance your arm if you're cranking it up to the next level? I say post em.
-
It was to this "vantage point" (looking toward Roslin Chapel) that I was directed by 'Z', via mobile phone...
What struck me upon arriving at this vantage point, and looking in the direction of Roslin Chapel, were the many "facial images" visible to the naked eye, which are not recorded or captured in the photographs I took. However, you can at least see the Christlike facial image in the lower left foreground...
-
Road/lane leading to view of Roslin:-
I was directed (phone) to this vantage point, at the gate shown in the last photograph...
-
'Z', exists, and he is real, just as real as the retired police officer (named, DAVID) who arranged to meet Ewen Smith (now a CCRC Commissioner) in London, to speak to him about the "second silencer", and the involvement of PC Whiddon with it, and two other police officers who David named as having knowledge of such a second silencer...
I took a photograph of 'Z', after we met in Edinburgh, he is not immediately recognisable from viewing it, but those who know him, will readily know his identity...
I may post a copy of the image, later...
Mike, did z agree to you taking a picture of him?
-
'Z', exists, and he is real, just as real as the retired police officer (named, DAVID) who arranged to meet Ewen Smith (now a CCRC Commissioner) in London, to speak to him about the "second silencer", and the involvement of PC Whiddon with it, and two other police officers who David named as having knowledge of such a second silencer...
I took a photograph of 'Z', after we met in Edinburgh, he is not immediately recognisable from viewing it, but those who know him, will readily know his identity...
I may post a copy of the image, later...
Mike, did z agree to you taking a picture of him?
no, he was furious when I told him later that I had...
-
'Z', exists, and he is real, just as real as the retired police officer (named, DAVID) who arranged to meet Ewen Smith (now a CCRC Commissioner) in London, to speak to him about the "second silencer", and the involvement of PC Whiddon with it, and two other police officers who David named as having knowledge of such a second silencer...
I took a photograph of 'Z', after we met in Edinburgh, he is not immediately recognisable from viewing it, but those who know him, will readily know his identity...
I may post a copy of the image, later...
Mike, did z agree to you taking a picture of him?
no, he was furious when I told him later that I had...
I hope it will not affect his confidence in you? Mind you, I can't even make out any features on him?
-
'Z', exists, and he is real, just as real as the retired police officer (named, DAVID) who arranged to meet Ewen Smith (now a CCRC Commissioner) in London, to speak to him about the "second silencer", and the involvement of PC Whiddon with it, and two other police officers who David named as having knowledge of such a second silencer...
I took a photograph of 'Z', after we met in Edinburgh, he is not immediately recognisable from viewing it, but those who know him, will readily know his identity...
I may post a copy of the image, later...
Mike, did z agree to you taking a picture of him?
no, he was furious when I told him later that I had...
I hope it will not affect his confidence in you? Mind you, I can't even make out any features on him?
He was not very pleased to say the least, but I assured him that only those who knew him, would be able to pick him out in the photograph I took of him in Edinburgh, it was not a close up shot, and I took it for the purpose of showing his former colleagues who visit the forum from time to time, that I am in contact with the right person. As I say, those who know him will be able to recognise him from the photograph I took of him, but others won't. He wanted me to delete the image but I was reluctant to do that, because I told him that I needed to prove to his former colleagues, and employers, that I was in contact with the right person. I am still waiting to hear his response after I posted the photograph?
-
To all those who doubted the existence of 'Z', I would like to point out that he is as real as the retired police officer who contacted EWEN SMITH, and who had a meeting with him in London, to discuss the existence of the second silencer. That person had the Christian name of DAVID, and he provided to Ewen the names of two other police officers who would bear witness to the fact that DCI "Taff" Jones, kept that silencer on his desk at Witham police station, and was using it as a paper weight for a long time before that silencer was eventually sent to the lab' to be examined...
Also provided for the attention of Ewen Smith (now a CCRC Commissioner), was the fact that PC Christopher WHIDDON, had at some stage taken possession of the second silencer from atop DCI Jones' desk, and gone along with it to the force amory to see if it fitted onto the barrel of the rifle. And, when he found that it did, it was at this stage that this second silencer was sent to the lab' (20th September 1985) to be checked for blood and fibres, but upon which was only found paint from the aga when it was eventually examined on 25th September 1985...
Therefore, Ewen Smith knows the identity of his informant but to date he has never officially disclosed it, nor has he disclosed the identity of the other two police officers who can confirm that the second silencer was kept on DCI Jones desk at Witham police station...
As far as I know, Ewen did not make contact with the other two police officers, because Jeremy disposed of his services, and Ewen was no longer representing him...
I do not think Ewen contacted PC Whiddon about his involvement with the second silencer, but I know that PC Whiddon was photographed with the second silencer holding it alongside the rifle, and another shot of him with it being fitted to the end of the rifles barrel. The rifle in the photographs had a label on it, but the second silencer did not in those particular photographS...
If DCI Jones had not died, the prosecution would not have been allowed to get away with producing the silencer, blood and paint evidence, as though there had been, and was only one of them...
I have been given the names of the other two police officers who "David spoke to Ewen about", I have been told this information by my informant, who has identified them as:-
(1) DS Eastwood
(2) DS Davidson
It is therefore now possible to reconstruct and identify some of the police officers who had direct involvement with the second silencer:-
(1) DS Eastwood
(2) DS Davidson
(3) David
(4) PC Whiddon
(5) DCI "Taff" Jones (deceased)
Documentary evidence and photographs exist to confirm that these particular officers, knew about and had dealings with the second silencer, at a time when the other silencer was already at the lab' (from 30th August 1985)...
-
These witnesses need to be interviewed by the (current) police, and made to tell the truth, about the existence of the second silencer, who found it, who handed it over to the police, what happened to it, who fingerprinted it, who took it along to the lab' on 20th September 1985, who received it at the lab' on the same day, who examined it, and what happened to the other silencer which had been involved in all the other stuff, between 13th and 20th September 1985?
By that date (20th September 1985) there were of course two identical looking Parker hale silencers at the lab', a fact which those at the lab' must have known about, or been aware of...
By the same token...
Essex police knew there was more than one silencer in their possession, and under their control in respect of this case, because they eventually handed back two silencers to the relatives after Jeremy was convicted, and they retained a third silencer which they displayed in the police museum...
What exhibit references did all these three identical looking Parker hale silencers have which the police had in their possession as part of this investigation?
Surely, they all did not have the same exhibit reference or identifying mark?
Why are Essex police, and the DPP/CPS, keeping tight lipped about these three silencers and the exhibit references they must have had? Who handed all these silencers into the police, or when were they found or seized by the police?
-
It don't add up, or make sense:-
I there was only one silencer found, or handed over by the relatives to the police, how come police handed back two silencers to the relatives after Jeremy was convicted, and how could a third silencer be retained by Essex police for display purposes in the police black museum?
(1) Silencer handed back to relatives against signature after Jeremy Bamber was convicted?
(2) Silencer handed back to relatives against signature after Jeremy Bamber was convicted?
(3) Silencer retained by Essex police for display purposes in police (black) museum?
Why has the truth about these three identical looking Parker hale silencers been suppressed by police and the DPP/CPS?
-
It don't add up, or make sense:-
I there was only one silencer found, or handed over by the relatives to the police, how come police handed back two silencers to the relatives after Jeremy was convicted, and how could a third silencer be retained by Essex police for display purposes in the police black museum?
(1) Silencer handed back to relatives against signature after Jeremy Bamber was convicted?
(2) Silencer handed back to relatives against signature after Jeremy Bamber was convicted?
(3) Silencer retained by Essex police for display purposes in police (black) museum?
Why has the truth about these three identical looking Parker hale silencers been suppressed by police and the DPP/CPS?
According to David Boutflour, one of the two silencers handed back to the relatives by police after Jeremy was convicted, still had the "yellow sticky label attached it" which police had placed over it...
Was one of the silencers which was handed back to the relatives, the original silencer found at the scene by DS "Stan" Jones, which was fingerprinted by super glue treatment on 23rd August 1985, that was dismantled by DI Cook (SOC) on 29th August 1985, and subsequently sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985?
If true...
Silencer on display at police museum, could not possibly have been coated in super glue residue...
Furthermore...
Silencer obtained from police as part of DNA examination (2002) was not coated in super glue residue...
-
Current police in Essex should be made to re-seize the two silencers which David Boutflour told COLP about in 1991, for the purpose of evidence, and with a view to them being extensively examined forensically?
'Z' told me that if this was/is done, it will blow the case wide open, "heads will roll", so to speak...
According to my informant, the silencer inside which has been attributed the find of the crucial flake of blood evidence, was not coated in super glue residue, nor did that silencer have any paint ingrained into the knurled end of its end cap, although as I understand it, the evidence has been presented in this way so as to deliberately mislead and deceive...
-
To all those who doubted the existence of 'Z', I would like to point out that he is as real as the retired police officer who contacted EWEN SMITH, and who had a meeting with him in London, to discuss the existence of the second silencer. That person had the Christian name of DAVID, and he provided to Ewen the names of two other police officers who would bear witness to the fact that DCI "Taff" Jones, kept that silencer on his desk at Witham police station, and was using it as a paper weight for a long time before that silencer was eventually sent to the lab' to be examined...Also provided for the attention of Ewen Smith (now a CCRC Commissioner), was the fact that PC Christopher WHIDDON, had at some stage taken possession of the second silencer from atop DCI Jones' desk, and gone along with it to the force amory to see if it fitted onto the barrel of the rifle. And, when he found that it did, it was at this stage that this second silencer was sent to the lab' (20th September 1985) to be checked for blood and fibres, but upon which was only found paint from the aga when it was eventually examined on 25th September 1985...
Therefore, Ewen Smith knows the identity of his informant but to date he has never officially disclosed it, nor has he disclosed the identity of the other two police officers who can confirm that the second silencer was kept on DCI Jones desk at Witham police station...
As far as I know, Ewen did not make contact with the other two police officers, because Jeremy disposed of his services, and Ewen was no longer representing him...
I do not think Ewen contacted PC Whiddon about his involvement with the second silencer, but I know that PC Whiddon was photographed with the second silencer holding it alongside the rifle, and another shot of him with it being fitted to the end of the rifles barrel. The rifle in the photographs had a label on it, but the second silencer did not in those particular photographS...
If DCI Jones had not died, the prosecution would not have been allowed to get away with producing the silencer, blood and paint evidence, as though there had been, and was only one of them...
I have been given the names of the other two police officers who "David spoke to Ewen about", I have been told this information by my informant, who has identified them as:-
(1) DS Eastwood
(2) DS Davidson
It is therefore now possible to reconstruct and identify some of the police officers who had direct involvement with the second silencer:-
(1) DS Eastwood
(2) DS Davidson
(3) David
(4) PC Whiddon
(5) DCI "Taff" Jones (deceased)
Documentary evidence and photographs exist to confirm that these particular officers, knew about and had dealings with the second silencer, at a time when the other silencer was already at the lab' (from 30th August 1985)...
I can confirm that what Mike says about the retired police officer Dave or David is correct. He did come forward voluntarily and give an account of the silencer exactly as Mike has described. He named other police officers. He had nothing to gain by giving this account and it had the ring of truth.
-
Why is it none of the lab/forensic reports make mention of an elongated scratch on the body of the silencer...for at least one of the relatives claims to have seen an elongated scratch on the body of the silencer......conclusions.... it cannot be the silencer the relatives claim to have found at the scene...or the relatives claims about the silencer are all ficticious.
-
To all those who doubted the existence of 'Z', I would like to point out that he is as real as the retired police officer who contacted EWEN SMITH, and who had a meeting with him in London, to discuss the existence of the second silencer. That person had the Christian name of DAVID, and he provided to Ewen the names of two other police officers who would bear witness to the fact that DCI "Taff" Jones, kept that silencer on his desk at Witham police station, and was using it as a paper weight for a long time before that silencer was eventually sent to the lab' to be examined...Also provided for the attention of Ewen Smith (now a CCRC Commissioner), was the fact that PC Christopher WHIDDON, had at some stage taken possession of the second silencer from atop DCI Jones' desk, and gone along with it to the force amory to see if it fitted onto the barrel of the rifle. And, when he found that it did, it was at this stage that this second silencer was sent to the lab' (20th September 1985) to be checked for blood and fibres, but upon which was only found paint from the aga when it was eventually examined on 25th September 1985...
Therefore, Ewen Smith knows the identity of his informant but to date he has never officially disclosed it, nor has he disclosed the identity of the other two police officers who can confirm that the second silencer was kept on DCI Jones desk at Witham police station...
As far as I know, Ewen did not make contact with the other two police officers, because Jeremy disposed of his services, and Ewen was no longer representing him...
I do not think Ewen contacted PC Whiddon about his involvement with the second silencer, but I know that PC Whiddon was photographed with the second silencer holding it alongside the rifle, and another shot of him with it being fitted to the end of the rifles barrel. The rifle in the photographs had a label on it, but the second silencer did not in those particular photographS...
If DCI Jones had not died, the prosecution would not have been allowed to get away with producing the silencer, blood and paint evidence, as though there had been, and was only one of them...
I have been given the names of the other two police officers who "David spoke to Ewen about", I have been told this information by my informant, who has identified them as:-
(1) DS Eastwood
(2) DS Davidson
It is therefore now possible to reconstruct and identify some of the police officers who had direct involvement with the second silencer:-
(1) DS Eastwood
(2) DS Davidson
(3) David
(4) PC Whiddon
(5) DCI "Taff" Jones (deceased)
Documentary evidence and photographs exist to confirm that these particular officers, knew about and had dealings with the second silencer, at a time when the other silencer was already at the lab' (from 30th August 1985)...
I can confirm that what Mike says about the retired police officer Dave or David is correct. He did come forward voluntarily and give an account of the silencer exactly as Mike has described. He named other police officers. He had nothing to gain by giving this account and it had the ring of truth.
Ewen Smith never divulged to me, the names of the "other two police officers" who "David" said had got the "knowledge of the second silencer", that was kept on DCI Jones desk at Witham police station, although he did tell me about PC Whiddon taking it from there whilst DCI Jones was absent from his office (for whatever reason) and that he took the second silencer along to the force amory to see if it would fit onto the barrel of the gun, and that when it did, Ewen told me that PC Whiddon (who is now a DCI) arranged for that silencer to be sent to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibres? It may well be, that the "names of the two police officers" I have been given by my informant, is the same as those told to Ewen Smith, by "David", I have no reason to suspect that the names are different, but as I say Ewen never divulged that information to me, I think he wanted to speak to those officers himself first of all, but as I say Jeremy disposed of his services before Ewen could do anything about it (I think)?
-
It should be possible to enlarge the image of the silencers end cap (shown in PC Whiddons possession in this photograph) to see if the stain which was present when the first silencer went to the lab', on 13th and 30th August 1985, is present upon it, or not?
-
Silencer in PC Whiddons possession, and the one shown on the barrel iof the rifle inside the gun cupboard, have both got something in common - neither has an exhibit label attached to it, yet the rifle does (in both photographs)
-
It is also possible now, to understand how some of Sheila Caffells DNA could have got into the inverted thread of the silencer, since, DI Cook (SOC), 29th August 1985, and PC Whiddon (prior to 20th September 1985) both screwed two different silencers directly onto the barrel of the rifle which had been resting and positioned against Sheila Caffells neck/throat at the scene as depicted in at least one of the crime scene photographs?
If you screw a silencer, or two, onto the barrel of the rifle, as did DI Cook, and PC Whiddon, after it was photographed in this position at the scene, there is going to be a very good chance that some of Sheila's DNA which must have got onto and into the external thread on on the end of the rifles barrel - when you screw any silencer directly onto this thread, some of Sheila's DNA which must have been on the rifles barrel, is bound to have become transferred into the inverted thread of both silencers by a process of contamination...
If some of Sheila's DNA got transferred into the inverted thread of the silencer by this process, it is also possible or likely that any blood (however small and seemingly insignificant) present on the external thread of the rifles barrel, could have been forced into the silencer, particularly on 29th August 1985, when DI Cook (SOC) dismantled the silencer, rebuilt it, and then he screwed the rebuilt silencer directly onto the external thread on the rifles barrel. What is apparent to me, is that at no stage was the external thread on the end of the rifles barrel examined for the presence of blood, prior to the alleged find of the flake by the ballistic expert, on 11th September 1985? Since, all we have been told is that the inside of the barrel was checked by use of a cloth pull-through, but no-one checked the external thread of the rifles barrel...
however...
when DI Cook dismantled the silencer on 29th August 1985,he separated (1) the end cap, (2) top washer, (3) first baffle, (4) second baffle, (5) third baffle, (6) fourth baffle, (7) Fifth Baffle, and there was a gap between these, and the remaining baffle plates of that silencer, and that stage there was no flake of blood present there, otherwise, COOK would have found the crucial flake of blood that was supposedly found inside the rebuilt silencer, once Cook (SOC) had submitted to the lab', on 30th August 1985. Since, there was no flake of blood, visibly present between any of the dismantled baffle plates, when Cook dismantled it, but we are being expected to believe that such a flake was present there, once the silencer was received at the lab' on and after 30th August 1985, and Fletcher dismantled the same silencer. Therefore, that flake must had been deposited inside that silencer, after Cook rebuilt it...
-
Blackberry phone icon
This is displayed against some of my posts, because I have been making posts with it, rather than from my computer (you will note a different IP Address, when I am out and about roaming, as it were)....
-
Putting the cat amongst the pigeons:-
DI COOK (SOC) needs to be asked why he didn't find any loose flakes of blood inside the silencer that he dismantled on 29th August 1985?
He needs to be arrested by the current police, and asked where he thinks the crucial flake of blood that the ballistic expert found inside the same silencer after it had been submitted to the lab' on 30th August 1985, originated from, or asked to explain where such a crucial flake of blood could have originated from, in order to be found inside the silencer, where previously it was not present?
-
Why is it none of the lab/forensic reports make mention of an elongated scratch on the body of the silencer...for at least one of the relatives claims to have seen an elongated scratch on the body of the silencer......conclusions.... it cannot be the silencer the relatives claim to have found at the scene...or the relatives claims about the silencer are all ficticious.
It would be interesting to see if the "elongated scratch mark" is absent beneath the layers of super glue on one of the silencers, which got coated with super glue, on 23rd August 1985? This would be interesting, because relatives talk about this scratch mark being on the silencer they handed over to the police, and since they handed the one they found to the police on 11th September 1985, this was on an occasion after one of the silencers was exposed to super glue treatment, on 23rd August 1985...
-
Relatives have gone out of their way in the past to explain about how they found the silencer with the crucial blood, and paint evidence found inside, and upon it...
Yet...
Now they need to explain when they handed over the "other two Parker hale silencers" to the police, and "where" and "when they were found"?
I Can't see them "rushing to the media" with this information in a hurry?
-
Bagpipes, in Edinburgh:-
-
This person is a begger trying to relieve someone from their money
-
This person is a begger trying to relieve someone from their money
You mean of course a busker? Well that what we call the beggars round here. ;D
-
BUDDY,S OUIJA BOARD spells? out that it is PETER, he who Picked a PECK of PICKLED PEPPER to get up the nostrils of 'arrises flock of Kites - FOOW FOOW
-
According to PS Woodcock, in a witness statement he made, dated, 16th December 1985, he did not remove the rifle from atop Sheila's body until 11:10hrs:-
There is something wring here, since according to Woodcock, it was not until after DC Hammersley had placed bags on Sheila's hands and head, and her body was placed onto a plastic sheet and moved, that he noticed two bullet cases, which were lying to the left of the body between the bed and the body. Yet how could DC Hammerlsey, have produced the head and hand exhibits, before the two bullet cases were found, where DC Hammersley gave the two bullet cases in question, the identifying marks of DRH/1 and DRH/2? This is odd because if what Woodcock is saying was true, and if what DC Hammersley has said elsewhere, the two bullet cases were the first two exhibits seized at the scene by DC Hammersley, hence why he gave them the exhibit references of DRH/1 and DRH/2. How could PS Woodcocks account be true, if DC Hammersleys account was true, and or vice versa?
-
Let us get the facts right, so when did DC Hammersley take the hand swabs given the identifying mark of DRH/33, and what exhibit references were given to the plastic head, and hand bags which Hammersley placed over them?
Well, according to PS Woodcocks statement, dated, 16th December 1985, Sheila's body had been wrapped up in a plastic body sheet, and removed before he noticed the two bullet cases to the left of her body, in fact, two bullet cases which were situated between her body, and the bed, yet DC Hammersley must have taken possession of many items from the scene, prior to the recovery of the two bullet cases in question, including the rifle which has an identifying mark of DRH/15...
Now...
How can the rifle be removed from Sheila's body and have an identifying mark of DRH/15, and not until after the plastic bags had been placed on Sheila's head and her hands, and her body had been transferred onto the plastic body sheet and removed, does he then supposedly find the two bullet cases, which are duly given the identifying marks of DRH/1, and DRH/2? I am intrigued and puzzled by this sequence of events at the scene of a multiple shooting?
I must be missing something, or maybe I am just a crank like it has been suggested by others, here and in other places, but when I look at the following diagram which shows the alleged positions of the bullet cases in the bedroom, I do not see two bullet cases to the left of Sheila's body, that is to say I do not see exhi9bits DRH/1 and DRH/2 to the left of Sheila's body and between her body and the bed?
Now...
Either, PS Woodcocks statement about the location of these bullet cases (DRH/1 and DRH/2) is false and inaccurate, or whoever produced the diagram which purports to show the location and position of these vital bullet cases, is responsible for making false drawings? I wonder who is telling the truth?
-
Good evening all
Mike, have you been in touch with your informant today? I'm just wondering if he has had any unwelcome contact?
Thankyou.
-
Good evening all
Mike, have you been in touch with your informant today? I'm just wondering if he has had any unwelcome contact?
Thankyou.
Not a peep so far, but I am not due back in Essex until around the middle of the week, or later and when I spoke to him in Edinburgh on Friday, we made arrangements to meet up in Colchester the next time I am in that neck of the woods. The final arrangements will be made through Alan, as and when the need or opportunity arises. Informant has some new information he has promised to provide regarding the silencers...
-
How is it possible for the bullet cases to have been found either side of Sheila's body (left and right) according to the diagram, yet in the words of PS Woodcock who removed the rifle from Sheila's body, and after observing plastic head and hand bags being placed over her head and her hands, and after her body had been placed onto a plastic sheet and removed, the two bullet cases were to the left of Sheila's body, situated between her body and the bed, how can such crucial and vital piece of evidence be so contradictory at the scene of a multiple shooting incident?
My informant has pointed these anomalies out and asked me to source the aforementioned statement, and corresponding diagram, to show that the case for Sheila having shot herself twice in the bedroom whilst he body was in that position on the bedroom floor, simply does not hold water, and can easily be discredited by reference to PS Woodcocks account of where he says he saw the two bullets cases, and those shown in the diagram, which as he says is contradictory, inaccurate and very misleading. Not only is it all false, inaccurate and misleading but the order with which they have been given identifying marks, are completely out of sequence with other exhibits that must have been removed and found before the two bullet cases could be collected up...
-
The key feature to get into your head, is that the "two crucial bullet cases" said to belong to the "two shots Sheila sustained in the bedroom", could not have been found or seized by DC Hammersley until after all the other exhibits, bearing the identifying marks DRH/3 to DRH/33, had already been found or seized at the scene, by that same officer, so how could these two bullet cases end up being given the identifying marks of DRH/1 and DRH/2 (continuity/sequence of events is irreparably broken)...
-
Look at the following:-
I do not see the bullet case to the right of Sheila's body in this crime scene photograph, despite the fact that PS Woodcock has not yet come along to remove the rifle and make it safe, and also despite the fact that plastic bags have not yet been placed upon Sheila;'s head or hands, and that her body has not yet been placed onto a plastic sheet and removed?
So...
Where is the bullet case depicted to the right of the body, in the official court diagram?
-
If you are a police officer and you start tampering with the crime scene ammunition, in particular the location of two crucial bullet cases that are supposed to be linked to the two shots which wounded and killed Sheila, either as a suicide, or as a murder, the case has to collapse, irrespective of the case collapsing before trial, or after conviction? Otherwise the criminal justice system is brought into disrepute - so says my informant...
He tells me that once this serious discrepancy has been pointed out, there isn't a court in the land, or in Europe, or the world, which will not overturn any convictions relating to this evidence? He told me of Friday, that the case against Jeremy turned upon whether or not the jury accepted that Sheila shot herself twice and committed suicide, or if she was shot by someone else, and her body stage managed to make it look like or appear as though she had taken her own life? The position and location of the two bullet cases linked to this particular shooting of this particular victim, suggests that it was the police who stage managed the scene involving these two bullet cases, not Jeremy, or anybody else, not any would be as yet unidentified hit man or killer...
-
Now...
My informant has got possession of a copy photograph of Sheila's body on the bed, at a time when she only had one wound to her throat. This is consistent with what the police surgeon, Dr Craig, and PI "Bob" Miller, have said about there only "appearing to be one wound upon her throat", a "solitary wound" to her throat, and this is what the Deputy Coroner, Mr Thompkin, was told at the opening of the inquest, on 14th August 1985, he was told that "Sheila shot and killed the others", and that "she had then taken her own life by way of a solitary shot under the chin". But we now know that she had been shot twice, not once. We also now know through my informants due diligence and honesty, that there is a major problem involving the position and location of the two bullet cases (DRH/1 an DRH/2) linked or associated with the shooting of Sheila in the main bedroom, which cannot be attributed to anyone other than to police malpractice and corruption...
Bring it on, lets get this show on the road, and some...
-
Wouldn't it be far easier just to hand in the copy of the photo to Simon McKay's team?
-
Wouldn't it be far easier just to hand in the copy of the photo to Simon McKay's team?
I am not in control of that situation...
-
Wouldn't it be far easier just to hand in the copy of the photo to Simon McKay's team?
I am not in control of that situation...
There are missing negatives which Jeremy and his team know about, and one of the missing negatives that was taken at the time and in sequence with the taking of pictures involving Sheila, must have been the negative of the copy photograph I have been shown, and another must have been when I saw the body of Sheila on the same bed, when I visited Ewen Smiths office in Birmingham...
I did not take those photographs, and i have not disposed of the corresponding negatives, I am only a person who has been shown or who has seen copy photographs of Sheila on the bed, and I have reported what I have seen and what I have been shown. I am not in control of the copy photographs and I am not in control of the corresponding negatives...
-
With the help of my informant, the fact that the position and location of crime scene bullet cases has been tampered with, should no longer be an issue. Also identified, is the fact that there were two identical looking Parker hale silencers, not one and that the police and the relatives have merged these two silencers into the same one. We now know that scratch marks were added to the aga surround by the police at the scene on 12th September 1985, and that the silencer containing the paint from the aga surround was not sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985, and not examined until 25th September 1985, by which stage the blood supposedly found inside it had already been identified as belonging to, or originating from Sheila...
The two bullet cases (DRH/1 and DRH/2) and the silencer were vital parts of the prosecutions case against Jeremy Bamber at his trial, and it is now possible to seriously undermine the integrity of all this evidence, so much so that these convictions have to be quashed as soon as possible...
After a careful reconstruction of the blood and paint based evidence, which the prosecution allege was found inside and upon the same silencer (the only silencer as far as they were/are concerned), it is now possible to say with certainty that the crucial blood evidence was not found inside the silencer handed in by the relatives to the police on 11th September 1985. Furthermore, it is also now possible to say with equal amounts of certainty, that paint from the aga was not found on the same silencer inside which was found the crucial flake of blood...
It is possible to reconstruct what took place, when and where - and the only conclusion which can be arrived at, is that the case against Jeremy has been fabricated, and supported by evidence of the silencers, paint and blood which has been manufactured...
If you tamper with this evidence, the convictions cannot any longer be deemed to be safe...
-
Wouldn't it be far easier just to hand in the copy of the photo to Simon McKay's team?
I am not in control of that situation...
There are missing negatives which Jeremy and his team know about, and one of the missing negatives that was taken at the time and in sequence with the taking of pictures involving Sheila, must have been the negative of the copy photograph I have been shown, and another must have been when I saw the body of Sheila on the same bed, when I visited Ewen Smiths office in Birmingham...
I did not take those photographs, and i have not disposed of the corresponding negatives, I am only a person who has been shown or who has seen copy photographs of Sheila on the bed, and I have reported what I have seen and what I have been shown. I am not in control of the copy photographs and I am not in control of the corresponding negatives...
Nevertheless, if your informant was to walk in to the Guardian's headquarters with such a picture, it would simply be game over.
-
Wouldn't it be far easier just to hand in the copy of the photo to Simon McKay's team?
I am not in control of that situation...
There are missing negatives which Jeremy and his team know about, and one of the missing negatives that was taken at the time and in sequence with the taking of pictures involving Sheila, must have been the negative of the copy photograph I have been shown, and another must have been when I saw the body of Sheila on the same bed, when I visited Ewen Smiths office in Birmingham...
I did not take those photographs, and i have not disposed of the corresponding negatives, I am only a person who has been shown or who has seen copy photographs of Sheila on the bed, and I have reported what I have seen and what I have been shown. I am not in control of the copy photographs and I am not in control of the corresponding negatives...
Nevertheless, if your informant was to walk in to the Guardian's headquarters with such a picture, it would simply be game over.
That has been his choice all along, I cannot make a choice like that for someone in his position...
-
Wouldn't it be far easier just to hand in the copy of the photo to Simon McKay's team?
I am not in control of that situation...
There are missing negatives which Jeremy and his team know about, and one of the missing negatives that was taken at the time and in sequence with the taking of pictures involving Sheila, must have been the negative of the copy photograph I have been shown, and another must have been when I saw the body of Sheila on the same bed, when I visited Ewen Smiths office in Birmingham...
I did not take those photographs, and i have not disposed of the corresponding negatives, I am only a person who has been shown or who has seen copy photographs of Sheila on the bed, and I have reported what I have seen and what I have been shown. I am not in control of the copy photographs and I am not in control of the corresponding negatives...
Nevertheless, if your informant was to walk in to the Guardian's headquarters with such a picture, it would simply be game over.
That has been his choice all along, I cannot make a choice like that for someone in his position...
All he needs to do is post it to them and no one will ever know who he is? This one photo would force the hand of the CCRC and that of the appeal court.
-
Wouldn't it be far easier just to hand in the copy of the photo to Simon McKay's team?
I am not in control of that situation...
There are missing negatives which Jeremy and his team know about, and one of the missing negatives that was taken at the time and in sequence with the taking of pictures involving Sheila, must have been the negative of the copy photograph I have been shown, and another must have been when I saw the body of Sheila on the same bed, when I visited Ewen Smiths office in Birmingham...
I did not take those photographs, and i have not disposed of the corresponding negatives, I am only a person who has been shown or who has seen copy photographs of Sheila on the bed, and I have reported what I have seen and what I have been shown. I am not in control of the copy photographs and I am not in control of the corresponding negatives...
Nevertheless, if your informant was to walk in to the Guardian's headquarters with such a picture, it would simply be game over.
That has been his choice all along, I cannot make a choice like that for someone in his position...
All he needs to do is post it to them and no one will ever know who he is? This one photo would force the hand of the CCRC and that of the appeal court.
That must be his choice, I cannot force anyone to do anything, I don't have control of the photograph, I have only been shown it, in a similar way that I have seen the photograph of Sheila on the bed when I visited Ewen Smiths office, I do not have control over that photograph, either, and I cannot make those in control of that photograph, hand it over to the CCRC, or to post it to them, either
-
The contents of Sheila Caffells diaries, are understood to contain information that would be hurtful to living relatives:-
Was one of them, having an affair with her?
-
Wouldn't it be far easier just to hand in the copy of the photo to Simon McKay's team?
I am not in control of that situation...
There are missing negatives which Jeremy and his team know about, and one of the missing negatives that was taken at the time and in sequence with the taking of pictures involving Sheila, must have been the negative of the copy photograph I have been shown, and another must have been when I saw the body of Sheila on the same bed, when I visited Ewen Smiths office in Birmingham...
I did not take those photographs, and i have not disposed of the corresponding negatives, I am only a person who has been shown or who has seen copy photographs of Sheila on the bed, and I have reported what I have seen and what I have been shown. I am not in control of the copy photographs and I am not in control of the corresponding negatives...
Nevertheless, if your informant was to walk in to the Guardian's headquarters with such a picture, it would simply be game over.
That has been his choice all along, I cannot make a choice like that for someone in his position...
All he needs to do is post it to them and no one will ever know who he is? This one photo would force the hand of the CCRC and that of the appeal court.
That must be his choice, I cannot force anyone to do anything, I don't have control of the photograph, I have only been shown it, in a similar way that I have seen the photograph of Sheila on the bed when I visited Ewen Smiths office, I do not have control over that photograph, either, and I cannot make those in control of that photograph, hand it over to the CCRC, or to post it to them, either
Your informant must have a conscience to have got in touch with you Mike. I wonder when others will follow suit?
-
Wouldn't it be far easier just to hand in the copy of the photo to Simon McKay's team?
I am not in control of that situation...
There are missing negatives which Jeremy and his team know about, and one of the missing negatives that was taken at the time and in sequence with the taking of pictures involving Sheila, must have been the negative of the copy photograph I have been shown, and another must have been when I saw the body of Sheila on the same bed, when I visited Ewen Smiths office in Birmingham...
I did not take those photographs, and i have not disposed of the corresponding negatives, I am only a person who has been shown or who has seen copy photographs of Sheila on the bed, and I have reported what I have seen and what I have been shown. I am not in control of the copy photographs and I am not in control of the corresponding negatives...
Nevertheless, if your informant was to walk in to the Guardian's headquarters with such a picture, it would simply be game over.
That has been his choice all along, I cannot make a choice like that for someone in his position...
All he needs to do is post it to them and no one will ever know who he is? This one photo would force the hand of the CCRC and that of the appeal court.
That must be his choice, I cannot force anyone to do anything, I don't have control of the photograph, I have only been shown it, in a similar way that I have seen the photograph of Sheila on the bed when I visited Ewen Smiths office, I do not have control over that photograph, either, and I cannot make those in control of that photograph, hand it over to the CCRC, or to post it to them, either
Your informant must have a conscience to have got in touch with you Mike. I wonder when others will follow suit?
The informant who contacted Ewen Smith about the second silencer, who provided him with the names of two police officers who could verify that a second silencer had been kept by DCI Jones on his desk at Witham police station, etc, also had a conscience, but that did not force him to come forward himself to the CCRC, or to the media...
At the end of the day, the choice to come forward themselves is something for them to do, I can't force anyone to do something that they don't want to do, but if they contact me and tell me things and show me things, then all I can do is report what I have been told, or been shown...
Other people have come forward with information, not just to me but also to Jeremy and his campaign team, or so I am led to believe...
-
Mike there are a few points that need to be established, the position of Sheila on the bedroom floor with a rifle on her body in the sense of the word is not a crime scene if this alternative picture exists of Sheila on the bed, most rolls of film will clearly show the run sequence of negatives, it should be possible to find the breaks or missing ones under data in protection of pii.
-
After 10 years, Essex police handed over gun and silencer to museum for display purposes:-
-
Mike ut says embarrasing to persons living, it doesnt mention relatives.
It could be anyone ie a friend or even colin, who knows?
-
After 10 years, Essex police handed over gun and silencer to museum for display purposes:-
Becky Walsh Curator 01245 457 150
Martyn Lockwood was curator last time I had some dealings with them, he's an excellent man and seems to be still with the museum in some capacity.
-
Mike there are a few points that need to be established, the position of Sheila on the bedroom floor with a rifle on her body in the sense of the word is not a crime scene if this alternative picture exists of Sheila on the bed, most rolls of film will clearly show the run sequence of negatives, it should be possible to find the breaks or missing ones under data in protection of pii.
Yes, from what I can gather, there are about seven or eight missing negatives that were taken in sequence, before the first disclosed photographs were taken, and one or more of these must relate to when Sheila's body was laid on the bed, at the time the picture was taken which I saw when I visited Ewen smiths office, and on the other occasion, when my informant showed me Sheila on the bed with only one wound to her throat. I think Jeremy's legal team are dealing with this as we speak, with the assistance of Mr Sutherst (expert), and others...
-
After 10 years, Essex police handed over gun and silencer to museum for display purposes:-
Becky Walsh Curator 01245 457 150
Martyn Lockwood was curator last time I had some dealings with them, he's an excellent man and seems to be still with the museum in some capacity.
They might have some cuttings of the Bamber case too.
-
Mike ut says embarrasing to persons living, it doesnt mention relatives.
It could be anyone ie a friend or even colin, who knows?
Yes, it does say that in the letter, but that is not what it says in the actual diary entries...
-
Now, I wonder what was/is meant by reference to "soiled clothing" belonging to Sheila Caffell?
Is this an admission that the bloodstained knickers/panties had been retained by the police all along, and that Ann Eaton did not wash them out after all, or throw them away?
-
"Soiled clothing", as in this is where the "blood of Sheila" could have been obtained from?
-
Mike ut says embarrasing to persons living, it doesnt mention relatives.
