Author Topic: More Blue forum BS about the moderator  (Read 4615 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline scipio_usmc

More Blue forum BS about the moderator
« on: December 27, 2015, 11:28:08 PM »
Here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7240.0.html

David posted the following nonsense claim

"The circumstances and evidence to undermine the sound moderator seem overwhelming."

Did he followup with anything accurate or intelligent?  Of course not.

He starts out saying "Boutflour is alleged to find the sound moderator on the 10th of August. This is handed into the lab on the 13th by DI Cook. Multiple copies of the submissions have been made and altered."
 
He implies that there is something wrong with multiple copies of the submission being drafted when in fact it was required to be submitted in triplicate so they had to hand write 3 copies of the Holab form.  He claims it was altered though all that happened is on one of the 3 forms Cook made a clerical error. Cook labeled the moderator lab item 22 and wrote that on the first 2 copies.  He screwed up and wrote lab item 23 on the third form.  To COLP he admitted he screwed up the third copy and that there was only 1 moderator.  If there were two moderators being submitted all three forms would contain both lab item 22 and lab item 23 not either or.  All 3 copies were supposed to be identical he simply screwed up on one.   

So far David's claims don't undermine a damn thing except in his imagination.

He next states that "It is then alleged in a document typed in November 1985 that on that day human blood was discovered inside the moderator.  If so why did this initial discovery of human blood on the 13th not trigger an arrest for Jeremy? If the accounts written in retrospect are correct then they had the smoking gun evidence within a matter of days?"

First of all police weren't told about the findings until the 14th.  Second all police were told was that there was red paint on the knurled portion and human blood on the outside and inside the moderator.  The lab didn't know whose blood it was at that point.  It was not until further testing was done that they determined it was Sheila's blood, that it got there by drawback and that experts who did such work explained the significance of such results to police.  That happened in September.  When was Jeremy arrested- in September after such evidence was available.

David suggests the only records are from November completely ignoring the contemporaneous lab examination records and instead lies trying to pretend that the only paperwork that exists is from November. He is as pathetic as mike. There not only is contemporaneous lab examination records but COLP stated there was documentary proof the police were notified of the results on August 14.  This is corroborated by the police going to WHF on August 14 to take paint samples.
 
Next he writes:

"DI Cook in the COLP  investigations then explains the lack of paperwork
As I intended carrying out the examination myself using their facilities then the items would never I leave my possession and therefore proof of continuity using those forms Was not required, as they were only intended for submission to the Huntingdon Laboratory. The continuity of these exhibits was solely my responsibility."

This is an honest and accurate explanation of why continuity forms when he brought the moderator to be fingerprinted were not required.  There were plenty of other documents simply no continuity sheets showing the moderator taken to Sandridge.  On page 26 (Bates Stamp 190) of his COLP interview Cook notes he entered the moderator on the evidence room reception sheets on August 13.  Thus there were in fact records of it being in police custody in the evidence room August 13 after it returning for the lab.  He didn't fill out continuity sheets to show he took it to Sandridge because he did all the work and had it in his possession.  Continuity sheets are for when it leaves his possession.  He did in fact fill out continuity sheets to convey it to the lab and also filled out HOLAB forms to the lab, the lab acknowledged receipt sending one of those Holab forms singed received back to HQ and alos they did fill out the examination record.  Page 28 (Bates Stamp 192) specifically discusses the continuity sheets that exist showing it conveyed to the lab on August 13.

That no continuity sheets were filled out to take it to Sandridge but only documents showing it going to the lab is is not proof of anything wrong except in David's imagination.  The same page mentions there was also a continuity sheet and Holab forms showing it was conveyed to the lab on August 30 by courier Wolton.

But next comes the real whopper:

"On the 29th of August 1985 DI Cook unscrews the silencer and takes out the baffle plates, he takes the photograph below."

This is a big fat lie.  Cook didn't unscrew anything the photo was taken after the lab examined it. Mike hand wrote the date on the photocopy himself made up that it was taken apart by Cook and that cook photographed it after taking it apart himself.  David is either as gullible as they come or knows this is complete nonsense but doesn't care. 

