Jeremy Bamber - Debunking Mike Tesko's strange theories

[John]

Who is Simon Jones on the blue forum? Ray someone but I don't know who but he's obviously 'well up' on Jeremy's case and also Simons.

His name is Ray Hollingsworth. He wrote a book about the Ipswich murders as he was a paying client and knew many of the girls personally.  He has little involvement in the Bamber case and spent a mere few months looking into the Hall case.  I would take anything he says with a very big pinch of salt.   

He'll be at home then over there>>>>>>>
It's like fantasiesRus.

Ray is very familiar with what is going on in the Ipswich area and has a lot of contacts which he was able to make use of.    He did a lot of work on behalf of Simon Hall in a short period of time and ended up having to speak to the Press because her indoors was in one of her [ censored word]ocial phases.  He also wrote a report on the murder of Joan Albert which was submitted as part of the application to the CCRC.  I think Ray was of the opinion that the case had been cracked but it hasn't turned out that way.

[John]

Has Ray Hollingsworth been a member here before, John..... I seem to remember him either posting or your good self referring to/conversing with him a while ago?

He used to post as a guest before SH and others starting messing with the facility resulting in it being suspended.  I don't think Ray is aware of or appreciates the damage SH has done recently by her conduct.

[Admin]

Who is Simon Jones on the blue forum? Ray someone but I don't know who but he's obviously 'well up' on Jeremy's case and also Simons.

His name is Ray Hollingsworth. He wrote a book about the Ipswich murders as he was a paying client and knew many of the girls personally.  He has little involvement in the Bamber case and spent a mere few months looking into the Hall case.  I would take anything he says with a very big pinch of salt.   

He'll be at home then over there>>>>>>>
It's like fantasiesRus.

Ray is very familiar with what is going on in the Ipswich area and has a lot of contacts which he was able to make use of.    He did a lot of work on behalf of Simon Hall in a short period of time and ended up having to speak to the Press because her indoors was in one of her [ censored word]ocial phases.  He also wrote a report on the murder of Joan Albert which was submitted as part of the application to the CCRC.  I think Ray was of the opinion that the case had been cracked but it hasn't turned out that way.

It would be interesting to know if Ray concurs with the general consensus of opinion that Mrs Hall did the wrong thing in sacking Stephensons and at such a crucial time in Simon's case? 

[Jerry]

Who is Simon Jones on the blue forum? Ray someone but I don't know who but he's obviously 'well up' on Jeremy's case and also Simons.

His name is Ray Hollingsworth. He wrote a book about the Ipswich murders as he was a paying client and knew many of the girls personally.  He has little involvement in the Bamber case and spent a mere few months looking into the Hall case.  I would take anything he says with a very big pinch of salt.   

He'll be at home then over there>>>>>>>
It's like fantasiesRus.

Ray is very familiar with what is going on in the Ipswich area and has a lot of contacts which he was able to make use of.    He did a lot of work on behalf of Simon Hall in a short period of time and ended up having to speak to the Press because her indoors was in one of her [ censored word]ocial phases.  He also wrote a report on the murder of Joan Albert which was submitted as part of the application to the CCRC.  I think Ray was of the opinion that the case had been cracked but it hasn't turned out that way.

It would be interesting to know if Ray concurs with the general consensus of opinion that Mrs Hall did the wrong thing in sacking Stephensons and at such a crucial time in Simon's case?

Why did she sack them???    >>>Does anyone know the full story????    >@@(*&)

[goatboy]

Dr Vanezis in his statement seemed to think it would have been possible for Sheila to move and even walk around after the first shot. Unfortunately for the blue forum, regardless of what Vanezis says the photos show no evidence whatsoever that she did.

Also what the blue forum don't seem to get is that whoever did the murders went to a lot of effort to cover their tracks and make sure they were forensically clean. It makes no sense that Sheila would have gone out of her way to clean up after herself even if she could, given that she just planned to do herself in anyway. So even if Sheila could have actually committed the murders it is very unlikely she would have cleaned herself up. It is very unlikely she would have been so anxious to stop Nevill reaching the phone, knowing that even if he did call the police the response time would not have been particularly rapid so she would have had enough time to do whatever it was she planned to do. So if we accept it was either Sheila or Jeremy, who had the motive to stop Nevill getting to the phone by any means necessary in case it meant the game was up? Who had the motive to cover their tracks to make themselves forensically clean? The answer in both cases is not Sheila, so that only leaves one suspect.