It could be anyone ie a friend or even colin, who knows?
Yes, it does say that in the letter, but that is not what it says in the actual diary entries...
Have you seen the entries? If so, what do they say?
-
Mike ut says embarrasing to persons living, it doesnt mention relatives.
It could be anyone ie a friend or even colin, who knows?
Yes, it does say that in the letter, but that is not what it says in the actual diary entries...
Have you seen the entries? If so, what do they say?
Well, lets put it this way, one of the relatives was very keen on Sheila, say no more, a nod and a wink, and a funny handshake, know what I mean..
-
And so...
Some of the property destined to be destroyed found its way into and under the control of Special branch officers at Headquarters:-
-
I am under the view that Sheila wanted Colin back, when she knew it was not going to happen her decline seems to have set in.
-
I am under the view that Sheila wanted Colin back, when she knew it was not going to happen her decline seems to have set in.
Yes, with what I know about the case, and all the evidence I have seen or been shown, I can buy into that theory...
-
Mike are you saying rb had an affair with sheila? I ask because of reference to the funny handshake.
I cant buy that!!
-
Mike are you saying rb had an affair with sheila? I ask because of reference to the funny handshake.
I cant buy that!!
Ralph was beaten hard and badly Andrea a shot or 2 would have been enough, why ?
-
Mike are you saying rb had an affair with sheila? I ask because of reference to the funny handshake.
I cant buy that!!
Not he, no...
I'll leave you to make your own mind up between AP, DRB, and PE (but it would be fair to say that RWB knew all about it, and what had been going on)...
-
What he knew he took to the grave ?
-
And so...
Some of the property destined to be destroyed found its way into and under the control of Special branch officers at Headquarters:-
1996 was also the year when a Special Branch officer ordered the destruction of exhibits.
-
Mike, have you seen any diary entries that state that an affair had taken place between sheila and whoever?
-
And so...
Some of the property destined to be destroyed found its way into and under the control of Special branch officers at Headquarters:-
1996 was also the year when a Special Branch officer ordered the destruction of exhibits.
I have copies of "other Special branch material" relating to this case, now why would they be taking an active interest in this case? Could it have something to do with the fact that Jeremy's natural mother worked at Buckingham palace, and that Jeremy was conceived illegitimately? Who might the real natural father be?
Perhaps a paternal DNA test might resolve that little/big mystery?
Could Andrew and Jeremy be blood related?
Even if this is not true, was/is there a strong enough suspicion that it was/is true, which has caused special branch to take a deep interest in the case?
Is Prince Philip, Jeremy Bambers natural father?
-
Mike, have you seen any diary entries that state that an affair had taken place between sheila and whoever?
I have, yes...
-
Do you have the entries in your possession? If so, post them.
If not, where did you see these entries? Who showed them to you?
-
Mike am i wrong or the welfare of the boys were not the issue that night ?, it sounds to me it was something else something that made Sheila go crazy.
-
Mike am i wrong or the welfare of the boys were not the issue that night ?, it sounds to me it was something else something that made Sheila go crazy.
The impression I get, is that it was a combination of the fostering issue, and something else that nobody wants to talk about, least of all a particular relative...
-
wait a minute folks...
in court the prosecution wan*er refers to a photograph of DRH/1 , A BULLET CASE....It appears in photograph 33 of the court album.
It is located between the bible and a slipper...as the prosecution wan*er describes it.
Hammersley in the court transcript agrees
BUT IS THAT PHOTO A CLOSE UP ONE ? one taken later so much else has changed ..for in the long range shots of Sheila on the floor there is no slipper in sight.
It seems to me that photo 33 is a staged photo...
here's the relevant bit of transcript....
-
The reason i ask is because in Colins Book he says When Jeremy left that night all seemed fine Sheila at the kitchen table quiet with Ralph and June,and where does this tie in with the person spotted running away later if it does ?
-
Two Freemasons:-
One of them, a top gun, the other a mere foot soldier...
Is this the reason why Special branch have taken an interest in the so called Bamber case?
Has this got anything at all to do with the fact that not very long before the shootings both Sheila and Jeremy found out that they had been adopted, and sought more information about their natural parents, did Jeremy's natural mother have an affair with prince Philip, and was Jeremy conceived out of that relationship?
Surely not...
-
The email:-
-
Prince phillip? Im either seeing things or that spliff was mega!
Gimme 2 mins while i hoover the biscuit crumbs off my t shirt.
-
Prince phillip? Im either seeing things or that spliff was mega!
Gimme 2 mins while i hoover the biscuit crumbs off my t shirt.
This is the exact line of inquiry I looked into - Michael Howard also comes into the picture too believe it or not.
This is also a foundation for it being a pro job, we thought. Had Ralph told JB? JB says not!!
-
Prince phillip? Im either seeing things or that spliff was mega!
Gimme 2 mins while i hoover the biscuit crumbs off my t shirt.
Hello babe, you missed me? x
-
Ello paulg! Welcome back xx
You missed me? Xx
-
Ello paulg! Welcome back xx
You missed me? Xx
Oh yes, big time. x
So he's prince phillips love child, thats brilliant.
-
Paulg! What have you been on, hoho!!
-
Paulg! What have you been on, hoho!!
Unfortunately, nothing recently. Where i work have started doing checks if they feel suspicious, so i have to be very careful, could murder a spliff though.
-
So, what do you think of the prince Phillip thing? I was under the impression that jb father was major leslie marsham? Think thats his name.
Prince phillip! Not a chance imo
-
Right thats me for now, nite nite, see you tomorrow xx
-
So, what do you think of the prince Phillip thing? I was under the impression that jb father was major leslie marsham? Think thats his name.
Prince phillip! Not a chance imo
You know me, i love a good story.
Well, if JB is a royal bastard, me thinks the murder would have been one person, and the location would have been Goldhanger village. Last thing the royals would want, is a relative serving life in jail, far better to have him cremated.
-
So, what do you think of the prince Phillip thing? I was under the impression that jb father was major leslie marsham? Think thats his name.
Prince phillip! Not a chance imo
Why is it that major Leslie Marsham never paid any maintenance towards the cost of bringing up Jeremy? Perhaps that is the reason then for involvement of Special Branch?
-
According to information I have received Sheila wore a pair of slippers whilst moving around inside whf at the time of the shootings? These were found in the bedroom but their existence covered up...
-
So, what do you think of the prince Phillip thing? I was under the impression that jb father was major leslie marsham? Think thats his name.
Prince phillip! Not a chance imo
You know me, i love a good story.
Well, if JB is a royal bastard, me thinks the murder would have been one person, and the location would have been Goldhanger village. Last thing the royals would want, is a relative serving life in jail, far better to have him cremated.
To some they're all right royal bastards. ::)
-
According to information I have received Sheila wore a pair of slippers whilst moving around inside whf at the time of the shootings? These were found in the bedroom but their existence covered up...
Neither slipper which was worn by Sheila, was exhibited as part of the case, for good reason, since it was to be a vital part of the prosecutions case, that because Sheila`s feet were relatively free of significant (if hardly any at all) blood, she could not very we'll have been running amok all over the place shooting everybody willy nilly, otherwise, her feet would have been saturated with bloodstains...
-
According to information I have received Sheila wore a pair of slippers whilst moving around inside whf at the time of the shootings? These were found in the bedroom but their existence covered up...
Neither slipper which was worn by Sheila, was exhibited as part of the case, for good reason, since it was to be a vital part of the prosecutions case, that because Sheila`s feet were relatively free of significant (if hardly any at all) blood, she could not very we'll have been running amok all over the place shooting everybody willy nilly, otherwise, her feet would have been saturated with bloodstains...
PC Bird (SOC) made a right pigs ear of trying to falsify the photographic records...
-
According to information I have received Sheila wore a pair of slippers whilst moving around inside whf at the time of the shootings? These were found in the bedroom but their existence covered up...
Neither slipper which was worn by Sheila, was exhibited as part of the case, for good reason, since it was to be a vital part of the prosecutions case, that because Sheila`s feet were relatively free of significant (if hardly any at all) blood, she could not very we'll have been running amok all over the place shooting everybody willy nilly, otherwise, her feet would have been saturated with bloodstains...
PC Bird (SOC) made a right pigs ear of trying to falsify the photographic records...
He omitted to mention the existence of the full photographic album, containing all 581pictures, that was known as `The senior investigating officers album`, containing pictures of Sheila`s body on the bed, the bible and the pair of slippers Sheila had been wearing. He also forgot to produce a schedule showing the sequence of the 223 photographs taken from the aforementioned 581 `senior investigating officers album`...
-
According to information I have received Sheila wore a pair of slippers whilst moving around inside whf at the time of the shootings? These were found in the bedroom but their existence covered up...
Neither slipper which was worn by Sheila, was exhibited as part of the case, for good reason, since it was to be a vital part of the prosecutions case, that because Sheila`s feet were relatively free of significant (if hardly any at all) blood, she could not very we'll have been running amok all over the place shooting everybody willy nilly, otherwise, her feet would have been saturated with bloodstains...
PC Bird (SOC) made a right pigs ear of trying to falsify the photographic records...
He omitted to mention the existence of the full photographic album, containing all 581pictures, that was known as `The senior investigating officers album`, containing pictures of Sheila`s body on the bed, the bible and the pair of slippers Sheila had been wearing. He also forgot to produce a schedule showing the sequence of the 223 photographs taken from the aforementioned 581 `senior investigating officers album`...
Of great significance, is the fact that up to eight negatives are missing, which fall at around the time when other available images which show Sheila`s body on the floor were taken. These missing negatives fall in a sequence before Sheila wqas photographed on the floor, and must relate to when Sheila`s body was on the bed, before police moved it to the floor...
-
So, what do you think of the prince Phillip thing? I was under the impression that jb father was major leslie marsham? Think thats his name.
Prince phillip! Not a chance imo
Why is it that major Leslie Marsham never paid any maintenance towards the cost of bringing up Jeremy? Perhaps that is the reason then for involvement of Special Branch?
Why would special branch become involved because maintenance wasnt paid, its nothing to do with special branch. Not only that but jb was adopted so his biological father wouldnt have to pay anything anyway.
Where are you going with this mike? I mean prince phillip, jb's dad!! Come on think about how silly that sounds your sailing very close with that mike, it might land you in hot water.
-
According to information I have received Sheila wore a pair of slippers whilst moving around inside whf at the time of the shootings? These were found in the bedroom but their existence covered up...
Neither slipper which was worn by Sheila, was exhibited as part of the case, for good reason, since it was to be a vital part of the prosecutions case, that because Sheila`s feet were relatively free of significant (if hardly any at all) blood, she could not very we'll have been running amok all over the place shooting everybody willy nilly, otherwise, her feet would have been saturated with bloodstains...
PC Bird (SOC) made a right pigs ear of trying to falsify the photographic records...
He omitted to mention the existence of the full photographic album, containing all 581pictures, that was known as `The senior investigating officers album`, containing pictures of Sheila`s body on the bed, the bible and the pair of slippers Sheila had been wearing. He also forgot to produce a schedule showing the sequence of the 223 photographs taken from the aforementioned 581 `senior investigating officers album`...
Of great significance, is the fact that up to eight negatives are missing, which fall at around the time when other available images which show Sheila`s body on the floor were taken. These missing negatives fall in a sequence before Sheila wqas photographed on the floor, and must relate to when Sheila`s body was on the bed, before police moved it to the floor...
One of the missing 8 negatives has to relate to the photograph I saw of Sheila on the bed when I visited Ewen Smiths offices in Birmingham. Another must relate to when one of the slippers which Sheila had been wearing (as per the contents of DC Hammersleys testimony) where he explains the whereabouts of bullet case, DRH/1, between Sheila`s shgoulder and one of the slippers, anorther missing negative must relate to Sheila`s body on the ed at a time when she only had one wound to her neck...
-
So, what do you think of the prince Phillip thing? I was under the impression that jb father was major leslie marsham? Think thats his name.
Prince phillip! Not a chance imo
Why is it that major Leslie Marsham never paid any maintenance towards the cost of bringing up Jeremy? Perhaps that is the reason then for involvement of Special Branch?
Why would special branch become involved because maintenance wasnt paid, its nothing to do with special branch. Not only that but jb was adopted so his biological father wouldnt have to pay anything anyway.
Where are you going with this mike? I mean prince phillip, jb's dad!! Come on think about how silly that sounds your sailing very close with that mike, it might land you in hot water.
You didn`t get the joke then, about non payment of maintenance, being the reason for involvement of Special Branch?
As for PP, you need to read up about what he was like when he was much younger, to say he was a womaniser would be something of an understatement. Just because Major Marshams name is on JB`s birth certificate, does not prove he is the biological father, at least not in my book? Anyway, there`s still a link to the royal family. Because JB`s natural mother worked for the royals...
-
No Mike i didnt get the joke!! I had a bad night last night.
So the pp thing is a joke too, because you cant be serious about that can you? Really?
-
So, what do you think of the prince Phillip thing? I was under the impression that jb father was major leslie marsham? Think thats his name.
Prince phillip! Not a chance imo
Why is it that major Leslie Marsham never paid any maintenance towards the cost of bringing up Jeremy? Perhaps that is the reason then for involvement of Special Branch?
Why would special branch become involved because maintenance wasnt paid, its nothing to do with special branch. Not only that but jb was adopted so his biological father wouldnt have to pay anything anyway.
Where are you going with this mike? I mean prince phillip, jb's dad!! Come on think about how silly that sounds your sailing very close with that mike, it might land you in hot water.
You didn`t get the joke then, about non payment of maintenance, being the reason for involvement of Special Branch?
As for PP, you need to read up about what he was like when he was much younger, to say he was a womaniser would be something of an understatement. Just because Major Marshams name is on JB`s birth certificate, does not prove he is the biological father, at least not in my book? Anyway, there`s still a link to the royal family. Because JB`s natural mother worked for the royals...
I must admit he doesn't speak like a biological father. What biological father could reject their son like he did? If Jeremy was MY son I would doubt that he could ever have done such a terrible thing and I would stand by him. Even if he was guilty I'm not sure I could reject him? I will never reject my sons or my daughter what ever they did. I could never deny them my help or cast them away. My thoughts for them are like God's thoughts for me. And I'm no angel I can assure you.
-
No Mike i didnt get the joke!! I had a bad night last night.
So the pp thing is a joke too, because you cant be serious about that can you? Really?
Yes, deadly serious...
-
I have not contributed to the forum much recently as I have been away due to family commitments. However, I have recently been reading some of the latest posts from the sidelines.
If I understand this thread correctly Mike has been meeting with an informant 'Z' via a convoluted method involving mobile phone swaps / loans etc.
Again, if I have understood some of this thread correctly Mike has been advised that 'Z' has access to a photograph of Sheila lying on the bed with a single gunshot wound to her neck. This would corroborate what Mike has previously detailed in other threads regarding such a photograph that Mike says he has seen in the office of Ewen Smith (Jeremy's former solicitor).
If Mike was able to take a picture of the photograph that ‘Z’ has access then such a photograph would certainly be new evidence relating to the case.
As such, a photograph of a photograph, if made available to the CCRC, would have to be considered by the CCRC in relation to Jeremy’s claims for an appeal. Most particularly, if the original photograph / negative is, as alleged, being withheld under PII. By definition the withholding of such evidence would mean by definition that the ‘evidence’ as previously existed cannot have been available at the original trial.
Even I, given my posted / detailed concerns regarding the sequence and timing of telephone calls on the morning of 7th August 1985, would regard this as compelling.
If it can be proven, by such a photograph of a photograph, that Sheila is lying on the bed with a single gun shot wound to the neck and is then later to be shown, by photographs that are in the public domain, with two gun shot wounds to the neck, I would agree that it could not have been Jeremy who inflicted a second wound to Sheila’s neck.
I have mentioned before I did not understand why Mike did not take the opportunity of taking a picture of the photograph he was shown and then left alone with in the office of Ewen Smith. I seem to remember desribing this as a missed opportunity.
Maybe such an opportunity is presenting itself again............... ??
-
I have not contributed to the forum much recently as I have been away due to family commitments. However, I have recently been reading some of the latest posts from the sidelines.
If I understand this thread correctly Mike has been meeting with an informant 'Z' via a convoluted method involving mobile phone swaps / loans etc.
Again, if I have understood some of this thread correctly Mike has been advised that 'Z' has access to a photograph of Sheila lying on the bed with a single gunshot wound to her neck. This would corroborate what Mike has previously detailed in other threads regarding such a photograph that Mike says he has seen in the office of Ewen Smith (Jeremy's former solicitor).
If Mike was able to take a picture of the photograph that ‘Z’ has access then such a photograph would certainly be new evidence relating to the case.
As such, a photograph of a photograph, if made available to the CCRC, would have to be considered by the CCRC in relation to Jeremy's claims for an appeal. Most particularly, if the original photograph / negative is, as alleged, being withheld under PII. By definition the withholding of such evidence would mean by definition that the ‘evidence’ as previously existed cannot have been available at the original trial.
Even I, given my posted / detailed concerns regarding the sequence and timing of telephone calls on the morning of 7th August 1985, would regard this as compelling.
If it can be proven, by such a photograph of a photograph, that Sheila is lying on the bed with a single gun shot wound to the neck and is then later to be shown, by photographs that are in the public domain, with two gun shot wounds to the neck, I would agree that it could not have been Jeremy who inflicted a second wound to Sheila's neck.
I have mentioned before I did not understand why Mike did not take the opportunity of taking a picture of the photograph he was shown and then left alone in the office of Ewen Smith. I seem to remember describing this as a missed opportunity.
Maybe such an opportunity is presenting itself again............... ??
Hi curious, yes the photo of Sheila on the bed with one gunshot wound has been referred to again ::)
Call me Mr Cynical, but if Z has a copy why o why has he not discretely copied it and sent it anonymously to mike/media/JB's legal team ??
how long has he had this photo ??
Another tantalising carrot I think ;) - unless JB's legal team does have a copy ::)
-
I have not contributed to the forum much recently as I have been away due to family commitments. However, I have recently been reading some of the latest posts from the sidelines.
If I understand this thread correctly Mike has been meeting with an informant 'Z' via a convoluted method involving mobile phone swaps / loans etc.
Again, if I have understood some of this thread correctly Mike has been advised that 'Z' has access to a photograph of Sheila lying on the bed with a single gunshot wound to her neck. This would corroborate what Mike has previously detailed in other threads regarding such a photograph that Mike says he has seen in the office of Ewen Smith (Jeremy's former solicitor).
If Mike was able to take a picture of the photograph that ‘Z’ has access then such a photograph would certainly be new evidence relating to the case.
As such, a photograph of a photograph, if made available to the CCRC, would have to be considered by the CCRC in relation to Jeremy's claims for an appeal. Most particularly, if the original photograph / negative is, as alleged, being withheld under PII. By definition the withholding of such evidence would mean by definition that the ‘evidence’ as previously existed cannot have been available at the original trial.
Even I, given my posted / detailed concerns regarding the sequence and timing of telephone calls on the morning of 7th August 1985, would regard this as compelling.
If it can be proven, by such a photograph of a photograph, that Sheila is lying on the bed with a single gun shot wound to the neck and is then later to be shown, by photographs that are in the public domain, with two gun shot wounds to the neck, I would agree that it could not have been Jeremy who inflicted a second wound to Sheila's neck.
I have mentioned before I did not understand why Mike did not take the opportunity of taking a picture of the photograph he was shown and then left alone in the office of Ewen Smith. I seem to remember describing this as a missed opportunity.
Maybe such an opportunity is presenting itself again............... ??
Hi curious, yes the photo of Sheila on the bed with one gunshot wound has been referred to again ::)
Call me Mr Cynical, but if Z has a copy why o why has he not discretely copied it and sent it anonymously to mike/media/JB's legal team ??
how long has he had this photo ??
Another tantalising carrot I think ;) - unless JB's legal team does have a copy ::)
I am sure they do not.
-
Well if it is a 'carrot', in my opinion, it would be a make or break 'carrot'.
The 'carrot' if true would, as I have stated, be compelling.
If not true, then, for me, the 'carrot' would destroy the credibility of 'Z' coming forward because of a moral conscience whilst also undermining any claims that are being made in the name of Jeremy's support.
-
I have not contributed to the forum much recently as I have been away due to family commitments. However, I have recently been reading some of the latest posts from the sidelines.
If I understand this thread correctly Mike has been meeting with an informant 'Z' via a convoluted method involving mobile phone swaps / loans etc.
Again, if I have understood some of this thread correctly Mike has been advised that 'Z' has access to a photograph of Sheila lying on the bed with a single gunshot wound to her neck. This would corroborate what Mike has previously detailed in other threads regarding such a photograph that Mike says he has seen in the office of Ewen Smith (Jeremy's former solicitor).
If Mike was able to take a picture of the photograph that ‘Z’ has access then such a photograph would certainly be new evidence relating to the case.
As such, a photograph of a photograph, if made available to the CCRC, would have to be considered by the CCRC in relation to Jeremy's claims for an appeal. Most particularly, if the original photograph / negative is, as alleged, being withheld under PII. By definition the withholding of such evidence would mean by definition that the ‘evidence’ as previously existed cannot have been available at the original trial.
Even I, given my posted / detailed concerns regarding the sequence and timing of telephone calls on the morning of 7th August 1985, would regard this as compelling.
If it can be proven, by such a photograph of a photograph, that Sheila is lying on the bed with a single gun shot wound to the neck and is then later to be shown, by photographs that are in the public domain, with two gun shot wounds to the neck, I would agree that it could not have been Jeremy who inflicted a second wound to Sheila's neck.
I have mentioned before I did not understand why Mike did not take the opportunity of taking a picture of the photograph he was shown and then left alone in the office of Ewen Smith. I seem to remember describing this as a missed opportunity.
Maybe such an opportunity is presenting itself again............... ??
Hi curious, yes the photo of Sheila on the bed with one gunshot wound has been referred to again ::)
Call me Mr Cynical, but if Z has a copy why o why has he not discretely copied it and sent it anonymously to mike/media/JB's legal team ??
how long has he had this photo ??
Another tantalising carrot I think ;) - unless JB's legal team does have a copy ::)
I am sure they do not.
Apologies for the previous sarcasm - I agree with you. I don't think they have a copy either!!
This is old stuff packaged in a different way to re-sell it IMO
-
As I mentioned before this one photograph would secure JB's immediate release. Z could easily copy it and send it anonymously to JB's team.
-
As I mentioned before this one photograph would secure JB's immediate release. Z could easily copy it and send it anonymously to JB's team.
Grahame
I would tend to agree with you................
As I have stated above................. Even I, given my posted / detailed concerns regarding the sequence and timing of telephone calls on the morning of 7th August 1985, would regard this as compelling.
-
We are left in wonderland as regards the photograph of Sheila on the bed with one wound.
I do not believe this photograph exist, but I would be very happy to be proved wrong.
I would have Zs goolies in my hand to give me the photograph.
-
We are left in wonderland as regards the photograph of Sheila on the bed with one wound.
I do not believe this photograph exist, but I would be very happy to be proved wrong.
I would have Zs goolies in my hand to give me the photograph.
Maybe 'Z' should just become a member of the forum and post it into a locked thread.
-
We are left in wonderland as regards the photograph of Sheila on the bed with one wound.
I do not believe this photograph exist, but I would be very happy to be proved wrong.
I would have Zs goolies in my hand to give me the photograph.
Maybe 'Z' should just become a member of the forum and post it into a locked thread.
He may already be a member curious.
-
We are left in wonderland as regards the photograph of Sheila on the bed with one wound.
I do not believe this photograph exist, but I would be very happy to be proved wrong.
I would have Zs goolies in my hand to give me the photograph.
Maybe 'Z' should just become a member of the forum and post it into a locked thread.
He may already be a member curious.
Buddy
Maybe he is.......... I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens.
-
If this photo exists the negative would be even better.
-
We are left in wonderland as regards the photograph of Sheila on the bed with one wound.
I do not believe this photograph exist, but I would be very happy to be proved wrong.
I would have Zs goolies in my hand to give me the photograph.
If he hasn't come forward befor Cliff it means that he has none. Your hands are empty. ;)
-
We are left in wonderland as regards the photograph of Sheila on the bed with one wound.
I do not believe this photograph exist, but I would be very happy to be proved wrong.
I would have Zs goolies in my hand to give me the photograph.
Maybe 'Z' should just become a member of the forum and post it into a locked thread.
I'm not sure if that would be advisable? Owing to the great number of budding Photoshop enthusiasts out there.
-
We are left in wonderland as regards the photograph of Sheila on the bed with one wound.
I do not believe this photograph exist, but I would be very happy to be proved wrong.
I would have Zs goolies in my hand to give me the photograph.
If he hasn't come forward befor Cliff it means that he has none. Your hands are empty. ;)
Why you keep calling me Cliff 8) ;D
-
We are left in wonderland as regards the photograph of Sheila on the bed with one wound.
I do not believe this photograph exist, but I would be very happy to be proved wrong.
I would have Zs goolies in my hand to give me the photograph.
If he hasn't come forward befor Cliff it means that he has none. Your hands are empty. ;)
Why you keep calling me Cliff 8) ;D
Because you blew your cover with Hartley the other day. ;)
-
We are left in wonderland as regards the photograph of Sheila on the bed with one wound.
I do not believe this photograph exist, but I would be very happy to be proved wrong.
I would have Zs goolies in my hand to give me the photograph.
If he hasn't come forward befor Cliff it means that he has none. Your hands are empty. ;)
Why you keep calling me Cliff 8) ;D
Because you blew your cover with Hartley the other day. ;)
That was my mexican cousin Cleef
-
No slipper or bullet case to the left of the bible . So when exactly was court album photograph 33 taken that depicted a slipper and a bullet case and the bible.
-
We are left in wonderland as regards the photograph of Sheila on the bed with one wound.
I do not believe this photograph exist, but I would be very happy to be proved wrong.
I would have Zs goolies in my hand to give me the photograph.
Maybe 'Z' should just become a member of the forum and post it into a locked thread.
He may already be a member curious.
I thought he was. I'm sure Mike mentioned, when he first brought 'Z' to our attention, that 'Z' was a member of the forum, but perhaps did not post very often.
-
Something I have just noticed about that black and white picture of Sheila...
There is what appears to be a pronounced dark line (shadow line) formed by a crease then runs basically straight down the left side of Sheila's nightdress. One can see it is not an illusion as the hem of the nightdress by her left leg is raised....so the resulting "fold type feature" runs the whole length of the nightdress. This looks very artificial indeed.
I wonder what we can make of that?
-
No Mike i didnt get the joke!! I had a bad night last night.
So the pp thing is a joke too, because you cant be serious about that can you? Really?
Yes, deadly serious...
There is a brilliant thread on here when we were discussing the mystery of who Sheila's real father could be, and all the incredible connections with the Royal household on both JB's and Sheila's parents' sides. Keira posted some info and pics of cricket matches involving PP around Tolleshunt d'arcy area. Something bit odd about it all I reckon.
-
A screenshot I took some while back...so not ideal...
another angle of part of Sheila in the bedroom.
Again it is clear that there is no slipper or bullet case to the left of the bible.
-
There appears to be be either a shoe or a slipper in this crime scene photograph, but it is nowhere near to Sheila's right shoulder:-
-
I now wish to draw everyone's attention to the fact that the scene has been altered between photographs taken in the main bedroom. For example, (1) note the objects on the window sill, which have disappeared in the other photograph. (2) there are other obstructions between the chair and the bed, which have disappeared or are no longer present in the other photograph:-
-
Why is that bedside cabinet so clean no blood spots .
-
These items and areas have changed or been altered between pictures:-
-
Police were guilty of stage managing the bedroom scene, whilst they took pictures, as evidenced by the changes or alterations in-between pictures taken by PC Bird, including the movement of Sheila's body, her hand and the barrel of the gun against her throat...
-
Mike has a blue and white shirt/jersey been moved also? i see one on the table and folded on a chair in the 2 pictures.
-
Mike has a blue and white shirt/jersey been moved also? i see one on the table and folded on a chair in the 2 pictures.
Look at the curtains between the two photographs, looks like they have been taken down or altered/changed?
Really odd...
Why would police remove curtains from main bedroom window?
Could this have something to do with the figure having been seen at the bedroom window by two police officers and Jeremy at around 4am?
-
The blood patch is missing in Smiffy's screenshot. It should be visible.
-
The blood patch is missing in Smiffy's screenshot. It should be visible.
Yep...
-
Seems tome, that the only people moving things around at the scene was the police, not Jeremy Bamber, or any would be as yet unidentified killer/hitman?
-
The blood patch is missing in Smiffy's screenshot. It should be visible.
Yep...
How come that blood patch has a (rounded) diamond shape? If it's not a blood patch, then what is it?
-
The blood patch is missing in Smiffy's screenshot. It should be visible.
I don't think it is in shot, looking at where it is in relation to the rug, in the screen shot only a corner of the rug is visible. Also unless my eyes are playing up (which is possible) the screen shot seems to have a fisheye type effect to it which may be further distorting the perspective.
I also don't think it's a blood stain, if I remember correctly I had a spat with someone who was suggesting it was where a carpet sample was taken, although it's position doesn't quite match the plan (the same plan indicating bullet cases).
I don't know what it is though, a red piece of paper, police marker, packet of fags? I'm not sure, bit of a mystery to me.
-
The blood patch is missing in Smiffy's screenshot. It should be visible.
I don't think it is in shot, looking at where it is in relation to the rug, in the screen shot only a corner of the rug is visible. Also unless my eyes are playing up (which is possible) the screen shot seems to have a fisheye type effect to it which may be further distorting the perspective.
I also don't think it's a blood stain, if I remember correctly I had a spat with someone who was suggesting it was where a carpet sample was taken, although it's position doesn't quite match the plan (the same plan indicating bullet cases).
I don't know what it is though, a red piece of paper, police marker, packet of fags? I'm not sure, bit of a mystery to me.
For me, the stain or item in question is considerably higher up than the beginning of the persian type rug (if you were looking towards the bed, from the window) So I cannot understand how it is not in the screen shot. Part of the plain rug looks 'cut away' in the screen shot.
-
The blood patch is missing in Smiffy's screenshot. It should be visible.
I don't think it is in shot, looking at where it is in relation to the rug, in the screen shot only a corner of the rug is visible. Also unless my eyes are playing up (which is possible) the screen shot seems to have a fisheye type effect to it which may be further distorting the perspective.
I also don't think it's a blood stain, if I remember correctly I had a spat with someone who was suggesting it was where a carpet sample was taken, although it's position doesn't quite match the plan (the same plan indicating bullet cases).
I don't know what it is though, a red piece of paper, police marker, packet of fags? I'm not sure, bit of a mystery to me.
For me, the stain or item in question is considerably higher up than the beginning of the persian type rug (if you were looking towards the bed, from the window) So I cannot understand how it is not in the screen shot. Part of the plain rug looks 'cut away' in the screen shot.
Not sure, it's difficult to tell, the persian rug also looks further away from the bed in the screen shot, but again I'm not sure if that's just down to perspective.
-
is there another stain, just right of the middle rail on the bed rail a small area nr the rug.
-
is there another stain, just right of the middle rail on the bed rail a small area nr the rug.
There's something there, a little black dot.
-
the photo without the marks has brighter areas where they are in the other just used my stamp magnifying glass.
-
the photo without the marks has brighter areas where they are in the other just used my stamp magnifying glass.
I think that's just because of the image quality though, it actually looks as if it's been photoshopped to try and sharpen it up a bit, if you zoom in and look at the corner of the rug it looks like the pixels are smudged, like a paint brush or smudge tool.
It's probably just a low res image though.
-
the pictures still look good quality this is pre digital camera era. Mike said something the other day i think he described a flash frame will check with a mate of mine who is a photographer.
-
According to PS Woodcocks statement, no sooner does he remove the rifle and make it safe by 11:10 hrs, than DC hammersley and another police officer are wrapping up Sheila's body in a plastic sheet and removing her body, and then the two bullet cases are found, to the left of the body, that is between the body and the bed. This seriously contradicts what DC Hammersley says about one of the two bullet cases being on the opposite side of the body, between a slipper and her right shoulder. The diagram which was produced by PC Tingey, which purports to show the position and location of all the bullet cases, including DRH/1, is inaccurate, and does not represent the true position and location of that particular bullet case. There is no slipper anywhere at all near to Sheila`s shoulder, nor any such bullet case (DRH/1) near to Sheila`s right shoulder, DC Hammersleys testimony is false, and he is at least guilty of deceiving the court and perverting the course of justice regarding this matter...
Remember what PS Woodcock said in his statement about the two bullet cases only becoming visible, once Sheila's body had been wrapped in a sheet and removed, and that both bullet cases were to the left of her body?
Police are responsible for stage managing the scene in the bedroom and for fabricating evidence involving the movement of the body, movement of the gun, addIng scratch marks onto the aga surround, and merging two silencers into the same one...
-
It has previously been put to me, that the photograph which I saw at Ewen Smiths office of Sheila's body on the bed , was taken after police moved it there from the floor?
I have a number of observations to make regarding such a suggestion...
Firstly...
No police officer, or person who attended the scene in connection with the undertakers, mentions lifting Sheila's body from the floor to the bed, or vice versa , but what can be used as a reliable reference point are the contents of PS Woodcocks statement (aforementioned) which provides an accurate account of how Sheila`s body was wrapped in a sheet and removed - the photograph I have seen (at Ewens office) of Sheila`s body on the bed, was not wrapped in any body sheet, nor dit it appear as though it had been...
-
the reddish rectangular mark on the carpet is most likely where a sample was cut out from the carpet after Sheila was moved..hence not appearing inn photographs with body in place...it ties with the diagram which it is admitted is a guide only and not to scale.
On the chairs in the rifle standing by the window photograph... it seems like a net curtain has been draped over the 2 chairs and maybe a sock or two placed on top of the net curtain in one place.
It seems to be the net curtain that sneaks into the bottom of some pictures taken from near the window end towards the bed.
So did the bedroom normally have a net curtain fitted and did the police remove it?
-
DC Hammersley has clearly given a false account as to the precise position and location of bullet case, DRH/1...
How many other exhibits has he lied about?
Well, the following items spring to mind...
Hand swabs (DRH/33)
Bible (DRH/33 and DRH/44)
Rifle (DRH/15)
-
DC Hammersley has clearly given a false account as to the precise position and location of bullet case, DRH/1...
How many other exhibits has he lied about?
Well, the following items spring to mind...
Hand swabs (DRH/33)
Bible (DRH/33 and DRH/44)
Rifle (DRH/15)
What could the dodgy bullet case (DRH/1), and the dodgy Whole bullet (PV/20) have in common, I wonder?
-
DC Hammersley has clearly given a false account as to the precise position and location of bullet case, DRH/1...
How many other exhibits has he lied about?
Well, the following items spring to mind...
Hand swabs (DRH/33)
Bible (DRH/33 and DRH/44)
Rifle (DRH/15)
What could the dodgy bullet case (DRH/1), and the dodgy Whole bullet (PV/20) have in common, I wonder?
If you tamper with one of the two bullets (PV/20) and substitute the original fragmented bullet with a whole one, and you could wrongly attribute the find of one bullet case (DRH/1) to the bedroom next to the body of Sheila, it becomes easy to mislead people into thinking she was shot twice in the bedroom by use of the same gun...
-
Key witnesses who were involved with a silencer:-
(1) DS `Stan` Jones
(2) David Boutflour
(3) Ann Eaton
(4) Peter Eaton
(5) PI `Bob` Miller
(6) DI `Ron` Cook
(7) Glynis Howard
(8) Malcolm Fletcher
(9) John Hayward
(10) Robert Boutflour
(11) DS `Neil` Davidson
(12) DS Eastwood
(13) DC Oakey
(14) PC `David` Bird
(15) Anthony Pargeter
(16) Basil John Cock
(17) Brian Elliot
(18) DCI `Taff` Jones
(19) PC `Chris' Whiddon
The silencer evidence was treated by all the afore named, as though they were dealing with one silencer, but there were two different ones...
-
Pocketbook Entry of DCI "Taff" Jones, re:- position of Sheila's body on the bed:-
DCI Jones does not place Sheila's body on the floor at this time, unlike the bible and the splashes of blood and spent cartridge cases which he describes...
-
The Illusive scratch mark on one of the silencers
-
Pocketbook Entry of DCI "Taff" Jones, re:- position of Sheila's body on the bed:-
DCI Jones does not place Sheila's body on the floor at this time, unlike the bible and the splashes of blood and spent cartridge cases which he describes...
I have got copies of DCI "Taff" Jones pocketbook entries from 17th July 1985 to 18th August 1985 (inclusive)...
-
So...
(1) Now we have the photograph I saw of Sheila on the bed (when I visited Ewn Smiths office)
(2) also, the photograph I was shown by my informant of Sheila on the bed, with only one wound to her neck...
(3) and now, an entry in DCI "Taff" Jones pocketbook, which describes Sheila's body as being on the far side of the bed...
We also have missing negatives, which must show Sheila on the bed...
-
So...