Since mike made up the claims that renders this babble total nonsense:

"The significance of this is that DI Cook never reports finding any blood. The Crown claims that a considerable amount of blood and blood flakes is sprayed from baffle plates 1 to 6. If we are to believe the silencers authenticity we now must believe DI Cook just happened to miss seeing all this blood." 

Cook didn't take it apart and never claimed he took it apart so why would Cook write that he saw blood after he took it apart?  David suggests Cook stated he took it apart but failed to mention finding any blood though he never claimed such and the assertion he took it apart is complete fiction.

Next this:

"In the transcripts of the recorded COLP interview DS Davidson who was involved in handling the evidence forms claims he has never seen a silencer and was never aware any relatives found silencer"

Davidson ACTUALLY said he wasn't aware that they found the silencer until much later.  He didn't say that he was hearing from COLP for the first time that the family found the moderator. 

David then says Davidson was unaware that Cook handled the moderator:

"Also in transcripts of the recorded COLP interview with DS Davidson he claims to have no idea of DI Cook having a sound moderator"

He uses this to try to pretend that Davidson was caught in a lie:

"only to say at a much later stage of the interview that DI Cook did tell him about the sound moderator. Its seem DS Davidson has either been caught out or has used information told to him in the earlier stages of the interview to cover his mistakes."

The truth is that Davidson wasn't involved with handling the moderator so didn't have much knowledge about it.  All he knew is that Cook was taking care of the moderator and learned well later the family had found it.  Given his lack of involvement it is understandable why 6 years later he would not remember much about it. He never knew much to begin with and 6 years has passed.  Al Davidson told COLP is that he didn't find out about the moderator until much later and didn't find out the family had found it until much later. He never suggested he never heard of a moderator till COLP told him.

Next he posts this: "Then in September a second sound moderator is found - according to this police log"

The log doesn't say a second moderator was found. Boutflour told them about the moderator he found in August that he had the Eatons turn in. They picked up the scope and bullets that day but not the shotgun shells so he complained about them not taking everything.  He recounted how he had found everything including the moderator.  That call resulted in them appreciating for the first time who found the moderator and the scope etc.  As a result they subsequently reclassified the items to the DB prefix.

Next he posts this: "PC Whiddon's statement further corroborates a second sound moderator is found. "

Whiddon didn't say anything about 2 moderators he said there was a single moderator. He discussed how he renumbered various items in statements to make the references match up to the actual exhibits.

The moderator SBJ/1 was reclassified DB/1 and later DRB/1
AE/1 the scope was reclassified DB/2 and later DRB/2
AE/2 the bullets and abu ammo carrier was reclassified DB/3 and later DRB/3
 
David is so inept he is claiming AE/1 and AE/2 are moderators.  The exact quote he posts form Whiddon features Whiddon saying that Ann Eaton referred to the scope in her statement as AE/1 but it's actual designation was DRB/1 so he changed her statement to reflect that. 

Next David writes: "Superintendent Mckay in the COLP interview with DS Davidson. Also mentions a second silencer"  Mckay asks Davidson if he was aware of a second moderator and Davidson said no.  Mckay didn't say there was a second moderator he asked a question simply.  He asked because at one point Davidson wrote on a form item 23 but other times it said item 22.  COLP found the genesis of this.  The form Cook screwed up is the one Davidson copied off of when he filled out a form in September. So he copied Cook's error referring to it as item 23.  COLP found no evidence at all of more than one moderator collected in 1985.

So all of David's crap fell apart totally under scrutiny.

Next david jumps to the crap that the CCRC rejected because it has no scientific basis in fact:

"Dr Fowler a US medical expert who has investigated three thousand gunshot homicides examines the evidence and concludes the silencer was not attached when Shelia's contact wounds to the neck were inflicted. (also confirmed by two peer reviewers) to this day Dr Fowler's conclusions remain unchallenged"

The claim that Fowler's claims remain unchallenged is complete nonsense.  Fowler claimed that HE THINKS Vanezis observed a muzzle imprint around the nonfatal wound but failed to appreciate that is what it was.  Vanezis disagrees so right there is a challenge to Fowler's claims.  Experts found by the CCRC also challenged Fowler's claims.  The photos do not show any muzzle imprints.  Vanezis said he observed a bullet abrasion and dirt ring. Fowler said he thinks it was not a bullet abrasion but rather a muzzle imprint.  He has no way to establish his opinion is accurate and Vanezis was wrong.  So the courts correctly view his claims as unsubstantiated as does any rational person which safely leave David out.

