Questions for Mike Tesko

[curiousessex]

Curiousessex
So has stan jones notebook pages been posted

What lengths did he go to stop a bucket of bloody clothes being removed

What reasons did he give for being suspicious

Was nobody interested in what he had to say or was he overuled and who by because if it was me and I was a good policewomen and I had any suspicions I would have put in my notebook I didnt want anything removed from WHF

Lets dig into Stan Jones a bit more.  Has anyone got any more information re his notebook

Jackie

Have you read the book 'Blood Relations' by Roger Wilkes? It is quite detailed in this book.

As for postings of Stan Jones's notebook I do not know but I guess Mike would know best or have possible copies.

Mind you this may draw a blank as have the requests for copies of Jeremy's original statement to be posted. I seem to recall Mike has mentioned he has copy of Jeremy's original statement but will not post a copy because of some personal things that were detailed regarding Colin Caffell or something like that.

[Roch]

Vic... you've got to be kidding about Sheila's right hand being clean.  Please zoom in.  And that's not even a very clear photograph.  Plus it's also a photograph of a photograph.

I've said this before, but the only suggestion that Sheila's hand was not clean is a blown up scan of a photograph of a photograph etc. It's also since been suggested that the defences copies of photographs were of inferior quality in comparison to the prosecutions copies, this blown up image is likely to originate from the defences copies.

Not that it isn't interesting of course, but the reality is that without access to the original or without scientific examination of the negatives, then the discovery of grey/brown smudges on this blown up third hand image is somewhat unreliable and misleading and certainly shouldn't be quoted as evidence of bruising or oil and dirt on Sheila's hands.

It could be oil or dirt or bruising, but I would suggest that it's far more likely that from the quality of the image and the manipulation the resized image has been subjected to, that the variation in colour and tone is due to pixel distortion and/or blooming.
Examination of the negatives which JB's legal team are now in possession of, should be able to clear this matter up. If bruises/oil/dirt were found then it would be quite a breakthrough for the defences argument, as nothing has yet been released/mentioned by the defence then I'm sceptical that the photograph shows what is being suggested.

In addition to the above, we do also have the hand swabs which indicated that Sheila's hands did not contain oil, lead or residue consistent with the handling and use of a firearm.
However to add to the confusion, the hand swabs were originally refused by the lab as they were packaged up with firearms evidence from another case and therefore exposed to a risk of contamination. It was then considered that if the swabs were  resubmitted and tested, and they did not show up firearms residue then any risk of contamination would have been removed.
If positive test results were obtained then it would indicate that the sample was contaminated or that Sheila had used and handled the weapon. If negative test results were obtained then it would indicate that Sheila had not handled and used the weapon.
So the swabs were resubmitted and tested, the results were negative.

To cover all bases, Mike T has a theory (which you can find on these forums with a bit of digging around) that the hand swabs were dismissed and that the newly submitted swabs were not the same ones as those previously submitted, possibly control swabs. His theory basically suggests that the hand swab evidence was manufactured and falsified.

Anyway, I think I've rambled on enough, I only intended to pop back in to check out the latest. 

                                                 
Hartley, in other words, because it doesn't fit in with the prosecution case about clean hands, it therefore must be a photographic anomally.

[Hartley]

It has already been accepted how bad the police investigation was and it has been established that
these most senior officers in charge accepted very quickly that this was a definate suicide.
These police officers were so sure they were quite happy for people family members to start
removing items from the farmhouse.  If any police officer at this time was suspicious it would be
in their notebook that day of the murders.  Any one single police officer could have stopped a bucket
full of bloody clothes being removed from the scene of the crime.   Which one of the police
officers were suspicious?  Why wasnt Ann Eaton stopped from taking evidence away.  In my
opinion Sheila was found with the gun on her and the bible and it was quickly decided by these
wonderful experienced policeman.

The 1991 COLP Investigation acknowledged and addressed the failings of the Essex Police investigation. They still came to the same conclusion that the original conviction was sound.