(1) Now we have the photograph I saw of Sheila on the bed (when I visited Ewn Smiths office)
(2) also, the photograph I was shown by my informant of Sheila on the bed, with only one wound to her neck...
(3) and now, an entry in DCI "Taff" Jones pocketbook, which describes Sheila's body as being on the far side of the bed...
We also have missing negatives, which must show Sheila on the bed...
Mike, you don't actually have all of those things though? Where did the pocketbook come from, I thought that was missing? Though the notes re the far side of the bed look familiar ???
'Far side of bed' could mean where she was officially found.
-
So...
(1) Now we have the photograph I saw of Sheila on the bed (when I visited Ewn Smiths office)
(2) also, the photograph I was shown by my informant of Sheila on the bed, with only one wound to her neck...
(3) and now, an entry in DCI "Taff" Jones pocketbook, which describes Sheila's body as being on the far side of the bed...
We also have missing negatives, which must show Sheila on the bed...
Mike, you don't actually have all of those things though? Where did the pocketbook come from, I thought that was missing? Though the notes re the far side of the bed look familiar ???
'Far side of bed' could mean where she was officially found.
Essex police have (1), my informant has (2), and the notes of DCI Jones, do not say her body was found on the floor...
You will remember, that the pocketbook entry of PI "Bob" Miller, also placed Sheila's body on the far side of the bed (again, not necessarily on the floor)...
I have always had a copy of the relevant part of DCI "Taff" Jones pocketbook, like so many other documents I have got in my possession, I have got thousands of copy documents...
-
Why would DCI Jones, and PI Miller, both independently of each other, record for the fact that Shila;s body was found on the far side of the bed, if her body was on the floor at that stage?
-
I believe the blood you see coming from Sheilas mouth may be the result of her been moved to the floor, i have personal expierience of this situation.
-
Why would DCI Jones, and PI Miller, both independently of each other, record for the fact that Shila;s body was found on the far side of the bed, if her body was on the floor at that stage?
Mike, it's going to come down to what is meant by 'side'. Many will interpret it as far side of the bed ,while many will no doubt interpret it as far side of the bed (i.e. floor).
Many will interpret there being no mention of 'floor' as meaning she's on the bed. Others will simply say that it was rough notes recording by police under pressure and therefore the fact that 'floor' is not mentioned is no more than (yet) another 'mistake'.
-
This has just made me think of the scratch on the aga surround. I thought that the Bambers didn't have any contact with the rest of the family since the last Christmas. Or at most they didn't visit them much. What on earth made them notice the scratch on the aga? It could have been made at any time before that night? Also who notices those things unless they are looking for such things? I don't buy that. Look at the state of the paint and decor of the house. I'm sure it was covered with scratches? It was a working farmhouse.
-
A screenshot I took some while back...so not ideal...
another angle of part of Sheila in the bedroom.
Again it is clear that there is no slipper or bullet case to the left of the bible.
I don't like to post any more, so apologies to all, but why hasn't anybody else picked up on the fact that Mike posted this as "Smiffy"?
-
A screenshot I took some while back...so not ideal...
another angle of part of Sheila in the bedroom.
Again it is clear that there is no slipper or bullet case to the left of the bible.
I don't like to post any more, so apologies to all, but why hasn't anybody else picked up on the fact that Mike posted this as "Smiffy"?
bob,
Mike wouldn't need to take a screenshot. A screenshot can only refer to a photograph that exists somewhere else in another thread on the forum, that has been snapped by a poster. It's an image of a photograph (of a photograph) and so it would have been uploaded to the forum by Mike him self previously (?)
That's my take on it anyway.
-
This has just made me think of the scratch on the aga surround. I thought that the Bambers didn't have any contact with the rest of the family since the last Christmas. Or at most they didn't visit them much. What on earth made them notice the scratch on the aga? It could have been made at any time before that night? Also who notices those things unless they are looking for such things? I don't buy that. Look at the state of the paint and decor of the house. I'm sure it was covered with scratches? It was a working farmhouse.
Very interesting post that. Had never thought of it in that way.
-
screenshot was taken off an online video...paused and snapped etc .of someone checking a photo on their comp...
okies..hence the quality.
-
The claimed scratch on the silencer mainly reported by DB but also other "relatives".
DB in statements ..gives more info...as well about the deep scratch he reports.
He says it was about 1 inch long and was situated about half way along the body of the silencer.
-
A screenshot I took some while back...so not ideal...
another angle of part of Sheila in the bedroom.
Again it is clear that there is no slipper or bullet case to the left of the bible.
I don't like to post any more, so apologies to all, but why hasn't anybody else picked up on the fact that Mike posted this as "Smiffy"?
Just for everybody's information. Smiffy is not Mike. Different name, different IP address, Different part of the country. Unless of course Mike is really captain Kirk from Star trek and can travel at the speed of light?
-
Why would DCI Jones, and PI Miller, both independently of each other, record for the fact that Shila;s body was found on the far side of the bed, if her body was on the floor at that stage?
Mike, it's going to come down to what is meant by 'side'. Many will interpret it as far side of the bed ,while many will no doubt interpret it as far side of the bed (i.e. floor).
Many will interpret there being no mention of 'floor' as meaning she's on the bed. Others will simply say that it was rough notes recording by police under pressure and therefore the fact that 'floor' is not mentioned is no more than (yet) another 'mistake'.
I don't see it as a mistake at all. He was describing where the bodies were in the room, and to me "on the far side of the bed" automatically means on the floor. I'm sure that's what I would have written too. If I was describing seeing her on the bed I would have said "on the bed, towards the far side" or similar. As you say, it's a good example of the way people interpret things differently.
-
This has just made me think of the scratch on the aga surround. I thought that the Bambers didn't have any contact with the rest of the family since the last Christmas. Or at most they didn't visit them much. What on earth made them notice the scratch on the aga? It could have been made at any time before that night? Also who notices those things unless they are looking for such things? I don't buy that. Look at the state of the paint and decor of the house. I'm sure it was covered with scratches? It was a working farmhouse.
It could have been made.
-
Why would DCI Jones, and PI Miller, both independently of each other, record for the fact that Shila;s body was found on the far side of the bed, if her body was on the floor at that stage?
Mike, it's going to come down to what is meant by 'side'. Many will interpret it as far side of the bed ,while many will no doubt interpret it as far side of the bed (i.e. floor).
Many will interpret there being no mention of 'floor' as meaning she's on the bed. Others will simply say that it was rough notes recording by police under pressure and therefore the fact that 'floor' is not mentioned is no more than (yet) another 'mistake'.
I don't see it as a mistake at all. He was describing where the bodies were in the room, and to me "on the far side of the bed" automatically means on the floor. I'm sure that's what I would have written too. If I was describing seeing her on the bed I would have said "on the bed, towards the far side" or similar. As you say, it's a good example of the way people interpret things differently.
A clever bit of police speak then ...by phrasing as he did then Jones was able to cover both scenarios the police photographed...the on the bed version and the on the floor version without having to later edit the pocket book....
-
A screenshot I took some while back...so not ideal...
another angle of part of Sheila in the bedroom.
Again it is clear that there is no slipper or bullet case to the left of the bible.
I don't like to post any more, so apologies to all, but why hasn't anybody else picked up on the fact that Mike posted this as "Smiffy"?
Just for everybody's information. Smiffy is not Mike. Different name, different IP address, Different part of the country. Unless of course Mike is really captain Kirk from Star trek and can travel at the speed of light?
Beam me up Smiffy?
I must admit I'm not convinced, but it doesn't really matter either way.
Of course I'm sure it probably means that if I'm wrong on that, then my interpretation of the case is wrong, the world is a flat disc supported on the backs of elephants and the moon landings were filmed in Arizona. Plus Elvis is alive and well and living in Tollesbury. :P
-
Why would DCI Jones, and PI Miller, both independently of each other, record for the fact that Shila;s body was found on the far side of the bed, if her body was on the floor at that stage?
Mike, it's going to come down to what is meant by 'side'. Many will interpret it as far side of the bed ,while many will no doubt interpret it as far side of the bed (i.e. floor).
Many will interpret there being no mention of 'floor' as meaning she's on the bed. Others will simply say that it was rough notes recording by police under pressure and therefore the fact that 'floor' is not mentioned is no more than (yet) another 'mistake'.
I don't see it as a mistake at all. He was describing where the bodies were in the room, and to me "on the far side of the bed" automatically means on the floor. I'm sure that's what I would have written too. If I was describing seeing her on the bed I would have said "on the bed, towards the far side" or similar. As you say, it's a good example of the way people interpret things differently.
A clever bit of police speak then ...by phrasing as he did then Jones was able to cover both scenarios the police photographed...the on the bed version and the on the floor version without having to later edit the pocket book....
I don't think there's anything clever about it, he used the same words many people would. The fact that the words used could be ambiguous most likely didn't occur to him, afterall this is just a note book, an aid to his memory, he knew what he had seen.
-
Why would DCI Jones, and PI Miller, both independently of each other, record for the fact that Shila;s body was found on the far side of the bed, if her body was on the floor at that stage?
Mike, it's going to come down to what is meant by 'side'. Many will interpret it as far side of the bed ,while many will no doubt interpret it as far side of the bed (i.e. floor).
Many will interpret there being no mention of 'floor' as meaning she's on the bed. Others will simply say that it was rough notes recording by police under pressure and therefore the fact that 'floor' is not mentioned is no more than (yet) another 'mistake'.
I don't see it as a mistake at all. He was describing where the bodies were in the room, and to me "on the far side of the bed" automatically means on the floor. I'm sure that's what I would have written too. If I was describing seeing her on the bed I would have said "on the bed, towards the far side" or similar. As you say, it's a good example of the way people interpret things differently.
A clever bit of police speak then ...by phrasing as he did then Jones was able to cover both scenarios the police photographed...the on the bed version and the on the floor version without having to later edit the pocket book....
I don't think there's anything clever about it, he used the same words many people would. The fact that the words used could be ambiguous most likely didn't occur to him, afterall this is just a note book, an aid to his memory, he knew what he had seen.
There is ambiguity in the phrase. You would like to think that 'floor' would be mentioned and the fact that's it not is a bit lazy. Though I take your point when you say 'he knew what he'd seen'. And you're right, they're simply notes. I wonder if this ambiguity could have led to the situation where Clark / AE mention the bed?
-
Why would DCI Jones, and PI Miller, both independently of each other, record for the fact that Shila;s body was found on the far side of the bed, if her body was on the floor at that stage?
Mike, it's going to come down to what is meant by 'side'. Many will interpret it as far side of the bed ,while many will no doubt interpret it as far side of the bed (i.e. floor).
Many will interpret there being no mention of 'floor' as meaning she's on the bed. Others will simply say that it was rough notes recording by police under pressure and therefore the fact that 'floor' is not mentioned is no more than (yet) another 'mistake'.
I don't see it as a mistake at all. He was describing where the bodies were in the room, and to me "on the far side of the bed" automatically means on the floor. I'm sure that's what I would have written too. If I was describing seeing her on the bed I would have said "on the bed, towards the far side" or similar. As you say, it's a good example of the way people interpret things differently.
A clever bit of police speak then ...by phrasing as he did then Jones was able to cover both scenarios the police photographed...the on the bed version and the on the floor version without having to later edit the pocket book....
I don't think there's anything clever about it, he used the same words many people would. The fact that the words used could be ambiguous most likely didn't occur to him, afterall this is just a note book, an aid to his memory, he knew what he had seen.
There is ambiguity in the phrase. You would like to think that 'floor' would be mentioned and the fact that's it not is a bit lazy. Though I take your point when you say 'he knew what he'd seen'. And you're right, they're simply notes. I wonder if this ambiguity could have led to the situation where Clark / AE mention the bed?
Yes, thinking about it that's a possibility.
-
or how about Jones saying "the far side of the room" instead of "the far side of the bed"...
trust me...they know exactly what they are writing!..it becomes a habit for them.
-
or how about Jones saying "the far side of the room" instead of "the far side of the bed"...
trust me...they know exactly what they are writing!..it becomes a habit for them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is Taff Jones' pocket book, isn't he the one who believed that this was 4 murders and a suicide? If so, are you saying that he of all people wrote what he did deliberately to make it possible for plod to play musical beds with Sheila's body?
-
A screenshot I took some while back...so not ideal...
another angle of part of Sheila in the bedroom.
Again it is clear that there is no slipper or bullet case to the left of the bible.
I don't like to post any more, so apologies to all, but why hasn't anybody else picked up on the fact that Mike posted this as "Smiffy"?
Just for everybody's information. Smiffy is not Mike. Different name, different IP address, Different part of the country. Unless of course Mike is really captain Kirk from Star trek and can travel at the speed of light?
Beam me up Smiffy?
I must admit I'm not convinced, but it doesn't really matter either way.
Of course I'm sure it probably means that if I'm wrong on that, then my interpretation of the case is wrong, the world is a flat disc supported on the backs of elephants and the moon landings were filmed in Arizona. Plus Elvis is alive and well and living in Tollesbury. :P
This suggestion that Mike and Smiffy are one and the same came originally from John Lamberton and has been repeated so many times that it is being regarded as true by some who should know better than to be taken in by something not supported by any evidence. Both Mike and Smiffy have made the position clear and Grahame and I have explained why we believe this suggestion to be rubbish. Suggesting in effect that both Mike and Smiffy are lying about this is not acceptable in my view and I know that it is causing offence. Can we please now accept what Mike and Smiffy have said and move on.
-
A screenshot I took some while back...so not ideal...
another angle of part of Sheila in the bedroom.
Again it is clear that there is no slipper or bullet case to the left of the bible.
I don't like to post any more, so apologies to all, but why hasn't anybody else picked up on the fact that Mike posted this as "Smiffy"?
Just for everybody's information. Smiffy is not Mike. Different name, different IP address, Different part of the country. Unless of course Mike is really captain Kirk from Star trek and can travel at the speed of light?
Beam me up Smiffy?
I must admit I'm not convinced, but it doesn't really matter either way.
Of course I'm sure it probably means that if I'm wrong on that, then my interpretation of the case is wrong, the world is a flat disc supported on the backs of elephants and the moon landings were filmed in Arizona. Plus Elvis is alive and well and living in Tollesbury. :P
This suggestion that Mike and Smiffy are one and the same came originally from John Lamberton and has been repeated so many times that it is being regarded as true by some who should know better than to be taken in by something not supported by any evidence. Both Mike and Smiffy have made the position clear and Grahame and I have explained why we believe this suggestion to be rubbish. Suggesting in effect that both Mike and Smiffy are lying about this is not acceptable in my view and I know that it is causing offence. Can we please now accept what Mike and Smiffy have said and move on.
Alas your wording here is so true of many instances on the forum - the repeated reference to that photo of Sheila on the bed (with one wound) used as a mind implant being the most frustrating to me!! ::).
Is anybody doing anything to get this alleged photo from the infamous Z :o
-
Alas your wording here is so true of many instances on the forum ..................
I was just about to post those exact same words.
-
If Sheila is not the one who shot her family that night why are her fatal injuries not as the rest of the family.
-
If Sheila is not the one who shot her family that night why are her fatal injuries not as the rest of the family.
Because the murderer (if it was not SC) wanted to make it look as if SC had shot her family, and then shot herself!!
The shot(s) to SC had to look like a self inflicted suicide shot(s) for this to work.
The fact that their are two shots to SC's throat area has lets say complicated the subject some what!!
-
If Sheila is not the one who shot her family that night why are her fatal injuries not as the rest of the family.
Because the murderer (if it was not SC) wanted to make it look as if SC had shot her family, and then shot herself!!
The shot(s) to SC had to look like a self inflicted suicide shot(s) for this to work.
The fact that their are two shots to SC's throat area has lets say complicated the subject some what!!
Why do you think the most experienced policemen in Essex , could not see this , when they first examined the scene ?
-
So Sheila complied and laid down ready to be shot , meanwhile the killer was still there at 7am waiting for the blood to stop if only.
-
A screenshot I took some while back...so not ideal...
another angle of part of Sheila in the bedroom.
Again it is clear that there is no slipper or bullet case to the left of the bible.
I don't like to post any more, so apologies to all, but why hasn't anybody else picked up on the fact that Mike posted this as "Smiffy"?
Just for everybody's information. Smiffy is not Mike. Different name, different IP address, Different part of the country. Unless of course Mike is really captain Kirk from Star trek and can travel at the speed of light?
Beam me up Smiffy?
I must admit I'm not convinced, but it doesn't really matter either way.
Of course I'm sure it probably means that if I'm wrong on that, then my interpretation of the case is wrong, the world is a flat disc supported on the backs of elephants and the moon landings were filmed in Arizona. Plus Elvis is alive and well and living in Tollesbury. :P
This suggestion that Mike and Smiffy are one and the same came originally from John Lamberton and has been repeated so many times that it is being regarded as true by some who should know better than to be taken in by something not supported by any evidence. Both Mike and Smiffy have made the position clear and Grahame and I have explained why we believe this suggestion to be rubbish. Suggesting in effect that both Mike and Smiffy are lying about this is not acceptable in my view and I know that it is causing offence. Can we please now accept what Mike and Smiffy have said and move on.
Alas your wording here is so true of many instances on the forum - the repeated reference to that photo of Sheila on the bed (with one wound) used as a mind implant being the most frustrating to me!! ::).
Is anybody doing anything to get this alleged photo from the infamous Z :o
The example you have given is very different from the subject of my post. Mike says that he has seen a photograph of Sheila on the bed and nobody can say from their own knowledge that what Mike says is false. You may be sceptical about this but that is as far as you can take it. There is no evidence to contradict what Mike says. In the case of the Mike/Smiffy allegation both Mike and Smiffy have categorically denied that they are one and the same. There therefore is direct evidence to contradict this John Lamberton invention.
-
So Sheila complied and laid down ready to be shot , meanwhile the killer was still there at 7am waiting for the blood to stop if only.
That it what those who believe JB did it (or an other) managed to do - and yes I agree It takes some believing!
If JB was moving around the house killing all (and beating up Nevill), where was SC, why didn't she try and make a break for it.
Instead we are, according to the prosecution, to believe somehow JB got SC to comply with a staged suicide scenario.
This is effectively what the 10 "guilty" members of the original jury must have believed happenned.
-
A screenshot I took some while back...so not ideal...
another angle of part of Sheila in the bedroom.
Again it is clear that there is no slipper or bullet case to the left of the bible.
I don't like to post any more, so apologies to all, but why hasn't anybody else picked up on the fact that Mike posted this as "Smiffy"?
Just for everybody's information. Smiffy is not Mike. Different name, different IP address, Different part of the country. Unless of course Mike is really captain Kirk from Star trek and can travel at the speed of light?
Beam me up Smiffy?
I must admit I'm not convinced, but it doesn't really matter either way.
Of course I'm sure it probably means that if I'm wrong on that, then my interpretation of the case is wrong, the world is a flat disc supported on the backs of elephants and the moon landings were filmed in Arizona. Plus Elvis is alive and well and living in Tollesbury. :P
This suggestion that Mike and Smiffy are one and the same came originally from John Lamberton and has been repeated so many times that it is being regarded as true by some who should know better than to be taken in by something not supported by any evidence. Both Mike and Smiffy have made the position clear and Grahame and I have explained why we believe this suggestion to be rubbish. Suggesting in effect that both Mike and Smiffy are lying about this is not acceptable in my view and I know that it is causing offence. Can we please now accept what Mike and Smiffy have said and move on.
Alas your wording here is so true of many instances on the forum - the repeated reference to that photo of Sheila on the bed (with one wound) used as a mind implant being the most frustrating to me!! ::).
Is anybody doing anything to get this alleged photo from the infamous Z :o
The example you have given is very different from the subject of my post. Mike says that he has seen a photograph of Sheila on the bed and nobody can say from their own knowledge that what Mike says is false. You may be sceptical about this but that is as far as you can take it. There is no evidence to contradict what Mike says. In the case of the Mike/Smiffy allegation both Mike and Smiffy have categorically denied that they are one and the same. There therefore is direct evidence to contradict this John Lamberton invention.
ngb - point taken. However I just used your highlighted words to make a point. My post was based an an element of sceptisism and frustation on the photo subject (I am not too bothered about who's who on here).
Does anybody (mike, ngb) have a comment on "Is anybody doing anything to get this alleged photo from the infamous Z??
-
So Sheila complied and laid down ready to be shot , meanwhile the killer was still there at 7am waiting for the blood to stop if only.
That it was those who believe JB (or an other) managed to do - and yes I agree It takes some believing!
If JB was moving around the house killing all (and beating up Nevill), where was SC, why didn't she try and make a break for it.
Instead we are, according to the prosecution, to believe somehow JB got SC to comply with a staged suicide scenario.
This is effectively what the 10 "guilty" members of the original jury must have believed happenned.
Sheila would not have fled before or after the boys were shot, she would have scratched his face bad, no reported injuries on Jeremy that night and none healed up fully in the space of a few hours, if as i think more than 1 firearm was in the house Sheila could have used on Jeremy,one thing can never be faked , tiredness, when Jeremy met the police at the farm were pictures taken of him, were not 8 of the jury women ? women and children need i say more guilty assured.
-
If Sheila is not the one who shot her family that night why are her fatal injuries not as the rest of the family.
Because the murderer (if it was not SC) wanted to make it look as if SC had shot her family, and then shot herself!!
The shot(s) to SC had to look like a self inflicted suicide shot(s) for this to work.
The fact that their are two shots to SC's throat area has lets say complicated the subject some what!!
Why do you think the most experienced policemen in Essex , could not see this , when they first examined the scene ?
There are so many suggested scenarios in this respect it's a bit mind boggling
1) JB managed to get SC to comply to a "suicide" and staged SC's body on the floor by the bed (as put forward by EP to help convict JB)
2) SC was originally found by EP on the bed (with one wound to her throat) - no proof as yet.
3) EP staged SC's body on the floor by the bed (after shooting her!! (not my idea) / finding her still alive and moving her to the recovery position on the floor)
4) If SC was originally found on the bed by EP, JB could still have stage managed her body on the bed. But when the case turned against JB, EP had to use the photos of SC on the floor or have an awkward explanation of how she got there.
5) If SC shot herself (2nd shot) it could have been on the bed, and she either died there or was still alive, just - (see 3 above)
There maybe more possible scenarios, but I've run out of steam :P
-
The example you have given is very different from the subject of my post. Mike says that he has seen a photograph of Sheila on the bed and nobody can say from their own knowledge that what Mike says is false. You may be sceptical about this but that is as far as you can take it. There is no evidence to contradict what Mike says. In the case of the Mike/Smiffy allegation both Mike and Smiffy have categorically denied that they are one and the same. There therefore is direct evidence to contradict this John Lamberton invention.
That's fair enough, there are however many instances of something being claimed, or claims that a document irrefutably indicates something, when in reality it is simply a persons opinion or view.
Examples of this include:
Pargaters rifle case being at WHF, Smiffy has posted Ann's note as the proof, the reality is that it's not proof at all, merely somebodies opinion of what it refers to. However since then countless people on the forum have repeated it so many times that many people accept it to be the 'case' without question.
Another example is Ann taking a bucket of blood stained clothes home, which was accepted on the same face value and isn't actually true.
Or we have the old story about the police being in conversation with somebody inside the house, unfortunately the 'met with no reply' was omitted.
I could go on, but all of these things are (or were) accepted as fact simply because they were repeated over and over again. It has more to do with people trying to persuade others around to their way of thinking, regardless of whether it's the truth or not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of Mikes theories are based on such terms, such as Sheila being downstairs, Sheila being in the scullery, bodies moved around, June being the shooter, Anthony Pargeter being the shooter, Pargeters rifle/silencer/magazines being at WHF, a phone call from Ralph, a scratched/unscratched mantel piece, edited witness statements, falsified hand swabs... etc .... etc ... etc.
Which is fine, it's a 21st Century method of brainstorming I suppose, the problem is in the manner in which such theories are put across, they are stated as the absolute matter of fact truth, even though many of these absolute matter of fact truths are incompatible with each other.
Other people then read these theories and accept them as fact and repeat them over and over again until they almost become accepted. There's even been newspaper articles and TV programs repeating these things, not to mention the various comments added on to online articles and blogs and forums.
And as I say, that's all fine, folk can do as they please, but I do question what the point of it is, why does someone reply to one of my posts shouting and screaming in an almost uncontrollable rant that their opinion is far more credible than mine when the reality is it's just their views differ to mine. My views may not be accepted by everyone but they are usually fairly well thought out and conveyed, so I do wonder why they appear to offend people so.
It's one thing to convince a few people of something (whether it's true or not), it's another to actually convince the courts. I sometimes get the impression that priorities are the wrong way around.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway I've rambled on enough and I've forgot what the question was, or if there even was one. :-\
And this all has nothing to do with the identities of anybody on the forum which just doesn't bloody matter anyway.
-
hartley posted
Another example is Ann taking a bucket of blood stained clothes home, which was accepted on the same face value and isn't actually true.
first time I have seen this claim made...is it your imagination again Hartley?
-
I wonder if someone can post where this information about Ann taking home a bucket of bloodstained clothes comes from? I;ve heard it several times, but have failed to find out the source?
-
I wonder if someone can post where this information about Ann taking home a bucket of bloodstained clothes comes from? I;ve heard it several times, but have failed to find out the source?
Not sure she did Grahame. I seem to recall that RB told her [Ann] to dump them as she [Sheila] would not need them any more, which I thought was a tad callace.
Then RB seemed to be a bit uncaring anyway.
-
I wonder if someone can post where this information about Ann taking home a bucket of bloodstained clothes comes from? I;ve heard it several times, but have failed to find out the source?
Not sure she did Grahame. I seem to recall that RB told her [Ann] to dump them as she [Sheila] would not need them any more, which I thought was a tad callace.
Then RB seemed to be a bit uncaring anyway.
If therefore if there is nothing written down we must consider this to be just hearsay and has no substance in fact.
-
yup
-
CurrentlY leaving Harrogate...
-
Why would DCI Jones, and PI Miller, both independently of each other, record for the fact that Shila;s body was found on the far side of the bed, if her body was on the floor at that stage?
Mike, it's going to come down to what is meant by 'side'. Many will interpret it as far side of the bed ,while many will no doubt interpret it as far side of the bed (i.e. floor).
Many will interpret there being no mention of 'floor' as meaning she's on the bed. Others will simply say that it was rough notes recording by police under pressure and therefore the fact that 'floor' is not mentioned is no more than (yet) another 'mistake'.
I don't see it as a mistake at all. He was describing where the bodies were in the room, and to me "on the far side of the bed" automatically means on the floor. I'm sure that's what I would have written too. If I was describing seeing her on the bed I would have said "on the bed, towards the far side" or similar. As you say, it's a good example of the way people interpret things differently.
There can be no doubt what DCI Jones meant, and what PI Miller meant when they both recorded that Sheila's body was on the far side of the bed - since I have seen a photograph of Sheila on the bed, a photograph which was taken after PI Miller and DCI Jones visited the bedroom. Both use the word "on" followed by a reference to the far side of the bed, this to me, cannot be interpreted to mean that they saw Sheila's body on the floor, since both would have simply wrote, that they saw Sheila's body on the floor on the far side of the bed, which is different to saying that they saw her body on the far side of the bed...
Both PI Miller, and DCI Jones, omit the reference to Sheila's body being "on the floor"...
-
Why would DCI Jones, and PI Miller, both independently of each other, record for the fact that Shila;s body was found on the far side of the bed, if her body was on the floor at that stage?
Mike, it's going to come down to what is meant by 'side'. Many will interpret it as far side of the bed ,while many will no doubt interpret it as far side of the bed (i.e. floor).
Many will interpret there being no mention of 'floor' as meaning she's on the bed. Others will simply say that it was rough notes recording by police under pressure and therefore the fact that 'floor' is not mentioned is no more than (yet) another 'mistake'.
I don't see it as a mistake at all. He was describing where the bodies were in the room, and to me "on the far side of the bed" automatically means on the floor. I'm sure that's what I would have written too. If I was describing seeing her on the bed I would have said "on the bed, towards the far side" or similar. As you say, it's a good example of the way people interpret things differently.
There can be no doubt what DCI Jones meant, and what PI Miller meant when they both recorded that Sheila's body was on the far side of the bed - since I have seen a photograph of Sheila on the bed, a photograph which was taken after PI Miller and DCI Jones visited the bedroom. Both use the word "on" followed by a reference to the far side of the bed, this to me, cannot be interpreted to mean that they saw Sheila's body on the floor, since both would have simply wrote, that they saw Sheila's body on the floor on the far side of the bed, which is different to saying that they saw her body on the far side of the bed...
Both PI Miller, and DCI Jones, omit the reference to Sheila's body being "on the floor"...
And of course further proof that she must have been on the bed is the fact that if he meant on the floor then he was wrong? Because wasn't she on the near side of the bed on the floor in the official picture? ie nearest the door?
-
CurrentlY leaving Harrogate...
A visit to SMcK?
-
Why would DCI Jones, and PI Miller, both independently of each other, record for the fact that Shila;s body was found on the far side of the bed, if her body was on the floor at that stage?
Mike, it's going to come down to what is meant by 'side'. Many will interpret it as far side of the bed ,while many will no doubt interpret it as far side of the bed (i.e. floor).
Many will interpret there being no mention of 'floor' as meaning she's on the bed. Others will simply say that it was rough notes recording by police under pressure and therefore the fact that 'floor' is not mentioned is no more than (yet) another 'mistake'.
I don't see it as a mistake at all. He was describing where the bodies were in the room, and to me "on the far side of the bed" automatically means on the floor. I'm sure that's what I would have written too. If I was describing seeing her on the bed I would have said "on the bed, towards the far side" or similar. As you say, it's a good example of the way people interpret things differently.
There can be no doubt what DCI Jones meant, and what PI Miller meant when they both recorded that Sheila's body was on the far side of the bed - since I have seen a photograph of Sheila on the bed, a photograph which was taken after PI Miller and DCI Jones visited the bedroom. Both use the word "on" followed by a reference to the far side of the bed, this to me, cannot be interpreted to mean that they saw Sheila's body on the floor, since both would have simply wrote, that they saw Sheila's body on the floor on the far side of the bed, which is different to saying that they saw her body on the far side of the bed...
Both PI Miller, and DCI Jones, omit the reference to Sheila's body being "on the floor"...
And of course further proof that she must have been on the bed is the fact that if he meant on the floor then he was wrong? Because wasn't she on the near side of the bed on the floor in the official picture? ie nearest the door?
He seems to have entered the room via the door where June was. From that position, Sheila was on the far side of the bed, be that on the floor on the bed, depending on your interpretation.
-
Why would DCI Jones, and PI Miller, both independently of each other, record for the fact that Shila;s body was found on the far side of the bed, if her body was on the floor at that stage?
Mike, it's going to come down to what is meant by 'side'. Many will interpret it as far side of the bed ,while many will no doubt interpret it as far side of the bed (i.e. floor).
Many will interpret there being no mention of 'floor' as meaning she's on the bed. Others will simply say that it was rough notes recording by police under pressure and therefore the fact that 'floor' is not mentioned is no more than (yet) another 'mistake'.
I don't see it as a mistake at all. He was describing where the bodies were in the room, and to me "on the far side of the bed" automatically means on the floor. I'm sure that's what I would have written too. If I was describing seeing her on the bed I would have said "on the bed, towards the far side" or similar. As you say, it's a good example of the way people interpret things differently.
There can be no doubt what DCI Jones meant, and what PI Miller meant when they both recorded that Sheila's body was on the far side of the bed - since I have seen a photograph of Sheila on the bed, a photograph which was taken after PI Miller and DCI Jones visited the bedroom. Both use the word "on" followed by a reference to the far side of the bed, this to me, cannot be interpreted to mean that they saw Sheila's body on the floor, since both would have simply wrote, that they saw Sheila's body on the floor on the far side of the bed, which is different to saying that they saw her body on the far side of the bed...
Both PI Miller, and DCI Jones, omit the reference to Sheila's body being "on the floor"...
Of course there can be doubt about what Jones meant and it certainly can be interpreted to mean he meant on the floor. Actually I don't doubt that he meant on the floor. You are free to disagree, but that don't make it so.
-
Why would DCI Jones, and PI Miller, both independently of each other, record for the fact that Shila;s body was found on the far side of the bed, if her body was on the floor at that stage?
Mike, it's going to come down to what is meant by 'side'. Many will interpret it as far side of the bed ,while many will no doubt interpret it as far side of the bed (i.e. floor).
Many will interpret there being no mention of 'floor' as meaning she's on the bed. Others will simply say that it was rough notes recording by police under pressure and therefore the fact that 'floor' is not mentioned is no more than (yet) another 'mistake'.
I don't see it as a mistake at all. He was describing where the bodies were in the room, and to me "on the far side of the bed" automatically means on the floor. I'm sure that's what I would have written too. If I was describing seeing her on the bed I would have said "on the bed, towards the far side" or similar. As you say, it's a good example of the way people interpret things differently.
There can be no doubt what DCI Jones meant, and what PI Miller meant when they both recorded that Sheila's body was on the far side of the bed - since I have seen a photograph of Sheila on the bed, a photograph which was taken after PI Miller and DCI Jones visited the bedroom. Both use the word "on" followed by a reference to the far side of the bed, this to me, cannot be interpreted to mean that they saw Sheila's body on the floor, since both would have simply wrote, that they saw Sheila's body on the floor on the far side of the bed, which is different to saying that they saw her body on the far side of the bed...
Both PI Miller, and DCI Jones, omit the reference to Sheila's body being "on the floor"...
And of course further proof that she must have been on the bed is the fact that if he meant on the floor then he was wrong? Because wasn't she on the near side of the bed on the floor in the official picture? ie nearest the door?
He seems to have entered the room via the door where June was. From that position, Sheila was on the far side of the bed, be that on the floor on the bed, depending on your interpretation.
Were there two doors into the room then?
-
Why would DCI Jones, and PI Miller, both independently of each other, record for the fact that Shila;s body was found on the far side of the bed, if her body was on the floor at that stage?
Mike, it's going to come down to what is meant by 'side'. Many will interpret it as far side of the bed ,while many will no doubt interpret it as far side of the bed (i.e. floor).
Many will interpret there being no mention of 'floor' as meaning she's on the bed. Others will simply say that it was rough notes recording by police under pressure and therefore the fact that 'floor' is not mentioned is no more than (yet) another 'mistake'.
I don't see it as a mistake at all. He was describing where the bodies were in the room, and to me "on the far side of the bed" automatically means on the floor. I'm sure that's what I would have written too. If I was describing seeing her on the bed I would have said "on the bed, towards the far side" or similar. As you say, it's a good example of the way people interpret things differently.
There can be no doubt what DCI Jones meant, and what PI Miller meant when they both recorded that Sheila's body was on the far side of the bed - since I have seen a photograph of Sheila on the bed, a photograph which was taken after PI Miller and DCI Jones visited the bedroom. Both use the word "on" followed by a reference to the far side of the bed, this to me, cannot be interpreted to mean that they saw Sheila's body on the floor, since both would have simply wrote, that they saw Sheila's body on the floor on the far side of the bed, which is different to saying that they saw her body on the far side of the bed...
Both PI Miller, and DCI Jones, omit the reference to Sheila's body being "on the floor"...
And of course further proof that she must have been on the bed is the fact that if he meant on the floor then he was wrong? Because wasn't she on the near side of the bed on the floor in the official picture? ie nearest the door?
He seems to have entered the room via the door where June was. From that position, Sheila was on the far side of the bed, be that on the floor on the bed, depending on your interpretation.
Were there two doors into the room then?
Well now you have me doubting but yes, I'm pretty sure there are. One off the landing, which is on the right hand side of the room if you have your back to the window and is where June lay, and a door which I think I think is a connecting door to a room used for storage. That door is the one you can see in the photos of Sheila and is towards the left hand end of the room.
-
There are definately 2 doors. Take a look at post 3 on abs picture thread, the floor plans are there. Taff Jones would have had to have entered through the door where June lay, the one that opened onto the landing.
-
If she was on the bed, would you need to describe her feet as being closest to the window? If she was on the bed then I believe it would be described as such, not the far side, just on the bed.
So I'm gonna disagree as well, but there's no change there.
-
There are definately 2 doors. Take a look at post 3 on abs picture thread, the floor plans are there. Taff Jones would have had to have entered through the door where June lay, the one that opened onto the landing.
Yes there are, the door from the landing next to where June was found, and a door into a box room next to where Sheila was found (on the floor).
-
If she was on the bed, would you need to describe her feet as being closest to the window? If she was on the bed then I believe it would be described as such, not the far side, just on the bed.
So I'm gonna disagree as well, but there's no change there.
Good point about her feet.
-
Now would be a good time for that photo.
-
In addition to PI Miller and DCI Jones saying they saw Sheila` s body on the far side of the bed,' and me having seen two crime scene pictures depicting Sheila`s body on the bed, it should also not be forgotten that the police surgeon Dr Craig, told Ewen Smith (bow a CCRC Commissioner) that when he arrived at the scene Sheila`s. Body was on the bed, and that by that by that time she only had one wound to her throat
...