Next david turns to the Sutherst BS:

"The CCRC hired Mr Laws who claimed Peter Sutherst evidence on the scratch marks are inconclusive enabling them to continue the assertion that the silencer was attached.  Onto the subject of the scratch marks, Not only does Peter Sutherst conclude that there are no scratches present on the original crime scene.  DS Davidson seems to remember there being red paint on barrel end of the weapon with no silencer  :o  He is then interupted and the subject is quickly changed."

Sutherst's claims were rejected because even by his own admission his tests were not scientifically valid.  He admitted he lacked the ability to blow up photos sufficiently unless he had the negatives.  Blowing up a copy of a photo and then further blowing up that copy of a copy and so on is not scientifically valid.

As for Davidson, he said he was eavesdropping when Cook was talking to Elliott about red paint on a weapon.  Since at the time he didn't know there was a moderator he assumed they were talking about paint directly on a rifle barrel.  He knew the murder weapon had no paint on it because he saw the rifle- he was the one who logged it in at WHF so he assumed it was some other rifle found downstairs.  David ignores all this and pretends he said it was on the murder weapon directly.

Ever single claim by David has fallen apart under scrutiny they all are BS claims made by mike with were refuted a dozen times on blue by me alone who know how many times total by everyone who has posted on blue.

32

[Edited by Senior Editor]
« Last Edit: January 12, 2016, 10:36:30 PM by Angelo222 »
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: More Blue forum BS about the moderator
« Reply #1 on: December 28, 2015, 01:36:16 AM »
Scipio in future can you please simply point out why you believe posters are wrong stating your reasons rather than accusations of lying, nonsense and crap etc.  Especially when you haven't even given David, a poster on this forum, the opportunity to respond.  If David responds in the same vein posts could potentially become quite unpleasant.

The tone of your post could be considered overly aggressive and is not what the forum is about.  We also need to consider guests viewing and potential new and old posters that might feel uncomfortable posting in what they might consider to be an aggressive environment.  'Beating the drum' is fine but please try and find the right balance.

I have approved the post/thread and thrown caution to the wind as it's Christmas but in the New Year I will insist any overt aggression is curtailed.  Your case knowledge is good and you obviously put a lot of work into your posts but please don't spoil it.

TY. 
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: More Blue forum BS about the moderator
« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2015, 02:48:09 PM »
Nugs: "why did taff jones dismiss the silencer evedence
why was he so dismive of it. did he know somthing the ret of us dont."

Why are Jeremy supporters so unfair to Taff Jones and out to pretend he was against the ultimte case that was built?

After Taff Jones was no longer lead detective on the case is when the lab developed the moderator evidence and explained the significance to police.  Is it fair to cite Taff Jone's opinion in August before such evidence surfaced?

There is nothing that establishes he doubted the presentation put together by the lab.
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: More Blue forum BS about the moderator
« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2015, 02:55:43 PM »
David: "According to DI Cooks COLP interview police did find a silencer on the 9th but put it back in the cupboard. "

He said no such thing.  He said that he didn't look exhaustively through the closet at every single item in it and hadn't seen the moderator.  He said that if he had come across the moderator he would have taken it just for the sake of it but hadn't come across it. Since he didn't look through every small box in there he hadn't found the thread protector either. That was found by Oakey in September when he went through the closet in September and took most of the remaining items that Boutflour had not taken and turned in to police.

David: "What do you make of the second silencer that seems to appear on the 11th the following month?"

