Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on January 28, 2012, 08:52:PM
-
The prosecution relied strongly on evidence of a cloth pull through which MDF used to check the inner lining of the rifles barrel with, prior to commencing official test firing of the anshulz rifle, silencer, and a box of 29 control bullets. These official test firings took place at the lab' between 25th September 1985 and 2nd October 1985...
-
The prosecution relied strongly on evidence of a cloth pull through (135) which MDF used to check the inner lining of the rifles barrel with, prior to commencing official test firing of the anshulz rifle, silencer, and a box of 29 control bullets. These official test firings took place at the lab' between 25th September 1985 and 2nd October 1985...
Only 27 of the 29 control bullets were accounted for during these official tests, two rounds were missing and unaccounted for...
-
He claimed he did not know when the anshulz rifle had last been fired prior to the commencement of the official test fire which commenced on 25th September 1985...
-
He claimed he did not know when the anshulz rifle had last been fired prior to the commencement of the official test fire which commenced on 25th September 1985...
He had carried out a cloth pull through test of the rifles barrel before any shots had been fired through the rifle, and reported that he found no blood upon it, confirming as it were that there was no blood at all inside the barrel of the rifle?
-
He carried out tests with the rifle using the silencer, and minus the silencer...
-
He carried out tests with the rifle using the silencer, and minus the silencer...
He checked markings he found on control ammunition that had been fired via the rifle with and without a silencer, against markings on the batch of 25 crime scene bullets, and he concluded that he was unable to tell if any of the batch of 25 crime scene bullets had been fired through the silencer...
-
Using marks on control ammunition fired during the official test fire, he was only able to confirm that 15 of the 25 rounds had been fired via the anshulz rifle...
-
Using marks on control ammunition fired during the official test fire, he was only able to confirm that 15 of the 25 rounds had been fired via the anshulz rifle...
He conceded that the other 10 rounds could have been fired by another gun...
-
By reference to various markings on control cases which had been loaded, fired and ejected from the rifle during the official test fire, MDF was able to confirm that all 25 bullet cases which formed the batch of crime scene ammunition had been loaded into the magazine of the rifle, fired and ejected from it at one time or another...
-
By reference to various markings on control cases which had been loaded, fired and ejected from the rifle during the official test fire, MDF was able to confirm that all 25 bullet cases which formed the batch of crime scene ammunition had been loaded into the magazine of the rifle, fired and ejected from it at one time or another...
Markings he relied upon to establish this were (a) magazine, (b) firing pin and extractor claw markings...
-
No tests were carried out to try to match any of the 25 rounds from the batch of crime ammunition to the 25 bullet cases...
-
No follower plate markings were found on any of the 25 bullet cases from the batch of crime scene ammunition...
-
What Essex police and MDF did not want anyone to find out about, was the fact that there had been an earlier unofficial test fire of the anshulz rifle, silencer and control ammunition...
-
What Essex police and MDF did not want anyone to find out about, was the fact that there had been an earlier unofficial test fire of the anshulz rifle, silencer and control ammunition...
which took place on 12th September 1985, or beforehand, and details of this earlier test fire are recorded on several General Examination Records, which are dated variously between 12th to 19th September 1985, details which confirm that comparison tests were carried out between markings on control bullets fired via the rifle, and some of the 25 bullets which formed part of the crime scene batch of ammunition, and bearing the signature of MDF...
The ballistic expert, MDF, knew there had been an earlier test firing of the anshulz rifle, silencer and control ammunition, but he lied through his teeth about not knowing when the gun had been fired prior to the official test fire of it commencing on 25th September 1985...
He fucking lied, the evil scumbag...
Not only did he lie, but Essex police and the DPP allowed him to lie...
-
The missing two control bullets from the official test fire, must have been used in the unofficial test before that took place, beforehand...
-
If you carry out an unofficial test fire of the rifle, silencer and control ammunition, on a date prior to the date when the official test fire of the same is carried out you run the risk of cleaning out any blood that may have originally lined the barrel of the rifle, and there is opportunity to produce a replacement bullet as part of the batch of crime scene ammunition, as appears to have occurred with bullet PV/20, which as of 7th August 1985 it was a fragmented bullet, but by 20th September 1985, it had become transformed into a whole bullet...