Dr Craig was accompanied around the house on that occasion by PI Miller, who aso describes in his pocketbook that Sheila`s body was on the far side of the bed. He also told Mr Thompkin that Sheila killed the others, and then she had taken her own life by shooting herself with a solitary shot under the chin...
Dr Craig and PI Miller arrived at the scene before DCI Jones, and the photographs of Sheila on the bed was taken after that...
-
In addition to PI Miller and DCI Jones sAying they saw Sheila` body on the far side of the bed, abd me having seen two crime scene pictures depicting Sheila`s body on the bed, it should also not be forgotten that the pice surgeon Dr Craig, told Ewen Smith (bow a CCRC Commissioner) thar wheb he arrived ar the scene Sheila`s. Bodt was on the bed, and that by that by that time she only had one wound to her throat
...
Dr Craig was accompabied around the house on that occasion by PI Miller, who aso describes in his pocketbook that Sheila`s body was on the far side of the bed. He also told Mr Thompkin that Sheila killed the others, and then she had taken her own life by shooting herself with a solitary shot under the chin...
Dr Craig and PI Miller arrived at the scene before DCI Jones, and the photographs of Sheila on the bed was taken after that...
Unfortunately not. Dr Craig describes Sheilas location as on the other side of the bed, on the floor hidden from view. Pretty much as per photographs on this forum and as consistently described in every single piece of documentary evidence in which it's mentioned.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1187.0.html
Your only recourse for this is that Dr Craig lied or his statement was edited, which I do not believe.
-
In addition to PI Miller and DCI Jones sAying they saw Sheila` body on the far side of the bed, abd me having seen two crime scene pictures depicting Sheila`s body on the bed, it should also not be forgotten that the pice surgeon Dr Craig, told Ewen Smith (bow a CCRC Commissioner) thar wheb he arrived ar the scene Sheila`s. Bodt was on the bed, and that by that by that time she only had one wound to her throat
...
Dr Craig was accompabied around the house on that occasion by PI Miller, who aso describes in his pocketbook that Sheila`s body was on the far side of the bed. He also told Mr Thompkin that Sheila killed the others, and then she had taken her own life by shooting herself with a solitary shot under the chin...
Dr Craig and PI Miller arrived at the scene before DCI Jones, and the photographs of Sheila on the bed was taken after that...
Unfortunately not. Dr Craig describes Sheilas location as on the other side of the bed, on the floor hidden from view. Pretty much as per photographs on this forum and as consistently described in every single piece of documentary evidence in which it's mentioned.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1187.0.html
Your only recourse for this is that Dr Craig lied or his statement was edited, which I do not believe.
Police do put pressure on witness to lie and only a fool or a person in denial would not accept this happens.
That appears to have occurred with Dr Craig and with the pathologist and likely many others.
Clearly in this case some major cover up has gone on and any right minded person can see this from a proper examination of the available evidence.
It goes way beyond being able to be passed off as mistakes over and over again.
-
In addition to PI Miller and DCI Jones sAying they saw Sheila` body on the far side of the bed, abd me having seen two crime scene pictures depicting Sheila`s body on the bed, it should also not be forgotten that the pice surgeon Dr Craig, told Ewen Smith (bow a CCRC Commissioner) thar wheb he arrived ar the scene Sheila`s. Bodt was on the bed, and that by that by that time she only had one wound to her throat
...
Dr Craig was accompabied around the house on that occasion by PI Miller, who aso describes in his pocketbook that Sheila`s body was on the far side of the bed. He also told Mr Thompkin that Sheila killed the others, and then she had taken her own life by shooting herself with a solitary shot under the chin...
Dr Craig and PI Miller arrived at the scene before DCI Jones, and the photographs of Sheila on the bed was taken after that...
Unfortunately not. Dr Craig describes Sheilas location as on the other side of the bed, on the floor hidden from view. Pretty much as per photographs on this forum and as consistently described in every single piece of documentary evidence in which it's mentioned.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1187.0.html
Your only recourse for this is that Dr Craig lied or his statement was edited, which I do not believe.
Rather than you suggesting that I am wrong you should consider contacting Ewen Smith (CCRC Commissioner) and ask him what Dr Craig told him? If you do, he will confirm that Dr Craig told him that Sheila`s body was on the bed when he saw it, and that he was asked to make a false statement saying Sheila`s body was on the floor. He told Ewen his statement was false...
This has very serious consequences for many police officers who have all made false statements regarding the same...
-
In addition to PI Miller and DCI Jones sAying they saw Sheila` body on the far side of the bed, abd me having seen two crime scene pictures depicting Sheila`s body on the bed, it should also not be forgotten that the pice surgeon Dr Craig, told Ewen Smith (bow a CCRC Commissioner) thar wheb he arrived ar the scene Sheila`s. Bodt was on the bed, and that by that by that time she only had one wound to her throat
...
Dr Craig was accompabied around the house on that occasion by PI Miller, who aso describes in his pocketbook that Sheila`s body was on the far side of the bed. He also told Mr Thompkin that Sheila killed the others, and then she had taken her own life by shooting herself with a solitary shot under the chin...
Dr Craig and PI Miller arrived at the scene before DCI Jones, and the photographs of Sheila on the bed was taken after that...
Unfortunately not. Dr Craig describes Sheilas location as on the other side of the bed, on the floor hidden from view. Pretty much as per photographs on this forum and as consistently described in every single piece of documentary evidence in which it's mentioned.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1187.0.html
Your only recourse for this is that Dr Craig lied or his statement was edited, which I do not believe.
Rather than you suggesting that I am wrong you should consider contacting Ewen Smith (CCRC 0commisioner) and ask him what Dr Craig told him? If you do, he will confirm that Dr Raig told him that Sheila`s body was on the bed whgen he saw it, and that he was asked to make a false statement saying Sheila`s body was on the floor. He told Ewen his statement was false...
This has very serious consequences for many police officers who have all made false statements regarding the same...
Perhaps before suggesting that I am wrong you should go and get an affidavit from Ewen to that effect, think of all the tax payers money you could save.
-
In addition to PI Miller and DCI Jones sAying they saw Sheila` body on the far side of the bed, abd me having seen two crime scene pictures depicting Sheila`s body on the bed, it should also not be forgotten that the pice surgeon Dr Craig, told Ewen Smith (bow a CCRC Commissioner) thar wheb he arrived ar the scene Sheila`s. Bodt was on the bed, and that by that by that time she only had one wound to her throat
...
Dr Craig was accompabied around the house on that occasion by PI Miller, who aso describes in his pocketbook that Sheila`s body was on the far side of the bed. He also told Mr Thompkin that Sheila killed the others, and then she had taken her own life by shooting herself with a solitary shot under the chin...
Dr Craig and PI Miller arrived at the scene before DCI Jones, and the photographs of Sheila on the bed was taken after that...
Unfortunately not. Dr Craig describes Sheilas location as on the other side of the bed, on the floor hidden from view. Pretty much as per photographs on this forum and as consistently described in every single piece of documentary evidence in which it's mentioned.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1187.0.html
Your only recourse for this is that Dr Craig lied or his statement was edited, which I do not believe.
Rather than you suggesting that I am wrong you should consider contacting Ewen Smith (CCRC 0commisioner) and ask him what Dr Craig told him? If you do, he will confirm that Dr Raig told him that Sheila`s body was on the bed whgen he saw it, and that he was asked to make a false statement saying Sheila`s body was on the floor. He told Ewen his statement was false...
This has very serious consequences for many police officers who have all made false statements regarding the same...
Perhaps before suggesting that I am wrong you should go and get an affidavit from Ewen to that effect, think of all the tax payers money you could save.
That is something for the defence legal team to do rather than Mike. Mike has passed on the information and he cannot be expected to do more than that.
-
The problem with the photo` of Sheila on the. Bed, that I saw in Ewens office, may be that it is considered too obscene, and could be withheld on that basis...
-
The problem with the photo` of Sheila on the. Bed, that I saw in Ewens office, may be that it is considered too obscene, and could be withheld on that basis...
Yet the defence could counter argue that anything 'obscene' could simply be airbrushed in any reproductions. The defence allege that crippling restrictions were placed upon the release of negatives by the CCRC. Similar restrictions could be placed upon the release of this negative (should it exist). I do not think that is therefore a valid argument to withhold this negative (should it exist).
-
The problem with the photo` of Sheila on the. Bed, that I saw in Ewens office, may be that it is considered too obscene, and could be withheld on that basis...
There is not a chance on Earth that, 'too obscene' would be cited as a reason for a photograph being withheld from the defence team in this situation.
-
In addition to PI Miller and DCI Jones sAying they saw Sheila` body on the far side of the bed, abd me having seen two crime scene pictures depicting Sheila`s body on the bed, it should also not be forgotten that the pice surgeon Dr Craig, told Ewen Smith (bow a CCRC Commissioner) thar wheb he arrived ar the scene Sheila`s. Bodt was on the bed, and that by that by that time she only had one wound to her throat
...
Dr Craig was accompabied around the house on that occasion by PI Miller, who aso describes in his pocketbook that Sheila`s body was on the far side of the bed. He also told Mr Thompkin that Sheila killed the others, and then she had taken her own life by shooting herself with a solitary shot under the chin...
Dr Craig and PI Miller arrived at the scene before DCI Jones, and the photographs of Sheila on the bed was taken after that...
Unfortunately not. Dr Craig describes Sheilas location as on the other side of the bed, on the floor hidden from view. Pretty much as per photographs on this forum and as consistently described in every single piece of documentary evidence in which it's mentioned.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1187.0.html
Your only recourse for this is that Dr Craig lied or his statement was edited, which I do not believe.
Rather than you suggesting that I am wrong you should consider contacting Ewen Smith (CCRC 0commisioner) and ask him what Dr Craig told him? If you do, he will confirm that Dr Raig told him that Sheila`s body was on the bed whgen he saw it, and that he was asked to make a false statement saying Sheila`s body was on the floor. He told Ewen his statement was false...
This has very serious consequences for many police officers who have all made false statements regarding the same...
Perhaps before suggesting that I am wrong you should go and get an affidavit from Ewen to that effect, think of all the tax payers money you could save.
That is something for the defence legal team to do rather than Mike. Mike has passed on the information and he cannot be expected to do more than that.
Likewise contacting Ewen to validate somebody elses story is not my job NGB.
-
In addition to PI Miller and DCI Jones sAying they saw Sheila` body on the far side of the bed, abd me having seen two crime scene pictures depicting Sheila`s body on the bed, it should also not be forgotten that the pice surgeon Dr Craig, told Ewen Smith (bow a CCRC Commissioner) thar wheb he arrived ar the scene Sheila`s. Bodt was on the bed, and that by that by that time she only had one wound to her throat
...
Dr Craig was accompabied around the house on that occasion by PI Miller, who aso describes in his pocketbook that Sheila`s body was on the far side of the bed. He also told Mr Thompkin that Sheila killed the others, and then she had taken her own life by shooting herself with a solitary shot under the chin...
Dr Craig and PI Miller arrived at the scene before DCI Jones, and the photographs of Sheila on the bed was taken after that...
Unfortunately not. Dr Craig describes Sheilas location as on the other side of the bed, on the floor hidden from view. Pretty much as per photographs on this forum and as consistently described in every single piece of documentary evidence in which it's mentioned.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1187.0.html
Your only recourse for this is that Dr Craig lied or his statement was edited, which I do not believe.
Rather than you suggesting that I am wrong you should consider contacting Ewen Smith (CCRC 0commisioner) and ask him what Dr Craig told him? If you do, he will confirm that Dr Raig told him that Sheila`s body was on the bed whgen he saw it, and that he was asked to make a false statement saying Sheila`s body was on the floor. He told Ewen his statement was false...
This has very serious consequences for many police officers who have all made false statements regarding the same...
Perhaps before suggesting that I am wrong you should go and get an affidavit from Ewen to that effect, think of all the tax payers money you could save.
That is something for the defence legal team to do rather than Mike. Mike has passed on the information and he cannot be expected to do more than that.
ngb - Can we take it that JB's defence legal team do not consider an Affidavit in respect of Mike seeing a photo of SC on the bed important, and if so I wonder why!!. During a previous exchange of posts on this subject you supported the idea of an affidavit, and even expressed surprise that one had not yet been produced (if I remember correctly).
Mike went on to say that he would be prepared to provide one - fair enough, but Mike also stated that he had written various letters and emails to prominent people highlighting this photo, and yet when I asked him to post these, not only was there a significant delay (okay he was too busy), but he posted just one letter.
Every time this subject crops up it causes frustration as there is no proof of the photo, yet Mike has apparently seen it, Ewen Smith and now "Z". If it exists I am sure others must have seen it yet none have come forward supporting the existence of this photo - What is being done about getting a copy of the photo from "Z" ???
-
The problem with the photo` of Sheila on the. Bed, that I saw in Ewens office, may be that it is considered too obscene, and could be withheld on that basis...
Essex Police have not raised that argument. They say that they have disclosed all the negatives in their possession. There are negatives which have been cropped from the strips provided, but Essex Police say that the cropped negatives were unexposed frames. Even if this is true it is a serious breach of police standing orders for dealing with photographic evidence. The position of some of the cropped frames on the negative strips makes the position of Essex Police on this hard to accept.
-
In addition to PI Miller and DCI Jones sAying they saw Sheila` body on the far side of the bed, abd me having seen two crime scene pictures depicting Sheila`s body on the bed, it should also not be forgotten that the pice surgeon Dr Craig, told Ewen Smith (bow a CCRC Commissioner) thar wheb he arrived ar the scene Sheila`s. Bodt was on the bed, and that by that by that time she only had one wound to her throat
...
Dr Craig was accompabied around the house on that occasion by PI Miller, who aso describes in his pocketbook that Sheila`s body was on the far side of the bed. He also told Mr Thompkin that Sheila killed the others, and then she had taken her own life by shooting herself with a solitary shot under the chin...
Dr Craig and PI Miller arrived at the scene before DCI Jones, and the photographs of Sheila on the bed was taken after that...
Unfortunately not. Dr Craig describes Sheilas location as on the other side of the bed, on the floor hidden from view. Pretty much as per photographs on this forum and as consistently described in every single piece of documentary evidence in which it's mentioned.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1187.0.html
Your only recourse for this is that Dr Craig lied or his statement was edited, which I do not believe.
Rather than you suggesting that I am wrong you should consider contacting Ewen Smith (CCRC 0commisioner) and ask him what Dr Craig told him? If you do, he will confirm that Dr Raig told him that Sheila`s body was on the bed whgen he saw it, and that he was asked to make a false statement saying Sheila`s body was on the floor. He told Ewen his statement was false...
This has very serious consequences for many police officers who have all made false statements regarding the same...
Perhaps before suggesting that I am wrong you should go and get an affidavit from Ewen to that effect, think of all the tax payers money you could save.
That is something for the defence legal team to do rather than Mike. Mike has passed on the information and he cannot be expected to do more than that.
Likewise contacting Ewen to validate somebody elses story is not my job NGB.
Yes I accept that.
-
In addition to PI Miller and DCI Jones sAying they saw Sheila` body on the far side of the bed, abd me having seen two crime scene pictures depicting Sheila`s body on the bed, it should also not be forgotten that the pice surgeon Dr Craig, told Ewen Smith (bow a CCRC Commissioner) thar wheb he arrived ar the scene Sheila`s. Bodt was on the bed, and that by that by that time she only had one wound to her throat
...
Dr Craig was accompabied around the house on that occasion by PI Miller, who aso describes in his pocketbook that Sheila`s body was on the far side of the bed. He also told Mr Thompkin that Sheila killed the others, and then she had taken her own life by shooting herself with a solitary shot under the chin...
Dr Craig and PI Miller arrived at the scene before DCI Jones, and the photographs of Sheila on the bed was taken after that...
Unfortunately not. Dr Craig describes Sheilas location as on the other side of the bed, on the floor hidden from view. Pretty much as per photographs on this forum and as consistently described in every single piece of documentary evidence in which it's mentioned.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1187.0.html
Your only recourse for this is that Dr Craig lied or his statement was edited, which I do not believe.
Rather than you suggesting that I am wrong you should consider contacting Ewen Smith (CCRC 0commisioner) and ask him what Dr Craig told him? If you do, he will confirm that Dr Raig told him that Sheila`s body was on the bed whgen he saw it, and that he was asked to make a false statement saying Sheila`s body was on the floor. He told Ewen his statement was false...
This has very serious consequences for many police officers who have all made false statements regarding the same...
Perhaps before suggesting that I am wrong you should go and get an affidavit from Ewen to that effect, think of all the tax payers money you could save.
That is something for the defence legal team to do rather than Mike. Mike has passed on the information and he cannot be expected to do more than that.
ngb - Can we take it that JB's defence legal team do not consider an Affidavit in respect of Mike seeing a photo of SC on the bed important, and if so I wonder why!!. During a previous exchange of posts on this subject you supported the idea of an affidavit, and even expressed surprise that one had not yet been produced (if I remember correctly).
Mike went on to say that he would be prepared to provide one - fair enough, but Mike also stated that he had written various letters and emails to prominent people highlighting this photo, and yet when I asked him to post these, not only was there a significant delay (okay he was too busy), but he posted just one letter.
Every time this subject crops up it causes frustration as there is no proof of the photo, yet Mike has apparently seen it, Ewen Smith and now "Z". If it exists I am sure others must have seen it yet none have come forward supporting the existence of this photo - What is being done about getting a copy of the photo from "Z" ???
Obviously I am not able to speak for the defence team on this but I do know that they are fully aware of Mike's information about seeing the photograph in the office of Ewen Smith. I discussed this with Jeremy some time ago and he is confident that the defence can demonstrate that negatives (not simply unexposed frames) have been destroyed. The specific photograph seen by Mike is one of those photographs. The subject of the photographs forms a part of the defence submissions to the CCRC. A lot of work has been done on this with expert evidence obtained.
-
Mike, regarding these photos that you have allegedly seen. How good would you say the quality of picture was, in relation the 'informant' photo?
-
In addition to PI Miller and DCI Jones sAying they saw Sheila` body on the far side of the bed, abd me having seen two crime scene pictures depicting Sheila`s body on the bed, it should also not be forgotten that the pice surgeon Dr Craig, told Ewen Smith (bow a CCRC Commissioner) thar wheb he arrived ar the scene Sheila`s. Bodt was on the bed, and that by that by that time she only had one wound to her throat
...
Dr Craig was accompabied around the house on that occasion by PI Miller, who aso describes in his pocketbook that Sheila`s body was on the far side of the bed. He also told Mr Thompkin that Sheila killed the others, and then she had taken her own life by shooting herself with a solitary shot under the chin...
Dr Craig and PI Miller arrived at the scene before DCI Jones, and the photographs of Sheila on the bed was taken after that...
Unfortunately not. Dr Craig describes Sheilas location as on the other side of the bed, on the floor hidden from view. Pretty much as per photographs on this forum and as consistently described in every single piece of documentary evidence in which it's mentioned.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1187.0.html
Your only recourse for this is that Dr Craig lied or his statement was edited, which I do not believe.
Rather than you suggesting that I am wrong you should consider contacting Ewen Smith (CCRC 0commisioner) and ask him what Dr Craig told him? If you do, he will confirm that Dr Raig told him that Sheila`s body was on the bed whgen he saw it, and that he was asked to make a false statement saying Sheila`s body was on the floor. He told Ewen his statement was false...
This has very serious consequences for many police officers who have all made false statements regarding the same...
Perhaps before suggesting that I am wrong you should go and get an affidavit from Ewen to that effect, think of all the tax payers money you could save.
That is something for the defence legal team to do rather than Mike. Mike has passed on the information and he cannot be expected to do more than that.
ngb - Can we take it that JB's defence legal team do not consider an Affidavit in respect of Mike seeing a photo of SC on the bed important, and if so I wonder why!!. During a previous exchange of posts on this subject you supported the idea of an affidavit, and even expressed surprise that one had not yet been produced (if I remember correctly).
Mike went on to say that he would be prepared to provide one - fair enough, but Mike also stated that he had written various letters and emails to prominent people highlighting this photo, and yet when I asked him to post these, not only was there a significant delay (okay he was too busy), but he posted just one letter.
Every time this subject crops up it causes frustration as there is no proof of the photo, yet Mike has apparently seen it, Ewen Smith and now "Z". If it exists I am sure others must have seen it yet none have come forward supporting the existence of this photo - What is being done about getting a copy of the photo from "Z" ???
Obviously I am not able to speak for the defence team on this but I do know that they are fully aware of Mike's information about seeing the photograph in the office of Ewen Smith. I discussed this with Jeremy some time ago and he is confident that the defence can demonstrate that negatives (not simply unexposed frames) have been destroyed. The specific photograph seen by Mike is one of those photographs. The subject of the photographs forms a part of the defence submissions to the CCRC. A lot of work has been done on this with expert evidence obtained.
Thanks ngb - one more (and my apologies if this has been covered previously), but if this photo became available, in your opinion, would it be an almost automatic release for JB? (would it be game over for the prosecution?).
And are you confident this photo exists?
-
In addition to PI Miller and DCI Jones sAying they saw Sheila` body on the far side of the bed, abd me having seen two crime scene pictures depicting Sheila`s body on the bed, it should also not be forgotten that the pice surgeon Dr Craig, told Ewen Smith (bow a CCRC Commissioner) thar wheb he arrived ar the scene Sheila`s. Bodt was on the bed, and that by that by that time she only had one wound to her throat
...
Dr Craig was accompabied around the house on that occasion by PI Miller, who aso describes in his pocketbook that Sheila`s body was on the far side of the bed. He also told Mr Thompkin that Sheila killed the others, and then she had taken her own life by shooting herself with a solitary shot under the chin...
Dr Craig and PI Miller arrived at the scene before DCI Jones, and the photographs of Sheila on the bed was taken after that...
Unfortunately not. Dr Craig describes Sheilas location as on the other side of the bed, on the floor hidden from view. Pretty much as per photographs on this forum and as consistently described in every single piece of documentary evidence in which it's mentioned.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1187.0.html
Your only recourse for this is that Dr Craig lied or his statement was edited, which I do not believe.
Rather than you suggesting that I am wrong you should consider contacting Ewen Smith (CCRC 0commisioner) and ask him what Dr Craig told him? If you do, he will confirm that Dr Raig told him that Sheila`s body was on the bed whgen he saw it, and that he was asked to make a false statement saying Sheila`s body was on the floor. He told Ewen his statement was false...
This has very serious consequences for many police officers who have all made false statements regarding the same...
Perhaps before suggesting that I am wrong you should go and get an affidavit from Ewen to that effect, think of all the tax payers money you could save.
That is something for the defence legal team to do rather than Mike. Mike has passed on the information and he cannot be expected to do more than that.
ngb - Can we take it that JB's defence legal team do not consider an Affidavit in respect of Mike seeing a photo of SC on the bed important, and if so I wonder why!!. During a previous exchange of posts on this subject you supported the idea of an affidavit, and even expressed surprise that one had not yet been produced (if I remember correctly).
Mike went on to say that he would be prepared to provide one - fair enough, but Mike also stated that he had written various letters and emails to prominent people highlighting this photo, and yet when I asked him to post these, not only was there a significant delay (okay he was too busy), but he posted just one letter.
Every time this subject crops up it causes frustration as there is no proof of the photo, yet Mike has apparently seen it, Ewen Smith and now "Z". If it exists I am sure others must have seen it yet none have come forward supporting the existence of this photo - What is being done about getting a copy of the photo from "Z" ???
Obviously I am not able to speak for the defence team on this but I do know that they are fully aware of Mike's information about seeing the photograph in the office of Ewen Smith. I discussed this with Jeremy some time ago and he is confident that the defence can demonstrate that negatives (not simply unexposed frames) have been destroyed. The specific photograph seen by Mike is one of those photographs. The subject of the photographs forms a part of the defence submissions to the CCRC. A lot of work has been done on this with expert evidence obtained.
Thanks ngb - one more (and my apologies if this has been covered previously), but if this photo became available, in your opinion, would it be an almost automatic release for JB? (would it be game over for the prosecution?).
And are you confident this photo exists?
If this photograph became available I would not go so far as to say it would result in automatic release for JB but it would certainly be of great assistance to the defence. Essex Police would have to provide a full explanation for it and for the fact that it had not been disclosed by them. The CCRC would be bound to investigate the circumstances surrounding the taking of the photograph and the reasons for it being withheld. Essex Police would be under a lot of pressure.
As far as the existence of the photograph is concerned I have no reason to doubt what Mike has said and also what he has said about Dr Craig. I can confirm that Mike raised this at the time with Jeremy, as he has already explained. I believe that a number of photographs have been destroyed by Essex Police and there has to be a reason why this was done in clear breach of standing orders.
-
Okay Thanks,
If we believe Z has a copy of this photo what is being done to get a copy of it?
Surely this is a priority to all supporting JB and would fast track the defence case and save all concerned having to wait until March 2012 (or whenever)!
-
Okay Thanks,
If we believe Z has a copy of this photo what is being done to get a copy of it?
Surely this is a priority to all supporting JB and would fast track the defence case and save all concerned having to wait until March 2012 (or whenever)!
I am not sure whether the defence have any information about Z so there is nothing they can do to obtain any evidence he may have. We have to await further information from Mike about this.
-
How many copies of the photo exist ,if it exists .
-
Mike, regarding these that you have allegedly seen. How good would you say the quality of picture was, in relation the 'informant' photo?
Both images that I saw, are very high quality...
-
In addition to PI Miller and DCI Jones sAying they saw Sheila` body on the far side of the bed, abd me having seen two crime scene pictures depicting Sheila`s body on the bed, it should also not be forgotten that the pice surgeon Dr Craig, told Ewen Smith (bow a CCRC Commissioner) thar wheb he arrived ar the scene Sheila`s. Bodt was on the bed, and that by that by that time she only had one wound to her throat
...
Dr Craig was accompabied around the house on that occasion by PI Miller, who aso describes in his pocketbook that Sheila`s body was on the far side of the bed. He also told Mr Thompkin that Sheila killed the others, and then she had taken her own life by shooting herself with a solitary shot under the chin...
Dr Craig and PI Miller arrived at the scene before DCI Jones, and the photographs of Sheila on the bed was taken after that...
Unfortunately not. Dr Craig describes Sheilas location as on the other side of the bed, on the floor hidden from view. Pretty much as per photographs on this forum and as consistently described in every single piece of documentary evidence in which it's mentioned.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1187.0.html
Your only recourse for this is that Dr Craig lied or his statement was edited, which I do not believe.
Rather than you suggesting that I am wrong you should consider contacting Ewen Smith (CCRC 0commisioner) and ask him what Dr Craig told him? If you do, he will confirm that Dr Raig told him that Sheila`s body was on the bed whgen he saw it, and that he was asked to make a false statement saying Sheila`s body was on the floor. He told Ewen his statement was false...
This has very serious consequences for many police officers who have all made false statements regarding the same...
Perhaps before suggesting that I am wrong you should go and get an affidavit from Ewen to that effect, think of all the tax payers money you could save.
That is something for the defence legal team to do rather than Mike. Mike has passed on the information and he cannot be expected to do more than that.
ngb - Can we take it that JB's defence legal team do not consider an Affidavit in respect of Mike seeing a photo of SC on the bed important, and if so I wonder why!!. During a previous exchange of posts on this subject you supported the idea of an affidavit, and even expressed surprise that one had not yet been produced (if I remember correctly).
Mike went on to say that he would be prepared to provide one - fair enough, but Mike also stated that he had written various letters and emails to prominent people highlighting this photo, and yet when I asked him to post these, not only was there a significant delay (okay he was too busy), but he posted just one letter.
Every time this subject crops up it causes frustration as there is no proof of the photo, yet Mike has apparently seen it, Ewen Smith and now "Z". If it exists I am sure others must have seen it yet none have come forward supporting the existence of this photo - What is being done about getting a copy of the photo from "Z" ???
Obviously I am not able to speak for the defence team on this but I do know that they are fully aware of Mike's information about seeing the photograph in the office of Ewen Smith. I discussed this with Jeremy some time ago and he is confident that the defence can demonstrate that negatives (not simply unexposed frames) have been destroyed. The specific photograph seen by Mike is one of those photographs. The subject of the photographs forms a part of the defence submissions to the CCRC. A lot of work has been done on this with expert evidence obtained.
I have seen two different photographs of Sheila on the bed, once when I was visiting Ewen Smith at his offices in Birmingham (at a time when he was Jeremy's solicitor), and secondly, when I was recently shown a different one by my informant (Z), which shows Sheila only had one wound to her throat when her body was on the bed, not two...
Two of the the missing negatives, relate to these pictures...
Other missing negatives, have the following relevance, according to what my informant told me in Scotland, recently:-
You are all going to find this very difficult to accept and come to terms with, but I am assured that it is entirely true and accurate...
-
There are seven or eight missing negatives which were taken when Sheila's body was on the bed, and police at the scene, took indecent photographs of Sheila in an exposed state, which had been deliberately stage managed by the police, for the purpose of self gratification, and victim humiliation...
-
There are seven or eight missing negatives which were taken when Sheila's body was on the bed, and police at the scene, took indecent photographs of Sheila in an exposed state, which had been deliberately stage managed by the police, for the purpose of self gratification, and victim humiliation...
Police at the scene, treated the crime scene as a circus, where they stage managed bodies, for the purpose of humiliating the three adult victims, and later for police officers to pose for photopgraphs on the roof of the farmhouse, waving a banner publicising their involvement in this , multiple shooting incident...
In my opinion...
The lowering of the pyjama bottoms around Ralph Bambers ankles, as his body was bowed forward into a coal bucket, is very similar to the photographs of Sheila on the bed, pantiless...
-
There are seven or eight missing negatives which were taken when Sheila's body was on the bed, and police at the scene, took indecent photographs of Sheila in an exposed state, which had been deliberately stage managed by the police, for the purpose of self gratification, and victim humiliation...
Police at the scene, treated the crime scene as a circus, where they stage managed bodies, for the purpose of humiliating the three adult victims, and later for police officers to pose for photopgraphs on the roof of the farmhouse...
In my opinion...
The lowering of the pyjama bottoms around Ralph Bambers ankles, as his body was bowed forward into a coal bucket, is very similar to the photographs of Sheila on the bed, pantiless...
Mike - do you know what "Z"'s intentions are in relation to the evidence in his possession?
-
There are seven or eight missing negatives which were taken when Sheila's body was on the bed, and police at the scene, took indecent photographs of Sheila in an exposed state, which had been deliberately stage managed by the police, for the purpose of self gratification, and victim humiliation...
Police at the scene, treated the crime scene as a circus, where they stage managed bodies, for the purpose of humiliating the three adult victims, and later for police officers to pose for photopgraphs on the roof of the farmhouse...
In my opinion...
The lowering of the pyjama bottoms around Ralph Bambers ankles, as his body was bowed forward into a coal bucket, is very similar to the photographs of Sheila on the bed, pantiless...
Mike - do you know what "Z"'s intentions are in relation to the evidence in his possession?
He has told me that he feels ashamed to have been one of the police officers involved in the investigation of these shootings, since some of his colleagues went well over the top, and were disrespectful to the deceased victims, he has told me that the police officer who was photographed on the roof with the banner, was one of the major instigators in the "tom foolery" involving the stage managing of Sheila, Ralph and June, at the scene...
When I next speak to him, I am hoping to be able to persuade him to come forward and produce the picture he showed to me recently...
Missing negatives are linked to these episodes of tom foolery...
-
I would also like to add that such was the intensity of this "tom foolery", which included tampering with the adult victims by police officers, that they deliberately tore June Bambers nightdress in the groin region...
Investigating officers responsible for this tom foolery, have avoided being exposed for what they did, until now...
-
Not sure I buy this one Mike. Though there is clear reference to the complaints made about said 'tomfoolery' in the FB Innocent blurb posted on the 'CCRC close the case?' thread. So I do wonder why that has been specifically mentioned.
This also does tend to contradict another theory. The one where the bottoms come down during struggle with Sheila.
-
I'm not surprised 'Z' is ashamed of his colleagues. If all of this is true, it makes me feel sick. It's one thing people in this field use 'black humour' to cope with what they see, but this is taking it to a whole different level. How bloody dare they.
-
Same right angled tear exist on the back of Ralphs pyjama top, and was found in the crotch/womb area at front of June Bambers nightdress...
-
Mike, if this behaviour by the Police involving the bodies of the adult victims
is accurate, it suggests to me that members of the Police who were doing
these alleged acts actively disliked the murder victims.
What had happened between the Bamber's and the local Police to cause this? :o
-
Mike, if this behaviour by the Police involving the bodies of the adult victims
is accurate, it suggests to me that members of the Police who were doing
these alleged acts actively disliked the murder victims.
What had happened between the Bamber's and the local Police to cause this? :o
That thought passed through my mind too!
-
So any answers? ???
-
So any answers? ???
Of course, but it will be dependant upon what reasons if any, CCRC will give for refusing to refer the case, let's see it in writing, then we can hit em for six, so bring it on...
9th December was/is only a cut off point for the submission of Jeremys grounds for referral, it does not mean the CCRC has rejected any of it...
-
We have to stay positive, it's a long, long way from being over.....
-
Mike, I wonder if your informant, with knowledge of yesterday's news, will change his position with regard to coming forward publicly with information, and, of course the photos?
-
Mike, I wonder if your informant, with knowledge of yesterday's news, will change his position with regard to coming forward publicly with information, and, of course the photos?
There is a purpose for why information has been leaked through the forum, involving the informant and revelations about Sheila being on the bed with only one wound to her neck, and the series of 8 missing negatives taken with Sheila the subject. CCRC will investigate, police will tell lies about reason for them being missing, CCRC will put it ln writing to support their decision, and then we`ll take it from there, and make a mockery of any decision not to refer based on reasons why 8 consecutive negative are missing?
For now, everyone is entitled to read anything they wish into the possible existence of Sheila on the bed with only one wound...
-
I believe you Mike. It also explains why the police are being pig headed about releasing all the photos. Pun intended.
-
Mike, I wonder if your informant, with knowledge of yesterday's news, will change his position with regard to coming forward publicly with information, and, of course the photos?
There is a purpose for why information has been leaked through the forum, involving the informant and revelations about Sheila being on the bed with only one wound to her neck, and the series of 8 missing negatives taken with Sheila the subject. CCRC will investigate, police will tell lies about reason for them being missing, CCRC will put it ln writing to support their decision, and then we`ll take it from there, and make a mockery of any decision not to refer based on reasons why 8 consecutive negative are missing?
For now, everyone is entitled to read anything they wish into the possible existence of Sheila on the bed with only one wound...
Mike this is twice in the course of your involvement in this case that you say someone has shown you photographs of Sheila on the bed. The first time you saw one did you notice how many bullet wounds? The second time I cannot believe that in your ongoing quest to prove Jeremy's innocence you did not acquire the originals or take copies. Sorry if you already answered these questions but I haven't got time to read through 118 pages
-
Just trying to catch up on the posts here, so, the police deliberately tore specific areas of the clothes the victims were wearing? and they are the photos that are being with held?
-
Just trying to catch up on the posts here, so, the police deliberately tore specific areas of the clothes the victims were wearing? and they are the photos that are being with held?
If that was so then there is not excuse for these despicable creatures to get off lightly. Those men were a disgrace to the uniform that they wore.
-
If that was what happened grahame then i agree, so are those the pictures that are being with held?
-
So all that being said do you not think it strange that Mike has not made sure that he could take possession of this evidence? If I was championing someones cause I would grab any opportunity to prove his innocence.
-
I agree Takeshi, if i was in mikes position i would go through hell or high water to obtain the pictures from "Z" and hand them straight to the defence team, but its not happening is it?
-
This is what i dont "get", these dynamite pictures, and they are dynamite if they exist, would get jb an appeal, without a doubt, but they remain unseen and hidden. So until they are brought out into the open and handed to the relevant people they are worthless.
-
Thanks Andrea. I might be looking at it too simplistically since I have not read the preceding 117 pages but some how I don't think I need to. Mike says he saw a picture years ago of Sheila on the bed. That alone, never mind how many bullet holes, would have blown the conviction apart, if Mike had come forward and had proof. So why didn't he? Again now, pictures of Sheila on the bed with one, two or even ten bullets holes would, if they existed, prove Jeremy's innocence. Not because of how many times she had been shot but the mere fact that SHEILA HAD BEEN PHOTOGRAPHED ON THE BED!! Am I the only one who can see this?
-
No Takeshi, im with you on this one.
-
I made my feelings clear on the existence of "Z", i didnt think he existed then and i dont think he exists now, though i hope im wrong i really do.
I would have nicked the photo from ewn smiths office, not an honest thing to do but hey ho, it would have blown the prosecution apart as you said.
Why doesnt "z" simply hand the ones he has to the telegraph or similar? he could remain anonymous.
-
anonymous, annonymous, how the f@@k do i spell it!! its getting late.
-
If even ONE photograph of Sheila on the bed exists, Jeremy Bamber is innocent. End of. Simple as that. Not because that means he didn't do it but it would mean the police had staged the crime scene and therefore his conviction is unsafe.