There was no second moderator.  The conversation referenced the moderator he found in August. This was the first time police understood he was the one who found the items.  As a result all the items were subsequently relabeled DB and later DRB. 
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: More Blue forum BS about the moderator
« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2015, 03:10:19 PM »
Genesis of the lie that Holmes 78/14 was taken by Cook on August 21 by Cook:

In Cook's COLP Interview (pages 32-33 [ bates stamps 196-197] he stated he took a photo of the rifle on August 21.  This was dishonestly misrepresented as him admitting he took a photo of the moderator on this date:

For example here:

"26)  MALCOLM FLETCHER was sent a number of photographs taken of the dismantled sound moderator by DI RON COOK, (see HOLMES 78/14).  These images had been taken by DI RON COOK at Chelmsford HQ Scenes of Crime Department on 21st August 1985, (see Holmes 8/215 DI RON COOK’S 25th September 1991 Witness Statement PDF page 33)."

http://poppymeze.blogspot.com/2012/05/jeremy-bamber-how-police-and-scientists.html

After Cook's statement to COLP was publicly released this lie fell apart.  So the new lie was invented that he took the photo on Aug 29 though there is no foundation for this at all.  Someone (whether mike or a different Jeremy supporter is unknown) simply hand wrote the date 8/29/85 on the photocopy and lied pretending it was handwritten on the one in the COLP file though it is not.

The COLP Report makes clear that the first photo of the moderator was taken in November 1985.  Supporters have an excuse for that as well.  They sometimes say COLP lied they other times say COLP was lied to and it was concealed that photos were taken prior.  How could 78/14 have been concealed form them when they had it in their possession and provided 78/14 to the defense?  These liars don't use their heads at all.

What evidence is there that COLP lied?  None  there is no evidence to support 78/14 being taken prior to November it was simply made up from thin air without regard to the evidence.  Initially by lying pretending that Cook admitted in his COLP statement he took it August 21, later by doctoring it by adding Aug 30 on it.

The duplicity is entirely on the Jeremy supporter side.

This is why none of this nonsense can be alleged to the CCRC let alone the Court of Appeals.  It is used simply for propaganda in the public sphere.



 
« Last Edit: December 28, 2015, 05:40:00 PM by scipio_usmc »
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: More Blue forum BS about the moderator
« Reply #5 on: December 28, 2015, 03:15:55 PM »
The Dickinson report reinvestigation section and trial section discussed the testing of the moderator and refute many of the lies promoted by Mike.  That is why Mike refuses to post these sections of the report.  Someone will have to do a Freedom of Information request to get the entire report from the government.

Mike posted part of the report on the sleuthing for Justice website which [ censored word ] copied to the blue forum archive. Since mike omitted the sections that discussed dates things were tested at the lab and the findings this helped prevent people from having even stronger evidence to dispute his lies.

Sorry Holly but with respect to mike we are talking about intentional lies not simply someone making honest mistakes.  There is no way to sugar coat it.

« Last Edit: January 10, 2016, 06:03:05 PM by John »
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: More Blue forum BS about the moderator
« Reply #6 on: December 28, 2015, 04:13:54 PM »
Now nugs is reciting Mikes lie that the family took the moderator apart. Never can any Jeremy supporters actually put together a rational, accurate presentation to negate the moderator.  It is always built around lies and nonsense.   
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline David1819

Re: More Blue forum BS about the moderator
« Reply #7 on: December 30, 2015, 02:47:00 AM »
The Dickinson report reinvestigation section and trial section discussed the testing of the moderator and refute many of the lies made by Mike.  That is why Mike refuses to post these sections of the report.  Someone will have to do a Freedom of Information request to get the entire report from the government.


I tried that a while back. Made a FOI for COLP report they wouldn't give it to me. I also made a FOI to the CCRC for the 109 page 2012 decision they would give me that either. :(

I don't think Mike should even have got his hands on the COLP data in the first place. In 2011 there was a discussion at the Home Affairs Select Committee about problems with making complaints against police


The City of London Police (COLP) launched an investigation on behalf of the PCA in 1991, after Jeremy Bamber, without the aid of a lawyer, made thirteen serious allegations of criminality against Essex Police officers. Charges were brought by COLP against five Essex Police Officers and it is only recently that some of the documents from the enquiry were mistakenly disclosed. Many of these papers show that police misconduct was simply explained as 'administrative error.' Other documents 'leaked' show that Essex Police refused to disclose a number of original statements to the defence, as it was felt that non-disclosure would 'obviate the risk of Bamber making further complaints.' Jeremy Bamber now has a number of helpful documents illustrating that the chain of evidence relating directly to the provenance of the sound moderator that was material to the prosecution's case was in fact tampered with, evidence includes witness statements made to COLP by members of the Forensic Science Service detailing that their statements had been altered without their knowledge.