-
If you carry out an unofficial test fire of the rifle, silencer and control ammunition, on a date prior to the date when the official test fire of the same is carried out you run the risk of cleaning out any blood that may have originally lined the barrel of the rifle, and there is opportunity to produce a replacement bullet as part of the batch of crime scene ammunition, as appears to have occurred with bullet PV/20, which as of 7th August 1985 it was a fragmented bullet, but by 20th September 1985, it had become transformed into a whole bullet...
The two missing control bullets which MDF says he must have lost after or during the official test fire, then become crucial in explaining where the bullets used in the unofficial test fire originated from?
Bullet (a) - used in unofficial test fire with silencer
Bullet (b) - used in unofficial test fire minus silencer
-
The two missing control bullets which MDF says he must have lost after or during the official test fire, then become crucial in explaining where the bullets used in the unofficial test fire originated from?
Bullet (a) - used in unofficial test fire with silencer
Bullet (b) - used in unofficial test fire minus silencer
One of these control bullets (a or b) must have been used in the substitution process involving the original PV/20 and the one replaced ?
-
The original PV/20 (fragmented) versus the replaced PV/20 (whole)...
Somebody swapped the original for a control bullet fired via the rifle - for what reason?
-
The original PV/20 (fragmented) versus the replaced PV/20 (whole)...
Somebody swapped the original for a control bullet fired via the rifle - for what reason?
PV/20 was the bullet which is referred to as the non fatal wound to the side of Sheila's neck, which she received whilst she was downstairs in the region of the kitchen (if contents of log are true). The rifle to which the replaced PV/20 has since been linked or associated was spotted leaning up against the bedroom window at about 7:15am by a trained firearms instructor, WPC Julia Jeapes, so there is a huge question mark of how that rifle got from the bedroom window at 7:15am, onto Sheila's body by the time police took crime scene pictures at around 10am?
Did a different weapon fire the original fragmented PV/20 bullet downstairs?
-
PV/20 was the bullet which is referred to as the non fatal wound to the side of Sheila's neck, which she received whilst she was downstairs in the region of the kitchen (if contents of log are true). The rifle to which the replaced PV/20 has since been linked or associated was spotted leaning up against the bedroom window at about 7:15am by a trained firearms instructor, WPC Julia Jeapes, so there is a huge question mark of how that rifle got from the bedroom window at 7:15am, onto Sheila's body by the time police took crime scene pictures at around 10am?
Did a different weapon fire the original fragmented PV/20 bullet downstairs?
If you swap over or substitute the original PV/20 (fragmented) bullet and substitute it with a whole bullet so that you can link that substituted bullet to the rifle which was photographed on Sheila's body from 10 O'clock onwards, there is always going to be a suspicion that the reason such a substitution took place was because they wanted the replaced bullet so that they could make out that the anshulz rifle fired both shots (PV/19 and PV/20)...
-
If you swap over or substitute the original PV/20 (fragmented) bullet and substitute it with a whole bullet so that you can link that substituted bullet to the rifle which was photographed on Sheila's body from 10 O'clock onwards, there is always going to be a suspicion that the reason such a substitution took place was because they wanted the replaced bullet so that they could make out that the anshulz rifle fired both shots (PV/19 and PV/20)...
First thing to do, is find out where the substituted (PV/20) whole bullet originated from?
-
First thing to do, is find out where the substituted (PV/20) whole bullet originated from?
It also needs to be found out, what happened to the original fragmented (PV/20) bullet?
-
It also needs to be found out, what happened to the original fragmented (PV/20) bullet?
There also needs to be an investigation into how an exhibit bearing the pathologists identifying mark (PV/20) and signature could have been tampered with without the knowledge and consent of the pathologist in question?
-
Did the unofficial test firing of the rifle with control bullets clear the inner lining of the barrel of the rifle so that by the time MDF applied the cloth pull through test any dried blood which was present inside the lining of the barrel was blasted out into the silencer?
-
Did the unofficial test firing of the rifle with control bullets clear the inner lining of the barrel of the rifle so that by the time MDF applied the cloth pull through test any dried blood which was present inside the lining of the barrel was blasted out into the silencer?
Who actually carried out the unofficial test firing of the rifle, silencer an control ammunition, when and where?
-
Although I do realise that bullets get hot and can deform,but I firmly believe that 10 of the bullets couldnt be matched to the Anshutz simply because they came from another weapon entirely.Possibly the weapon that (was it Cook)? took from the farm that morning.The weapon that Davidson refers to in his COLP interview as having been found in the kitchen.If 15 shots were fired from the Anshutz and 10 from a different weapon,then Sheila/or killer would not have had to reload any weapon.