I do not beleive for one minute sheila was spotlessly clean at all because everything we have discussed on this forum you would have quickly come to the conclusion it was not a suicide.  Her feet could have been clean and she could have been wearing socks but Miller and co couldnt we bothered to look farther than the end of their noses.  If those policeman had done their job properly all the pieces of the jigsaw would have fallen into place.

Yes the police investigation was a bit rubbish, but with regards to Sheila's cleanliness, then at this stage all we have to go on is a few poor quality copies of crime scene photographs, pathologists reports, witness statements and forensic swabs. All of which appear to indicate that her hands were clean apart from blood staining and that her feet were clean.

In fact there is nothing to suggest otherwise, which is probably why the defence spent so much time at the original trial in '86 suggesting that 'Ritualistic washing' occurred.
There was some mileage in arguing that her hands and feet were not clean following the discovery that forensic swabs were refused by the lab and then resubmitted, but that was dealt with during the 2002 Appeal and disregarded (see Ground 1a and Ground 1b of the 2002 Appeal Judgement), In fact the defence lawyer Mr Turner didn't even challenge the explanation of the resubmissions.

For my part if more evidence comes forward that there were cover ups to favour the relatives I hope those people are treated very harshly by our legal system to make an example.  You cannot backtrack and cover up evidence with the help of the ccrc to cover up mistakes made by the police and in doing so keep an innocent man in prison

More evidence? There hasn't been any evidence of any cover ups at all. But I'd agree that if such evidence materialised, then yes any culprits involved should be dealt with accordingly.

[ngb1066]

A couple of points to bring up they might have been covered already

1   Ngb1066Is it usual for different qualities of photos to be given to defence and prosecution.
      If so how can this be fair or is this just a red herring?  Or could this also point to
      an unfair trial
2    It has already been accepted how bad the police investigation was and it has been established that
       these most senior officers in charge accepted very quickly that this was a definate suicide.
       These police officers were so sure they were quite happy for people family members to start
       removing items from the farmhouse.  If any police officer at this time was suspicious it would be
       in their notebook that day of the murders.  Any one single police officer could have stopped a bucket
        full of bloody clothes being removed from the scene of the crime.   Which one of the police
        officers were suspicious?  Why wasnt Ann Eaton stopped from taking evidence away.  In my
         opinion Sheila was found with the gun on her and the bible and it was quickly decided by these
         wonderful experienced policeman.  I do not beleive for one minute sheila was spotlessly
          clean at all because everything we have discussed on this forum you would have quickly
          come to the conclusion it was not a suicide.  Her feet could have been clean and she could
          have been wearing socks but Miller and co couldnt we bothered to look farther than the end of
           their noses.  If those policeman had done their job properly all the pieces of the jigsaw
            would have fallen into place.  For my part if more evidence comes forward that there were
           cover ups to favour the relatives I hope those people are treated very harshly by our legal
             system to make an example.  You cannot backtrack and cover up evidence with the help
            of the ccrc to cover up mistakes made by the police and in doing so keep an innocent man
             in prison
             Lets have everyones notebooks out in the open who was in WHF that day and see
              if even one policeman was suspicious

Jackie  - I have never come across an instance of lower quality photographs being given to the defence than those in the possession of the prosecution. Both prosecution and defence should be working from the same material.  I am not sure in this case that it is suggested that the defence were given lower quality prints at the original trial.  My reading of what has been said recently by Jeremy Bamber's team is that the CCRC provided lower definition prints to the defence than were provided to the prosecution for the purpose of allowing them to respond to Peter Sutherst's report.  I may be wrong on this and I believe it would be very useful to have the point clarified.  If my interpretation is correct and the allegation itself is true it reflects very badly upon the CCRC as they have in effect tried to hamper the defence in presenting submissions on behalf of Jeremy Bamber.  The position now appears to have been rectified by the release of the negatives to the defence for laboratory analysis but I am surprised that it has taken so much time and effort to persuade the CCRC to do this.  They should be anxious for the defence to have the best possible opportunity to analyse evidence, particularly new material only recently (and apparently very reluctantly) disclosed by Essex Police.