COLP in conjunction with the PCA and the DPP found that there was no case to answer as to the allegations made by Jeremy Bamber and all charges were dropped. Thus the then Home Secretary was misled and ruled that the case could not be returned to the Appeal Court. Just as in Eddie Gilfoyle's case the final report disclosed to Jeremy Bamber pre his 2002 appeal had whole pages and paragraphs blanked out, much like the 'Gooch' report. However, in 2004 a second report was 'leaked' which is a different version with many of the missing paragraphs appearing, providing valuable evidence for Jeremy Bamber's appeal currently lodged with the CCRC.


It seems Mike is who 'leaked' the information. I would love to have a full copy but cant see anyone getting there hands on it so we can see it. :(

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: More Blue forum BS about the moderator
« Reply #8 on: December 30, 2015, 02:48:17 PM »
I tried that a while back. Made a FOI for COLP report they wouldn't give it to me. I also made a FOI to the CCRC for the 109 page 2012 decision they would give me that either. :(

I don't think Mike should even have got his hands on the COLP data in the first place. In 2011 there was a discussion at the Home Affairs Select Committee about problems with making complaints against police


The City of London Police (COLP) launched an investigation on behalf of the PCA in 1991, after Jeremy Bamber, without the aid of a lawyer, made thirteen serious allegations of criminality against Essex Police officers. Charges were brought by COLP against five Essex Police Officers and it is only recently that some of the documents from the enquiry were mistakenly disclosed. Many of these papers show that police misconduct was simply explained as 'administrative error.' Other documents 'leaked' show that Essex Police refused to disclose a number of original statements to the defence, as it was felt that non-disclosure would 'obviate the risk of Bamber making further complaints.' Jeremy Bamber now has a number of helpful documents illustrating that the chain of evidence relating directly to the provenance of the sound moderator that was material to the prosecution's case was in fact tampered with, evidence includes witness statements made to COLP by members of the Forensic Science Service detailing that their statements had been altered without their knowledge.


COLP in conjunction with the PCA and the DPP found that there was no case to answer as to the allegations made by Jeremy Bamber and all charges were dropped. Thus the then Home Secretary was misled and ruled that the case could not be returned to the Appeal Court. Just as in Eddie Gilfoyle's case the final report disclosed to Jeremy Bamber pre his 2002 appeal had whole pages and paragraphs blanked out, much like the 'Gooch' report. However, in 2004 a second report was 'leaked' which is a different version with many of the missing paragraphs appearing, providing valuable evidence for Jeremy Bamber's appeal currently lodged with the CCRC.


It seems Mike is who 'leaked' the information. I would love to have a full copy but cant see anyone getting there hands on it so we can see it. :(

It is a Jeremy supporter who posted the above.  This Jeremy supporter is being extremely dishonest.  Since Jeremy made the allegations COLP had to respond and he had a right to see the COLP allegations.  He also had a right to see the Dickenson Report.  The Dickinson Report was not obtained recently it was obtained long ago.  They produced the COLP Report to Jeremy but didn't produce all the documents that comprised their COLP investigation.  After legal wrangling they were forced to release those as well.  There wasn't any accidental release. They released limited things and Jeremy's team went to court multiple times to force the release of as much as they could get which was virtually everything.

Because of privacy laws some of these documents can be withheld from others without express approval from Jeremy.  You have to consult an expert in privacy law/ Freedom of Information Act issues to see whether he feels that one would prevail or lose without having Jeremy's consent.