Where did you read that comment goatboy?

According to Dr Vanezis' Report dated 30 September 1985, "The palms and fingers were not contaminated with blood." (page 275)   Dr Vanezis makes no reference to her lower limbs or feet in his report but the first police responders stated that they were spotlessly clean.

In Dr Vanezis' Report dated 7 May 1986 he stated, "In my view with regards to the mobility of the victim in regards to the first wound it is my opinion, taking into account the blood distribution internal and external from the first wound that the deceased had not got up and moved prior to receiving the second wound which would have been instantaneously fatal." (page 409)

The blood trails on Sheila's neck evidenced her inability to walk or even move to any great extent after the first shot. 

In his later Report dated 12 November 1986 Dr Vanezis was scathing of the police actions.  He clearly indicates that he was given a bum steer by the police into thinking it was  four murders and a suicide.  He states that had he seen the crime scene photos at an earlier stage his intial views would have changed. Specially he states,

Had I attended the scene I would without doubt have been concerned,

(a) at the cleanliness of Sheila. (Far more dramatic than seeing body at mortuary).

(b) Position of rifle - appears too obvious.

(c) Position of Bible - on top of arm.

I have no doubt I would have insisted on the attendance of ballistics and biology experts at the scene prior to removal of the body.


Or to put this into simple language, Dr Vanezis was shocked when he saw the crime scene photos after he had conducted the autopsy in the mortuary.  It is crystal clear that he was concerned that he had not been asked to attend the murder scene at an early stage.  Had he done so he would have insisted on these experts being called as the scene as existed was extremely suspicious.  Essex Police made a complete pigs ear of the initial investigation and were completely misled by Jeremy Bamber as to what had occurred. The blame lay firmly at the feet of the then DI's Cook and Miller who told Dr Vanezis that the case was 'straightforward' and that no ballistics were required.  What a couple of prize nuggets!

Thanks for putting me straight Admin-I just assumed that because the blue forum were quoting Vanezis this was somehow true. I can't believe I made that mistake! All he says is that the first shot would not have been fatal. There is quite a leap of imagination involved in accepting this and then accepting the possibility that she went upstairs and shot herself again. Yet Jeremy and his defence would have us all believe that Sheila shot herself again despite the strong likelihood that she would have been still unconscious after the first shot. Mike in particular is clutching at straws in introducing the theory that the police somehow accidentally, very cleanly and fatally shot Sheila afterwards, because it is just too incredible to believe that she could have shot herself twice (with or without a silencer).

[Admin]

Absolutely no problem, we have seen how the blue forum attempt to manipulate the facts and twist every little inconsistency or minor flaw in the series of events to suit their own agenda.  We all have been taken in by them at one time or another but by careful research and reading we always come back to the truth.   

By and by, we hope everyone has had a lovely Christmas and Boxing Day and are looking forward to the New Year with renewed vigour. 

[Myster]

Patti, if you're watching, look at the pathology report (26th. Nov. '85... first page). Eight bullets in total were fired into Nevill, not 6 or 7.

[Myster]

CRITICS CORNER - The weeks reviews of  "CHRISTMAS FAIRYTALE" or "How to Fool Some of the People All of the Time".
**********************************************************************************************

AGAINST -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMONJONES:
Am I alone in finding Mike's 'So and so' thread a very long haul? I am taking from this thread that this is Mike's definitive account of how Shelia Caffell was shot ( not once ), but twice by Essex Police.
It would certainly help me ( I can't speak for other readers ) if the entire thread could be captured in just a few hundred words and the key moments listed - names / times etc.
Dare I call it 'bullet point' style of text.

buddy:
This is boring the arse off me. I says he says what a load of codswallop.who's HE.
Mike has chosen to lock down this thread. I trulely hope he has a knockout punch, or I will put this in the same catagory as Z, and Bongo. Helicopters does not do it for me either.
I am a marginal Bamber supporter, but this nonsense is driving me away.

