Ritual dressing

[Holly Goodhead]

The most logical explanation surely is that they were placed there to prevent the various police officers and surgeon stepping in blood.  Although I am quite certain I haven't read anything to this effect in any WS's.  Perhaps held under PII 

CoA has Dr Craig, police surgeon, arriving at 8.10am and certifying all five deaths by 8.50am confirmed elsewhere.  DC Bird, soc photographer, did not arrive until 9.20am.  I would imagine Dr Craig placed cloth items on pool of blood to prevent him treading in it when he certified NB's death. 

Other than the pool of blood by NB there was very little other blood on the kitchen floor.  No swabs were taken of the victims' feet. 

[scipio_usmc]

CoA has Dr Craig, police surgeon, arriving at 8.10am and certifying all five deaths by 8.50am confirmed elsewhere.  DC Bird, soc photographer, did not arrive until 9.20am.  I would imagine Dr Craig placed cloth items on pool of blood to prevent him treading in it when he certified NB's death. 

Other than the pool of blood by NB there was very little other blood on the kitchen floor.  No swabs were taken of the victims' feet.

The blood was dry when police arrived the killer placed the items in the blood to soak the blood up.  Buy hey why ever be realistic.

[Holly Goodhead]

The blood was dry when police arrived the killer placed the items in the blood to soak the blood up.  Buy hey why ever be realistic.

Please provide evidence that the killer placed the cloth items on the pool of blood near NB's body. 

NB was shot twice in the face and four times in the head.  His head was found hanging forward and down.  It is obvious blood would pool on the ground below where the poor man's head was located. There was no need for the killer to concern him/herself with the pool of blood in that area as it was not in his/her exit path.  Dr Craig obviously needed to ascertain death which required close proximity to the body.  Other than that pool of blood very little blood was found on the kitchen floor.  DC Hammersley's trial testimony confirms he didn't take a detailed examination of the kitchen floor but describes a "very light" distribution of blood other than the pool found by NB:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=165.0;attach=215

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=165.0;attach=217

[scipio_usmc]

Please provide evidence that the killer placed the cloth items on the pool of blood near NB's body. 

NB was shot twice in the face and four times in the head.  His head was found hanging forward and down.  It is obvious blood would pool on the ground below where the poor man's head was located. There was no need for the killer to concern him/herself with the pool of blood in that area as it was not in his/her exit path.  Dr Craig obviously needed to ascertain death which required close proximity to the body.  Other than that pool of blood very little blood was found on the kitchen floor.  DC Hammersley's trial testimony confirms he didn't take a detailed examination of the kitchen floor but describes a "very light" distribution of blood other than the pool found by NB:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=165.0;attach=215

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=165.0;attach=217

1) Police say the clothing/cushions were there when they found the body

2) The clothing/cushions soaked up blood these items were not placed on dry blood but rather wet blood because that is the only way they could soak up blood.

3) The blood was dry by the time police entered.

These 2 things combined means the killer is the only one who could have placed the items in the blood.  Asserting the police lied and they are the ones who placed them there fails miserably. Not only did they have no reason to try to soak up dried blood, cloth does not absorb dry blood.

So all rational people with half a brain recognize the killer did it.  Some reasons why the killer would do so I already enumerated.     

[Holly Goodhead]

1) Police say the clothing/cushions were there when they found the body

2) The clothing/cushions soaked up blood these items were not placed on dry blood but rather wet blood because that is the only way they could soak up blood.

3) The blood was dry by the time police entered.

These 2 things combined means the killer is the only one who could have placed the items in the blood.  Asserting the police lied and they are the ones who placed them there fails miserably. Not only did they have no reason to try to soak up dried blood, cloth does not absorb dry blood.

So all rational people with half a brain recognize the killer did it.  Some reasons why the killer would do so I already enumerated.     

Please provide documentary evidence ie W/S's, trial testimony, and expert evidence to support your assertions above.

[scipio_usmc]

Please provide documentary evidence ie W/S's, trial testimony, and expert evidence to support your assertions above.

You post evidence where police say they placed the cushions there and that they had not been there at first. I don[t need to bother proving a negative. 

While you are at it you prove how the blood could still have been wet after so many hours and you provide evidence it was wet.  Which witnesses claimed it was still wet?  none!

[Holly Goodhead]

You post evidence where police say they placed the cushions there and that they had not been there at first. I don[t need to bother proving a negative. 

While you are at it you prove how the blood could still have been wet after so many hours and you provide evidence it was wet.  Which witnesses claimed it was still wet?  none!

Subtle difference Scipio.  In my post #15 I state "I would imagine..." ie I'm not stating it as fact.  You on the other hand in post #18 state "Police say..."

I dont need to provide any supporting evidence as unlike you I'm not claiming it as fact.

Please provide documentary evidence by way of W/S's, trial testimony etc to support your assertions of what the police said in connection with your posts above.

[scipio_usmc]

Subtle difference Scipio.  In my post #15 I state "I would imagine..." ie I'm not stating it as fact.  You on the other hand in post #18 state "Police say..."