-
The picture would open a fresh question, how on earth did Sheila end up on the floor with a rifile close by ? who the hell put her there, her new location is not a crime scene, the 2nd and fatal shot is hard to explain, any firearms team marksman would not have fired at Sheilas neck .
-
The picture would open a fresh question, how on earth did Sheila end up on the floor with a rifile close by ? who the hell put her there, her new location is not a crime scene, the 2nd and fatal shot is hard to explain, any firearms team marksman would not have fired at Sheilas neck .
Bingo...
Firearms officers did not fire second fatal shot, according to informant, and photograph shown to me that has Sheila on bed, wounded only once....
-
Do not get distracted by this supposed "second gunshot". It does not matter. If there is an official police photo of Sheila on the bed then Jeremy is technically "not guilty" and his conviction is unsafe. This does not mean he is actually innocent, just that the police mishandled things so badly that they did not prove "guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt".
-
I made my feelings clear on the existence of "Z", i didnt think he existed then and i dont think he exists now, though i hope im wrong i really do.
I would have nicked the photo from ewn smiths office, not an honest thing to do but hey ho, it would have blown the prosecution apart as you said.
Why doesnt "z" simply hand the ones he has to the telegraph or similar? he could remain anonymous.
Why don't we wait to see what stance, or approach CCRC takes, before anyone questions the existence of 'Z'?
Let's see it in writing, what CCRC has got to do with the arrest?
-
But mike, if "z" has developed feelings of guilt and shame over his part in the case and wants to put things right, why hasnt he done as i suggested? why wait/ this is what i cant get my head around.
JB keeps getting these knock backs from the CCRC yet Z chooses to wait and wait. he could give those pictures to a newspaper with a covering letter and he could remain (that word i cant spell)!!
-
Why don't you just offer your testimony as a witness Mike? Is it because your credibility is reduced because of your past involvement with the police?
-
its very clear that something is going on , in their last findings on refusal to refer to an appeal was the best part of a 90 page reply, makes you wonder now what they are trying to say, if they are aware of this photo , they have one hell of a problem now.And that is not Jeremys problem is it, its theirs.
-
I think z should stop his whining and winging about his fellow officers and do something useful for a change. His first port of call should not have been Mike. It should have been Jeremy's defence team. That would immediately take it out of the hands of the police and also the CCRC. It would in fact be to use Hartley's word, Dynamite. Come on then mr z cough up and prove yourself.
-
Hartley I think I agree with what you are trying to say. If the Commission know of the existence of such a photo or indeed have been shown it as part of their investigation, then they would have to refer to the COP but can you also see the point that I am making? All such a photo would prove is that Essex police made a big f**k up of the investigation. It does not prove JB innocent but it would make his conviction unsafe therefore *justify* his release.
-
I think z should stop his whining and winging about his fellow officers and do something useful for a change. His first port of call should not have been Mike. It should have been Jeremy's defence team. That would immediately take it out of the hands of the police and also the CCRC. It would in fact be to use Hartley's word, Dynamite. Come on then mr z cough up and prove yourself.
i agree Grahame. Though i still think he doesnt exist ;)
-
mike could have taken a picture when he saw him, i had my picture taken by my friend and i never saw him do it, he can put a camera in a coat button.
-
I would have ripped that pic straight out of his hands and ran like the clappers. the pic of sheila i mean.
-
I would have ripped that pic straight out of his hands and ran like the clappers. the pic of sheila i mean.
Yes and you get 100 yards down the road before you realise you only got half the picture. The only one in existance as well. ;D
-
makes you wonder why mike did not! i get the feeling the z guy knew the meet place blindfolded, i take it mike was not frisked!
-
Hartley I think I agree with what you are trying to say. If the Commission know of the existence of such a photo or indeed have been shown it as part of their investigation, then they would have to refer to the COP but can you also see the point that I am making? All such a photo would prove is that Essex police made a big f**k up of the investigation. It does not prove JB innocent but it would make his conviction unsafe therefore *justify* his release.
Oh I very much agree with you, but it's all if's and but's.
Personally I don't believe any of it exists, it's just all too convenient, it's a modern day remake of the seeing the photo at Ewens office.
I also think it would very much depend on what such a photo (if it exist) actually showed, if she's on the bed next to a body bag for example. We can't all agree on what is indicated in photographs that we have seen, so I don't really see how I can subscribe to somebody elses view on a photo that I haven't seen and don't believe exists.
-
I wish you would all step back and look at the big picture. Don't get caught up in irrelevant things like whether Sheila was on a period. LOOK AT THE FACTS. The original ones. Why would Sheila kill her family? Why would Jeremy? Lets face it in a court of law today he would probably walk. Lack of physical evidence. Doesn't mean it wasn't there but the police weren't looking for it. BUT THINK why on that day did the police need to make the scene look anything other than a murder-suicide? That is what they reported. What were they basing that on?
-
1Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: you should all know this?
« on: December 05, 2011, 06:54:PM »
Quote from: Buddy on December 05, 2011, 06:45:PM
Quote from: curiousessex on December 05, 2011, 06:26:PM
Quote from: Buddy on December 05, 2011, 06:16:PM
We are left in wonderland as regards the photograph of Sheila on the bed with one wound.
I do not believe this photograph exist, but I would be very happy to be proved wrong.
I would have Zs goolies in my hand to give me the photograph.
Maybe 'Z' should just become a member of the forum and post it into a locked thread.
He may already be a member curious.
Buddy
Maybe he is.......... I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens.
ReplyQuoteNotify
2Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: you should all know this?
« on: December 05, 2011, 06:26:PM »
Quote from: Buddy on December 05, 2011, 06:16:PM
We are left in wonderland as regards the photograph of Sheila on the bed with one wound.
I do not believe this photograph exist, but I would be very happy to be proved wrong.
I would have Zs goolies in my hand to give me the photograph.
Maybe 'Z' should just become a member of the forum and post it into a locked thread.
ReplyQuoteNotify
3Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: you should all know this?
« on: December 05, 2011, 05:52:PM »
Quote from: Grahame on December 05, 2011, 05:38:PM
As I mentioned before this one photograph would secure JB's immediate release. Z could easily copy it and send it anonymously to JB's team.
Grahame
I would tend to agree with you................
As I have stated above................. Even I, given my posted / detailed concerns regarding the sequence and timing of telephone calls on the morning of 7th August 1985, would regard this as compelling.
ReplyQuoteNotify
4Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: you should all know this?
« on: December 05, 2011, 05:04:PM »
Well if it is a 'carrot', in my opinion, it would be a make or break 'carrot'.
The 'carrot' if true would, as I have stated, be compelling.
If not true, then, for me, the 'carrot' would destroy the credibility of 'Z' coming forward because of a moral conscience whilst also undermining any claims that are being made in the name of Jeremy's support.
ReplyQuoteNotify
5Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: you should all know this?
« on: December 05, 2011, 04:41:PM »
I have not contributed to the forum much recently as I have been away due to family commitments. However, I have recently been reading some of the latest posts from the sidelines.
If I understand this thread correctly Mike has been meeting with an informant 'Z' via a convoluted method involving mobile phone swaps / loans etc.
Again, if I have understood some of this thread correctly Mike has been advised that 'Z' has access to a photograph of Sheila lying on the bed with a single gunshot wound to her neck. This would corroborate what Mike has previously detailed in other threads regarding such a photograph that Mike says he has seen in the office of Ewen Smith (Jeremy's former solicitor).
If Mike was able to take a picture of the photograph that ‘Z’ has access then such a photograph would certainly be new evidence relating to the case.
As such, a photograph of a photograph, if made available to the CCRC, would have to be considered by the CCRC in relation to Jeremy’s claims for an appeal. Most particularly, if the original photograph / negative is, as alleged, being withheld under PII. By definition the withholding of such evidence would mean by definition that the ‘evidence’ as previously existed cannot have been available at the original trial.
Even I, given my posted / detailed concerns regarding the sequence and timing of telephone calls on the morning of 7th August 1985, would regard this as compelling.
If it can be proven, by such a photograph of a photograph, that Sheila is lying on the bed with a single gun shot wound to the neck and is then later to be shown, by photographs that are in the public domain, with two gun shot wounds to the neck, I would agree that it could not have been Jeremy who inflicted a second wound to Sheila’s neck.
I have mentioned before I did not understand why Mike did not take the opportunity of taking a picture of the photograph he was shown and then left alone with in the office of Ewen Smith. I seem to remember desribing this as a missed opportunity.
Maybe such an opportunity is presenting itself again............... ??
As posted previously............... maybe a second opportunity has been lost?
-
Hartley I think I agree with what you are trying to say. If the Commission know of the existence of such a photo or indeed have been shown it as part of their investigation, then they would have to refer to the COP but can you also see the point that I am making? All such a photo would prove is that Essex police made a big f**k up of the investigation. It does not prove JB innocent but it would make his conviction unsafe therefore *justify* his release.
Oh I very much agree with you, but it's all if's and but's.
Personally I don't believe any of it exists, it's just all too convenient, it's a modern day remake of the seeing the photo at Ewens office.
I also think it would very much depend on what such a photo (if it exist) actually showed, if she's on the bed next to a body bag for example. We can't all agree on what is indicated in photographs that we have seen, so I don't really see how I can subscribe to somebody elses view on a photo that I haven't seen and don't believe exists.
It would explain what they are witholding though do you not think so ?
-
Hartley I think I agree with what you are trying to say. If the Commission know of the existence of such a photo or indeed have been shown it as part of their investigation, then they would have to refer to the COP but can you also see the point that I am making? All such a photo would prove is that Essex police made a big f**k up of the investigation. It does not prove JB innocent but it would make his conviction unsafe therefore *justify* his release.
Oh I very much agree with you, but it's all if's and but's.
Personally I don't believe any of it exists, it's just all too convenient, it's a modern day remake of the seeing the photo at Ewens office.
I also think it would very much depend on what such a photo (if it exist) actually showed, if she's on the bed next to a body bag for example. We can't all agree on what is indicated in photographs that we have seen, so I don't really see how I can subscribe to somebody elses view on a photo that I haven't seen and don't believe exists.
It would explain what they are witholding though do you not think so ?
Well no, because I don't believe it exists.
I'm not sure how else to answer that.
-
If there is an epiphany in the post above please just put it in plain English.
-
i have perhaps moved 50 people who have taken their own life some days ago some within the hour, some still warm, most if not all those deceased have been in a position of relaxation including a bed, lied down on a floor i do not think i ever came across such a time.
-
Dont you think sheila committed suicide mertol?
-
i have perhaps moved 50 people who have taken their own life some days ago some within the hour, some still warm, most if not all those deceased have been in a position of relaxation including a bed, lied down on a floor i do not think i ever came across such a time.
Yes, but what does that mean? Does that mean she was on the bed or does it mean she didn't take her own life, she was murdered?
-
So you are saying that it is impossible that someone would commit suicide on the floor because you have not seen it?
-
I dont know for sure Andrea, things are not as they seem, im starting to think we have all missed something yet its been there all the time, im working on it.
-
So you are saying that it is impossible that someone would commit suicide on the floor because you have not seen it?
I think hes just saying that he never came across anyone who had committed suicde while laying on the floor. Its not impossible though.
-
i have perhaps moved 50 people who have taken their own life some days ago some within the hour, some still warm, most if not all those deceased have been in a position of relaxation including a bed, lied down on a floor i do not think i ever came across such a time.
Didn't Sylvia Plath - former poet Laureate, Ted Hughes' wife - lie down on the floor with her head in the gas oven?
-
It means Hartley if this picture exists it changes everything, the 1st thing it does is remove Jeremy out of this full stop, im sure you will agree if Jeremy was the one and he did it for the money it clearly did not work.It could never work, there would still be relatives , Jeremy Bamber to me sounds highly educated, sound rational, ive worked along side the police but im sorry i dont trust them.
-
She couldnt have gassed herself any other way i dont suppose, using an oven.
-
I know it's not impossible Andrea but look at it this way. Police storm in and find Sheila on the bed. At that point nobody suspected JB of murder. So why move Sheila on to the floor to look like suicide? Did Sheila on the bed not look like suicide? Why not?
-
She couldnt have gassed herself any other way i dont suppose, using an oven.
That's the thing, necessity really is the mother of invention.
-
So you are saying that it is impossible that someone would commit suicide on the floor because you have not seen it?
Not for a moment, i just never was present in such a case, i have multiple issues with Sheilas position but i dont want to elaborate too much i have to respect decorum for mikes forum, im on about what happens after someone takes their life.
-
I know it's not impossible Andrea but look at it this way. Police storm in and find Sheila on the bed. At that point nobody suspected JB of murder. So why move Sheila on to the floor to look like suicide? Did Sheila on the bed not look like suicide? Why not?
Not a clue Takeshi, we have no proof that she was ever on the bed anyway.
-
In your opinion, who someone was staging another's suicide, and having no prior knowledge,would they place a body on the bed or on the floor?
-
well if i was staging a suicide i would put them on the bed.
-
Me too Andrea!
-
In your opinion, who someone was staging another's suicide, and having no prior knowledge,would they place a body on the bed or on the floor?
Something went badly wrong im sure at the point the firearms team stormed the rear of the farm on around or on 07.30 that morning, im puzzled why they did not use both doorsfront and rear.
-
well if i was staging a suicide i would put them on the bed.
same as if i was staging one in aliving room, i would put them on the couch or a chair, preferably the couch!!
-
I think it's 6 and two 3's.
So if a suicide was staged, the bed is best.
If a suicide occurred, the bed is best.
If the police moved and staged her body, again the bed is best.
Yet she is on the floor.
I think you could tie yourself in knots with this and not come to any particularly logical conclusion.
-
Mertol you are detracting from the point. If I had killed my family including two of my own children, I would not lie on the bedroom floor to blow my brains out. I would lie on the bed to do it!
-
In your opinion, who someone was staging another's suicide, and having no prior knowledge,would they place a body on the bed or on the floor?
Something went badly wrong im sure at the point the firearms team stormed the rear of the farm on around or on 07.30 that morning, im puzzled why they did not use both doorsfront and rear.
Maybe there is not enough cover on approach to the front door.
-
Hartley do not be so ridiculous. The police had from approximately 5am to plan how to enter that house. Now I know it was the 80's but any mistakes on entering WHF were entirely those of Essex Police and beyond the control of JB. Surely if they believe it to be a hostage/siege situation every exit would have been covered. And that is what according to JB was happening. The police at that point had no reason to believe differently.
-
I think it's 6 and two 3's.
So if a suicide was staged, the bed is best.
If a suicide occurred, the bed is best.
If the police moved and staged her body, again the bed is best.
Yet she is on the floor.
I think you could tie yourself in knots with this and not come to any particularly logical conclusion.
That depends on your point of view, if I found myself in a situation where suicide was the only way out, I wouldn't have done it on the bed.
-
Exactly the point I was making on another thread. I f I was going to kill my family and then myself, I would lay on a bed to blow my brains out, I would not lay on the floor to do it. And if my brother was killing the family and then me, how would he know whether to put me on the bed or on the floor?
-
The picture of Sheila on the bed is real, Ewen Smith knows its real, and he is now a CCRC Commissioner. Ewen Smith was told by Dr Craig, that the contents of his statement which refers to Sheila's body being on the floor when he arrived at the scene, was a false statement, and that Sheila was not dead until after police went into the farmhouse. Ewen told me personally that although this information had been conveyed to him by Dr Craig, in the presence of Dr Craigs wife, Ewen told me that he did not think Dr Craig was well enough or strong enough to attend an appeal hearing and be subjected to cross examination, because he was really poorly, and Ewen said that Dr Craig was a lovely old gentlemen who did not deserve to be put through such an ordeal...
Apparently, Dr Craigs wife was present when Dr Craig told Ewen all about his evidence and the false statements he had made...
Now...
in so far as does the photograph of Sheila on the bed exist, yes it does, it was sent to Ewen by Essex police along with all the other previously undisclosed pictures which formed part of the senior investigating officers album that had been kept in ACC Peter Simpsons safe in his office at DHQ, and the police only let Ewen see these on the proviso that he did not copy any of them or show them to anybody else...
The photograph of Sheila on the bed was amongst this disclosed album, and I saw it when I visited Ewen's office in Birmingham. Sheila was on the bed, somebody had raised the hem of her nightdress to expose her crotch area, she was not wearing any shoes or slippers, there was no gun on the body, there was no body bag on the bed, there were no runs of blood from the corners of her mouth, she was on the bed before she was later photographed on the bedroom floor. There was no bible on her body or the bed, she was laid on her back, and there was no bloodied fingermarks on the front lower part of her nightdress...
Police moved her body from the bed to the floor, and then made up a story about finding her body there on the floor with the gun and bible in attendance...
If the missing negatives had not been cut from its strip (8 of them in sequence) one of the missing negatives would show Sheila's body on the bed as I have described, along with the other image I have recently been shown, which also showed Sheila on the bed with only one wound to her throat/neck...
Why have the police cut out this sequence of negatives?
Why did they create a senior investigating officers album which contained 581 pictures, yet only tell the defence team that there existed 223 photographs in a so called master copy album? Why hide the existence of 358 pictures from the defence?
Worse still...
Why did PC Bird (SOC) only produce a schedule showing which of the (223) master copy album photographs, related to the (50) court album photographs? Why was no schedule produced to show all 581 pictures taken in sequence, against the order of 223 pictures taken from it in producing the so called master copy album, as well as the (50)court album?
Answer...
The photographs of Sheila on the bed, were taken at a time when she was still alive on the bed, she could not have been dead, hence she only had one shot to her neck by that stage. Sheila may have been assumed to be dead, but she was not...
Dr Craig made an error in pronouncing her as being dead at the scene without examining her to check for vital signs of life...
Ambulance crews in attendance at the scene, were not called forward into the farmhouse to check the bodies for signs of life, but were sent away from the scene, despite Sheila still being alive on the bed in the bedroom with her only having been shot once by that stage...
Police stage managed Sheila' body on the floor in a position parallel with the edge of the bed, and they repositioned the rifle on her body and re-arranged her hands upon and around the gun, and placed the bible close by - not Jeremy, or any would be as yet unidentified killer...
-
Some newspaper accounts at the time of the shootings, reported that Sheila's body had been found on the bed...
-
Ann Eaton, was told by a police officer, on the morning of the shootings, that Sheila's body had been found on the bed...
-
Police took photographs of Sheila's body on the bed (and have since removed 8 of the negatives from the strips of negatives)...
-
When police stage managed Sheila's body on the floor they pulled down the front of her nightdress, but forgot to re-arrange the nightdress behind her which rucked up when they placed her on the floor from the bed, and dragged her body back so that her head was close to the bedside cabinet...
-
Paint evidence on end of silencer is problematic, since no corresponding/varnish was found on the end of the silencer which came from the scratch mark on the bedside cabinet...
The distinctive curved mark found on the underside of the kitchen mantle, is duplicated on the front lower face of the bedside cabinet...
According to the evidence...
no paint sample was ever taken from the bedside cabinet, only the aga surround in the kitchen...
However...
we now know police actually took two paint samples, one (RC/1) which was taken on 8th August 1985, and another (RWC/1) taken on 14th August 1985. According to DS Davidson, DI Cook (SOC) handed him RC/1 at the scene on 8th August 1985 which was taken with a view to matching some paint found on the end of a guns barrel, whilst the other paint sample (RWC/1) was taken by Cook on 14th August 1985, and used in October 1985 to match paint found on the end of a silencer...
Two paint samples, RC/1 and RWC/1 - which police have since merged into the same paint sample...
Problem...
DS Davidson (COLP interviews 1991) says paint was found on the end of a guns barrel, not a silencer and that the gun in question was found downstairs, whereas Cook (SOC) maintains paint sample relates to paint found on end of the silencer...
Two paint samples, RC/1 and RWC/1...
Two damaged areas, a mark on the aga surround, and another similar mark on the front face of the bedside cabinet...
One mark upstairs, the other downstairs...
Marks that were made by a guns barrel, and a silencer...
I am led to believe that the mark on the front lower face of the bedside cabinet was made when police at the scene were trying to reconstruct how Sheila had originally shot herself, and that at this time the gun which was being used went off and shot her for the second time, and that the barrel of this gun made the mark on the bedside cabinet after police had moved Sheila's body to the floor from the bed...
Essex police and DS Davidson refuse to identify the gun which had paint on the end of its barrel, which was found downstairs...
Why?
-
Mertol you are detracting from the point. If I had killed my family including two of my own children, I would not lie on the bedroom floor to blow my brains out. I would lie on the bed to do it!
i was uder the view i was trying to understand how Sheila managed to be on the floor, her position is not a suicide position anyway her body position is all wrong.
-
Mertol you are detracting from the point. If I had killed my family including two of my own children, I would not lie on the bedroom floor to blow my brains out. I would lie on the bed to do it!
i was uder the view i was trying to understand how Sheila managed to be on the floor, her position is not a suicide position anyway her body position is all wrong.
Her body position is all wrong, yet the police were prepared to accept that Sheila had committed suicide - why?
-
The position of Sheila's head to the side of the bedside cabinet, should have alerted police to the fact that she could not have shot herself twice, once under the chin, and the rifle end up on her body as it did, because her head could not be brought back into alignment to enable the trajectory of the fatal bullet fired under the chin to travel up into her brain, since if you lifted her head upwards the entry wound under the chin would be tucked up with no room at all for the rifles barrel to fit into position to fire the fatal shot, a task made impossible by the length of the weapon, itself...
Oh look, position of rifle against neck/throat has moved?
-
According to information provided to me by my informant ('Z'), somebody appears to have applied bloody fingers around one of the wounds, in between these pictures being taken with a view of trying to stem the flow of blood. now why wound police at the scene be trying to stem the flow of blood from one of the wounds if Sheila had been dead already for over 7 hours?
On the other hand...
What if police had just accidentally shot her for a second time?
-
How did the additional bloodied fingermarks appear around the fatal entry wound site, during this photographing stage?
-
These images should be on the front page of every newspaper, and NEWS channel in the land, because somebody was trying to prevent the flow of blood from the fatal wound on Sheila's neck, now I wonder who that somebody could be?
It was not Jeremy bamber...
It was not some as yet unidentified killer...
IT WAS THE POLICE...
IT WAS THE POLICE...
IT WAS THE POLICE...
IT WAS THE POLICE...
IT WAS THE POLICE...
IT WAS THE POLICE...
IT WAS THE POLICE...
IT WAS THE POLICE...
IT WAS THE POLICE...
IT WAS THE POLICE...
IT WAS THE POLICE...
IT WAS THE POLICE...
IT WAS THE POLICE...
IT WAS THE POLICE...
IT WAS THE POLICE...
IT WAS THE POLICE...
IT WAS THE POLICE...
IT WAS THE POLICE...
IT WAS THE POLICE...
IT WAS THE POLICE...
Who else could it have been?
-
Mike...the photographs of Sheila on the bed...what angle were they from to show what you describe...and can you tell us if the bottom of her feet could be seen to be clean or dirty?
Being on the bed would allow a better view as camera shot angles when an item or body is on the floor are more restricted.
So if you wish to cover something up...then being posed on the floor would be better than say posed on the bed.
-
Mike...the photographs of Sheila on the bed...what angle were they from to show what you describe...and can you tell us if the bottom of her feet could be seen to be clean or dirty?
Being on the bed would allow a better view as shot angles when an item or body is on the floor are more restricted.
So if you wish to cover something up...then being posed on the floor would be better than say posed on the bed.
man was stood near bottom of bed, which afforded a view of Sheila on the bed almost square on, her feet seemed clean to me, it didn't give me the impression that she had been walking around barefoot, I have always been of the impression that she wore the socks that were later photographed on the floor by the side of the bed...
By reference to this (1) image (posted) camera man was stood more to the right, so that the bed with Sheila upon it, was square on, with a view looking slightly down onto the bed and the body, but with the railings at the foot of the bed in the picture...
I have drawn a diagram showing the position of the camera man in (2) to give everyone a better idea of where the camera man was stood when he took the picture I saw of Sheila on the bed. Of course, the photographs I have seen were taken before these I am using to illustrate where the pictures were taken from, because in these images Sheila's body has already been moved to the floor and photographed..
-
There does appear to be a slipper by the side of the chair and across from the bible.
This may well be the one that appears in a photograph used in court and referred to by Hammersley.
Of note though.
In the wardrobe hanging up.
There is a blue item with a light blue band on the end of the sleeve that appear to be of a similar colour or the same as the pyjama top Ralph was photographed in. It may be nothing but I feel I need to look into this more.
-
I can provide a better example of where the Camera man was stood when he took the picture of Sheila on the bed, as i say he appeared to have been stood square onto the bed, and Sheila was on the bed slightly offset to the left (from the vantage point of where the man was standing)...
Sheila's head was resting on the pillow, or at least it appeared to be behind her head:-
-
Now...
Just to put matters into perspective, the missing 8 negatives which have gone missing and which have been cut from the negative strip would be before this picture (posted) was taken...
(extract copied from other site):-
09.12.11
The CCRC have refused to extended the deadline from the 9th December 2011, to January and have now closed the submissions to make their decision. We are bewildered as to why it has already taken almost 5 months and still no documents have been obtaned via the CCRC from Essex Police under section 17 of the Criminal Appeals Act. The documents requested are event and scene logs, the Defence has provided forensic reports for the CCRC requesting originals back in 2007 and again in July this year. What is in these documents that the police and CCRC do not want to disclose?
-
This provides a better angle showing the general area on the bed where the body of Sheila was laid in the photograph I saw at Ewen Smiths office:-
Camera man held camera high up, looking forward and down onto the body of Sheila on the bed, she was only wearing that flimsy blue nightdress with the hem raised up, and her crotch area clearly visible, which seemed indecent to me...
-
I have reproduced the general area on the bed of the close up showing only one wound on Sheila's neck which I was recently allowed to view...
This photograph would have been taken before the ones where Sheila has been moved to the bedroom floor by the police, and the gun placed on her body. The negative for this picture would be amongst the 8 missing from the negative strip...
-
For Keira's Oriental Perusal and Speculation (K O P S) The reiterated Magick Carpet Theory deduced from Sir R.F.BURTON's Translations from the ARABIAN KNIGHTS 1885 - 1888. Take SHEILA's body from back kitchen rolled up in a carpet,, up stairs? to June's bedroom. Place on floor. Unroll carpet. In order to remove carpet, place Sheila's body on the bed. Re-roll carpet and put out sight under bed. This would be at the time shown on digital clock, which MIKE saw in the photo he saw, in EWEN SMITH's office, of Sheila on the bed. Sheila,s body then placed on floor, with rifle (without moderator?) and BIBLE to indicate suicidded solution.
-
I have reproduced the general area on the bed of the close up showing only one wound on Sheila's neck which I was recently allowed to view...
This photograph would have been taken before the ones where Sheila has been moved to the bedroom floor by the police, and the gun placed on her body. The negative for this picture would be amongst the 8 missing from the negative strip...
This is the general area on the bed where Sheila was photographed with only one wound to her neck...
-
I have reproduced the general area on the bed of the close up showing only one wound on Sheila's neck which I was recently allowed to view...
This photograph would have been taken before the ones where Sheila has been moved to the bedroom floor by the police, and the gun placed on her body. The negative for this picture would be amongst the 8 missing from the negative strip...
This is the general area on the bed where Sheila was photographed with only one wound to her neck...
'Z' showed me a photograph of only one wound on Sheila's neck, at a time she was laid on the bed, not on the floor...
-
Photograph posted in reply 1838, shows a view of where Sheila was on the bed, I cannot be any clearer than that. There was no gun on the bed, or on her body, and no bible on the bed, also June Bambers body was not on the bed, although in some reports in newspapers both bodies were found on the bed...
I have been told by my informant that police at the scene were guilty of taking indecent images of the three adult victims, in other words, being very very disrespectful to them all...
-
For Keira's Oriental Perusal and Speculation (K O P S) The reiterated Magick Carpet Theory deduced from Sir R.F.BURTON's Translations from the ARABIAN KNIGHTS 1885 - 1888. Take SHEILA's body from back kitchen rolled up in a carpet,, up stairs? to June's bedroom. Place on floor. Unroll carpet. In order to remove carpet, place Sheila's body on the bed. Re-roll carpet and put out sight under bed. This would be at the time shown on digital clock, which MIKE saw in the photo he saw, in EWEN SMITH's office, of Sheila on the bed. Sheila,s body then placed on floor, with rifle (without moderator?) and BIBLE to indicate suicidded solution.
interesting theory...
-
I have reproduced the general area on the bed of the close up showing only one wound on Sheila's neck which I was recently allowed to view...
This photograph would have been taken before the ones where Sheila has been moved to the bedroom floor by the police, and the gun placed on her body. The negative for this picture would be amongst the 8 missing from the negative strip...
This is the general area on the bed where Sheila was photographed with only one wound to her neck...
For the purpose of being specific, there was no gun in the photograph which my informant showed to me recently where there is only one wound on Sheila's neck...
-
sorry to go off topic, but how do i enable cookies, i cant read my emails.
if anyone can answer quickly, thankus muchus x
-
In your browser part i think andrea you need to click enable
-
Ta x
-
sorry to go off topic, but how do i enable cookies, i cant read my emails.
if anyone can answer quickly, thankus muchus x
I'm not sure, but I think emails have been disabled? I'll check and get back to you.
-
The picture of Sheila on the bed is real, Ewen Smith knows its real, and he is now a CCRC Commissioner. Ewen Smith was told by Dr Craig, that the contents of his statement which refers to Sheila's body being on the floor when he arrived at the scene, was a false statement, and that Sheila was not dead until after police went into the farmhouse. Ewen told me personally that although this information had been conveyed to him by Dr Craig, in the presence of Dr Craigs wife, Ewen told me that he did not think Dr Craig was well enough or strong enough to attend an appeal hearing and be subjected to cross examination, because he was really poorly, and Ewen said that Dr Craig was a lovely old gentlemen who did not deserve to be put through such an ordeal...
Apparently, Dr Craigs wife was present when Dr Craig told Ewen all about his evidence and the false statements he had made...
Now...
in so far as does the photograph of Sheila on the bed exist, yes it does, it was sent to Ewen by Essex police along with all the other previously undisclosed pictures which formed part of the senior investigating officers album that had been kept in ACC Peter Simpsons safe in his office at DHQ, and the police only let Ewen see these on the proviso that he did not copy any of them or show them to anybody else...
The photograph of Sheila on the bed was amongst this disclosed album, and I saw it when I visited Ewen's office in Birmingham. Sheila was on the bed, somebody had raised the hem of her nightdress to expose her crotch area, she was not wearing any shoes or slippers, there was no gun on the body, there was no body bag on the bed, there were no runs of blood from the corners of her mouth, she was on the bed before she was later photographed on the bedroom floor. There was no bible on her body or the bed, she was laid on her back, and there was no bloodied fingermarks on the front lower part of her nightdress...
Police moved her body from the bed to the floor, and then made up a story about finding her body there on the floor with the gun and bible in attendance...
If the missing negatives had not been cut from its strip (8 of them in sequence) one of the missing negatives would show Sheila's body on the bed as I have described, along with the other image I have recently been shown, which also showed Sheila on the bed with only one wound to her throat/neck...
Why have the police cut out this sequence of negatives?
Why did they create a senior investigating officers album which contained 581 pictures, yet only tell the defence team that there existed 223 photographs in a so called master copy album? Why hide the existence of 358 pictures from the defence?
Worse still...
Why did PC Bird (SOC) only produce a schedule showing which of the (223) master copy album photographs, related to the (50) court album photographs? Why was no schedule produced to show all 581 pictures taken in sequence, against the order of 223 pictures taken from it in producing the so called master copy album, as well as the (50)court album?
Answer...
The photographs of Sheila on the bed, were taken at a time when she was still alive on the bed, she could not have been dead, hence she only had one shot to her neck by that stage. Sheila may have been assumed to be dead, but she was not...
Dr Craig made an error in pronouncing her as being dead at the scene without examining her to check for vital signs of life...
Ambulance crews in attendance at the scene, were not called forward into the farmhouse to check the bodies for signs of life, but were sent away from the scene, despite Sheila still being alive on the bed in the bedroom with her only having been shot once by that stage...
Police stage managed Sheila' body on the floor in a position parallel with the edge of the bed, and they repositioned the rifle on her body and re-arranged her hands upon and around the gun, and placed the bible close by - not Jeremy, or any would be as yet unidentified killer...
Mike thank you. This is the clearest and most concise post you have ever put on this site. This is all people need to know and consider. It does not prove that Jeremy was not involved in the deaths of his family but it does prove that his conviction on the evidence presented at court was wrong, unsafe and unlawful. Therefore on that basis his appeal should be allowed. Why are Jeremy's defence team not calling you as a witness?
-
Not sure where to ask this question, so I will ask it here.
Is Farhad Emami, the chap called Freddie who has been mentioned on this forum?
-
Photograph posted in reply 1838, shows a view of where Sheila was on the bed, I cannot be any clearer than that. There was no gun on the bed, or on her body, and no bible on the bed, also June Bambers body was not on the bed, although in some reports in newspapers both bodies were found on the bed...
I have been told by my informant that police at the scene were guilty of taking indecent images of the three adult victims, in other words, being very very disrespectful to them all...
Some of the indecent images taken of Sheila are the ones which have disappeared from radar...
I wished I had never seen the photographs I saw at Ewens office, its a living nightmare when people say that I never saw such images, I wished I had not seen them, I really do, but at the same time people can accuse me of anything, what really matters is that these convictions for these murders get overturned sharpishly...
-
Not sure where to ask this question, so I will ask it here.
Is Farhad Emami, the chap called Freddie who has been mentioned on this forum?
Yes...
-
I have reproduced the general area on the bed of the close up showing only one wound on Sheila's neck which I was recently allowed to view...
This photograph would have been taken before the ones where Sheila has been moved to the bedroom floor by the police, and the gun placed on her body. The negative for this picture would be amongst the 8 missing from the negative strip...
This is the general area on the bed where Sheila was photographed with only one wound to her neck...
For the purpose of being specific, there was no gun in the photograph which my informant showed to me recently where there is only one wound on Sheila's neck...
That throws a rather large spanner in the works, regarding the theory for the 2nd shot having been caused by butter-fingers Woodcock though?
-
sorry to go off topic, but how do i enable cookies, i cant read my emails.
if anyone can answer quickly, thankus muchus x
I'm not sure, but I think emails have been disabled? I'll check and get back to you.
No Grahame its ok, i meant my virgin account, not my mails here x
-
Not sure where to ask this question, so I will ask it here.
Is Farhad Emami, the chap called Freddie who has been mentioned on this forum?
Yes...
Thanks.
-
I haven't posted in a while but after reading the latest updates from Mike, I just had to comment. I spent last night reading through this thread, aghast. Just when you think the whole thing can't get any worse :-\ Its actally made me really angry at the disgusting behaviour of those police officers. I assume those images are being witheld on the grounds they're not in the public interest but surely this IS in the public interest?? What would happen if someone went to the papers with all of this - would it make a difference? I know 99.9% of us haven't seen said images so effectively we're having to take Mike at his word but surely something has to be done about this??
-
I haven't posted in a while but after reading the latest updates from Mike, I just had to comment. I spent last night reading through this thread, aghast. Just when you think the whole thing can't get any worse :-\ Its actally made me really angry at the disgusting behaviour of those police officers. I assume those images are being witheld on the grounds they're not in the public interest but surely this IS in the public interest?? What would happen if someone went to the papers with all of this - would it make a difference? I know 99.9% of us haven't seen said images so effectively we're having to take Mike at his word but surely something has to be done about this??
I think it would backfire on JB if he sought redress via the press relating to any of the 'tomfoolery' photos. It makes it look like he is trying to hit out at police on something seperate from his guilt / innocence. Redress via the press should concentrate on the most weightiest issues among the defence arguments, in my opinion.
-
Fair point. It just makes me fume >:(
-
Smiffy.I am pretty sure that is a slipper by the chair in the crime scene photo of Sheila.Im certain that I have seen a clearer shot of it in a different photo.
I believe that Sheila was wearing those socks at one stage,as her feet shouldnt have been clean either way.Not living in a working farmhouse!
Can I ask what your take is on the matter of the bible.That blue bible was clearly not the original bible found with Sheilas body.It did not have her prints on it........only Junes.Did EP swap this bible with the black one,and if so......why? Why have we never heard any forensic information regarding the black bible,other than that blood was found inside it,as per the photograph?What do you read (pardon the pun) into this?
Thanks.
-
Smiffy.I am pretty sure that is a slipper by the chair in the crime scene photo of Sheila.Im certain that I have seen a clearer shot of it in a different photo.
I believe that Sheila was wearing those socks at one stage,as her feet shouldnt have been clean either way.Not living in a working farmhouse!
Can I ask what your take is on the matter of the bible.That blue bible was clearly not the original bible found with Sheilas body.It did not have her prints on it........only Junes.Did EP swap this bible with the black one,and if so......why? Why have we never heard any forensic information regarding the black bible,other than that blood was found inside it,as per the photograph?What do you read (pardon the pun) into this?