I dont know where the rumour came from that Nevill kept a gun under his bed for the purpose of shooting prowling foxes,but according to Jeremy,a loaded gun was always kept in the kitchen for this very purpose.If
Nevill was indeed in fear of his life,so much so that he needed a panic alarm installed,then it would make sense anyway that Nevill would keep a loaded weapon avaliable.Especially living in a remote farmhouse.
-
Although I do realise that bullets get hot and can deform,but I firmly believe that 10 of the bullets couldnt be matched to the Anshutz simply because they came from another weapon entirely.Possibly the weapon that (was it Cook)? took from the farm that morning.The weapon that Davidson refers to in his COLP interview as having been found in the kitchen.If 15 shots were fired from the Anshutz and 10 from a different weapon,then Sheila/or killer would not have had to reload any weapon.
I dont know where the rumour came from that Nevill kept a gun under his bed for the purpose of shooting prowling foxes,but according to Jeremy,a loaded gun was always kept in the kitchen for this very purpose.If
Nevill was indeed in fear of his life,so much so that he needed a panic alarm installed,then it would make sense anyway that Nevill would keep a loaded weapon avaliable.Especially living in a remote farmhouse.
Why then has the defence always maintained that the anshutz was the only weapon involved? Is it because there is absolutely no proof that another weapon was ever used?
-
Why then has the defence always maintained that the anshutz was the only weapon involved? Is it because there is absolutely no proof that another weapon was ever used?
Unfortunately there is a lack of proof to many things surrounding this case,isnt there?
For instance,where is the proof that DB found a silencer in a cupboard?Yet he maintains that it happened!
I didnt just pull this out of thin air.I am going by the COLP interview of Davidson,who refers to a weapon having been found in the kitchen that had red paint upon its barrel and had taken a hard knock.
This weapon could surely not have been the Anshutz as - a)he would have said so. and b) the Anshutz (according to the official line) was at that stage allegedly upon Sheilas body in the main bedroom.
-
Why then has the defence always maintained that the anshutz was the only weapon involved? Is it because there is absolutely no proof that another weapon was ever used?
I've wanted to know this also. As the defence seem at odds with Mike Tesko, re the crime being a one gun crime. Maybe Neil can shed some further light on this?
-
I've wanted to know this also. As the defence seem at odds with Mike Tesko, re the crime being a one gun crime. Maybe Neil can shed some further light on this?
Maybe you should be asking why hardly any of mike's theories are adopted by the defence?
-
Maybe you should be asking why hardly any of mike's theories are adopted by the defence?
As far as I am aware, he is regarded as having done sterling work on the silencer issue. 1066 has had previous involvement with the defence, the campaign team and of course retains involvement with this forum. He describes this forum as the best source of information about the case, yet does not prescribe to every theory on here. Reading between the lines, I think that the defence has been on a long journey to piece together what happened. There are differences between all factions who have taken part in this quest. And there is common ground also. The defence need a breakthrough. If they get one, I think the floodgates will open and then we will eventually see who's theory was closest to the truth.
-
No, I don't believe he did. He had a professional interest but was never involved.
Do you believe in 'z' rochford?
-
The other odd feature surrounding the cloth pull through concerns its exhibit reference (MDF/100) and corresponding lab' reference number (135) which do not seem to fit in sequence with other exhibits bearing MDF`s identifying mark, or the sequential numbering given to items of evidential value at the lab' - because the only other exhibits bearing MDF`s identifying mark are 14 spent bullet cases (MDF/100) without any corresponding lab` item number...
Lab` item numbers 134 and 136 came into play in October 1985, so the cloth pull through test of the rifles barrel could not have come into existence in mid september as MDF would have us believe?
-
No, I don't believe he did. He had a professional interest but was never involved.
Do you believe in 'z' rochford?
I like to back Mike where I can. On 'Z' I find this difficult. When Mike first introduced 'Z' he stated that the informant had suggested the logs re female body found downstairs and shooting in kitchen report 1612 has been faked in order to account for the two gunshot wounds. This seemed to completely contradict months worth of Mike's previous arguments. As a consequence of this, I did feel there was a ring of truth to the informant scenario, since the informant was in effect undermining Mike. I asked my self why Mike would undermine him self? Since then I have seen the damage that 'Z' has done and how the doubts of others has eaten away at some of Mike's perceived credibility.