All the excess materials that Jeremy's team had already gone through were going to be trashed because the person storing them no longer wanted to keep them for whatever reason.  Mike swooped in and took all these papers.  So when he says he has papers never looked through he is full of crap they are documents already seen which either were scanned to the computer or simply not viewed as needed.

That Mike won't release the trial section and reinvestigation section detailing the lab work tells you right there he is hiding them because they refute the lies he keeps telling.

The COLP Report also refutes his lies so no way is he ever posting that.  The COLP investigators determined the first photo taken of the moderator was taken in November 1985 when police took the rifle and moderator to WHF to photograph it in the closet to demonstrate it fits in there with the moderator attached.  The COLP report noted from the distance it was taken you can see the shape but not much detail.  They took more detailed photos of it with a ruler subsequent to this. This and other details like this are likely in the Dickinson Report as well as COLP Report and that is why Mike doesn't post them. 

Why do you adopt so many of Mike's claims that have no evidentiary support?  There is not a single document anywhere in the case files to even suggest Cook took apart the moderator before it was taken apart at the lab.  He makes no mention of doing so in any of his statements or his COLP interrogation.  There are no records of any kind that reflect him doing so.  Among the documents COLP provided to Jeremy was a photo COLP concluded that Cook took after the lab recovered the blood from the rifle.  Mike or another supporter made up the claim that Cook did so on August 29, 1985 and hand wrote this date on the photocopy then disseminated the doctored copy along with the claim.  This allegation ultimately has no source it was simply invented from thin air by saying COLP was wrong about the date it was taken though those alleging it have no evidence to prove COLP was wrong.   

It would be like me taking a photo published on this site, ignoring all evidence related to when it was taken and saying that evidence is all false it was taken on a date I simply pick out of my head because if done on that day it supports some crap I want to make up.  That's what was done.

Supporters other than Mike did something a little different.  On August 21, 1985 Cook took photos of the fingerprints he managed to raise.  He didn't find any on the moderator so didn't take any.  Since these photos were closeups of the prints even if he had it would not help because all you could tell was they were on metal you would not see the entire moderator. Thus it would fail to document the exact characteristics in fine detail.  In any event Cook stated he took photos of these prints on the rifle. Some dishonest supporters misrepresent that he admitted he took photos of the moderator on this date though he was talking about the rifle.  They then lie and say this is the date he took the photos that COLP provided a photocopy of. So this is why you will see people like poppy claiming it was taken Aug 21.  Why Mike made up Aug 29 is anyone's guess.  He obviously didn't think about pretending it was taken the same day as the rifle until it was too late because he had already said August 29.

Since these claims are made up they can't ethically be presented to the CCRC/COA and even if Jeremy did so without the benefit of any aid by counsel they would go no where because solid evidence is needed for the COA to act.  Unsubstantiated allegations do not accomplish anything.  Lies such as this is used solely for propaganda purposes.




 
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline David1819

Re: More Blue forum BS about the moderator
« Reply #9 on: December 30, 2015, 04:06:43 PM »
The COLP Report also refutes his lies so no way is he ever posting that.  The COLP investigators determined the first photo taken of the moderator was taken in November 1985 when police took the rifle and moderator to WHF to photograph it in the closet to demonstrate it fits in there with the moderator attached.  The COLP report noted from the distance it was taken you can see the shape but not much detail.  They took more detailed photos of it with a ruler subsequent to this. This and other details like this are likely in the Dickinson Report as well as COLP Report and that is why Mike doesn't post them. 

Why do you adopt so many of Mike's claims that have no evidentiary support?  There is not a single document anywhere in the case files to even suggest Cook took apart the moderator before it was taken apart at the lab.  He makes no mention of doing so in any of his statements or his COLP interrogation.  There are no records of any kind that reflect him doing so.  Among the documents COLP provided to Jeremy was a photo COLP concluded that Cook took after the lab recovered the blood from the rifle.
 

You presume that COLP and Essex police are being truthful and honest. You also don't consider the financial motives of Jeremy's relatives.  If we assume COLP, Essex police and Jeremy's relatives are 100% honest then yes the evidence we have is rather overwhelming.