Thanks.
mike may be able to help more on the bibles....
However , comments on the blue bible have at times made mention that the blue bible was Sheila's possibly when she was younger ..but still kept at whf.
In his theorising diary...Robert paints a picture.....with a compliant Sheila being instructed...."bring your bible"...which suggests he knew the blue bible was Sheila's and was used or the one talked about by his informers and the police.
-
For Keira's Oriental Perusal and Speculation (K O P S) The reiterated Magick Carpet Theory deduced from Sir R.F.BURTON's Translations from the ARABIAN KNIGHTS 1885 - 1888. Take SHEILA's body from back kitchen rolled up in a carpet,, up stairs? to June's bedroom. Place on floor. Unroll carpet. In order to remove carpet, place Sheila's body on the bed. Re-roll carpet and put out sight under bed. This would be at the time shown on digital clock, which MIKE saw in the photo he saw, in EWEN SMITH's office, of Sheila on the bed. Sheila,s body then placed on floor, with rifle (without moderator?) and BIBLE to indicate suicidded solution.
interesting theory...
I imagined the mat that was in front of the sink was only disposed of by burning due to stains upon it from in the kitchen.
I guess in the theory put forward it may have been used to move Sheila upstairs...as as a result later burned.
One could see the mattress on the bed in the main bedroom surviving any significant bloodstaining as no one seemed to stay on it long...
However the mattress' for the twins should have been heavily soaked and only fit for burning..so does anyone know if they had been removed and burned by the police?
-
Smiffy.I am pretty sure that is a slipper by the chair in the crime scene photo of Sheila.Im certain that I have seen a clearer shot of it in a different photo.
I believe that Sheila was wearing those socks at one stage,as her feet shouldnt have been clean either way.Not living in a working farmhouse!
Can I ask what your take is on the matter of the bible.That blue bible was clearly not the original bible found with Sheilas body.It did not have her prints on it........only Junes.Did EP swap this bible with the black one,and if so......why? Why have we never heard any forensic information regarding the black bible,other than that blood was found inside it,as per the photograph?What do you read (pardon the pun) into this?
Thanks.
mike may be able to help more on the bibles....
However , comments on the blue bible have at times made mention that the blue bible was Sheila's possibly when she was younger ..but still kept at whf.
In his theorising diary...Robert paints a picture.....with a compliant Sheila being instructed...."bring your bible"...which suggests he knew the blue bible was Sheila's and was used or the one talked about by his informers and the police.
Yes,the bible may have been Sheilas,but it was established that it was usually kept in Junes bedside locker.
Thanks for your help smiffy :)
-
Smiffy may be able to help me here. I was wondering where the wooden part of the rifle came from. Was it the butt of the rifle.
-
Smiffy may be able to help me here. I was wondering where the wooden part of the rifle came from. Was it the butt of the rifle.
Cliff,that it what was claimed.
What I find intriguing is that the relatives stated that Sheila hated guns,wouldnt touch them and didnt know one end of a gun from another,and yet both hers and Nevills fingerprints were found on Nevills shotgun?
-
Smiffy may be able to help me here. I was wondering where the wooden part of the rifle came from. Was it the butt of the rifle.
Cliff,that it what was claimed.
What I find intriguing is that the relatives stated that Sheila hated guns,wouldnt touch them and didnt know one end of a gun from another,and yet both hers and Nevills fingerprints were found on Nevills shotgun?
Then that suggest to me that the rifle was swung by the barrel at Ralph.
How did the silencer mark the mantle, when it was held in the hand. Hope that makes sense.
-
Smiffy may be able to help me here. I was wondering where the wooden part of the rifle came from. Was it the butt of the rifle.
Cliff,that it what was claimed.
What I find intriguing is that the relatives stated that Sheila hated guns,wouldnt touch them and didnt know one end of a gun from another,and yet both hers and Nevills fingerprints were found on Nevills shotgun?
There was also one found on the suicide weapon that belonged to her.
-
Smiffy may be able to help me here. I was wondering where the wooden part of the rifle came from. Was it the butt of the rifle.
Cliff,that it what was claimed.
What I find intriguing is that the relatives stated that Sheila hated guns,wouldnt touch them and didnt know one end of a gun from another,and yet both hers and Nevills fingerprints were found on Nevills shotgun?
Then that suggest to me that the rifle was swung by the barrel at Ralph.
How did the silencer mark the mantle, when it was held in the hand. Hope that makes sense.
I thought these marks were not present in original photos, but pics on this forum show they were added at a later date, hence the expert re-examining them and these are forming part of the appeal as outlined in the Guardian article way back in February. That is what led me here!
-
Smiffy may be able to help me here. I was wondering where the wooden part of the rifle came from. Was it the butt of the rifle.
Cliff,that it what was claimed.
What I find intriguing is that the relatives stated that Sheila hated guns,wouldnt touch them and didnt know one end of a gun from another,and yet both hers and Nevills fingerprints were found on Nevills shotgun?
Then that suggest to me that the rifle was swung by the barrel at Ralph.
How did the silencer mark the mantle, when it was held in the hand. Hope that makes sense.
I thought these marks were not present in original photos, but pics on this forum show they were added at a later date, hence the expert re-examining them and these are forming part of the appeal as outlined in the Guardian article way back in February. That is what led me here!
I thought this had already been discounted.
-
Smiffy may be able to help me here. I was wondering where the wooden part of the rifle came from. Was it the butt of the rifle.
Cliff,that it what was claimed.
What I find intriguing is that the relatives stated that Sheila hated guns,wouldnt touch them and didnt know one end of a gun from another,and yet both hers and Nevills fingerprints were found on Nevills shotgun?
Then that suggest to me that the rifle was swung by the barrel at Ralph.
How did the silencer mark the mantle, when it was held in the hand. Hope that makes sense.
I thought these marks were not present in original photos, but pics on this forum show they were added at a later date, hence the expert re-examining them and these are forming part of the appeal as outlined in the Guardian article way back in February. That is what led me here!
I thought this had already been discounted.
Has it?! Oh dear, I'm not up to speed then!
-
Don't take my word for it HM, as I am usually wrong. I blame it on senior moments. ;D
-
Don't take my word for it HM, as I am usually wrong. I blame it on senior moments. ;D
He he! Don't worry Buddy. So many twists and turns on this forum and all confusing, annoying and fascinating. I wonder what we will all do when it's all over? Have a knees up somewhere?!!
-
Don't take my word for it HM, as I am usually wrong. I blame it on senior moments. ;D
He he! Don't worry Buddy. So many twists and turns on this forum and all confusing, annoying and fascinating. I wonder what we will all do when it's all over? Have a knees up somewhere?!!
A massive bender. We'll probably have to book out the Ritz.
-
Don't take my word for it HM, as I am usually wrong. I blame it on senior moments. ;D
He he! Don't worry Buddy. So many twists and turns on this forum and all confusing, annoying and fascinating. I wonder what we will all do when it's all over? Have a knees up somewhere?!!
A massive bender. We'll probably have to book out the Ritz.
Wow Rochy the Ritz! Thanks :)
-
buddy, sounds good! Don't make a meal of it, CLIFF and ME (Last three-045) are Senior CitiZens!!!
-
Under what circumstances did these bloodied fingermarks get made on Sheila's neck around the fatal entry wound site?
By checking some of the crime scene photographs, there appears to be additional bloodied marks around the fatal wound site, which was not there when the barrel of the rifle was in a different position against Sheila's neck/throat. This alerts us to the fact that somebody was trying to prevent blood from running and leaking from the fatal entry wound, at about the time the rifle was being repositioned on the body by the police...
-
According to DI Cooks (SOC) evidence, it was he who removed the rifle from Sheila's biody and it was he who stood it up against the bedroom window, yet we also have PS Woodcock saying he removed the rifle at 11:10hrs and made it safe, and of course there is also PI Montgomery, who claims he removed the rifle from the body and made iot safe...
Now...
How many times was the gun removed from the body?
Once (by Cook)?
twice? (by Cook, and Montgomery)?
Three times? (by Cook, Montgomery, and Woodcock)?
My next query is why does the rifle have DC Hammersleys exhibit reference of DRH/15, if Cook, and Montgomery, and Woodcock all took possession of the rifle at the scene?
Are we talking about the removal of three guns from the body, at different stages of the proceedings, or the same gun which was removed from the body whilst the body was being stage managed and replaced, before being removed and replaced again, and then removed finally?
-
Smiffy may be able to help me here. I was wondering where the wooden part of the rifle came from. Was it the butt of the rifle.
The piece of wood that appears in photographs on this forum IS NOT part of the Bamber rifle though some people have mistakenly thought it was.
That broken piece of wood is officially unsourced...ie not known where from...but EP are clear it was NOT from the Bamber rifle. I agree.
The missing piece of wood from the Bamber rifle was supposed to be in front of the aga...not to be confused with the one photograhed on here.
The description in court of where it was found seems to place it as being roughly under the photographed stack of cushions. A photograph purported to show it as teh scene has a dodgy provenance and Bird says he did not take it.
The bit of the wooden butt that broke off the Bamber rifle was the top edge where it met the metal mechanism part. In the pictures there is a gap in how the metal mechanism merges into the stock..
However the design means this part means of the butt does not blend in smoothly anyway...there is a short step in which the metal mechanism stands lightly proud. It was by this part that the butt became damaged and the short step normally seen is now a much larger gap .
A users thumb would normally be in contact with the damaged part of the butt if firing the rifle.
The sort of damage seen to the butt of the Bamber rifle seems conversant with it being used to batter someone or something with the butt by thrusting it at them or with it being dropped onto a tough surface ..butt downward. From such treatment the imacting faces should show some damage consistent with the impacts causing the wood to splinter where it met the metal mechanism.
If no impact damage is seen then consideration should be given to look for marks around where the wood splintered to see if a screwdriver or similar item was used to break the piece of butt off deliberately.
The mystery piece of wood could feasibly have broken off another weapon...such as Pargetter's rifle...most likely from wood covering the sides of the metal mechanism on Pargetter's rifle if I am correct.
-
The position of the rifle on Sheila's body had been repositioned at the time this crime scene photograph was taken:-
This is because the barrel of the rifle is resting against the left hand side of Sheila's neck, at a time when additional bloodied finger marks were made around the fatal entry wound...
If DI Cook was the first police officer to remove the rifle from Sheila's body, and stand it up against the bedroom window, as he claimed he did, then this must have been done before this photograph was taken, otherwise, somebody else must have moved the rifle from the body prior to DI Cook arriving at the scene to enable him to remove the gun as he has described in his evidence, elsewhere...
THE SCENE AS PHOTOGRAPHED HERE, WAS/IS THEREFORE, STAGE MANAGED, NOT BY JEREMY BAMBER, OR ANY AS YET UNIDENTIFIED KILLER, BUT BY THE POLICE..
-
The position of the guns barrel in this image, makes it absolutely clear that it was the police who were/are responsible for moving the gun around on Sheila's body, not , or any as yet unidentified killer:-
At this stage, the additional bloodied fingermarks around the fatal entry wound had not yet been made, so therefore we can safely say that the position of the rifle as shown in this image was before the other photograph which shows the barrel of the rifle resting against the left side of Sheila's neck...
A check can be made to see the order with which the negatives that correspond to these images were taken in?
For example, guns barrel pointing in direction of chin, as opposed to position of rifles barrel resting against the left side of Sheila's neck?
Obviously, one of these two photographs was taken before the other one, and it is important to establish which came first. The one which shows the guns barrel pointing in the general direction of Sheila's chin, was so obviously taken before the other one where the guns barrel is resting against the feft hand side of Sheila's neck. This will be confirmed once the negatives are checked against these two images...
-
What we then need to do, once we have established which order those two crime scene photographs were taken in, is establish at what stage the following crime scene picture was taken:-
Was the picture which shows the rifle leaning against the bedroom window, taken before either of the other two photographs which shows the position of the rifles barrel on Sheila's body in contradictory positions, for example, (a) the one which has the end of the guns barrel pointing in the general direction of Sheila's chin, as opposed to (b) the other one where the barrel of the rifle is resting against her neck?
If the rifle was photographed after (a), but before (b), we can then safely conclude that the rifle was removed from the body of Sheila by DI Cook, and placed against the bedroom window, before somebody replaced the rifle rifle back onto the body in time for crime scene photograph (b) to then be taken...
We can also establish, that at around this time, a police officer tried to stem the flow of blood from leaking and running from the fatal entry wound, because his bloodied fingermarks suddenly appeared around the fatal entry wound site (b), which were not there in the previously taken photograph (a)?
-
So...
The sequence with which these crucial photographs were taken, which I shall refer to as, photographs (a), (b) and (c), can help us to reconstruct what the police did at the scene, inside whf on that particular morning, at the time they were stage managing the crime scene, for the purpose of producing a photographic record that they would later manipulate, so that they could successfully prosecute 'JB' for the murders, on the bais that he had shot and killed his sister and then stage managed her body at the scene to make it look like or appear as though she had committed suicide...
Whilst the truth is...
The only persons responsible for stage managing the scene, and in particular the body of Sheila, were the police, themselves...
-
Finally...
Whilst taking into account the sequence with which crime scene photographs (a), (b) and (c) were taken by reference to the negatives, there is one other photograph which for the purpose of this argument I shall refer to as photograph (d). This photograph shows a view of the bedroom, in particular, a view showing the bedroom window at a time when the rifle was no longer resting up against it...
The timing when this (d) photograph was taken can be established by reference to the negatives....
-
We need to know the sequence with which these four photographs, (a), (b), (c), and (d), were taken, so that it can then be established beyond doubt what the police inside whf were getting up to, it will allow us to reconstruct exactly what the police did, whilst they were stage managing the scene, and creating a false photographic record that was later used to help prosecute and convict Jeremy for these murders...
So...
In what order, were photographs (a), (b), (c) and (d), taken?
-
Photographs, (a), (b), (c) and (d) in sequence, for the benefit of my argument:-
If you check the negatives to establish which of these four photographs was taken first to last, it will help to prove that photographic evidence was misused to help prosecute and convict Jeremy Bamber for these murders...
-
Anyway...
I think it is now possible to establish by reference to individual crime scene photographs, to show that a police officer attempted to prevent the flow of blood from the fatal entry wound on Sheila's neck at the time the police were moving the rifle about, onto and off Sheila Caffells body...
To illustrate the point even more...
Not only did a police officer apply his bloodied fingers to the neck of Sheila, at the time the rifle was being moved around upon and against Sheila's neck, but even after that police officer had applied his bloodied fingers to try and prevent blood from running profusely from the fatal entry wound, further amounts of blood continued to flow form it as evidence by reference to the following crime scene image:-
I shall refer to this crime scene photogroah (e)...
-
There are five crime scene photographs which can help to determine what the police got up to inside whf, that morning...
Photographs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e)...
The order that these five photographs were taken in, can be established by reference to the negatives which are currently in the hands of the CCRC...
-
A key feature which helps to show that Jeremy did not shoot Sheila twice (if at all) can easily be put by reference to photograph (e), which shows that even after a police officer at the scene had placed his bloodied fingermarks against the fatal entry wound site, blood had still continued to flow and leak, and run from it, despite the fact that Jeremy had been in the company of police officers at the scene from just before 4am that morning...
-
Every time I look at that picture of Sheila I just say to myself, poor lass. There are no winners in this thing.
-
Every time I look at that picture of Sheila I just say to myself, poor lass. There are no winners in this thing.
I agree. Even after all this time I still find looking at the photographs of Sheila very distressing. Whatever happened at WHF Sheila was herself a victim. It was a terrible tragedy, whatever your viewpoint on the case.
-
I'm still amazed that anybody could believe that Sheila died inside a time-frame feasible with Jeremy Bamber being inside the farmhouse. Absolutely no chance in my opinion. The pools of blood upon her throat (the ones suggested to be possible finger marks but viewed as wounds by Cavalli / Meloni) look very fresh. They do not appear coagulated whatsoever. I think it scandalous that Jeremy Bamber is still in prison even down to just this single photo.
Certain people have suggested that the bloodied pools are from police checking for signs of life (i.e. on a body that has been lain dead since the latest possible feasible time for Jeremy Bamber to have been inside the farmhouse). When you also consider that in this very same scenario, the police would also have had to have been grouped outside a totally silent farmhouse for hours, it becomes even more ludicrous.
Imagine it for a moment. The police are outside a totally silent farmhouse for hours. They then break in to a totally silent farmhouse to find everyone dead, including Sheila who has supposedly lain stock still with the rifle on top of her and a bible over her upper arm. So they check her for signs of life and in the process they cause blood leakage. Eventually they decide that photographs taken of her should be concealed, lest any person question the time of her death, purely because of the blood leakage caused by when they checked her for signs of life?
Isn't this exactly the same as the entry logs? They had to be concealed purely because a police officer made a mistake when looking through the window just prior to the raid.
And people say I'm gullible? :D
-
I believe Sheilas body was still warm, the police really made a bad error by not storming the house upon arrival, lives could have been saved, Sheila could be no match for a firearms team or should not be, teargas could have been used.
-
I don't disagree with what you have posted Roch, but it seems we have marched onward.
All the time I thought that sheila was responsible, and her alone.
We now have people coming out of the woodwork suggesting another scenario.
All these coded people!, who for more than two decades have kept stum.
I am finding it increasingly difficult to believe anyone.
It looks like we are going to go full circle and accuse the wronged father, I hope not.
Smiffy has been great trying to anylise the various statements, and contrary to beliefs I have been following.[Hard work at times Smiffy], but honestly put, and worthy of mention.
I am still of the mind that Sheila was responsible. No lurking man, no cop, no wronged father, and no wronged lover.
To my way of thinking [rightly, or wrongly] we are on a fools errand.
Quite simply Sheila, or jeremy was responsible IMO.
-
Anyway...
I think it is now possible to establish by reference to individual crime scene photographs, to show that a police officer attempted to prevent the flow of blood from the fatal entry wound on Sheila's neck at the time the police were moving the rifle about, onto and off Sheila Caffells body...
To illustrate the point even more...
Not only did a police officer apply his bloodied fingers to the neck of Sheila, at the time the rifle was being moved around upon and against Sheila's neck, but even after that police officer had applied his bloodied fingers to try and prevent blood from running profusely from the fatal entry wound, further amounts of blood continued to flow form it as evidence by reference to the following crime scene image:-
I shall refer to this crime scene photogroah (e)...
Sorry Mike.
I do not buy the stain pattern as being from fingermarks from a police officer. It appears to me as though transfer occured as the skinfolds on her neck area came together when her head was tipped forward ...after the second shot was fired. ie being moved around after death.
-
I agree Smiffy.I also think that Sheila was moved a number of times.
The positioning of the rifle being but one instance.
-
I agree Smiffy.I also think that Sheila was moved a number of times.
The positioning of the rifle being but one instance.
I am happy that Sheila could have killed the other 4 , so its only a question of who killed Sheila as it took more than 1 person to move her body about and more than 1 person to stage Ralph's body.
Oddly Ralph's position would have been impossible for him to get into on his own or to be put there by 1 person.
-
I don't disagree with what you have posted Roch, but it seems we have marched onward.
All the time I thought that sheila was responsible, and her alone.
We now have people coming out of the woodwork suggesting another scenario.
All these coded people!, who for more than two decades have kept stum.
I am finding it increasingly difficult to believe anyone.
It looks like we are going to go full circle and accuse the wronged father, I hope not.
Smiffy has been great trying to anylise the various statements, and contrary to beliefs I have been following.[Hard work at times Smiffy], but honestly put, and worthy of mention.
I am still of the mind that Sheila was responsible. No lurking man, no cop, no wronged father, and no wronged lover.
To my way of thinking [rightly, or wrongly] we are on a fools errand.
Quite simply Sheila, or jeremy was responsible IMO.
Cliff, I've never been able to buy that reasoning. I know it's based upon the sequence of phone calls and in particular, Jeremy Bamber's phone call to police. But If there is no third party working an cahoots with Jeremy, then that must mean Jeremy is relying on police not being able to trace a call made from WHF to Head St. I do not believe that police would not be able to trace such a call. I have already given my reasons for it being impossible to have been Jeremy in person, imo.
-
F****s dave I am Buddy. I don,t quite follow you[ another senior moment].
Can you be blunt Dave and explain your reasoning. I am not here to take the wee, but I am finding it harder and harder to come to a conclusion.
-
F****s dave I am Buddy. I don,t quite follow you[ another senior moment].
Can you be blunt Dave and explain your reasoning. I am not here to take the wee, but I am finding it harder and harder to come to a conclusion.
Yes, to put it bluntly, Jeremy Bamber is out of the equation in my opinion. The latest time frame he could have been within the farm carrying out the killings is not consistent with the death of Sheila Caffell. The argument that Jeremy is in the frame because he is the one who phoned the police doesn't work for me. It is based on the argument that no call took place from WHF to Goldhangar. I do not believe that police were unable to trace whether a call had took place or not. It was 1985 not 1895. I do not believe that Jeremy Bamber relied upon the police being unable to trace whether or not a call had taken place from WHF to Goldhanger.
I do not believe the logs were concealed because one of the raid team nearly let a mass murderer off the hook simply by mistaking a male body for a female body. etc.
-
F****s dave I am Buddy. I don,t quite follow you[ another senior moment].
Can you be blunt Dave and explain your reasoning. I am not here to take the wee, but I am finding it harder and harder to come to a conclusion.
Yes, to put it bluntly, Jeremy Bamber is out of the equation in my opinion. The latest time frame he could have been within the farm carrying out the killings is not consistent with the death of Sheila Caffell. The argument that Jeremy is in the frame because he is the one who phoned the police doesn't work for me. It is based on the argument that no call took place from WHF to Goldhangar. I do not believe that police were unable to trace whether a call had took place or not. It was 1985 not 1895. I do not believe that Jeremy Bamber relied upon the police being unable to trace whether or not a call had taken place from WHF to Goldhanger.
I do not believe the logs were concealed because one of the raid team nearly let a mass murderer off the hook simply by mistaking a male body for a female body. etc.
That will do for me mate ;)
-
I agree that the timing of the phone call made by Ralph to Jeremy from whf to Jeremy's cottage at Head Street, cannot have any bearing on the timing of Sheila's death, because I do not think there is any evidence at all to show or suggest that Sheila died before the arrival of police and Jeremy at the scene. On the other hand, the timing of the call does have a direct bearing on when Ralph Bamber died in the kitchen at whf? But no evidence was called or exists to show or prove that Ralph Bamber had been shot and killed before the police and Jeremy arrived at the scene, either...
There was no evidence to show that if any struggle had taken place between Ralph and his killer in the kitchen, that it had happened before police and Jeremy arrived there...
I also do not accept that police did not peek through the kitchen window when they went back to take a second look around the house after they and Jeremy had ran back to the patrol car to raise the alarm and request firearms officers to be deployed. According to the evidence, the kitchen was the only downstairs room which was lit up (had its light switched on), and I cannot understand why no police officer did not approach that window before 7:30am, and look into the kitchen, because if one had done they would have seen the disturbance in the kitchen and they would have seen Ralph's body if at that stage it was by the corner of the aga with his head in the coal bucket...
-
Mike, do you have plans to meet with your informant before Christmas? I'm eagerly awaiting the next instalment.....
-
Mike, do you have plans to meet with your informant before Christmas? I'm eagerly awaiting the next instalment.....
I shall be meeting him between Christmas and New year, in Colchester (hopefully)...
-
Mike, do you have plans to meet with your informant before Christmas? I'm eagerly awaiting the next instalment.....
I shall be meeting him between Christmas and New year, in Colchester (hopefully)...
Thankyou Mike.
I wonder if he could appeal to his former colleagues to come forward? Does he know how many individuals have copies of the photographs?
-
This was the silencer which PC Whiddon took from DCI "Taff" Jones desk at Witham police station, the one handed to police by Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985:-
-
Mike, do you have plans to meet with your informant before Christmas? I'm eagerly awaiting the next instalment.....
I shall be meeting him between Christmas and New year, in Colchester (hopefully)...
Thankyou Mike.
I wonder if he could appeal to his former colleagues to come forward? Does he know how many individuals have copies of the photographs?
He has previously told me that at least three of his colleagues have copies of the photograph of Sheila on the bed, with one wound - although he has not yet named them, nor have I asked him which ones he is talking about...
-
Why havent you asked him mike? Do you plan to ask him to name names.
-
Police merged two silencers into the same one, so that they could present evidence of paint from the aga surround and blood from Sheila as having been found inside and upon the same silencer - but it is now possible to reconstruct how they went about this...
Police and relatives continue to maintain there was only one silencer, they know that if they admit there were two different identical ones that the game will be up...
All parties will be hard pushed to admit that the silencer evidence is/was bogus, since the silencer, paint, blood evidence is the cornerstone of the prosecutions case;-
-
Mike, do you have plans to meet with your informant before Christmas? I'm eagerly awaiting the next instalment.....
I shall be meeting him between Christmas and New year, in Colchester (hopefully)...
Thankyou Mike.
I wonder if he could appeal to his former colleagues to come forward? Does he know how many individuals have copies of the photographs?
He has previously told me that at least three of his colleagues have copies of the photograph of Sheila on the bed, with one wound - although he has not yet named them, nor have I asked him which ones he is talking about...
This is what I don't understand - why would copies have been made and handed out, then kept all this time? Were they kept as some sort of bartering tool for the future?
-
Mike, do you have plans to meet with your informant before Christmas? I'm eagerly awaiting the next instalment.....
I shall be meeting him between Christmas and New year, in Colchester (hopefully)...
Thankyou Mike.
I wonder if he could appeal to his former colleagues to come forward? Does he know how many individuals have copies of the photographs?
He has previously told me that at least three of his colleagues have copies of the photograph of Sheila on the bed, with one wound - although he has not yet named them, nor have I asked him which ones he is talking about...
This is what I don't understand - why would copies have been made and handed out, then kept all this time? Were they kept as some sort of bartering tool for the future?
Have they been dreading or expecting this time to come?
-
Why havent you asked him mike? Do you plan to ask him to name names.
It's been a delicate situation, one where I have been only too pleased to receive information, but at the same time, one where the other party might pull out of the arrangement if I ask or expect too much against what he is prepared to do, or say, or produce...
If I get to see him in between Christmas and the new year, I will try to broach this subject with him, and report back. It may well be, that he is more forthcoming and that he may name names, and or produce evidence to Jeremy's legal team, or to the CCRC, who as I understand it have said that although the case is closed now for any further submissions, that they may be prepared to accept further evidence if it has a significant bearing on the application they are considering...
But it remains to be seen if they will...
-
Mike, do you have plans to meet with your informant before Christmas? I'm eagerly awaiting the next instalment.....
I shall be meeting him between Christmas and New year, in Colchester (hopefully)...
Thankyou Mike.
I wonder if he could appeal to his former colleagues to come forward? Does he know how many individuals have copies of the photographs?
He has previously told me that at least three of his colleagues have copies of the photograph of Sheila on the bed, with one wound - although he has not yet named them, nor have I asked him which ones he is talking about...
This is what I don't understand - why would copies have been made and handed out, then kept all this time? Were they kept as some sort of bartering tool for the future?
Copies apparently kept for self preservation purposes, in the event that the cover up surrounding Sheila's death in the bedroom was exposed, from what I can gather, since orders came from above for these officers to take the approach they took as part of the cover up, participation which many of them were not happy to go along with...
-
Mike, do you have plans to meet with your informant before Christmas? I'm eagerly awaiting the next instalment.....
I shall be meeting him between Christmas and New year, in Colchester (hopefully)...
Thankyou Mike.
I wonder if he could appeal to his former colleagues to come forward? Does he know how many individuals have copies of the photographs?
He has previously told me that at least three of his colleagues have copies of the photograph of Sheila on the bed, with one wound - although he has not yet named them, nor have I asked him which ones he is talking about...
This is what I don't understand - why would copies have been made and handed out, then kept all this time? Were they kept as some sort of bartering tool for the future?
Have they been dreading or expecting this time to come?
Expecting the truth to come out about the timing of Sheila's death at some stage, yes...
-
David Boutflour did not report the finding of the silencer inside the gun cupboard at whf until 11th September 1985, in a phone call that he made to the police that day:-
-
His sister, Ann Eaton, handed over the silencer to the police that same date (11th September 1985), and at some stage after this, the relatives and police made up a story about the relatives having handed this silencer over to the police a month earlier:-
-
12 days before David Boutflour reported the find of a silencer in the gun cupboard at whf, and 12 days before his sister Ann Eaton handed over that same silencer to the police (11th September 1985), DI "Ron" Cook, had dismantled and rebuilt the other silencer (29th August 1985) and submitted it to the lab' on the following day, and therefore the silencer handled by Cook on that occasion, and the one handed to the police by the relatives on 11th September 1985, could not possibly be the same silencer...
-
or produce evidence to Jeremy's legal team, or to the CCRC, who as I understand it have said that although the case is closed now for any further submissions, that they may be prepared to accept further evidence if it has a significant bearing on the application they are considering.
Mike why would they request a single submission instead of a cumulative one, give extensions but without obtaining certain documents by not exercising their powers, delay the release negatives to the point of public protest, impede the completion of forensics, thus ensuring that the single submission they have requested cannot be put together, and then give no indication of an abrupt 'about turn' to shut of the submissions process?
I think you are being optimistic here.
-
Sheila's blood was supposedly found in the silencer handled by Cook on 29th August 1985, that he sent to the lab' on the following day, whilst paint from the aga was found on the silencer handed to police by Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985...
Yet, the blood and the paint evidence was merged into the same silencer by a number of conspirators, including David Boutflour, Ann Eaton, PC "Chris'" Whiddon, and DI "Ron" Cook:-
-
or produce evidence to Jeremy's legal team, or to the CCRC, who as I understand it have said that although the case is closed now for any further submissions, that they may be prepared to accept further evidence if it has a significant bearing on the application they are considering.
Mike why would they request a single submission instead of a cumulative one, give extensions but without obtaining certain documents by not exercising their powers, delay the release negatives to the point of public protest, impede the completion of forensics, thus ensuring that the single submission they have requested cannot be put together, and then give no indication of an abrupt 'about turn' to shut of the submissions process?
I think you are being optimistic here.
I am not the CCRC so I cannot speak for them, but it seems to me that the CCRC know there are problems with the evidence in this case, they just don't want to be the ones who provide access to the evidence that will result in these convictions getting quashed, and the criminal justice system being brought into disrepute...
-
or produce evidence to Jeremy's legal team, or to the CCRC, who as I understand it have said that although the case is closed now for any further submissions, that they may be prepared to accept further evidence if it has a significant bearing on the application they are considering.
Mike why would they request a single submission instead of a cumulative one, give extensions but without obtaining certain documents by not exercising their powers, delay the release negatives to the point of public protest, impede the completion of forensics, thus ensuring that the single submission they have requested cannot be put together, and then give no indication of an abrupt 'about turn' to shut of the submissions process?
I think you are being optimistic here.
I am not the CCRC so I cannot speak for them, but it seems to me that the CCRC know there are problems with the evidence in this case, they just don't want to be the ones who provide access to the evidence that will result in these convictions getting quashed, and the criminal justice system being brought into disrepute...
I have heard that, as you know. So what on earth is the purpose of the CCRC, if they are not strong enough to expose a politically sensitive miscarriage of justice? It's pathetic. They are simply enmeshing their own organisation in to the very corruption that they don't have the backbone to expose. There is no way they would do that if they thought there was any danger of him getting out. It would be like committing suicide for their organisation. So they must be relying upon him not getting out, imo.
-
or produce evidence to Jeremy's legal team, or to the CCRC, who as I understand it have said that although the case is closed now for any further submissions, that they may be prepared to accept further evidence if it has a significant bearing on the application they are considering.
Mike why would they request a single submission instead of a cumulative one, give extensions but without obtaining certain documents by not exercising their powers, delay the release negatives to the point of public protest, impede the completion of forensics, thus ensuring that the single submission they have requested cannot be put together, and then give no indication of an abrupt 'about turn' to shut of the submissions process?
I think you are being optimistic here.
I am not the CCRC so I cannot speak for them, but it seems to me that the CCRC know there are problems with the evidence in this case, they just don't want to be the ones who provide access to the evidence that will result in these convictions getting quashed, and the criminal justice system being brought into disrepute...
I have heard that, as you know. So what on earth is the purpose of the CCRC, if they are not strong enough to expose a politically sensitive miscarriage of justice? It's pathetic. They are simply enmeshing their own organisation in to the very corruption that they don't have the backbone to expose. There is no way they would do that if they thought there was any danger of him getting out. It would be like committing suicide for their organisation. So they must be relying upon him not getting out, imo.
impression I get about the CCRC is that they are not in business to uncover miscarriages of justice, merely there to protect the system from being exposed because of them...
They are like a safety net, in place to protect the system from sudden unexpected fallout...
Its as though this organisation has been set up to prevent cases suddenly exposing the criminal justice system, CPS, Judiciary and police, as nothing more than shambolic, and on occasions dishonest...
-
Entries on crucial lab' documents pertaining to the silencer evidence were doctored and falsified, for the purpose of presenting two different silencers as being one and the same. Here is a typical example of what I am talking about - the GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORD for the submission of the silencer to the lab' at Huntingdon, on 13th August 1985:-
This silencer was already at the lab' from 30th August 1985, and had previously been to the lab' on 13th August 1985, and therefore could not have been the silencer handed over to the police by relatives on 11th September 1985, which was used to deliberately mark the aga surround on 12th September 1985, as evidenced by the photographs cited previously...
If this silencer was at the lab' from 30th August 1985, onward, it could not very well have paint from the scratch marks on the aga upon it by 30th August 1985, since these marks were not made to the aga surround until 12th September 1985 at the earliest. Furthermore, because the silencer sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, remained at the lab' from that date onwards, how could it be returned to the lab' after that date, with paint upon it which could not have got onto a silencer until 12th September 1985? You can't return a silencer to the lab' after 30th August 1985, if it was there all along, and it never left the lab' to enable it to make the marks on the aga by 12th September 1985...
So somebody made a false entry on the wrong General Examination Record for one of the silencers as part of the ploy to merge both silencers into the same one...
-
How come flake of blood was found by MDF after silencer had been returned on 30th August 1985, when the day beforehand, DI Cook had dismantled the same silencer and found nothing?
How could the loose flake of blood not be there on 29th August 1985, yet be there a day later?
-
29th August 1985 - when Cook dismantled silencer and rebuilt it on this date there was no loose flake of blood present inside it; yet when MDF dismantled the same rebuilt silencer which Cook had dismantled the day beforehand, he suddenly finds the crucial loose flake of blood inside it that turns out to belong exclusively to Sheila...
Sorry...
but this is very dodgy evidence to say the least...
-
No one should be in any sort of doubt that police have lied about not moving or touching the bodies or anything at the scene until after the crime scene pictures had been taken, by reference to this picture that police took of Ralph Bambers body in the kitchen - you can see a large wooden chair behind him that is blocking off the very door through which members of the raid team supposedly entered the kitchen - now exactly how did the police manage to get into the kitchen with that wooden chair in that position?
-
What's this, behind door?
-
Looks like a black rubbish bag to me?
It was originally reported that Nevill was found "slumped" in a chair.
Does anyone else remember that?
-
There was said to have been 2 buckets stood next to the aga,in which Sheilas bloodied clothes were soaking.But I have never seen these in any crime scene photos?
-
OPERATION "COOL":-
Jeremy Bamber was subject of a major police operation codenamed, Operation "Cool", after the shootings. This is confirmed in the pocketbook entries of PC DELGADO...
(copy of notes to be posted )...
-
OPERATION "COOL":-
was subject of a major police operation codenamed, Operation "Cool", after the shootings. This is confirmed in the pocketbook entries of PC DELGADO...
(copy of notes to be posted )...
This was an operation which was drugs orientated, and included the police looking at Jeremy, Julie and all their friends, particularly those who lived in the bedsits at the same house as Julie Mugford - many of these persons had convictions for drug related offences...
Other information centred on the possibility that a big drugs dealer had recently put a deposit down on a large house in the Tolleshunt D'Arcy area...
Other inquiries were made into drugs links involving Sheila and her boyfriend "Freddie the Coke" Emani, who it was rumoured was owed £50,000 in debt by Sheila at the time of her death?
-
Was PC Delgado present at the scene (whf) that morning and was he one of the six man raid team which forced its way into the farmhouse at about 7:30am (7th August 1985)? Here are the relevant pocketbook entries relating to his tour of duty for that, and other days:-
There does not appear to be any evidence that he wa actually at the scene on 7th August 1985, only that at 10:30hrs he was making notes with PC Collins about the incident there. There is no mention at all that the incident involved a multiple shooting where five people had died, including two young children, an elderly couple and a young mother...
-
It is very odd that none of these page entries in this pocketbook have got page numbers?
-
PC Collins pocketbook entries:-
-
A copy of the original notes which PC Delgado and PC Collins (and others) made on FORMS A58 have never yet been disclosed and continue to be withheld under pii...
Has this got anything to do with it?