I do not wish to accuse Mike of being a liar but I do have my doubts about 'Z'.
-
Maybe you should be asking why hardly any of mike's theories are adopted by the defence?
Most of the arguments presented on the forum by Mike are accepted by the defence. There are some where the defence have a different view, but it should be remembered that the defence do not claim to have a definitive view on every point of detail.
-
Most of the arguments presented on the forum by Mike are accepted by the defence. There are some where the defence have a different view, but it should be remembered that the defence do not claim to have a definitive view on every point of detail.
I think Mike is becoming a victim of character assasination because he is not cautious in advancing theories which can be attacked or which cause offence. He is also placing himself right up there as a target. And he is naming names. And because he is apt to undermine his own position anyway.
-
I think Mike is becoming a victim of character assasination because he is not cautious in advancing theories which can be attacked or which cause offence. He is also placing himself right up there as a target. And he is naming names. And because he is apt to undermine his own position anyway.
Mike is a focus for attack mainly because he has fearlessly promoted Jeremy's cause on the internet, through this forum and elsewhere. He has very extensive knowledge of the case and he uses that knowledge to advance theories about aspects of the evidence. Mike can speak for himself but I believe Mike advances theories partly because he believes them but mainly because he wants to generate debate about the case and raise awareness of the issues. People are free to disagree with Mike and I do not see that any of the theories Mike has advanced harm the defence. He has made it clear (and the disclaimer here makes it clear) that the views expressed on the forum are not necessarily those of Jeremy or of his defence team. In fact most of Mike's arguments are in line with the defence position, but it does not matter that some are not. Open debate is healthy.
-
Since the cloth pull through (MDF/1) and the 14 spent bullet cases (MDF/100) are the only disclosed/admitted exhibits in the case referred to by MDF, one is left to wonder if there are other exhibits not spoken about bearing identifying marks MDF/2 through consecutively to MDF/99?
-
Since the cloth pull through (MDF/1) and the 14 spent bullet cases (MDF/100) are the only disclosed/admitted exhibits in the case referred to by MDF, one is left to wonder if there are other exhibits not spoken about bearing identifying marks MDF/2 through consecutively to MDF/99?
I think not...
-
My take on the relevance of the exhibit references, MDF/1 (135) and MDF/100, is that the original exhibit MDF/1 was the 14 spent bullet cases (135) and that once Fletcher realized he needed to introduce a cloth pull through to make the point that the inside of the rifle barrel was blood free, he simply added two (0's) to the end of the original exhibit MDF/1 altering it into MDF/100, to allow him to introduce the cloth pull through evidence as MDF/1, bearing a lab' item number 135...
-
As far as I am aware, he is regarded as having done sterling work on the silencer issue. 1066 has had previous involvement with the defence, the campaign team and of course retains involvement with this forum. He describes this forum as the best source of information about the case, yet does not prescribe to every theory on here. Reading between the lines, I think that the defence has been on a long journey to piece together what happened. There are differences between all factions who have taken part in this quest. And there is common ground also. The defence need a breakthrough. If they get one, I think the floodgates will open and then we will eventually see who's theory was closest to the truth.
David, that is a very good post and I agree.
-
My take on the relevance of the exhibit references, MDF/1 (135) and MDF/100, is that the original exhibit MDF/1 was the 14 spent bullet cases (135) and that once Fletcher realized he needed to introduce a cloth pull through to make the point that the inside of the rifle barrel was blood free, he simply added two (0's) to the end of the original exhibit MDF/1 altering it into MDF/100, to allow him to introduce the cloth pull through evidence as MDF/1, bearing a lab' item number 135...
By adopting this approach, it left Fletcher with a cloth pull through exhibit, with the exhibit reference MDF/1 and a lab' item number 135, and 14 spent bullet cases with an altered exhibit reference MDF/100, without a corresponding lab' item number. The cloth pull through evidence was produced as though it had been dragged through the barrel of the rifle before the commencement of the official test fiere of the rifle, silencer and control ammunition commencing on 25th September 1985, yet the corresponding lab' item number 135 could not have come into oplay until October 1985?
-
No, I don't believe he did. He had a professional interest but was never involved.
Just to clarify the position, as I have explained before I have never been part of the campaign team but I have had some dealings with them. I am no longer practising as a barrister so it follows that I am not part of the legal team. I have given some assistance and continue to do so.