 

[Hartley]

Hartley, in other words, because it doesn't fit in with the prosecution case about clean hands, it therefore must be a photographic anomally.

No not at all. As I said it's certainly interesting, if the marks were seen on the original or after scientific examination of the negatives then that would be worth something, but the low quality image blown up by Abs isn't basically due to it's origins.

I didn't suggest it's a photographic anomaly, it's simply a fact that in order to resize a digital image by changing the resolution, then a computer programme such as Photoshop or Paintshop-Pro uses a computer algorithm to split the pixels and fill in the blanks, on the full size image when viewed in Photoshop and zoomed in to see the individual pixels, there is no change in colour tone, the greyish brown marks are not there.

Try it yourself. 

[Jackiepreece]

Thankyou Ngb this is what was posted on bambertweets

@Bambertweets
Jeremy Bamber Jeremy Bamber: Low resolution images originally provided to the Defence by the CCRC £2.50 per image but gave the prosecution high resolution

I think I understand now I just wanted it clarified

Curiousessex I to would like everything out in the open if it helps JB or not I am trying to get to the truth

If Stan Jones was suspicious then he must of been suspicious it was a murder not a suicide what on earth was going on that Ann Eaton was allowed to walk off with a bucket of bloody clothes

this must have been documented by stan jones as him being suspicious of ann eaton surely

[mike tesko]

It has already been accepted how bad the police investigation was and it has been established that
these most senior officers in charge accepted very quickly that this was a definate suicide.
These police officers were so sure they were quite happy for people family members to start
removing items from the farmhouse.  If any police officer at this time was suspicious it would be
in their notebook that day of the murders.  Any one single police officer could have stopped a bucket
full of bloody clothes being removed from the scene of the crime.   Which one of the police
officers were suspicious?  Why wasnt Ann Eaton stopped from taking evidence away.  In my
opinion Sheila was found with the gun on her and the bible and it was quickly decided by these
wonderful experienced policeman.

The 1991 COLP Investigation acknowledged and addressed the failings of the Essex Police investigation. They still came to the same conclusion that the original conviction was sound.

I do not beleive for one minute sheila was spotlessly clean at all because everything we have discussed on this forum you would have quickly come to the conclusion it was not a suicide.  Her feet could have been clean and she could have been wearing socks but Miller and co couldnt we bothered to look farther than the end of their noses.  If those policeman had done their job properly all the pieces of the jigsaw would have fallen into place.

Yes the police investigation was a bit rubbish, but with regards to Sheila's cleanliness, then at this stage all we have to go on is a few poor quality copies of crime scene photographs, pathologists reports, witness statements and forensic swabs. All of which appear to indicate that her hands were clean apart from blood staining and that her feet were clean.

In fact there is nothing to suggest otherwise, which is probably why the defence spent so much time at the original trial in '86 suggesting that 'Ritualistic washing' occurred.
There was some mileage in arguing that her hands and feet were not clean following the discovery that forensic swabs were refused by the lab and then resubmitted, but that was dealt with during the 2002 Appeal and disregarded (see Ground 1a and Ground 1b of the 2002 Appeal Judgement), In fact the defence lawyer Mr Turner didn't even challenge the explanation of the resubmissions.

For my part if more evidence comes forward that there were cover ups to favour the relatives I hope those people are treated very harshly by our legal system to make an example.  You cannot backtrack and cover up evidence with the help of the ccrc to cover up mistakes made by the police and in doing so keep an innocent man in prison

More evidence? There hasn't been any evidence of any cover ups at all. But I'd agree that if such evidence materialised, then yes any culprits involved should be dealt with accordingly.