(1) http://statguidance.ipcc.gov.uk/Pages/issues_recording.aspx#com
Power to suspend investigation or other procedure (sub judice) on a complaint case
A58. Police forces and police authorities are expected to record a complaint within 10 working days from receipt of the complaint, as outlined in A17 (Date complaint case recorded) This is irrespective of whether there are any outstanding criminal investigations or proceedings linked to the complaint. Once a complaint has been recorded, there is a power to suspend an investigation which would, if it were to continue, prejudice any criminal investigation or proceedings182. The justification for suspending an investigation will cease when the complainant/defendant is convicted or acquitted in the ongoing criminal proceedings or the case against him or her is not proceeded with. It does not generally include any period where the case is adjourned for sentencing. Even when the case is suspended, there may be an opportunity to gather evidence and undertake part of the investigation.
If so, what complaint was being written about by PC Delgado and PC Collins, on the day they forced their way into whf?
Or...
is the reference to making original notes on a FORM A58, a reference to a witness statement they both made at that time?
-
The pocketbook entries of DS "Stan" Jones, recorded in a pocketbook that was issued to him on 5th November 1984:-
The contents of the book contain details between 5th April 1985 to 7th May 1986, recorded on 26 folded sheets of paper retained inside a card cover...
Sheet 01 - pages 01/02 - 103/104
Sheet 02 - pages 03/04 - 101/102 (notes checked by PI "Bob" Miller)
Sheet 03 - pages 05/06 - 99/100
Sheet 04 - pages 07/08 - 97/98 (notes checked by PI "Bob" Miller)
Sheet 05 - pages 09/10 - 95/96
Sheet 06 - pages 11/12 - 93/94
Sheet 07 - pages 13/14 - 91/92
Sheet 08 - pages 15/16 - 89/90
Sheet 09 - pages 17/18 - 87/88
Sheet 10 - pages 19/20 - 85/86
Sheet 11 - pages 21/22 - 83/84
Sheet 12 - pages 23/24 - 81/82 (notes checked by PI "Bob" Miller)
Sheet 13 - pages 25/26 - 79/80 (notes checked by PI "Bob" Miller)
Sheet 14 - pages 27/28 - 77/78
Sheet 15 - pages 29/30 - 75/76 (notes checked by PI "Bob" Miller)
Sheet 16 - pages 31/32 - 73/74
Sheet 17 - pages 33/34 - 71/72
Sheet 18 - pages 35/36 - 69/70
Sheet 19 - pages 37/38 - 67/68
Sheet 20 - pages 39/40 - 65/66
Sheet 21 - pages 41/42 - 63/64 (notes checked by PI "Bob" Miller)
Sheet 22 - pages 43/44 - 61/62
Sheet 23 - pages 45/46 - 59/60
Sheet 24 - pages 47/48 - 57/58
Sheet 25 - pages 49/50 - 55/56
Sheet 26 - pages 51/52 - 53/54
-
sorry to go off topic, but how do i enable cookies, i cant read my emails.
Cookies aren't needed to read email. Are you referring to a new email address, on which you've never received email? Are you trying to read emails on a computer, having previously always used a mobile phone? What error message(s) do you get when trying to access your emails?
-
This bit's interesting. Monday 12th August 1985.
Oak Farm Pick up silencer.
-
This bit's interesting. Monday 12th August 1985.
Oak Farm Pick up silencer.
Page 38 of DS Jones re-written pocketbook notes, which corresponds with sheet 19...
Sheet 19 - pages 37/38 - 67/68
Page 37 - refers to entries dated, 6th, 7th and 8th August 1985
Page 38 - refers to entries dated, 8th, 9th 10th and 11th August 1985
Page 67 - refers to entries dated,
Page 68 - refers to entries dated,
These entries in the MAJOR INCIDENT PROPERTY REGISTER are also very interesting, since these are exhibits SBJ/2, DS Jones recovered from the scene on 7th August 1985, the details of which are omitted from the pocketbook entry of the day...
Now...
What I don't get, is how could DS Jones be taking a photograph at the scene on 7th August 1985, bearing the identifying mark of SBJ/2, and then some five days later, on 12th August 1985, be collecting a silencer from Oak farm which ends up having the original exhibit mark of SBJ/1? How can DS Jones, take exhibit SBJ/2, before he was handed exhibit SBJ/1 five days later?
Like you say - this is very interesting...
Lets also not forget, that David Boutflour did not contact the police about finding the silencer in the gun cupboard until 11th september 1985, and his sister Ann eaton did not hand over that silencer until that same day, so why would DS Jones be going to Oak farm on 12th August 1985, to collect a silencer that the police did not know anything about because by that stage the relatives had not yet reported its find to the police, and which they had not handed it over, and which they did not hand over to the police, until 11th September 1985...
-
Would you agree that regardless of everything else, if Jones collected the silencer, as per the current 'official line', then it should never have been an SBJ exhibit number at all, it should have been named after the person who found it?
What is the earliest reference to SBJ/1 that you have come across?
-
Would you agree that regardless of everything else, if Jones collected the silencer, as per the current 'official line', then it should never have been an SBJ exhibit number at all, it should have been named after the person who found it?
What is the earliest reference to SBJ/1 that you have come across?
I will answer your points shortly, but for now please try to bear with me, because I want to draw your attention to something of great importance, which cannot be overlooked and swept under the carpet. Now, you have pointed out the entry contained in DS Jones pocketbook, dated, 12th August 1985, and it is your suggestion (I assume) that this in some way proves that he collected the silencer from the relatives on this occasion, and that in some way proves that the relatives did find a silencer in the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985, which they duly handed over to DS Jones, on 12th...
Could you please take a look at the following copies of paged entries in that re-written pocketbook belonging to DS Jones, for example, the page you posted, and one showing the middle pages (52 and 53) of the same pocketbook, and would you agree that the pages of this particular forged pocketbook has got three staples fastening it all together?
Please take a good look, and tell me if I have interpreted it correctly?
-
You crack on and say what it is that you want to.
-
Pocketbook of DC Hammersley, containing dated entries between 14th July 1985 and 13th October 1985:-
Please note, that there are only two staples fastening the pages of this pocketbook together inside its card cover...
-
You crack on and say what it is that you want to.
Well, explain this to me, how come police pocketbooks only have two lots of fastening staples, which join the cover of the pocketbook to the inner pages, yet at a very crucial stage or point inside DS "Stan" the man Jones pocketbook, where it mentions him going along to collect the silencer from Oak farm, on 12th August 1985, there appears to be three separate fastening staples, so if this was a genuine pocketbook, how could the original pages which were fastened inside the original cover of that pocketbook which was issued to DS Jones on 5th November 1984, which only had two staples, has actually got pages contained within it that has got three staples?
How can a pocketbook which should only have two lots of fastening staples holding the cover and inner pages together, actually have some pages being held together by use of three staples?
Does this not lead one to the conclusion that the inner pages from the original pocketbook that was issued to DS Jones on 5th November 1984, have been replaced by new pages upon which he has re-written his notes, and that a consequence of re-writing his notes in this book, involves pages with additional staples, and the fact that the body of the book does not fit snugly with its outercover?
-
Would you agree that regardless of everything else, if Jones collected the silencer, as per the current 'official line', then it should never have been an SBJ exhibit number at all, it should have been named after the person who found it?
What is the earliest reference to SBJ/1 that you have come across?
I will now respond to your point...
First of all, the silencer which was sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, did so under the identifying mark of SBJ/1, so if the identifying mark given to an item found, seized or retained at the scene is given the initials of the person who finds it, or seizes it or whatever, then do you agree that the silencer sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, must have been a silencer found by DS Jones at the scene, and not the one allegedly found by the relatives?
Secondly...
Do you accept that once Jeremy was convicted of the murders, that Essex police handed back two silencers to the relatives? According to David Boutflour, he told COLP in 1991, that police returned two silencers to the family, one belonging to his father (Robert Boutflour) and the other belonging to himself? Now, at what stage did the relatives hand over the two Parker hale silencers belonging to them? Could you please try to find out for me, so that I can reconstruct exactly what took place regarding the seizure or retention of the two silencers belonging to the relatives, and the one belonging to the Bambers?
Thirdly...
If David Boutflour found a silencer at the scene, or produced it to the police from elsewhere, it should have been given his initials, and identifying mark (DRB). You will note that it was not until after early September 1985, was any silencer referred to, by the exhibit reference of DRB/1, and this is consistent with David Boutflour contacting the police by telephone on 11th September 1985, to report the finding of that silencer, so we can be sure that this particular silencer was not the same one that was sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, under the identifying mark of SBJ/1...
Fourthly...
We know police had at least three identical looking parker hale silencers in their possession and under their control at one time or another, and is it really just a coincidence that three different exhibit references have been given to a silencer, which have since all been merged into one and the same, where SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, are one and the same, but in reality are all different ones...
Could you please try to find out what exhibit references were given to the two Parker hale silencers which were given to the police by the relatives, which belonged to them? Once this is achieved it would be very helpful and all this business about silencers would be cleared up in an instant...
-
You crack on and say what it is that you want to.
Well, explain this to me, how come police pocketbooks only have two lots of fastening staples, which join the cover of the pocketbook to the inner pages, yet at a very crucial stage or point inside DS "Stan" the man Jones pocketbook, where it mentions him going along to collect the silencer from Oak farm, on 12th August 1985, there appears to be three separate fastening staples, so if this was a genuine pocketbook, how could the original pages which were fastened inside the original cover of that pocketbook which was issued to DS Jones on 5th November 1984, which only had two staples, has actually got pages contained within it that has got three staples?
How can a pocketbook which should only have two lots of fastening staples holding the cover and inner pages together, actually have some pages being held together by use of three staples?
Does this not lead one to the conclusion that the inner pages from the original pocketbook that was issued to DS Jones on 5th November 1984, have been replaced by new pages upon which he has re-written his notes, and that a consequence of re-writing his notes in this book, involves pages with additional staples, and the fact that the body of the book does not fit snugly with its outercover?
No, it really doesn't. For two reasons.
The first being, that an extra staple doesn't equal extra or replaced pages, it equals extra staple. If I wanted to remove and replace pages, I would not need an extra staple in order to achieve it, two staples would be just fine.
The second reason, is that there is a much simpler and plausible explanation. Is it not more likely that the pocket book which was well used, simply got a bit tatty and the pages were a bit loose, so using the world renowned 'outside the box thinking' that Essex Police officers are apparently blessed with, he added a staple to hold it all together? Seems pretty reasonable to me.
-
I can't see the pictures, so can't comment on what is being shown.
However, when my dad died we had to sort out many documents for probate on the will, and were specifically told not to staple, pin or even use paperclips to join documents, as unaligned marks caused by these could be used to challenge legal documents.
If that is the case with a relatively simple, unchallenged will, how much more should that apply to a murder case and associated documents?
-
You crack on and say what it is that you want to.
Well, explain this to me, how come police pocketbooks only have two lots of fastening staples, which join the cover of the pocketbook to the inner pages, yet at a very crucial stage or point inside DS "Stan" the man Jones pocketbook, where it mentions him going along to collect the silencer from Oak farm, on 12th August 1985, there appears to be three separate fastening staples, so if this was a genuine pocketbook, how could the original pages which were fastened inside the original cover of that pocketbook which was issued to DS Jones on 5th November 1984, which only had two staples, has actually got pages contained within it that has got three staples?
How can a pocketbook which should only have two lots of fastening staples holding the cover and inner pages together, actually have some pages being held together by use of three staples?
Does this not lead one to the conclusion that the inner pages from the original pocketbook that was issued to DS Jones on 5th November 1984, have been replaced by new pages upon which he has re-written his notes, and that a consequence of re-writing his notes in this book, involves pages with additional staples, and the fact that the body of the book does not fit snugly with its outercover?
No, it really doesn't. For two reasons.
The first being, that an extra staple doesn't equal extra or replaced pages, it equals extra staple. If I wanted to remove and replace pages, I would not need an extra staple in order to achieve it, two staples would be just fine.
The second reason, is that there is a much simpler and plausible explanation. Is it not more likely that the pocket book which was well used, simply got a bit tatty and the pages were a bit loose, so using the world renowned 'outside the box thinking' that Essex Police officers are apparently blessed with, he added a staple to hold it all together? Seems pretty reasonable to me.
And where might I ask, did he get the third staple from?
More significantly, how did he manage to staple the inner pages with a third staple, without making corresponding holes in the outer cover?
Have you ever tried stapling 26 folded sheets of paper with an ordinary stapler?
Me thinks your theory would not stand up to any sort of scrutiny, if tested or testable...
Because of the alteration to the start dates on the front cover bearing the official Essex police stamp dated 5th November 1984, it seems the most likely explanation is that DS Jones re-wrote his notes, after replacing inner pages...
-
You crack on and say what it is that you want to.
Well, explain this to me, how come police pocketbooks only have two lots of fastening staples, which join the cover of the pocketbook to the inner pages, yet at a very crucial stage or point inside DS "Stan" the man Jones pocketbook, where it mentions him going along to collect the silencer from Oak farm, on 12th August 1985, there appears to be three separate fastening staples, so if this was a genuine pocketbook, how could the original pages which were fastened inside the original cover of that pocketbook which was issued to DS Jones on 5th November 1984, which only had two staples, has actually got pages contained within it that has got three staples?
How can a pocketbook which should only have two lots of fastening staples holding the cover and inner pages together, actually have some pages being held together by use of three staples?
Does this not lead one to the conclusion that the inner pages from the original pocketbook that was issued to DS Jones on 5th November 1984, have been replaced by new pages upon which he has re-written his notes, and that a consequence of re-writing his notes in this book, involves pages with additional staples, and the fact that the body of the book does not fit snugly with its outercover?
No, it really doesn't. For two reasons.
The first being, that an extra staple doesn't equal extra or replaced pages, it equals extra staple. If I wanted to remove and replace pages, I would not need an extra staple in order to achieve it, two staples would be just fine.
The second reason, is that there is a much simpler and plausible explanation. Is it not more likely that the pocket book which was well used, simply got a bit tatty and the pages were a bit loose, so using the world renowned 'outside the box thinking' that Essex Police officers are apparently blessed with, he added a staple to hold it all together? Seems pretty reasonable to me.
And where might I ask, did he get the third staple from?
More significantly, how did he manage to staple the inner pages with a third staple, without making corresponding holes in the outer cover?
Have you ever tried stapling 26 folded sheets of paper with an ordinary stapler?
Me thinks your theory would not stand up to any sort of scrutiny, if tested or testable...
Because of the alteration to the start dates on the front cover bearing the official Essex police stamp dated 5th November 1984, it seems the most likely explanation is that DS Jones re-wrote his notes, after replacing inner pages...
Probably from a third staple shop. Either that or from the same place they get all their other office stationary from. ::)
Sorry I don't see the link, to get from that, to your accusation.
-
You crack on and say what it is that you want to.
Well, explain this to me, how come police pocketbooks only have two lots of fastening staples, which join the cover of the pocketbook to the inner pages, yet at a very crucial stage or point inside DS "Stan" the man Jones pocketbook, where it mentions him going along to collect the silencer from Oak farm, on 12th August 1985, there appears to be three separate fastening staples, so if this was a genuine pocketbook, how could the original pages which were fastened inside the original cover of that pocketbook which was issued to DS Jones on 5th November 1984, which only had two staples, has actually got pages contained within it that has got three staples?
How can a pocketbook which should only have two lots of fastening staples holding the cover and inner pages together, actually have some pages being held together by use of three staples?
Does this not lead one to the conclusion that the inner pages from the original pocketbook that was issued to DS Jones on 5th November 1984, have been replaced by new pages upon which he has re-written his notes, and that a consequence of re-writing his notes in this book, involves pages with additional staples, and the fact that the body of the book does not fit snugly with its outercover?
No, it really doesn't. For two reasons.
The first being, that an extra staple doesn't equal extra or replaced pages, it equals extra staple. If I wanted to remove and replace pages, I would not need an extra staple in order to achieve it, two staples would be just fine.
The second reason, is that there is a much simpler and plausible explanation. Is it not more likely that the pocket book which was well used, simply got a bit tatty and the pages were a bit loose, so using the world renowned 'outside the box thinking' that Essex Police officers are apparently blessed with, he added a staple to hold it all together? Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Not reasonable at all. That would be a wholly inappropriate way for a police officer to deal with his notebook. Police notebooks are not just bits of scap paper for doodling notes. There is a formal procedure for issuing and handling notebooks. If a notebook became damaged it should be produced to the duty Inspector to be examined and signed. Any remaining pages would then be crossed through and signed, and a new notebook should then be issued and signed for.
-
I will now respond to your point...
Thank you.
First of all, the silencer which was sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, did so under the identifying mark of SBJ/1, so if the identifying mark given to an item found, seized or retained at the scene is given the initials of the person who finds it, or seizes it or whatever, then do you agree that the silencer sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, must have been a silencer found by DS Jones at the scene, and not the one allegedly found by the relatives?
Well, no, basically because there is no reference whatsoever to a silencer being found at the scene. If that was the case, is it not an amazing coincidence that it was Jones who found the silencer at the scene and took it with him, bearing in mind all of the other firearms which they did not take, they left in the house whilst the relatives had the somewhat horrific job of cleaning up the murder scene.
there is clearly an issue with the references and their is clearly a trail between the three different initials, SJB (Jones), DB (Bird but should refer to David Boutflour) and DRB (David Robert Boutflour).
Secondly...
Do you accept that once Jeremy was convicted of the murders, that Essex police handed back two silencers to the relatives? According to David Boutflour, he told COLP in 1991, that police returned two silencers to the family, one belonging to his father (Robert Boutflour) and the other belonging to himself? Now, at what stage did the relatives hand over the two Parker hale silencers belonging to them? Could you please try to find out for me, so that I can reconstruct exactly what took place regarding the seizure or retention of the two silencers belonging to the relatives, and the one belonging to the Bambers?
You are fully aware that a motorcycle courier was sent from court to fetch their sound moderators, why I do not know.
Thirdly...
If David Boutflour found a silencer at the scene, or produced it to the police from elsewhere, it should have been given his initials, and identifying mark (DRB). You will note that it was not until after early September 1985, was any silencer referred to, by the exhibit reference of DRB/1, and this is consistent with David Boutflour contacting the police by telephone on 11th September 1985, to report the finding of that silencer, so we can be sure that this particular silencer was not the same one that was sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, under the identifying mark of SBJ/1...
No it isn't, as you well know and as per various witness statements such as Glynis Howards COLP statement.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,411.msg6234.html#msg6234
Fourthly...
We know police had at least three identical looking parker hale silencers in their possession and under their control at one time or another, and is it really just a coincidence that three different exhibit references have been given to a silencer, which have since all been merged into one and the same, where SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, are one and the same, but in reality are all different ones...
Could you please try to find out what exhibit references were given to the two Parker hale silencers which were given to the police by the relatives, which belonged to them? Once this is achieved it would be very helpful and all this business about silencers would be cleared up in an instant...
I think I've answered this above, one a single silencer was in their possession and thus given an exhibit reference.
-
Or at least that's what you have said in the past, I'm not sure I've seen another reference to it.
Oh...
And why did police take two silencers belonging to Robert Boutflour, and David Boutflour to the trial by motor cycle outrider, if there was only the one silencer?
-
Or at least that's what you have said in the past, I'm not sure I've seen another reference to it.
Oh...
And why did police take two silencers belonging to Robert Boutflour, and David Boutflour to the trial by motor cycle outrider, if there was only the one silencer?
If the two silencers belonging to the relatives were taken by a motor cycle outrider to the court which was trying Jeremy, and that was the very first occasion police had possession of them, then of course neither could have been the silencer which got sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, or the other one which Ann Eaton handed over to the police on 11th September 1985, which in turn did not get sent to the lab' to be examined until 20th September 1985...
There was a silencer at the lab' from 30th August 1985, and another silencer which found its way into police possession on 11th September 1985, which did not get sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985, and the other two silencers belonging to the relatives which got brought to court by a police motorcycle outrider - so there was more than just the one silencer..
Furthermore, on 9th August 1985, DCI "Taff" Jones, and DS "Stan" Jones, went to see Jeremy at his cottage, 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, about the silencer being on the gun, so how did the police know about the silencer on 9th August 1985, the day before Boutflour supposedly found it in the gun cupboard, which he forgot to tell the police about for a whole month, until 11th September 1985 at which point he then decides to ring up the police and tell them on that day that he has found a silencer in the gun cupboard at whf, a month previously?
How could police have known about the silencer the day before Boutflour found it on 10th August 1985?
Surely...
They must have already had possession of one from the scene marked SBJ/1 (The silencer which got sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, which provisionally got examined by Glynis howard)?
-
I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.
-
Lets look now, at the method with which DS Jones, introduces the silencer as the one found by Boutflour on 10th August 1985? It involves, Peter Eaton, PI "Bob" Miller, DI Cook, and himslef...
DS Jones, supposedly collects the silencer Boutflour found from Peter Eaton on evening of 12th August 1985, he takes it away with him and shows it to PI "Bob" Miller the following morning, who instructs him to hand to DI Cook, for onward delivery to the lab' on 13th August 1985...
Now, since Peter Eaton was not present at whf when the silencer was allegedly found in the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985, what is he doing handing it over to DS Jones? Secondly, let us not forget that PI "Bob" Miller, was the officer who was making everybody alter and change exhibit references in their statements, including references to a silencer, from SBJ/1, to DB/1 and in turn to DRB/1...
Cook, well he dismantled a silencer on 29th August 1985, rebuolt it, and no flake of blood was found inside that silencer when he dismantled and rebuilt it, so where did the flake of blood come from which the ballistic exopert, MDF found once Cook had sent the rebuilt silencer to the lab' on 30th August 1985?
All of these characters are dodgy and they all give dodgy evidence...
-
I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.
Well then, this creates an even bigger mystery, because how then did police still have a silencer in their possession after 30th August 1985, to enable them to be able to send it to the lab' on 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres from a tampon?
So...
Somebodies not telling the truth about this other silencer - I wonder who that could be?
-
Lets return to the subject of DS "Stan" the man Jones pocketbook entries, which were eventually written up in a pocketbook which had been issued to him six months previously?
-
On the front cover of this pocketbook, is the official Essex police date stamp, 5th November 1984...
Yet the first entries contained inside its covers is dated 5th April 1985:-
-
Now, since Peter Eaton was not present at whf when the silencer was allegedly found in the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985, what is he doing handing it over to DS Jones?
That's not really suspicious at all is it, considering he lives (lived) there and that's where the took the silencer.
-
I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.
Well then, this creates an even bigger mystery, because how then did police still have a silencer in their possession after 30th August 1985, to enable them to be able to send it to the lab' on 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres from a tampon?
So...
Somebodies not telling the truth about this other silencer - I wonder who that could be?
Could the answer be in the word 'resubmitted'?
-
I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.
Is this mentioned in any statement's ?
-
You would think that once any senior or supervisory officer who would come along at a later date, would notice this rather significant discrepancy, and discipline Ds Jones, for not keeping up to date notes in a current pocketbook?
Lets have a look to see if any senior or supervisory officers checked the notes contained in DS Jones pocketbook?
(1) Examined by PI "Bob" MILLER, page 2
(2) Examined by supervisory officer, on 23rd April 1985, and stamped
(3) Examined by PI "Bob" MILLER, page 7
(4) Examined by supervisory officer, and stamped, page 15
(5) Examined by PI "Bob" MILLER, page 24
(6) Examined by PI "Bob" MILLER, page 25
(7) Examined by PI "Bob" MILLER, page 30
(8) Examined by supervisory officer, and stamped, page 32
(9) Examined by PI "Bob" MILLER, page 42
(10) Examined by PI "Bob" MILLER, page 64
(11) Examined by supervisory officer, on 27th January 1986
(12) Examined by supervisory officer, and stamped, page 94
(13) Examined by supervisory officer, (DCI), and stamped, page 100
-
I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.
Is this mentioned in any statement's ?
Yes Oakey made a statement on 25th October 1985 which described the collection of the scope, unfortunately I don't think it is on the forum.
-
I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.
Is this mentioned in any statement's ?
Yes Oakey made a statement on 25th October 1985 which described the collection of the scope, unfortunately I don't think it is on the forum.
Have you read this yourself ?
-
So...
What we have is PI "Bob" MILLER, instructing everybody to make alterations to exhibit references to many exhibits in the investigation, including the silencer, and he is the supervisory officer who is doing most of the checking of DS Jones re-written pocketbook entries, in a pocketbook that was issued to him some six months before he made the first entry inside it?
-
I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.
Is this mentioned in any statement's ?
Yes Oakey made a statement on 25th October 1985 which described the collection of the scope, unfortunately I don't think it is on the forum.
Have you read this yourself ?
Yes I have, it mentions the collection of the Nikkon scope and various boxes of ammunition including the Eley .22 hollowpoint and Raker shotgun cartridges, it also mentions a spot of blood on one of the boxes.
-
I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.
Is this mentioned in any statement's ?
Yes Oakey made a statement on 25th October 1985 which described the collection of the scope, unfortunately I don't think it is on the forum.
Have you read this yourself ?
Yes I have, it mentions the collection of the Nikkon scope and various boxes of ammunition including the Eley .22 hollowpoint and Raker shotgun cartridges, it also mentions a spot of blood on one of the boxes.
Do you know if Oakey mention's it anywhere , notebook , statement , before 25th October ? , also is it possible for you to ask AE , why she make's no mention of ' The Silencer ' before September ?
-
I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.
Is this mentioned in any statement's ?
Yes Oakey made a statement on 25th October 1985 which described the collection of the scope, unfortunately I don't think it is on the forum.
Have you read this yourself ?
Yes I have, it mentions the collection of the Nikkon scope and various boxes of ammunition including the Eley .22 hollowpoint and Raker shotgun cartridges, it also mentions a spot of blood on one of the boxes.
Do you know if Oakey mention's it anywhere , notebook , statement , before 25th October ? , also is it possible for you to ask AE , why she make's no mention of ' The Silencer ' before September ?
No I do not know.
No it is not.
-
I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.
Well then, this creates an even bigger mystery, because how then did police still have a silencer in their possession after 30th August 1985, to enable them to be able to send it to the lab' on 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres from a tampon?
So...
Somebodies not telling the truth about this other silencer - I wonder who that could be?
Could the answer be in the word 'resubmitted'?
So...
You are suggesting that at some stage after 30th August 1985, that the silencer was handed back to Essex police from the lab', to enable them to be in possession of it so that they could resubmit it to the lab' again, by 20th September 1985? Yet, there is no evidence at all to remotely suggest that this is what did take place, on the contrary once the silencer was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, it remained there until the trial, so where does that leave your theory?
Furthermore...
Silencer which got sent to the lab' was fingerprinted by oblique light test on 15th August 1985, and by superglue treatment on 23rd August 1985, so why would police be fingerprinting the same silencer on 13th September 1985?
Why also would the police be resubmitting a silencer to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibres if blood had already been found inside it by that stage?
Yet still puzzling...
is why there exists a police record to the effect that Ann Eaton handed a silencer to DC Oakley on 11th September 1985, if she didn't?
-
Why does it take until 11th September 1985, for David Boutflour to ring up Essex police to tell them that he has found a gun silencer in the gun cupboard at whf, if he found it a month earlier?
Why does he ask the police to meet him at whf at about that time, and why does he then give two accounts where he describes how the silencer was found?
Even more disturbingly...
Why do scratch marks which were not on the front face of the aga surround on the morning of the shootings, suddenly appear there on 12th September 1985, and why is it that it was not until 1st October 1985, that paint from the marks made on the aga, was identified as being present on the end of the silencer?
-
Whilst all of this was going on, where was Anthony Pargeters Parker hale silencer that was normally kept at whf?
-
I think that very few people really follow your silencer theories, I may be wrong, but that's the impression I get.
How about laying all out, idiot proof including all attachements that you are relying to validate your theory. Include the lab documents and any other references to finger print testing, blood and fibre testing, etc.
The whole lot, as a stand alone, all in one, easy to digest serving.
I know it's tedious and time consuming but it would certainly help.
-
By the way Jon, Oakleys statement actually is on the forum, it was just hiding , there is a link to it in the library thread.
-
By the way Jon, Oakleys statement actually is on the forum, it was just hiding , there is a link to it in the library thread.
According to Jeremy, there were two police officers with very similar names, one called PC Oakley, and the other PC Oakey, Ann Eaton handed over the silencer to one, and the telescopic sites and other stuff to the other, at least that is what my understanding of Jeremy's findings are on this matter...
-
By the way Jon, Oakleys statement actually is on the forum, it was just hiding , there is a link to it in the library thread.
According to Jeremy, there were two police officers with very similar names, one called PC Oakley, and the other PC Oakey, Ann Eaton handed over the silencer to one, and the telescopic sites and other stuff to the other, at least that is what my understanding of Jeremy's findings are on this matter...
Okay, that's interesting, my understanding is different though.
-
I think that very few people really follow your silencer theories, I may be wrong, but that's the impression I get.
How about laying all out, idiot proof including all attachements that you are relying to validate your theory. Include the lab documents and any other references to finger print testing, blood and fibre testing, etc.
The whole lot, as a stand alone, all in one, easy to digest serving.
I know it's tedious and time consuming but it would certainly help.
Hartley, it's a bit ironic, since it's the one part of the defence based arguments that even some posters disposed towards guilt concede they have doubts. I've said a few times that I was there was some kind of flow chart or line chart with different colours to represent the alleged different silencer. So for example SBJ1 , DB1, DRB1
You could then map the alleged journey of the exhibit/s in date order, adding inserts either side of the coloured line, relating to key events in the time-line of the case.
-
I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.
Is this mentioned in any statement's ?
Yes Oakey made a statement on 25th October 1985 which described the collection of the scope, unfortunately I don't think it is on the forum.
Have you read this yourself ?
Yes I have, it mentions the collection of the Nikkon scope and various boxes of ammunition including the Eley .22 hollowpoint and Raker shotgun cartridges, it also mentions a spot of blood on one of the boxes.
Hartley thx for link !! Are you saying DB was mistaken when he claimed he had found a silencer and it was actually a Nikkon scope ?
-
You crack on and say what it is that you want to.
Well, explain this to me, how come police pocketbooks only have two lots of fastening staples, which join the cover of the pocketbook to the inner pages, yet at a very crucial stage or point inside DS "Stan" the man Jones pocketbook, where it mentions him going along to collect the silencer from Oak farm, on 12th August 1985, there appears to be three separate fastening staples, so if this was a genuine pocketbook, how could the original pages which were fastened inside the original cover of that pocketbook which was issued to DS Jones on 5th November 1984, which only had two staples, has actually got pages contained within it that has got three staples?
How can a pocketbook which should only have two lots of fastening staples holding the cover and inner pages together, actually have some pages being held together by use of three staples?
Does this not lead one to the conclusion that the inner pages from the original pocketbook that was issued to DS Jones on 5th November 1984, have been replaced by new pages upon which he has re-written his notes, and that a consequence of re-writing his notes in this book, involves pages with additional staples, and the fact that the body of the book does not fit snugly with its outercover?
No, it really doesn't. For two reasons.
The first being, that an extra staple doesn't equal extra or replaced pages, it equals extra staple. If I wanted to remove and replace pages, I would not need an extra staple in order to achieve it, two staples would be just fine.
The second reason, is that there is a much simpler and plausible explanation. Is it not more likely that the pocket book which was well used, simply got a bit tatty and the pages were a bit loose, so using the world renowned 'outside the box thinking' that Essex Police officers are apparently blessed with, he added a staple to hold it all together? Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Not reasonable at all. That would be a wholly inappropriate way for a police officer to deal with his notebook. Police notebooks are not just bits of scap paper for doodling notes. There is a formal procedure for issuing and handling notebooks. If a notebook became damaged it should be produced to the duty Inspector to be examined and signed. Any remaining pages would then be crossed through and signed, and a new notebook should then be issued and signed for.
Furthermore, and it is my understanding because I have been a victim of this type of falsified evidence, if a supervisory officer found a pocketbook in the possession of a police officer which had been issued to him six months previous to the date of the first entry written into that pocketbook, I would expect that supervisory officer to seize the pocketbook in question and report the officer concerned subject to possible disciplinary proceedings. Police officers have to keep up to date notes in the pocketbooks in their possession and they may on ly have one pocketbook at a time, not horde them for use at a later date...
There was something clearly very wrong with the fact that DS Jones pocketbook was issued to him six months before the date of the first entry contained within it on page 1...
This is very serious in my opinion...
-
So what was this all about, on 11th September 1985, when David Boutflour contacted Essex police and spoke to WPC 3250 Dodd, saying that he "would like to speak to Mr Ainsley and make a statement as soon as possible regarding the gun. It is quite important"...
-
Here are some page extracts from DI Cooks (SOC) 39 page statement, that he made to COLP in 1991:-
-
If SBJ1 wasn't found on the morning of the tragedy, then ACC Simpson must be getting befuddled.
28. However, in his broadcasts to various media organisations, that were notably later
retracted, ACC Simpson was quoted in ‘The Mirror,’ on the 17th September 1985,
‘A heavily bloodstained silencer was found by the police hours after the gruesome
massacre,’ in addition, ‘Police discovered a blood stained gun silencer at the farm on
the day of the massacre.’
29. Furthermore on 16th September 1985, ACC Simpson informed Paul Davidson of ‘The
Essex Gazette,’
‘Although a silencer was found shortly after police broke into the house, a few hours
after the killings on 7th August 1985, it was not until after enquiries were reopened
that this was regarded as significant'.
-
According to PS Woodcock, he removed the rifle from the body of Sheila Caffell and made it safe, but DI Cook (SOC) told COLP in his 39 page witness statement, that he called PI Montgomery into the farmhouse to make the gun safe, before it was taken away, and that he had PI Montgomery escorted out of the house immediately afterwards...
-
Why would PS Woodcock say he removed the rifle from Sheila's body and made it safe, if PI Montgomery had already done so?
-
And why would DI Cook (SOC) say elsewhere that he removed the rifle and stood it against the bedroom window, if PI Montgomery, and or PS Woodcock had removed the gun?
-
If SBJ1 wasn't found on the morning of the tragedy, then ACC Simpson must be getting befuddled.
28. However, in his broadcasts to various media organisations, that were notably later
retracted, ACC Simpson was quoted in ‘The Mirror,’ on the 17th September 1985,
‘A heavily bloodstained silencer was found by the police hours after the gruesome
massacre,’ in addition, ‘Police discovered a blood stained gun silencer at the farm on
the day of the massacre.’
29. Furthermore on 16th September 1985, ACC Simpson informed Paul Davidson of ‘The
Essex Gazette,’
‘Although a silencer was found shortly after police broke into the house, a few hours
after the killings on 7th August 1985, it was not until after enquiries were reopened
that this was regarded as significant'.
Yes, police did find a silencer, SBJ/1 on 7th August 1985, at the scene, which could not have been the silencer found in the gun cupboard by David Boutflour, on either 10th August 1985, or 11th September 1985...
-
David Boutflours call to the police at 22.28hrs (10.28pm) was rather late at night for a call in which he wished to speak to Ainsley. Was there an urgent rush? Looks very fishy that he left it so late to want to make a statement regarding "the gun". It would seem by then that Ann had handed the silencer to the police.
But was it not later that another officer went to collect the sight box from David Boutflour...just the box mind...
why the box was supposedly seperate from the sight seems rather odd. One wonders here if the truth was that David Boutflour handed over the sight in the box and things later altered to claim Ann handed the police the sight instead of the silencer.
That label Ann signed was for a silencer was it not. And she could not give a satisfactory answer to it when asked by the COLP...it seems obvious that Ann did indeed hand over the silencer on the 11th and has co-operated in a deception to later cover this fact up and hence denies knowing anything about the silencer and signing the label.
-
David Boutflours call to the police at 22.28hrs (10.28pm) was rather late at night for a call in which he wished to speak to Ainsley. Was there an urgent rush? Looks very fishy that he left it so late to want to make a statement regarding "the gun". It would seem by then that Ann had handed the silencer to the police.
But was it not later that another officer went to collect the sight box from David Boutflour...just the box mind...
why the box was supposedly seperate from the sight seems rather odd. One wonders here if the truth was that David Boutflour handed over the sight in the box and things later altered to claim Ann handed the police the sight instead of the silencer.
That label Ann signed was for a silencer was it not. And she could not give a satisfactory answer to it when asked by the COLP...it seems obvious that Ann did indeed hand over the silencer on the 11th and has co-operated in a deception to later cover this fact up and hence denies knowing anything about the silencer and signing the label.
Do you have the record log of this call ? I have seen it before but cant find it now !!
-
David Boutflours call to the police at 22.28hrs (10.28pm) was rather late at night for a call in which he wished to speak to Ainsley. Was there an urgent rush? Looks very fishy that he left it so late to want to make a statement regarding "the gun". It would seem by then that Ann had handed the silencer to the police.
But was it not later that another officer went to collect the sight box from David Boutflour...just the box mind...
why the box was supposedly seperate from the sight seems rather odd. One wonders here if the truth was that David Boutflour handed over the sight in the box and things later altered to claim Ann handed the police the sight instead of the silencer.