-
Mike is a focus for attack mainly because he has fearlessly promoted Jeremy's cause on the internet, through this forum and elsewhere. He has very extensive knowledge of the case and he uses that knowledge to advance theories about aspects of the evidence. Mike can speak for himself but I believe Mike advances theories partly because he believes them but mainly because he wants to generate debate about the case and raise awareness of the issues. People are free to disagree with Mike and I do not see that any of the theories Mike has advanced harm the defence. He has made it clear (and the disclaimer here makes it clear) that the views expressed on the forum are not necessarily those of Jeremy or of his defence team. In fact most of Mike's arguments are in line with the defence position, but it does not matter that some are not. Open debate is healthy.
So when Mike says that he's seen a photo of Sheila on the bed with only one wound, this is a theory? Or is this to promote debate?..... When Mike says he has itemised billing of WHF upto July 1985, this is a theory? Or is this to promote debate?....When Mike says that he has met 'Z' in a wood and at various points all over the country to see a photograph which he's already seen(?) and to avoid detection from unnamed secret services (Hope they don't read the forum as they'd know when he was going out!!!!????) this is a theory or to promote debate?.....
-
There are clear indications that the cloth pull through evidence (MDF/1 - lab' item 135) is not genuine, but has been introduced to try and bolster up the suggestion that a silencer was fitted to the guns barrel at the time Sheila was shot by use of the rifle which was photographed on Sheila's body from around 10am, onwards on 7th August 1985?
It appears to be nothing but a ploy to convince the jury that the silencer must have been fitted to the guns barrel at the time Sheila was shot because there was no blood found inside the barrel of the rifle by a reliance upon this cloth pull through, in the same way that paint from the aga found on one of the silencers (2) helped the prosecution persuade the jury that a silencer must have been fitted to the guns barrel at the time of a purported struggle in the kitchen, involving Ralph Bamber, and his killer...
-
So when Mike says that he's seen a photo of Sheila on the bed with only one wound, this is a theory? Or is this to promote debate?..... When Mike says he has itemised billing of WHF upto July 1985, this is a theory? Or is this to promote debate?....When Mike says that he has met 'Z' in a wood and at various points all over the country to see a photograph which he's already seen(?) and to avoid detection from unnamed secret services (Hope they don't read the forum as they'd know when he was going out!!!!????) this is a theory or to promote debate?.....
Obviously these are all statements of fact by Mike. I am not sure what point you are making here Vic?
-
David, that is a very good post and I agree.
Neil, maybe there will be some issues in which Hartley / Vic are the winners. The infamous Sawdust v Sunlight argument springs to mind.
-
Neil, maybe there will be some issues in which Hartley / Vic are the winners. The infamous Sawdust v Sunlight argument springs to mind.
Yes, that is fair enough. Arguments are presented and they can sometimes be effectively countered. We can then move on to other parts of the case. I would never suggest that the "pro Bamber" camp have all the answers and can win every point. I have said before that if we are honest, whatever our viewpoint we should accept that there are some aspects of the evidence which favour the prosecution and others which favour the defence. We have to decide the weight we attach to each piece of evidence to reach an overall conclusion on the case.
-
So when Mike says that he's seen a photo of Sheila on the bed with only one wound, this is a theory? Or is this to promote debate?..... When Mike says he has itemised billing of WHF upto July 1985, this is a theory? Or is this to promote debate?....When Mike says that he has met 'Z' in a wood and at various points all over the country to see a photograph which he's already seen(?) and to avoid detection from unnamed secret services (Hope they don't read the forum as they'd know when he was going out!!!!????) this is a theory or to promote debate?.....
So when the police surgeon (Dr Craig) says that he saw Sheila at 8:44am, with a solitary wound to her neck, and when Pi 'Bob' Miller, who accompanied the police surgeon says that when he saw Sheila on the far side of the bed, with a solitary wound to her neck, and the same police officer tells the Deputy Coroner, Mr Thompkin, at the opening of the inquest, on 14th August 1985, that Sheila killed the others, and that she then took her own life by way of a solitary shot to the neck, I suppose these references which are contained in their witness statements, are just their theories?