... Police sergeant Woodcocks, witness statement has been doctored and falsified, its original pages have been removed, not disclosed, at the very point in the proceedings, when according to the contents of several different police message logs, the body of a dead female was found in the kitchen, along with the body of RB - in addition to pages which have gone missing from Woodcocks statement, others have been retyped by use of a different typewriter and inserted at the very point in the statement, when the police entered the kitchen. Now, that can't just be a coincidence - the police have covered something signficant up, something which was so serious, (1) they could not disclose the original page contents, because to do so, would prove SC was still alive when the police got into the kitchen. And (2) it would prove that the police knew all along exactly when and how SC died in the bedroom, and that Jeremy Bamber, is not only innocent, but it also must mean that the police framed him.,

[Jackiepreece]

Ngb I am going to pick your brains again Stan Jones notebook and entries would surely have been a very important part of the trial.  Surely if he was suspicious (it sounds like he was the only one) it must be recorded somewhere that he was quite happy to let ann Eaton walk out with that bucket or was he all part of what went on.Surely if you were suspicious there was a murder you would speak to your collegues and say no way is that women walking off with evidence

[curiousessex]

Ngb I am going to pick your brains again Stan Jones notebook and entries would surely have been a very important part of the trial.  Surely if he was suspicious (it sounds like he was the only one) it must be recorded somewhere that he was quite happy to let ann Eaton walk out with that bucket or was he all part of what went on.Surely if you were suspicious there was a murder you would speak to your collegues and say no way is that women walking off with evidence

Jackie

It would appear you have assumed that Stan Jones will have kown Ann Eaton had walked off with a bucket of SCs clothes soaking in water.

[Jackiepreece]

Thankyou Mike

It is to ridiculous for words

Sheilas feet were either clean because she was wearing socks before she shot herself
or

they were not spotless because the keystone cops would have noticed her feet and realised something suspicious was going on

That bloody Bob Miller sitting all cocky on tv its disgusting and he acts like he is so proud of himself

So are we to believe Stan Jones didnt have the balls to stop Ann Eaton walking away with the evidence

[Jackiepreece]

Curiousessex I am not sure of the timings but I think Ann Eaton scurried away quite quickly with that bucket,  does anyone know the timings of the dissapearing bucket

[Jackiepreece]

I am trying to get to the bottom of three things at the moment

1   Stan Jones and when he recorded in his notebook he was suspicious

2   What possible reasons did the relatives have to take the silencer home than hand it to the police

3    It was recently posted on here details of an article Mugford did as to why she sold her
      newspaper story.  It seems she was being hassled by the press everywhere she went so her
       solicitor told her to sell the story.  Nobody can find that story which is strange but if jb had
       been found guilty could she legally have had that same story printed or legally would it have
       not been allowed.  I dont know if Ngb could help with that

[curiousessex]

Curiousessex I am not sure of the timings but I think Ann Eaton scurried away quite quickly with that bucket,  does anyone know the timings of the dissapearing bucket

Ann Eaton could only have got possession of the bucket when she had possession of the keys to White House Farm. As I understand it the keys to White House Farm were only given to Ann Eaton because Jeremy did not want them. I am sure I have also read somewhere that Jeremy had already made arrangements for Peter Eaton to become Farm Manager. This having been organised / agreed with a Basil Cock the accountant.

[ngb1066]

Ngb I am going to pick your brains again Stan Jones notebook and entries would surely have been a very important part of the trial.  Surely if he was suspicious (it sounds like he was the only one) it must be recorded somewhere that he was quite happy to let ann Eaton walk out with that bucket or was he all part of what went on.Surely if you were suspicious there was a murder you would speak to your collegues and say no way is that women walking off with evidence

Stan Jones would have been unlikely to record his opinions in his notebook.  Normal practice is to record key facts and observations in the notebook so that this can be used in preparing witness statements if necessary and also so that if court proceedings follow the notebook can be referred to by the Police Officer in order to refresh his memory.  If Stan Jones had concerns and especially if he believed that Sheila had been murdered his duty was to refer those concerns immediately to his superior officer on the case, and if not satisfied with the response of that officer to take the matter up with a more senior officer. 

Whatever Stan Jones thought at the time the treatment by the police of what was on any view a crime scene was appalling.  I sense that this is something which is common ground between all those with an interest in this case. Destruction of exhibits and allowing relatives to remove items (including items which could have important evidential value) was clearly very poor police work.

[Jackiepreece]

Ngb1066
What about Julie Mugfords story would she have legally been able to sell her story as it came out after the trial and he had been found guilty