That label Ann signed was for a silencer was it not. And she could not give a satisfactory answer to it when asked by the COLP...it seems obvious that Ann did indeed hand over the silencer on the 11th and has co-operated in a deception to later cover this fact up and hence denies knowing anything about the silencer and signing the label.
Do you have the record log of this call ? I have seen it before but cant find it now !!
Yes, here is a copy of the exhibit label that Ann Eaton signed:-
It contains the signatures of all the relatives, Ann Eaton, Peter Eaton and David Robert Boutflour, but none of the scientists who examined the other silencer at the lab, after its submission on 13th and 30th August 1985...
-
David Boutflours call to the police at 22.28hrs (10.28pm) was rather late at night for a call in which he wished to speak to Ainsley. Was there an urgent rush? Looks very fishy that he left it so late to want to make a statement regarding "the gun". It would seem by then that Ann had handed the silencer to the police.
But was it not later that another officer went to collect the sight box from David Boutflour...just the box mind...
why the box was supposedly seperate from the sight seems rather odd. One wonders here if the truth was that David Boutflour handed over the sight in the box and things later altered to claim Ann handed the police the sight instead of the silencer.
That label Ann signed was for a silencer was it not. And she could not give a satisfactory answer to it when asked by the COLP...it seems obvious that Ann did indeed hand over the silencer on the 11th and has co-operated in a deception to later cover this fact up and hence denies knowing anything about the silencer and signing the label.
Do you have the record log of this call ? I have seen it before but cant find it now !!
Mike posted it on page 132 of this thread...
-
In contrast, here is the other exhibit label bearing all the signatures of the experts at the lab' who examined that silencer once it had been sent to the lab' on 13th and 30th August 1985:-
Exhibit label, signed by Radcliffe (gun dealoer), DI Cook (SOC). Glynis Howard, MDF and Elliot...
-
Mike,
You appear to have an arch competitor...
The true facts concerning the silencer/sound moderator
I notice that Teskowski is again attempting to make some mileage out of the referencing of the sound moderator. Given this continued nonsense I have gone back over the various statements and trial evidence and can report the following.
DS Davidson was interviewed at length by the City Of London Police on 16 October 1991. In addition to other matters he was asked about the silencer which was submitted in evidence.
He stated that DI Cook collected a sound moderator from DS Jones on the morning of Tuesday 13 August 1985, some 6 days after the murders. He was asked about the sound moderator and admitted that he had never seen it before. He was then shown the sound moderator by his interviewers. He stated that the sound moderator was recorded by him as SBJ/1 on the basis that it had been collected by Stanley Brian Jones. DI Cook asked DS Davidson to raise a log entry in relation to the silencer, this was done over the phone.
Davidson said that Cook spent a long time going backwards and forwards from Sandridge Forensic Laboratory with the sound moderator. He said that for some reason the moderator seemed to be taken care of solely by DI Cook. Davidson commented, "He (DI Cook) had full control over it"
DI Cook for his part states on page 2 of his statement of 24 October 1985, that at 9.15am on Tuesday 13 August 1985, he received a silencer ref DB/1 from DS Jones. Later that day he conveyed DB/1 and other exhibits to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Huntingdon. The silencer DB/1 was returned to him the same day.
At 7pm on Wednesday 14 August 1985, DI Cook along with DI Miller and DS Jones went to White House farm and met with Ann Eaton. They were shown the scratch marks above the Aga cooker on the underside of the mantelpiece and control samples of paint were taken for analysis. This sample was referenced as RWC/1 and was later handed to DS Davidson.
DI Cook was shown a silencer ref DRB/1 by City of London Police in October 1991 and admitted that the initials on the sticker were his. He stated that he had incorrectly given the sound moderator the ref SBJ/1 as he had assumed that DS Jones had recovered it. He states that he resubmitted the sound moderator for testing to the FSS laboratory at Huntingdon again on 30 August 1985.
During the trial DI Cook gave the following evidence in relation to the sound moderator. He confirmed the receipt of a silencer from DS Jones on the morning of 13 August 1985 and stated that it was packed in a cylindrical cardboard container. He commented that it was nowhere near the same condition it was at the time he had received it. It had been well handled and desecrated since that particular time. He confirmed that there was a greyish hair attached to the end which was furthest away from the rifle muzzle. The hair was not attached when it arrived at the FSS lab at Huntingdon.
He was asked about the gun cupboard and he stated that he had looked into it but had not searched it neither had he asked any other officer to do so.
It is crystal clear that what started out as SBJ/1 was later changed to DB/1 and later again DRB/1.
There only ever was ONE SILENCER/SOUND MODERATOR
-
I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.
Is this mentioned in any statement's ?
Yes Oakey made a statement on 25th October 1985 which described the collection of the scope, unfortunately I don't think it is on the forum.
Have you read this yourself ?
Yes I have, it mentions the collection of the Nikkon scope and various boxes of ammunition including the Eley .22 hollowpoint and Raker shotgun cartridges, it also mentions a spot of blood on one of the boxes.
Hartley thx for link !! Are you saying DB was mistaken when he claimed he had found a silencer and it was actually a Nikkon scope ?
Jon why do you bother?
Yes that's the relatives never found a silencer at all, just a scope, that's exactly what I've said. :P
Pathetic!
-
Well I for one believe in Mikes 2 sound moderators theory.I have always believed that one was found on the morning of the murders,hence the visit from EP to Jeremys cottage to discuss it.
And as Rochy has posted,Simpson clearly admits to one having been found that morning.
Or is this another "mistake" like the "mistakes" in the logs ie: "one dead male,one dead female found on entry" etc.
There were clearly 2 silencers in whf,Nevills and Pargeters.One found on the morning of the murders and one found by the relatives.The relatives one,having red paint upon it,from the scratched mantle that wasnt scratched on the morning of the murders!People can draw their own conclusions as to how that came about.
Not only do I believe in the 2 sound modeator theory,but so do Jeremys defence team,whom have undertaken much in depth work,to prove this to be true.And they have access to far more evidence and paperwork than we do!
-
Mike,
You appear to have an arch competitor...
The true facts concerning the silencer/sound moderator
I notice that Teskowski is again attempting to make some mileage out of the referencing of the sound moderator. Given this continued nonsense I have gone back over the various statements and trial evidence and can report the following.
DS Davidson was interviewed at length by the City Of London Police on 16 October 1991. In addition to other matters he was asked about the silencer which was submitted in evidence.
He stated that DI Cook collected a sound moderator from DS Jones on the morning of Tuesday 13 August 1985, some 6 days after the murders. He was asked about the sound moderator and admitted that he had never seen it before. He was then shown the sound moderator by his interviewers. He stated that the sound moderator was recorded by him as SBJ/1 on the basis that it had been collected by Stanley Brian Jones. DI Cook asked DS Davidson to raise a log entry in relation to the silencer, this was done over the phone.
Davidson said that Cook spent a long time going backwards and forwards from Sandridge Forensic Laboratory with the sound moderator. He said that for some reason the moderator seemed to be taken care of solely by DI Cook. Davidson commented, "He (DI Cook) had full control over it"
DI Cook for his part states on page 2 of his statement of 24 October 1985, that at 9.15am on Tuesday 13 August 1985, he received a silencer ref DB/1 from DS Jones. Later that day he conveyed DB/1 and other exhibits to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Huntingdon. The silencer DB/1 was returned to him the same day.
At 7pm on Wednesday 14 August 1985, DI Cook along with DI Miller and DS Jones went to White House farm and met with Ann Eaton. They were shown the scratch marks above the Aga cooker on the underside of the mantelpiece and control samples of paint were taken for analysis. This sample was referenced as RWC/1 and was later handed to DS Davidson.
DI Cook was shown a silencer ref DRB/1 by City of London Police in October 1991 and admitted that the initials on the sticker were his. He stated that he had incorrectly given the sound moderator the ref SBJ/1 as he had assumed that DS Jones had recovered it. He states that he resubmitted the sound moderator for testing to the FSS laboratory at Huntingdon again on 30 August 1985.
During the trial DI Cook gave the following evidence in relation to the sound moderator. He confirmed the receipt of a silencer from DS Jones on the morning of 13 August 1985 and stated that it was packed in a cylindrical cardboard container. He commented that it was nowhere near the same condition it was at the time he had received it. It had been well handled and desecrated since that particular time. He confirmed that there was a greyish hair attached to the end which was furthest away from the rifle muzzle. The hair was not attached when it arrived at the FSS lab at Huntingdon.
He was asked about the gun cupboard and he stated that he had looked into it but had not searched it neither had he asked any other officer to do so.
It is crystal clear that what started out as SBJ/1 was later changed to DB/1 and later again DRB/1.
There only ever was ONE SILENCER/SOUND MODERATOR
Note how Davidson appears to "remove" himself from the sound moderator evidence by stating "He (DI Cook)had full control over it"and that "for some reason he had full control over it".It appears to me that Davidson is fully aware of what that "some reason" was.It is also becoming apparant to me what that "some reason" was.Its also becoming glaringly obvious,that DI Cook appears to be the main player in the falsyfing of evidence regarding the sound moderator.
Gosh,Im starting to sound like Smiffy ;D No offence Smiffy........am clearly just learning from you ;)
-
Mike,
You appear to have an arch competitor...
The true facts concerning the silencer/sound moderator
I notice that Teskowski is again attempting to make some mileage out of the referencing of the sound moderator. Given this continued nonsense I have gone back over the various statements and trial evidence and can report the following.
DS Davidson was interviewed at length by the City Of London Police on 16 October 1991. In addition to other matters he was asked about the silencer which was submitted in evidence.
He stated that DI Cook collected a sound moderator from DS Jones on the morning of Tuesday 13 August 1985, some 6 days after the murders. He was asked about the sound moderator and admitted that he had never seen it before. He was then shown the sound moderator by his interviewers. He stated that the sound moderator was recorded by him as SBJ/1 on the basis that it had been collected by Stanley Brian Jones. DI Cook asked DS Davidson to raise a log entry in relation to the silencer, this was done over the phone.
Davidson said that Cook spent a long time going backwards and forwards from Sandridge Forensic Laboratory with the sound moderator. He said that for some reason the moderator seemed to be taken care of solely by DI Cook. Davidson commented, "He (DI Cook) had full control over it"
DI Cook for his part states on page 2 of his statement of 24 October 1985, that at 9.15am on Tuesday 13 August 1985, he received a silencer ref DB/1 from DS Jones. Later that day he conveyed DB/1 and other exhibits to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Huntingdon. The silencer DB/1 was returned to him the same day.
At 7pm on Wednesday 14 August 1985, DI Cook along with DI Miller and DS Jones went to White House farm and met with Ann Eaton. They were shown the scratch marks above the Aga cooker on the underside of the mantelpiece and control samples of paint were taken for analysis. This sample was referenced as RWC/1 and was later handed to DS Davidson.
DI Cook was shown a silencer ref DRB/1 by City of London Police in October 1991 and admitted that the initials on the sticker were his. He stated that he had incorrectly given the sound moderator the ref SBJ/1 as he had assumed that DS Jones had recovered it. He states that he resubmitted the sound moderator for testing to the FSS laboratory at Huntingdon again on 30 August 1985.
During the trial DI Cook gave the following evidence in relation to the sound moderator. He confirmed the receipt of a silencer from DS Jones on the morning of 13 August 1985 and stated that it was packed in a cylindrical cardboard container. He commented that it was nowhere near the same condition it was at the time he had received it. It had been well handled and desecrated since that particular time. He confirmed that there was a greyish hair attached to the end which was furthest away from the rifle muzzle. The hair was not attached when it arrived at the FSS lab at Huntingdon.
He was asked about the gun cupboard and he stated that he had looked into it but had not searched it neither had he asked any other officer to do so.
It is crystal clear that what started out as SBJ/1 was later changed to DB/1 and later again DRB/1.
There only ever was ONE SILENCER/SOUND MODERATOR
THIS PIECE OF CRAP taken from another site may well be a Lamberton construction...
LETS DEMOLISH IT STRAIGHT AWAY...put it in the garbage bin.
Davidson was not on duty on the 13th of august ...happy days....ITS IN THE BIN..
The person writing that rubbish clearly likes to lie and mislead out of malice and spite.
-
I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.
Is this mentioned in any statement's ?
Yes Oakey made a statement on 25th October 1985 which described the collection of the scope, unfortunately I don't think it is on the forum.
Have you read this yourself ?
Yes I have, it mentions the collection of the Nikkon scope and various boxes of ammunition including the Eley .22 hollowpoint and Raker shotgun cartridges, it also mentions a spot of blood on one of the boxes.
Hartley thx for link !! Are you saying DB was mistaken when he claimed he had found a silencer and it was actually a Nikkon scope ?
Jon why do you bother?
Yes that's the relatives never found a silencer at all, just a scope, that's exactly what I've said. :P
Pathetic!
So Acc Simpson was wrong when he stated ' silencer was found soon after entry to house ' , DB mistook a ' silencer ' for a ' nikkon scope ' even though he was used to seeing and using such thing's , then AE does not mention the find of any silencer till mid September , all at a time when exhibit label's are being changed , Hartley , it begs the question to my mind why would you come on here when you know full well an innocent man lay's in prison and argue for him to be kept there , pathetic indeed it will look you in the mirror this morning !!
-
I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.
Is this mentioned in any statement's ?
Yes Oakey made a statement on 25th October 1985 which described the collection of the scope, unfortunately I don't think it is on the forum.
Have you read this yourself ?
Yes I have, it mentions the collection of the Nikkon scope and various boxes of ammunition including the Eley .22 hollowpoint and Raker shotgun cartridges, it also mentions a spot of blood on one of the boxes.
Hartley thx for link !! Are you saying DB was mistaken when he claimed he had found a silencer and it was actually a Nikkon scope ?
Jon why do you bother?
Yes that's the relatives never found a silencer at all, just a scope, that's exactly what I've said. :P
Pathetic!
So Acc Simpson was wrong when he stated ' silencer was found soon after entry to house ' , DB mistook a ' silencer ' for a ' nikkon scope ' even though he was used to seeing and using such thing's , then AE does not mention the find of any silencer till mid September , all at a time when exhibit label's are being changed , Hartley , it begs the question to my mind why would you come on here when you know full well an innocent man lay's in prison and argue for him to be kept there , pathetic indeed it will look you in the mirror this morning !!
Well it's pretty clear that I disagree with your view of the case, your ability to read my mind and your ability to tell the future.
Why engage me in discussion if they are your thoughts, what possible purpose does it achieve?
You suggest that I know that he is innocent, you really should have your own stand up comedy show, I respect that other people have a different view and opinion on the case but please do not tell me what my own view is. I truly believe that he is guilty, I'm not making that up, I think that my view is abundantly clear to all.
Which is also why a little while ago I asked you not to address questions to me when you are quite clearly not interested in my response.
So yes, pathetic is a rather apt and appropriate word. ::)
-
Mike,
You appear to have an arch competitor...
The true facts concerning the silencer/sound moderator
I notice that Teskowski is again attempting to make some mileage out of the referencing of the sound moderator. Given this continued nonsense I have gone back over the various statements and trial evidence and can report the following.
DS Davidson was interviewed at length by the City Of London Police on 16 October 1991. In addition to other matters he was asked about the silencer which was submitted in evidence.
He stated that DI Cook collected a sound moderator from DS Jones on the morning of Tuesday 13 August 1985, some 6 days after the murders. He was asked about the sound moderator and admitted that he had never seen it before. He was then shown the sound moderator by his interviewers. He stated that the sound moderator was recorded by him as SBJ/1 on the basis that it had been collected by Stanley Brian Jones. DI Cook asked DS Davidson to raise a log entry in relation to the silencer, this was done over the phone.
Davidson said that Cook spent a long time going backwards and forwards from Sandridge Forensic Laboratory with the sound moderator. He said that for some reason the moderator seemed to be taken care of solely by DI Cook. Davidson commented, "He (DI Cook) had full control over it"
DI Cook for his part states on page 2 of his statement of 24 October 1985, that at 9.15am on Tuesday 13 August 1985, he received a silencer ref DB/1 from DS Jones. Later that day he conveyed DB/1 and other exhibits to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Huntingdon. The silencer DB/1 was returned to him the same day.
At 7pm on Wednesday 14 August 1985, DI Cook along with DI Miller and DS Jones went to White House farm and met with Ann Eaton. They were shown the scratch marks above the Aga cooker on the underside of the mantelpiece and control samples of paint were taken for analysis. This sample was referenced as RWC/1 and was later handed to DS Davidson.
DI Cook was shown a silencer ref DRB/1 by City of London Police in October 1991 and admitted that the initials on the sticker were his. He stated that he had incorrectly given the sound moderator the ref SBJ/1 as he had assumed that DS Jones had recovered it. He states that he resubmitted the sound moderator for testing to the FSS laboratory at Huntingdon again on 30 August 1985.
During the trial DI Cook gave the following evidence in relation to the sound moderator. He confirmed the receipt of a silencer from DS Jones on the morning of 13 August 1985 and stated that it was packed in a cylindrical cardboard container. He commented that it was nowhere near the same condition it was at the time he had received it. It had been well handled and desecrated since that particular time. He confirmed that there was a greyish hair attached to the end which was furthest away from the rifle muzzle. The hair was not attached when it arrived at the FSS lab at Huntingdon.
He was asked about the gun cupboard and he stated that he had looked into it but had not searched it neither had he asked any other officer to do so.
It is crystal clear that what started out as SBJ/1 was later changed to DB/1 and later again DRB/1.
There only ever was ONE SILENCER/SOUND MODERATOR
How strange then, that whilst this one silencer with all these different exhibit references (SBJ/1, DB/1, and DRB/1) was already at the lab` from 30th August 1985, Essex police found themselves in possession of a second silencer, which they fingerprinted on 13th September, and then sent to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibres...
Now...
What was the exhibit reference for the silencer that police had possession of, whilst the other one with three exhibit references was already at the lab?
And when this mysterious second silencer was sent to the lab` on 20th September 1985, what lab` item number was assigned to it?
Who found it, where was it found, and when?
THERE WERE TWO SILENCERS...
-
I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.
Is this mentioned in any statement's ?
Yes Oakey made a statement on 25th October 1985 which described the collection of the scope, unfortunately I don't think it is on the forum.
Have you read this yourself ?
Yes I have, it mentions the collection of the Nikkon scope and various boxes of ammunition including the Eley .22 hollowpoint and Raker shotgun cartridges, it also mentions a spot of blood on one of the boxes.
Hartley thx for link !! Are you saying DB was mistaken when he claimed he had found a silencer and it was actually a Nikkon scope ?
Jon why do you bother?
Yes that's the relatives never found a silencer at all, just a scope, that's exactly what I've said. :P
Pathetic!
So Acc Simpson was wrong when he stated ' silencer was found soon after entry to house ' , DB mistook a ' silencer ' for a ' nikkon scope ' even though he was used to seeing and using such thing's , then AE does not mention the find of any silencer till mid September , all at a time when exhibit label's are being changed , Hartley , it begs the question to my mind why would you come on here when you know full well an innocent man lay's in prison and argue for him to be kept there , pathetic indeed it will look you in the mirror this morning !!
Well it's pretty clear that I disagree with your view of the case, your ability to read my mind and your ability to tell the future.
Why engage me in discussion if they are your thoughts, what possible purpose does it achieve?
You suggest that I know that he is innocent, you really should have your own stand up comedy show, I respect that other people have a different view and opinion on the case but please do not tell me what my own view is. I truly believe that he is guilty, I'm not making that up, I think that my view is abundantly clear to all.
Which is also why a little while ago I asked you not to address questions to me when you are quite clearly not interested in my response.
So yes, pathetic is a rather apt and appropriate word. ::)
yes someone is very pathetic for making false claims on this forum that Ann Eaton mentioned the finding of a silencer in a statement made before September 1985 when the facts are provable that she did not.
Due to the making of such big false claims the person responsible will be looked upon as having no real credibility .
After admitting to being wrong on in regards to a statement made on the 14th of august 1985 this person then tried to claim a statement was made on the 16th of august which again was wrong as no statement was taken on the 16th of august from Ann Eaton. All implied claims that they had read a statement made in August 1985 by Ann Eaton than mentioned the finding of the silencer clearly are false and accusations made that Mike knew of such a statement and was not being fortthcoming with it on the forum were also based on this falsity that this said person uses.
How a person may claim they believe someone is guilty when if in truth they are using a false belief that Ann had made a statement about finding a silencer in August 85 shows their claimed belief is based not on provable fact but upon a deception. However should the said person be making deliberately false claims knowing that to be the case and relying on these false claims to justify their position they they truly know that their claims are not sound which weakens that claim substantially. In fact the opposite view comes into play in that to try selling the belief in guilt that they are forced to deceive to maintain that position publically betrays that their true knowledge is that JB indeed is innocent.
ie the said person is fully aware JB is innocent but fears the consequences in some manner should this become public.
-
If Ann's statement which she made in August could be found and put up on the forum, then that would establish whether or not she did actually find a silencer? If she did then clearly there were two silencers. If not, then there must have been only one. But in any event there must have been two because two silencers were mentioned by the police. But they mysteriously fused together into one when finally exhibited in court at the trial?
-
If Ann's statement which she made in August could be found and put up on the forum, then that would establish whether or not she did actually find a silencer? If she did then clearly there were two silencers. If not, then there must have been only one. But in any event there must have been two because two silencers were mentioned by the police. But they mysteriously fused together into one when finally exhibited in court at the trial?
The Ann Eaton COLP interview seems to establish beyond any DOUBT that a silencer finding was not part of the only statement she made in august 1985 on the 14th as taken by DS Jones.
-
touche, and HURRAGH! SMIFFY. HaveA PUTTEE mEDAL. Can your protagonist Confirm or Deny? Or has he yet again, - Not got the 'Foggiest' ? WELL DONE!
-
touche, and HURRAGH! SMIFFY. HaveA PUTTEE mEDAL. Can your protagonist Confirm or Deny? Or has he yet again, - Not got the 'Foggiest' ? WELL DONE!
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused001.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php) Are you sure you aren't related to Stanley Unwin?
-
Well Grahame. we had a Seance. Professor Unwi n came over. He warned us to be cautious. He Spelt out that 'Arters was a somewhat abrading, fishy character, who hauls out exceeding Whoppers in the murky depths of the BLACKwater estuary!
-
Police took photographs of the two different identical looking Parker hale silencers...
-
Police took photographs of the two different identical looking Parker hale silencers...
These photographs help to establish that there` WAS A CONSPIRACY` to merge the two silencers into one, irrespective of the fact that blood evidence could only be linked to one of these silencers, whilst paint from the aga surround was found on the other...
-
Well David Boutflour gets quite specific about a scratch on the silencer he claimed to find.
He describes the scratch as quite deep, elongated, bits of blue missing, shiny, and about half way down the barrel of the silencer. He describes the scratch as being about an inch long.Though he fails to describe the orientation of the scratch...oh dear...still plenty stated.
So we should not miss it then!
oh and neither should the forensics lab...it should be very obvious indeed.
-
I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1415.0.html 58-60 is JB's view !!
-
I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.
Is this mentioned in any statement's ?
Yes Oakey made a statement on 25th October 1985 which described the collection of the scope, unfortunately I don't think it is on the forum.
Have you read this yourself ?
Yes I have, it mentions the collection of the Nikkon scope and various boxes of ammunition including the Eley .22 hollowpoint and Raker shotgun cartridges, it also mentions a spot of blood on one of the boxes.
Hartley thx for link !! Are you saying DB was mistaken when he claimed he had found a silencer and it was actually a Nikkon scope ?
Jon why do you bother?
Yes that's the relatives never found a silencer at all, just a scope, that's exactly what I've said. :P
Pathetic!
So Acc Simpson was wrong when he stated ' silencer was found soon after entry to house ' , DB mistook a ' silencer ' for a ' nikkon scope ' even though he was used to seeing and using such thing's , then AE does not mention the find of any silencer till mid September , all at a time when exhibit label's are being changed , Hartley , it begs the question to my mind why would you come on here when you know full well an innocent man lay's in prison and argue for him to be kept there , pathetic indeed it will look you in the mirror this morning !!
That is an excellent point Jon and it is fascinating how hartley avoids the question. There were indeed two silencers as Mike said. Not a scope. If someone who was used to handling guns that certainly would be unbelievable to mistake a scope for a silencer?
-
Could someone put a photograph up of a ' nikkon scope ' and a ' parker hale silencer ' ?
-
Could someone put a photograph up of a ' nikkon scope ' and a ' parker hale silencer ' ?
-
Ok now I don't anything about guns but the bottom picture looks like a rifle with a silencer attached. Am I wrong in thinking that?
-
Actually forget that last post. I can now see that it was a photo taken for trial purposes just to prove that the rifle with both silencer and scope attached would fit in the gun cupboard. The exhibit label can be seen attached, so this picture was not taken on the morning of the murders. So what is its significance here Mike?
-
Could someone put a photograph up of a ' nikkon scope ' and a ' parker hale silencer ' ?
So we have the scope on the rifle and the silencer , now everybody as to ask , is it possible for a man experienced with gun's to mistake the two ?
-
Of course not! Like I said I know nothing about guns but from general knowledge I know what a silencer looks like and I know what a scope looks like.
-
I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.
There is a police log showing DB ringing the police to pick up a silencer on the 11 Sept , Hartley then claimed it was not a silencer but a scope , as you can see above !! Now draw your own conclusion !
-
Actually forget that last post. I can now see that it was a photo taken for trial purposes just to prove that the rifle with both silencer and scope attached would fit in the gun cupboard. The exhibit label can be seen attached, so this picture was not taken on the morning of the murders. So what is its significance here Mike?
There is no exhibit label attached to the silencer fitted to the gun, whereas if this was the only silencer it should have a signed exhibit label attached to it - none exists in this image and so we must assume that there there existed a second silencer...
-
I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.
There is a police log showing DB ringing the police to pick up a silencer on the 11 Sept , Hartley then claimed it was not a silencer but a scope , as you can see above !! Now draw your own conclusion !
Can you please stop making stories up. I've been very clear with my posts lately and I have made no such claims, I have recited what I have been told and pointed you towards a police statement which certainly appears to confirm it.
Yes you can come to your own conclusions, perhaps you should allow others to do the same!
-
I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.
There is a police log showing DB ringing the police to pick up a silencer on the 11 Sept , Hartley then claimed it was not a silencer but a scope , as you can see above !! Now draw your own conclusion !
Can you please stop making stories up. I've been very clear with my posts lately and I have made no such claims, I have recited what I have been told and pointed you towards a police statement which certainly appears to confirm it.
Yes you can come to your own conclusions, perhaps you should allow others to do the same!
Here is Ann Eatons original witness statement, dated, 14th August 1985:-
-
I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.
There is a police log showing DB ringing the police to pick up a silencer on the 11 Sept , Hartley then claimed it was not a silencer but a scope , as you can see above !! Now draw your own conclusion !
Can you please stop making stories up. I've been very clear with my posts lately and I have made no such claims, I have recited what I have been told and pointed you towards a police statement which certainly appears to confirm it.
Yes you can come to your own conclusions, perhaps you should allow others to do the same!
I accept what you stated was what you was told , but do you believe somebody experienced with gun's , could mistake a scope with a silencer ?
-
I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.
There is a police log showing DB ringing the police to pick up a silencer on the 11 Sept , Hartley then claimed it was not a silencer but a scope , as you can see above !! Now draw your own conclusion !
Can you please stop making stories up. I've been very clear with my posts lately and I have made no such claims, I have recited what I have been told and pointed you towards a police statement which certainly appears to confirm it.
Yes you can come to your own conclusions, perhaps you should allow others to do the same!
I accept what you stated was what you was told , but do you believe somebody experienced with gun's , could mistake a scope with a silencer ?
A police officer went to DB's home to collect something from him. The item supposedly being just the box for the scope. Which all sounds rather odd and not very credible. In my view it is likely the officer collected the scope in the scope box from DB and the silencer was collected from Ann. She signed a silencer exhibit label....and years later she cannot say why.....from which I conclude Ann Eaton lied and did sign a label when she handed a silencer to the police.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1415.0.html 64-68
-
I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.
There is a police log showing DB ringing the police to pick up a silencer on the 11 Sept , Hartley then claimed it was not a silencer but a scope , as you can see above !! Now draw your own conclusion !
Can you please stop making stories up. I've been very clear with my posts lately and I have made no such claims, I have recited what I have been told and pointed you towards a police statement which certainly appears to confirm it.
Yes you can come to your own conclusions, perhaps you should allow others to do the same!
I accept what you stated was what you was told , but do you believe somebody experienced with gun's , could mistake a scope with a silencer ?
No comment to that question then Jon? ::)
-
There's no comment because it's a daft question and Jon isn't actually interested in an answer.
Perhaps more thought should be given to why there are no statements from Simpson posted on the forum, bearing in mind he is allegedly one of the chief conspirators.
-
There's no comment because it's a daft question and Jon isn't actually interested in an answer.
Perhaps more thought should be given to why there are no statements from Simpson posted on the forum, bearing in mind he is allegedly one of the chief conspirators.
Did ACC Simpson ever make a witness statement? I doubt if he did.
-
There's no comment because it's a daft question and Jon isn't actually interested in an answer.
Perhaps more thought should be given to why there are no statements from Simpson posted on the forum, bearing in mind he is allegedly one of the chief conspirators.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1415.0.html I am more than interested please explain , whilst on the subject of ACC Simpson , do you have any idea why he retracted his comment's at 28 -29 ?
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1415.0.html I am more than interested please explain , whilst on the subject of ACC Simpson , do you have any idea why he retracted his comment's at 28 -29 ?
In my opinion, ACC Peter Simpson was a crook...
-
The email:-
Mike, what was the story behind this?
-
Twitpics doc re further destruction of exhibits...
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1415.0.html I am more than interested please explain , whilst on the subject of ACC Simpson , do you have any idea why he retracted his comment's at 28 -29 ?
Any chance of an opinion from you here Hartley ?
-
Any chance of an opinion from you here Hartley ?
Nothing more than what I have already replied with, please stop asking me the same question over and over again.
Previous reply copied below.
Thank you.
Have a look at 28 , 29 Acc Simpson's comment's , do you accept he made these and they are factual ?
Do you accept that they are factual?
If the reporter was to make a sworn statement , yes !!
To be honest Jon, I have nothing to base an answer on, of course I'm sceptical, but I have nothing to really base an opinion on.
Judging by what has gone before, then I would be very cautious about accepting it without further details, Jeremy does have a habit of releasing half truths, for example the claim that the police were in conversation with somebody in the house, which was truthful, however he failed to mention the next line which said they were met with no reply. Or the mention that police heard voices when they entered the house, when in actual fact it was the voices of the raid team heard over the open telephone line.
So yes I actually do believe that there may be elements of truth, but not the whole truth, and if the whole truth was put together then it would not bear any resemblance to what is alleged.
But as I say, I do not have the information to provide you with an answer, and as there isn't an affidavit from the reporter then would it be fair to say that you don't either?
-
Nothing more than what I have already replied with, please stop asking me the same question over and over again.
Previous reply copied below.
Thank you.
Hartley , in October i asked , did you believe what Acc Simpson said was factual ? , today i asked , do you have an opinion why he retracted his comment's , do you know why he retracted them ?
-
I shall be meeting him between Christmas and New year, in Colchester (hopefully)...
Thankyou Mike.
I wonder if he could appeal to his former colleagues to come forward? Does he know how many individuals have copies of the photographs?
He has previously told me that at least three of his colleagues have copies of the photograph of Sheila on the bed, with one wound - although he has not yet named them, nor have I asked him which ones he is talking about...
Good afternoon all
Mike,
I wonder is your informant has any intention of naming his colleagues?
-
I find the possibility of an informant incredulous. The amount of money that could be made would blow any police pension out of the water. I would be singing like a canary, and would be booking a world cruise.
-
I find the possibility of an informant incredulous. The amount of money that could be made would blow any police pension out of the water. I would be singing like a canary, and would be booking a world cruise.
I of course cannot answer this one. But perhaps his life is worth more than a million quid?
-
I of course cannot answer this one. But perhaps his life is worth more than a million quid?
Mine ain't. ;D
-
Yes, (Z) told me that several officers kept copies of some of the photographs and other material, after they were ordered to give a false account about finding Sheila's body on the bedroom floor by the side of the bed with the gun atop it and a blue bible nearby. (Z) says they were given these specific instructions after being ordered to attend a special debriefing on 19th September 1985. (Z) says that statements were prepared for almost all of the officers by one of the seniors, and dated, 19th and some 20th September 1985 and that many of the firearms officers refused to sign the prepared statements because the contents were not true...
(Z) only brought three photographs to show me today, there are five others, eight in total - photographs which correspond to the missing negatives which were cut out and kept by one of the disgruntled officers as insurance should there come a time when they might be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice, and perjury. (Z) says but for the removal of these eight negatives from the reel of film, the corresponding eight pictures would have been withheld under pii, but because they do not form part of the official evidence, they are not covered by pii...
Nope....quite clearly here you claim that what 'z' has are the 8 missing negs from the photographic neg strips....not video....
-
Who took the crime scene video footage - think carefully before you dunk yourself in the pig shit...
Name your actress, name the date this mock up image was taken, name the photographer, name the make up artist, or shut up, for christ sake...
-
Funny how this video still isn't in 4:3 format, which is all that existed in 1985.
-
(Z) showed me three photographs today which I have never seen before, (Z) says the negatives for these were cut out from the strip of negatives not as part of a cover up, but taken by officers who have been caught up in this conspiracy after they were ordered by senior officers to make false statements (which most officers refused to sign). (Z) says that most of the officers concerned refused to attend the trial to give the false testimony that was put into their statements by senior officers and later by the editing of those same statements by the DPP's office...
Yep.....definitely photos with negatives....not video
-
negatives are the key, I agree...
Yes, negatives from a video......erm
-
(Z) - I will post COLPS photographic schedule in full tomorrow, next time we meet up can you bring the other photographs for the corresponding missing negatives I just need to see what's in them?
Talking to yourself is first sign of madness.....
-
Always remember,vic,,that there are some folk who are crackers and know it. ;)
Then there are those who are crackers and don't know it. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Always remember,vic,,that there are some folk who are crackers and know it. ;)
Then there are those who are crackers and don't know it. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Well I have to say Lookout given that you are so fond of telling me about my "issues" and how "unbalanced" I am etc, etc I can safely say that I now realise I fall into the former ;D ;D ;D You on the other hand are clearly quite delusional and most definitely fall into the latter ;D ;D ;D
-
Talking to yourself is first sign of madness.....
No. It's when you start talking to nobody that's the first sign of madness...Or so they say. ;D
-
Well I have to say Lookout given that you are so fond of telling me about my "issues" and how "unbalanced" I am etc, etc I can safely say that I now realise I fall into the former ;D ;D ;D You on the other hand are clearly quite delusional and most definitely fall into the latter ;D ;D ;D
Delusional isn't a description I'd give myself at all. I'm afraid you have an entirely wrong view of my overall persona. :( :( Never judge a book by its cover.
Patti will give you the full run down of me as a person,as we've met.
-
Delusional isn't a description I'd give myself at all. I'm afraid you have an entirely wrong view of my overall persona. :( :( Never judge a book by its cover.
Patti will give you the full run down of me as a person,as we've met.
Lol Lookout where's your GSOH? ;D ;D ;D A bit touchy eh perhaps I hit a raw nerve ;) ;) ;)
I try not to think of your cover as you said you're very wrinkly:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3665.msg144822.html#msg144822
I've spoken with Patti several times on the telephone about a range of topics some case related, some not :)
-
Lugg I talk to myself all the time especially on the forum as my posts are never answered ;D ;D ;D
-
Hello N/N I admit to being crackers and it is a wonderful place to be and I would not have it any other way ;D ;D ;D ;D Never a dull moment in my own little world of madness ;D ;D ;D
-
Lugg I talk to myself all the time especially on the forum as my posts are never answered ;D ;D ;D
Who said that? : )
-
Who said that? : )
This is not an actress, there was no make over done, it shows Sheila after CPR had been applied to try and save her life, it was part of video footage shot by Sergeant "Z", at the scene, long after 10 O'clock:-
-
This is not an actress, there was no make over done, it shows Sheila after CPR had been applied to try and save her life, it was part of video footage shot by Sergeant "Z", at the scene, long after 10 O'clock:-
Nope mike. That a lie. You know it, I know it.
You didn't even know of the stills existence until Andrea spotted it on an unreleased copy of the documentary.
-
I have no idea why you keep going on about actresses. I never claimed it was an actress, in fact I think it's Sheila from an unpublished SOC photo.
-
It was supplied by the defence team.
-
It was supplied by the defence team.
What format?
When did defence ever have this image?
You had better try and find out where it came from, me thinks before you dig yourself into a big hole you might not be able to climb out of...
-
I'll get to the bottom of it next week.
-
Hello N/N I admit to being crackers and it is a wonderful place to be and I would not have it any other way ;D ;D ;D ;D Never a dull moment in my own little world of madness ;D ;D ;D
Hi Susan
I agree I'm quite comfortable with my eccentricity ;D ;D ;D