-
So when the police surgeon (Dr Craig) says that he saw Sheila at 8:44am, with a solitary wound to her neck, and when Pi 'Bob' Miller, who accompanied the police surgeon says that when he saw Sheila on the far side of the bed, with a solitary wound to her neck, and the same police officer tells the Deputy Coroner, Mr Thompkin, at the opening of the inquest, on 14th August 1985, that Sheila killed the others, and that she then took her own life by way of a solitary shot to the neck, I suppose these references which are contained in their witness statements, are just their theories?
Maybe you could answer my specific points rather than making a new one?
I'll give you another example of things that don't ring true for me;
Last year you pushed a 'theory' that Bamber called the Police at 3.36, and that Nevill rang police first at 2.26. I pointed out that for Jeremy to call the Police at 3.36 and still get to WHF at 4.48 was virtually impossible without powered flight. In the past couple of days I see that you now claim that the defence have itemised bills from WHF showing a call to Jeremy's house from WHF at 3.15 and a call to the Police at 3.16. This post was from March last year if I remember correctly. You said that all would be revealed after the CCRC made their decision. This itemised billing would be dynamite for the defence if it existed, yet didn't appear to be any part of the submission to the CCRC. Why not? Did it really exist?
-
Another point Mike.
What IS the reason for the ridiculous secrecy around the 'Z' meetings? Who on earth would be interested in following you and if there was a threat, why publicise that you're off for a meeting. Anyone THAT interested would simply have you followed from your house and eventually see the elusive 'Z'.
-
So when the police surgeon (Dr Craig) says that he saw Sheila at 8:44am, with a solitary wound to her neck, and when Pi 'Bob' Miller, who accompanied the police surgeon says that when he saw Sheila on the far side of the bed, with a solitary wound to her neck, and the same police officer tells the Deputy Coroner, Mr Thompkin, at the opening of the inquest, on 14th August 1985, that Sheila killed the others, and that she then took her own life by way of a solitary shot to the neck, I suppose these references which are contained in their witness statements, are just their theories?
And when that police officer told Ann Eaton on the morning of 7th August 1985, whilst both were present at Jeremy' cottage, that Sheila had been found on the bed, I suppose that was just a theory as well
-
And when that police officer told Ann Eaton on the morning of 7th August 1985, whilst both were present at Jeremy' cottage, that Sheila had been found on the bed, I suppose that was just a theory as well
Depends if that is from where she heard it and who told her.
Any answers on 'Z' or the moving phone call times?
-
Depends if that is from where she heard it and who told her.
Any answers on 'Z' or the moving phone call times?
Surely you are not trying to change the subject Vic. We all have our opinions of Z, but seem to remain on topic if we can.
Just to humour you I will confess that I think Z is a figment of the imaginatioin.
I pay no heed to him, in fact Z detracts from the debate. However I would love to be proved wrong.
-
To be accurate Buddy, It was Mike that changed the subject. I listed some points which he answered with another question. He still hasn't answered my points. He rarely does.
-
Maybe you could answer my specific points rather than making a new one?
I'll give you another example of things that don't ring true for me;
Last year you pushed a 'theory' that Bamber called the Police at 3.36, and that Nevill rang police first at 2.26. I pointed out that for Jeremy to call the Police at 3.36 and still get to WHF at 4.48 was virtually impossible without powered flight. In the past couple of days I see that you now claim that the defence have itemised bills from WHF showing a call to Jeremy's house from WHF at 3.15 and a call to the Police at 3.16. This post was from March last year if I remember correctly. You said that all would be revealed after the CCRC made their decision. This itemised billing would be dynamite for the defence if it existed, yet didn't appear to be any part of the submission to the CCRC. Why not? Did it really exist?
Your tunnel vision approach needs to be revised, if one or other clock was 10 minutes fast, the 3:36am reference could be 3:26am, and the 3:26am reference could be 3:16am. By the same token, the arrival of Jeremy at the scene of 3:48am, could be 3:28am, or 4:08am...
The trouble with your argument, is that all these different timed references are contained in prosecution witnesses statements, and cannot all be right, but you are now trying to suggest that because I have made reference to one or other of these timed references which prosecution witnesses have made as part of their evidence, that I am in some way to blame for referring to them myself...
You should think more carefully before you start making allegations of this nature, and ask yourself why I made these different references to timed events, do you think I just made them up out of thin air? I can say what I want about what another witness has said in this case, I don't need your permission or consent to think or speak or do anything...