Lugg:
I can't understand it either. So I don't read it. I never read anything that doesn't interest me.

tonyb:
It always concerns me a locked thread,particularly one this long.i honestly haven't bothered to read it,it looks like the ramblings of a madman.
( please note i do not insinuate the author is mad,I just use the phrase to give reason why I haven't bothered to read it ).

**********************************************

NEUTRAL -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve_uk:
I like a good yarn,whether fictional or not. Let Mike tell the story in his own way. I found it one of his better threads,just it's a pity it's a locked thread.

**********************************************

FOR -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           
                       THIS SPACE TO BE LEFT BLANK

**********************************************

[goatboy]

Did Patti really say she thinks Simon Mckay doesn't care about whether or not a client is innocent? Must be why he has refused to say for definite that he thinks Bamber innocent. This says a lot, there is no prospect of proving Bamber's innocence, the only chance is getting him out on a technicality.

Can anyone explain what is left for Bamber? Are there any hearings scheduled for any appeal of his against the decision made by the Judicial Review?

Agree about the "Says I, says he" thread. Mike seems to be losing every bit of credibility he still may have had with this. Not even Lookout has rushed to defend him. When I first found the site I was impressed with him. Whereas now you know that any "new" thread he starts was probably originally posted a couple of years ago. Why on earth does he still persist with this? I could understand if he was still friends with Jeremy or if what he was doing was endorsed by his legal team but as we know neither of these things are true. It seems people who have spent a lot of time with Bamber remain intensely loyal even when he has cast them aside. What sort of hold does he have on people to still influence them in this way (I would include AA in this as well)? Maybe he really is the master manipulator people would have us think.

[Angelo222]

Patti, if you're watching, look at the pathology report (26th. Nov. '85... first page). Eight bullets in total were fired into Nevill, not 6 or 7.

Well spotted Myster         This is just one of those little details which the blue forum are a bit rusty on.  What's a couple of bullets here or there to them when their whole purpose in life has turned to dust?   

[Angelo222]

CRITICS CORNER - The weeks reviews of  "CHRISTMAS FAIRYTALE" or "How to Fool Some of the People All of the Time".
**********************************************************************************************

AGAINST -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMONJONES:
Am I alone in finding Mike's 'So and so' thread a very long haul? I am taking from this thread that this is Mike's definitive account of how Shelia Caffell was shot ( not once ), but twice by Essex Police.
It would certainly help me ( I can't speak for other readers ) if the entire thread could be captured in just a few hundred words and the key moments listed - names / times etc.
Dare I call it 'bullet point' style of text.

buddy:
This is boring the ar.. off me. I says he says what a load of codswallop.who's HE.
Mike has chosen to lock down this thread. I trulely hope he has a knockout punch, or I will put this in the same catagory as Z, and Bongo. Helicopters does not do it for me either.
I am a marginal Bamber supporter, but this nonsense is driving me away.

Lugg:
I can't understand it either. So I don't read it. I never read anything that doesn't interest me.

tonyb:
It always concerns me a locked thread,particularly one this long.i honestly haven't bothered to read it,it looks like the ramblings of a madman.
( please note i do not insinuate the author is mad,I just use the phrase to give reason why I haven't bothered to read it ).

**********************************************

NEUTRAL -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve_uk:
I like a good yarn,whether fictional or not. Let Mike tell the story in his own way. I found it one of his better threads,just it's a pity it's a locked thread.

**********************************************

FOR -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           
                       THIS SPACE TO BE LEFT BLANK

**********************************************

Well said buddy.        I must say I haven't laughed as much since the day Mrs Blumpkin revealed where she last had sex with her gorgeous husband.   

I got through three pages of the I says....he says nonsense before I fell asleep and dreamt of Mike Tesko talking to himself in the bathroom mirror. They do say that the first sign of madness is speaking to oneself but the second sign is answering back?   

[Angelo222]

Did Patti really say she thinks Simon Mckay doesn't care about whether or not a client is innocent? Must be why he has refused to say for definite that he thinks Bamber innocent. This says a lot, there is no prospect of proving Bamber's innocence, the only chance is getting him out on a technicality.

Can anyone explain what is left for Bamber? Are there any hearings scheduled for any appeal of his against the decision made by the Judicial Review?