However I Believe that COLP and Essex police are being dishonest and that COLP report (1991) consisted primarily of whitewashing to preserve the police integrity. I also consider the possibility the relatives have used deceit and manipulation to contaminate the police investigation to ensure a conviction.

That is why allot of what I 'claim' is theory based on discrepancies and inconsistencies of those involved. Due to the very nature of what I speculate is true there will be no confirmation, corroboration or documentation from The Police or prosecution witnesses to present any proof to the standard that you would accept (case files) The state (COA,CCRC) has a vested interest in maintaining the maintaining the status quo for reasons both financially and for its reputation.

What you seem to perceive as me lying is actually me putting forward theory or speculation but unlike mike I don't take it to an irrational extreme.

In a nutshell I don't accept the police or the prosecution witnesses as authority on what is fact or fiction. I hope you can now appreciate how I perceive the entire subject. If our philosophy of perception is so contrasting we will never agree on anything. Hence why I am reluctant to debate much with you.






Offline scipio_usmc

Re: More Blue forum BS about the moderator
« Reply #10 on: December 30, 2015, 09:35:23 PM »
You presume that COLP and Essex police are being truthful and honest. You also don't consider the financial motives of Jeremy's relatives.  If we assume COLP, Essex police and Jeremy's relatives are 100% honest then yes the evidence we have is rather overwhelming.

However I Believe that COLP and Essex police are being dishonest and that COLP report (1991) consisted primarily of whitewashing to preserve the police integrity. I also consider the possibility the relatives have used deceit and manipulation to contaminate the police investigation to ensure a conviction.

That is why allot of what I 'claim' is theory based on discrepancies and inconsistencies of those involved. Due to the very nature of what I speculate is true there will be no confirmation, corroboration or documentation from The Police or prosecution witnesses to present any proof to the standard that you would accept (case files) The state (COA,CCRC) has a vested interest in maintaining the maintaining the status quo for reasons both financially and for its reputation.

What you seem to perceive as me lying is actually me putting forward theory or speculation but unlike mike I don't take it to an irrational extreme.

In a nutshell I don't accept the police or the prosecution witnesses as authority on what is fact or fiction. I hope you can now appreciate how I perceive the entire subject. If our philosophy of perception is so contrasting we will never agree on anything. Hence why I am reluctant to debate much with you.

You have nothing as all to suggest police are dishonest you just choose to believe it because you want to.  In the meantime we have absolute proof that mike is lying and you choose to adopt those lies to pretend the moderator evidence is unreliable.  The truth is you have zilch as far as evidence to challenge it.

You then say other people go by sheer opinion while you follow evidence how laughable.  You project your own behavior onto others.
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline David1819

Re: More Blue forum BS about the moderator
« Reply #11 on: December 30, 2015, 10:08:51 PM »
You have nothing as all to suggest police are dishonest you just choose to believe it because you want to. 

Really?
http://info.fmotl.com/PoliceListV24.pdf

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/03/the-shocking-truth-about-police-corruption-in-britain/

If you grew up in my country you might appreciate my position on the police a lot more. That list above is relatively recent. In the 1980s it was horrendous 

You then say other people go by sheer opinion while you follow evidence how laughable.  You project your own behavior onto others.

I don't believe I do, and hardly get people complaining about my conduct.


Offline David1819

Re: More Blue forum BS about the moderator
« Reply #12 on: December 31, 2015, 07:39:41 AM »
"That is why allot of what I 'claim' is theory based on discrepancies and inconsistencies of those involved. Due to the very nature of what I speculate is true there will be no confirmation, corroboration or documentation from The Police or prosecution witnesses to present any proof to the standard that you would accept (case files) The state (COA,CCRC) has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo for reasons both financially and for its reputation."


« Last Edit: January 10, 2016, 06:06:55 PM by John »

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: More Blue forum BS about the moderator
« Reply #13 on: December 31, 2015, 03:41:14 PM »
"That is why allot of what I 'claim' is theory based on discrepancies and inconsistencies of those involved. Due to the very nature of what I speculate is true there will be no confirmation, corroboration or documentation from The Police or prosecution witnesses to present any proof to the standard that you would accept (case files) The state (COA,CCRC) has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo for reasons both financially and for its reputation."