Just to be specific, and relying upon the principle that one or other clocks were up to 10 minutes fast, Jeremy arrived at the farmhouse at 3:48am, 3;28am; and 4:08am. You can choose to make of this what you will, but at the end of the day Jeremy arrived at the farm when he did...
Now...
back to the police surgeon and PI Miller stating that when they viewed Sheila's body on the far side of the bed, she only had a solitary wound to her neck - and when Miller spoke to the Deputy coroner he said that Sheila killed the others, and that she then took her own life by way of a solitary shot, and what about the copper who told Ann that Sheila's body on the bed, how dare you question the existence of my informant who has shown me a photograph of Sheila on the bed with only one such wound - look at yourself and what the prosecution witnesses who gave evidence to help convict Jeremy for these murders ahve said and what they have all gained by and from succeeding in getting him convicted of these murders which he could not and did not commit...
You are very selective about what type of evidence you choose to rely on, but ignore anything which points to Jeremy's innocence...
Lets get the facts right - it was prosecution witnesses who first introduced the claim that Sheila only had a solitary wound to her neck, and it was prosecution witnesses who said Sheila's body had been found on the bed, and you have the cheek to criticize the informant for confirming that which these prosecution witnesses have said, and declared through t the medium of their evidence in the form of statements, and their testimony...
-
Depends if that is from where she heard it and who told her.
Any answers on 'Z' or the moving phone call times?
Again...
Stop trying to imply that I am responsible for moving or changing the times of these phone calls, that was the police and other prosecution witnesses, most of whom were druggies and probably spaced out of their minds, and would n't have a clue what they were taking about whilst under the influence...
-
Again...
Stop trying to imply that I am responsible for moving or changing the times of these phone calls, that was the police and other prosecution witnesses, most of whom were druggies and probably spaced out of their minds, and would n't have a clue what they were taking about whilst under the influence...
And Jeremy..... He's changed the times too....
-
Again...
Stop trying to imply that I am responsible for moving or changing the times of these phone calls, that was the police and other prosecution witnesses, most of whom were druggies and probably spaced out of their minds, and would n't have a clue what they were taking about whilst under the influence...
You have absolutely no evidence that anyone in Julie's household had taken drugs that night.
-
And Jeremy..... He's changed the times too....
Jeremy has not changed any times in the way you are trying to imply- I know about this because I engaged him in conversation many times about this feature of the case. One of the problems in this case is that prosecution witnesses gave conflicting times about the timing of the phone calls and at one time or another Jeremy has sought to rely on the timings of one prosecution witness, as opposed to the timings of another prosecution witness, in an effort to try and get to the truth...
That's all there was and is to it, really...
-
You have absolutely no evidence that anyone in Julie's household had taken drugs that night.
Julie told the police she had smoked cannabis in the house that night.
-
You have absolutely no evidence that anyone in Julie's household had taken drugs that night.
Listen very carefully to what I am telling you, please do not try to suggest that the vast majority of Julie Mugfords co lodgers were not drug takers, who did not have any convictions for drug offences, because I have got a copy of all the lodgers Criminal records which formed part of the investigation when Jeremy was under surveillance. Of course, it could be possible that although where Mugford was staying and the other occupants were all convicted druggies, that not one of them took any drugs that night because they obviously knew that Jeremy was going to kill his family, and they would be required as witnesses about the timing of the call he made to Julie to back her story up because they all knew she was going to give evidence against him?
-
Lets get the facts right here...
Mugford lived not in a den of thieves, but a den of druggies...
-
Julie told the police she had smoked cannabis in the house that night.
But it wasn't Julie that set the time of the call from Jeremy that the jury believed had occured at around 3am, before Nevill was supposed to call Jeremy. It was the other housemates that set the time?
Don't tell me, this information was witheld before the original trial?
-
I am not going to post information about their criminal records that I have got a copy of, under no circumstances will I do that...
-
I am not going to post information about their criminal records that I have got a copy of, under no circumstances will I do that...
Was this information not avaliable to the defence at the original trial? simple question.
-
Was this information not avaliable to the defence at the original trial? simple question.
No...
-
Another thing which most people do not know about (not even Jeremy as far as I know) is that he was under surveillance by the drugs squad on the evening that his family were all killed...
-
But it wasn't Julie that set the time of the call from Jeremy that the jury believed had occured at around 3am, before Nevill was supposed to call Jeremy. It was the other housemates that set the time?
Don't tell me, this information was witheld before the original trial?