Agree about the "Says I, says he" thread. Mike seems to be losing every bit of credibility he still may have had with this. Not even Lookout has rushed to defend him. When I first found the site I was impressed with him. Whereas now you know that any "new" thread he starts was probably originally posted a couple of years ago. Why on earth does he still persist with this? I could understand if he was still friends with Jeremy or if what he was doing was endorsed by his legal team but as we know neither of these things are true. It seems people who have spent a lot of time with Bamber remain intensely loyal even when he has cast them aside. What sort of hold does he have on people to still influence them in this way (I would include AA in this as well)? Maybe he really is the master manipulator people would have us think.

Once Daniele gets the boot you might find AA returning to the fold.  After all isn't Jeremy for better or for worse the Godfather to her twin boys? That must be something to tell their pals at school.   

[goatboy]

Did Patti really say she thinks Simon Mckay doesn't care about whether or not a client is innocent? Must be why he has refused to say for definite that he thinks Bamber innocent. This says a lot, there is no prospect of proving Bamber's innocence, the only chance is getting him out on a technicality.

Can anyone explain what is left for Bamber? Are there any hearings scheduled for any appeal of his against the decision made by the Judicial Review?

Agree about the "Says I, says he" thread. Mike seems to be losing every bit of credibility he still may have had with this. Not even Lookout has rushed to defend him. When I first found the site I was impressed with him. Whereas now you know that any "new" thread he starts was probably originally posted a couple of years ago. Why on earth does he still persist with this? I could understand if he was still friends with Jeremy or if what he was doing was endorsed by his legal team but as we know neither of these things are true. It seems people who have spent a lot of time with Bamber remain intensely loyal even when he has cast them aside. What sort of hold does he have on people to still influence them in this way (I would include AA in this as well)? Maybe he really is the master manipulator people would have us think.

Once Daniele gets the boot you might find AA returning to the fold.  After all isn't Jeremy for better or for worse the Godfather to her twin boys? That must be something to tell their pals at school.   

I did hear that but really hoped it wasn't true. What possible negative connotations could there be to a man who murdered two twin boys being godfather to two other twin boys? 

[Angelo222]

Did Patti really say she thinks Simon Mckay doesn't care about whether or not a client is innocent? Must be why he has refused to say for definite that he thinks Bamber innocent. This says a lot, there is no prospect of proving Bamber's innocence, the only chance is getting him out on a technicality.

Can anyone explain what is left for Bamber? Are there any hearings scheduled for any appeal of his against the decision made by the Judicial Review?

Agree about the "Says I, says he" thread. Mike seems to be losing every bit of credibility he still may have had with this. Not even Lookout has rushed to defend him. When I first found the site I was impressed with him. Whereas now you know that any "new" thread he starts was probably originally posted a couple of years ago. Why on earth does he still persist with this? I could understand if he was still friends with Jeremy or if what he was doing was endorsed by his legal team but as we know neither of these things are true. It seems people who have spent a lot of time with Bamber remain intensely loyal even when he has cast them aside. What sort of hold does he have on people to still influence them in this way (I would include AA in this as well)? Maybe he really is the master manipulator people would have us think.

Once Daniele gets the boot you might find AA returning to the fold.  After all isn't Jeremy for better or for worse the Godfather to her twin boys? That must be something to tell their pals at school.   

I did hear that but really hoped it wasn't true. What possible negative connotations could there be to a man who murdered two twin boys being godfather to two other twin boys? 

To be fair to AA she has stated this in the past and also stated that she still retains some of Jeremy's belongings including part of a wetsuit (not that one) which he has never asked to be returned to him.  Not that he would have much need for it in HMP Full Sutton. You get the feeling he hopes to revist AA some day.

AA does believe him to be innocent.  She spent many days talking with him in prison some years back and she feels he was incapable of doing such a thing. I think we all would wish to share those sentiments with AA but unfortunately the evidence does not bear this out no matter how much his latest crankie follower Heidi posts on twitter.

[John]

This is exactly why the Bamber campaigners always use photographs of him which are 27 years old and not as he is today.  They are in love with a mirage, a ghost from the past which is gone forever.  Isn't it strange that not a single man will canvass for him publicly now?