I dont need to provide any supporting evidence as unlike you I'm not claiming it as fact.

Please provide documentary evidence by way of W/S's, trial testimony etc to support your assertions of what the police said in connection with your posts above.

You would imagine the blood was still wet many hours after he was shot?  Imagining it is a very good word for it...the Appeal Decision goes over which items the police moved in the kitchen so that alone should clue you in no police claim to have placed the cushions there.

[Holly Goodhead]

You would imagine the blood was still wet many hours after he was shot?  Imagining it is a very good word for it...the Appeal Decision goes over which items the police moved in the kitchen so that alone should clue you in no police claim to have placed the cushions there.

Yes I am imagining Dr Craig placed the material/cloth items on the pool of blood as I dont have anything more reliable to go on.  You obviously do as you have asserted that the police said they found the cusions on the wet blood so please provide their W/S's where they claim such or other documentary evidence.

[scipio_usmc]

Yes I am imagining Dr Craig placed the material/cloth items on the pool of blood as I dont have anything more reliable to go on.  You obviously do as you have asserted that the police said they found the cusions on the wet blood so please provide their W/S's where they claim such or other documentary evidence.

I said the blood was dry when police arrived because all the blood in the house was dry when police arrived.  I said the police found the cushions in dry blood.  The cushions had blood soak into them which means they were placed there while the blood was wet which means the killer did it.  This comports with the police saying the cushions were found there when they entered and their denials of placing them there.

Craig placing cushions in dry blood so that he would not contaminate it makes no sense and they were placed in the blood while it was still wet anyway...

[scipio_usmc]

On the blue forum you (anglolawyer) asked me the following:

"Why are there documents which someone declines to post?   One of the reasons I registered here (or tried to register only to find I had already done so) was to enlarge my search for documents.   There seem to be many crucial documents missing.   I would particularly like to read transcripts of Bamber's and Mugford's trial evidence but I am sure there is much more.   If Mike Tesko happens by this thread and reads this maybe he would explain why there has not been a full upload of all case-related material.   Or maybe someone else knows."

Mike has no interest in posting all the evidence and leaving others to read the evidence and come to their own conclusions.

Mike has an agenda and only releases things that he feels he can twist to support his agenda.  For that reason he refused to post the 2 sections of the Dickinson Report (and its attachments) that would be most interesting- the section pertaining to the evidence adduced at trial and the entire reinvestigation which makes clear his claim about Nevill's moderator being collected in September is a lie.

Mike cherry picks something he feels he can misrepresent and then posts it making false assertions about it.  His MO is always the same.

His dual agenda is to garner attention and to trash police who he hates.  He trashes them by pretending they framed Jeremy and manufactured evidence.  He garners attention by trying to get people to beg him to post documents and getting people to worship him.

The other day he banned me from the site for being disrespectful to him instead of bowing to his lies. His goal is to simply post his lies unchallenged. My immediate offense was posting to lookout that while most believe don't trust Mike she does so she should ask him about something he posted (a document that he said dealt with whether the kitchen heating was on at the time of the murders).

He used that as a pretext so he could post his lies unabated.  Most people on the site don't bother to challenge his garbage they just ignore him and a few like lookout, NGB and nugnug for example encourage him and say they trust him. 

[sika]

Teskowski is an attention seeking f..kwit.  It really is as simple as that.

[scipio_usmc]

Teskowski is an attention seeking f..kwit.  It really is as simple as that.

As we speak he is posting the same old disproved lies about Davidson saying the murder weapon had paint on it not the moderator though in fact he told COLP he never saw the moderator and overheard Elliott and Cook speaking of paint on a weapon so assumed they were talking about a rifle directly but a rifle other than the murder weapon because he personally helped collect the murder weapon and didn't see any paint on it.

He's incapable of telling the truth ever.

[Myster]

Don't worry, anglolawyer.  Teskowski won't put anything online that reinforces Bamber's guilt.

The court transcripts will be at the bottom of the pile of 50,000 documents in his shed (if they ever exist), and it'll take another 30 years before they willingly surface to the top, by which time mice and moths will have eaten them all away and Bamber popped his clogs.

The site's amusing for an occasional guffaw at his crackpot theories... and some atrocious grammar, but little else. Bamber washed his hands of MT many moons ago.

[Holly Goodhead]

I'm not so sure MT cherry picks but rather likes the drama of 'never-before-seen' material which only he has access to!

AL, The Blue forum has been in existence for some 5 years, if MT has been unable to find a way of uploading docs to a forum set up primarily to help a man he believes has suffered a grave miscarriage of justice this is perhaps quite telling  &%+((£

NGB has always been helpful to MT in running the forum and I daresay would arrange some practical help, logistical and financial,  if other material was available for uploading.  How much would it cost to drop off docs to some provider of business solutions for high speed scanning?  Once scanned the docs could be organised into some sort of manageable system.  It should also be noted that it wasn't even MT who set up the archives and library on Blue. That task was carried out by posters Alias and Hartley.  Prior to this documents were simply scattered about in threads.

JB's campaign team set up an electronic document management system and as far as I'm aware they hold most of the docs.