All this b****** about the jury again. F*** me the jury had to believe that they were being told the truth. Fact is they were not.
I would love the same jury to consider the facts as they now stand. Ibet more than one would change their stance.
-
Julie Mugford was supplying drugs to her co lodgers to sell, or for personal use - police know about this part of her character...
-
You have absolutely no evidence that anyone in Julie's household had taken drugs that night.
It is common knowledge that Julie and her housemates were all smoking dope and drinking that night.Julie originally set the time of receiving Jeremys phone call at around 3.30am.That was until she had had a little coaching from Stan Jones.
-
Julie Mugford was supplying drugs to her co lodgers to sell, or for personal use - police know about this part of her character...
They knew about Jeremy supplying cannabis and him being sent monies from Scotland to pay for drugs he sent up there...
-
So it didnt come out in court that was dealing drugs?
-
So it didnt come out in court that was dealing drugs?
No, it didn't come out in court that Jeremy was a small time drugs dealer, not to the extent that the police knew he had been dealing in supplying quantities of cannabis, no...
-
No, it didn't come out in court that Jeremy was a small time drugs dealer, not to the extent that the police knew he had been dealing in supplying quantities of cannabis, no...
So, something else that I've been told by relatives is verified as being true.
-
So, something else that I've been told by relatives is verified as being true.
Did they tell you Julie Mugford was involved in that as well? This has been known for some time by the way. But it doesn't make him guilty of murder. Although it could be another example that they didn't like him?
-
So, something else that I've been told by relatives is verified as being true.
Another way of looking at this is to say there is evidence in the file that he was a small time drugs dealer - relatives could have got this information from the police...
Relatives hadn't got a clue that Jeremy was a small time drugs dealer until after the nature of the investiagtion changed from SC/688/85 into SC/786/85, as far as I know?
-
So, something else that I've been told by relatives is verified as being true.
Is this Hartley or Vidvic speaking ?
-
Another way of looking at this is to say there is evidence in the file that he was a small time drugs dealer - relatives could hav got this information from the police...
Well of course they did. Or they would have shopped him as all good citizens would.
-
Well of course they did. Or they would have shopped him as good all citizens would.
Yes, precisely, which is what Jeremy's neighbour did in mid July 1985...
Neighbour took two photographs of the cannabis plants which Jeremy was growing in his back garden and handed these pictures to the police, which is what sparked off the 28 day surveillance from mid to late August 1985...
-
Another way of looking at this is to say there is evidence in the file that he was a small time drugs dealer - relatives could have got this information from the police...
Relatives hadn't got a clue that Jeremy was a small time drugs dealer until after the nature of the investiagtion changed from SC/688/85 into SC/786/85, as far as I know?
No Mike, money was arriving in envelopes and one was sent to someone by mistake.
-
No Mike, money was arriving in envelopes and one was sent to someone by mistake.
I know about that one envelope that got sent to the wrong address by mistake, but relatives didn't learn about that until later, it was sent by someone named McLean who lived in Stirling area of Scotland, and police checked him out and took a witness statement which I have got reference to in the file...
Hector McLean, that was/is the name of the chap who sent that money to Jeremy from Scotland, it was £100 for some cannabis I think that Jeremy agreed to send him...
-
Yes, precisely, which is what Jeremy's neighbour did in mid July 1985...
Neighbour took two photographs of the cannabis plants which Jeremy was growing in his back garden and handed these pictures to the police, which is what sparked off the 28 day surveillance from mid to late August 1985...
I didn't think you could grow cannabis in the back garden? Indian hemp yes if you like smoking old rope.
-
I didn't think you could grow cannabis in the back garden? Indian hemp yes if you like smoking old rope.
Neighbours account to police was/is that Jeremy was growing cannabis in his back garden, although that doesn't mean it was cannabis, I am only reporting the facts which are documented...
-
I pointed out that for Jeremy to call the Police at 3.36 and still get to WHF at 4.48 was virtually impossible without powered flight.
I assume you meant 3:48. Mike has posted a video of himself driving (not flying) the same journey in well under 8 minutes. That leaves about 4 1/2 minutes for Jeremy's call to Pc West (or a bit longer if 3:48 was when the police car overtook Jeremy's car rather than when Jeremy reached where the police had parked near the farm). Pc West didn't log the duration of the call, only the start time of 3:36. Ann later made a note about the police taking 11 minutes to respond, but that tells us nothing about the duration of Jeremy's call.