Fact: There was no eyewitness account by the police of the murder weapon anywhere except on Sheila's body.

Fact: Jeapes was on the kitchen side of the house looking at the boxroom window  not the bedroom

Fact: Jeapes is not sure she saw a rifle even let alone the murder weapon.  She said she saw something that appeared to be the barrel of a rifle.  Anything skinny sticking up could appear to be the barrel of a rifle from her vantage point even the reflection of a tree limb.

Fact: There are no photos of the murder weapon in the location where Jeapes saw what could have appeared to be a rifle.

so all your claims turned out to be wrong yet instead of admitting you were wrong you chose to do exactly what you accused others of doing- living in denial and you kept insisting she saw the murder weapon in the bedroom window anyway.

This is approximately how far away police were:




This photo was taken less than 90 yards from the house so the photographer is closer than the police were.   



You still can barely see in the windows even though closer.

In the meantime even if one was hovering in front of the window this is all they would see:



But no one was hovering outside the window they were on the ground and they were 30 yards away.  Even if the gun had been in such location no police from the outside could have seen and recognized it.  Jeapes was on the kitchen side of the house so most certainly could not have seen it if it had been there.  But none of the police stations in the front of the house report seeing it and all of the police who entered from the raid team, to the bigwigs to the crime scene officers say the gun was on Sheila not against the window until the crime scene personnel placed it there.

Choosing to ignore all the evidence and pretend it was there because of your extreme bias against police amounts to the denial you project onto others.   

« Last Edit: January 10, 2016, 06:09:41 PM by John »
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline David1819

Re: More Blue forum BS about the moderator
« Reply #14 on: December 31, 2015, 07:00:02 PM »


Fact: There was no eyewitness account by the police of the murder weapon anywhere except on Sheila's body.

Fact: Jeapes was on the kitchen side of the house looking at the boxroom window  not the bedroom

Fact: Jeapes is not sure she saw a rifle even let alone the murder weapon.  She said she saw something that appeared to be the barrel of a rifle.  Anything skinny sticking up could appear to be the barrel of a rifle from her vantage point even the reflection of a tree limb.

Fact: There are no photos of the murder weapon in the location where Jeapes saw what could have appeared to be a rifle.

so all your claims turned out to be wrong yet instead of admitting you were wrong you chose to do exactly what you accused others of doing- living in denial and you kept insisting she saw the murder weapon in the bedroom window anyway.

This is approximately how far away police were:




This photo was taken less than 90 yards from the house so the photographer is closer than the police were.   



You still can barely see in the windows even though closer.

In the meantime even if one was hovering in front of the window this is all they would see:



But no one was hovering outside the window they were on the ground and they were 30 yards away.  Even if the gun had been in such location no police from the outside could have seen and recognized it.  Jeapes was on the kitchen side of the house so most certainly could not have seen it if it had been there.  But none of the police stations in the front of the house report seeing it and all of the police who entered from the raid team, to the bigwigs to the crime scene officers say the gun was on Sheila not against the window until the crime scene personnel placed it there.

Choosing to ignore all the evidence and pretend it was there because of your extreme bias against police amounts to the denial you project onto others.   

First of all I was not suggesting that the "Murder Weapon" is what Jeapes spotted in the window. I was putting forward a theory that two rifles were used. One being left by the window while the other remain on Shelia.

There is an eyewitness account by the police of a damaged rifle being found in the kitchen with red paint on the barrel (see transcipts of Davidson COLP interview)

On august 7th Jeremy told police there was an Anshutz semi auto and a another .22 rifle (possibly bolt action) inside the house. AP kept his Bruno .22 bolt action on the farm. But denies it was there during the murders however his accounts are very contradictory.

I consider two rifle theory a possibility I am not saying its a fact. If you think I thought the rifle Jeapes spotted was the same one on Shelia and in the window? come on man I know you think I have half a brain but I am not that stupid.

« Last Edit: January 10, 2016, 06:11:46 PM by John »