UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: Real justice on August 13, 2018, 06:22:39 AM
-
A while back, just before Christmas Mike Tesko produced a statement on the blue forum supposedly from Stan Jones saying, “He took possession of a sound moderator on the 7th of Aug, he then gave it to Taff Jones and was told to Covertly return back to WHF on the 9th. The implications of this would have been a game changer if the statement was true?
I would like to put the statement on here for discussion, I have the copies stored on my iPad but cannot work out how to put it on? Any Help, i Could advance it to someone and they could put it on for me?
-
A while back, just before Christmas Mike Tesko produced a statement on the blue forum supposedly from Stan Jones saying, “He took possession of a sound moderator on the 7th of Aug, he then gave it to Taff Jones and was told to Covertly return back to WHF on the 9th. The implications of this would have been a game changer if the statement was true?
I would like to put the statement on here for discussion, I have the copies stored on my iPad but cannot work out how to put it on? Any Help, i Could advance it to someone and they could put it on for me?
I've got a copy.
-
I've got a copy.
Thank you Caroline, don’t think we ever got to the bottom of it?
So basically Mike Tesko put this on his forum and I felt that there was something quite not true about this. We have Stan admitting he picked up a sound moderator, then planting it back into WHF, possibly for someone else to find it? this is something big for the defence I would have thought? Until you look closely at the statement.
-
Thank you Caroline, don’t think we ever got to the bottom of it?
So basically Mike Tesko put this on his forum and I felt that there was something quite not true about this. We have Stan admitting he picked up a sound moderator, then planting it back into WHF, possibly for someone else to find it? this is something big for the defence I would have thought? Until you look closely at the statement.
Well two things are immediate (apart from the content) - it's on the back of another statement (which wouldn't happen) and it' a different type face.
-
Well two things are immediate (apart from the content) - it's on the back of another statement (which wouldn't happen) and it' a different type face.
It was the word Covertly that first bought my attention, would Stan admit he secretly took the sound moderator back to WHF?
-
Well two things are immediate (apart from the content) - it's on the back of another statement (which wouldn't happen) and it' a different type face.
Yep, too modern a font (sans-serif) for the 1985 vintage typewriters at Essex police HQ.
-
The above doesn't stack up imo. I agree why use the word "covertly"?!
It would seem strange if EP didn't look out for a silencer prior to handing the keys over to the Eatons on 9th Aug circa 5pm. The relatives made a big thing about a silencer from the off with AP calling EP on 8th and relatives again tackling DCI Jones and DS Jones about it on morning of 9th Aug when they visited Witham: AE, DB and AP. This was in connection with the fact the rifle was found on SC's body sans silencer and I think their train of thought was how did the perp (JB in their opinion) carry out the murders without using a silencer ie how did JB control and shoot 5 victims who were, according to their theories, in 3 different locations? JB was asked to complete a further WS specifically to cover the silencer ie the fact he handled the rifle on 6th Aug sans silncer (and scope).
Given DCI Jones and DS Jones were at WHF on 9th Aug at approx 5pm to hand keys over to the Eatons it would seem very odd if the silencer wasn't accounted for.
What I have always found strange is that according to AE's WS, PE and RN spent the night of 10th Aug in RN's camper van ostensibly to safeguard the farm and its contents. Why 10th Aug? On 10th Aug during the day the relatives cleared WHF of valuables and all firearms. The alarm was functioning on 9th Aug. It would make sense if PE and RN spent 9th Aug at WHF. Did AE mean 9th Aug? If so did PE and RN receive a visitor during the night for part 1 of any silencer fabrication?
-
It was the word Covertly that first bought my attention, would Stan admit he secretly took the sound moderator back to WHF?
I think it's also a word that is quote popular in certain quarters?
-
The above doesn't stack up imo. I agree why use the word "covertly"?!
It would seem strange if EP didn't look out for a silencer prior to handing the keys over to the Eatons on 9th Aug circa 5pm. The relatives made a big thing about a silencer from the off with AP calling EP on 8th and relatives again tackling DCI Jones and DS Jones about it on morning of 9th Aug when they visited Witham: AE, DB and AP. This was in connection with the fact the rifle was found on SC's body sans silencer and I think their train of thought was how did the perp (JB in their opinion) carry out the murders without using a silencer ie how did JB control and shoot 5 victims who were, according to their theories, in 3 different locations? JB was asked to complete a further WS specifically to cover the silencer ie the fact he handled the rifle on 6th Aug sans silncer (and scope).
Given DCI Jones and DS Jones were at WHF on 9th Aug at approx 5pm to hand keys over to the Eatons it would seem very odd if the silencer wasn't accounted for.
What I have always found strange is that according to AE's WS, PE and RN spent the night of 10th Aug in RN's camper van ostensibly to safeguard the farm and its contents. Why 10th Aug? On 10th Aug during the day the relatives cleared WHF of valuables and all firearms. The alarm was functioning on 9th Aug. It would make sense if PE and RN spent 9th Aug at WHF. Did AE mean 9th Aug? If so did PE and RN receive a visitor during the night for part 1 of any silencer fabrication?
Before handing the keys back, both Taff and Stan Jones went to see Jeremy and asked him if the silencer was on the weapon the night before the murders when he left it out. Taff Jones believed Jeremy when he said it wasn't and as such, didn't bother to look for the silencer (why would he?) before handing the keys back. Jeremy's word that it wasn't on the weapon, was good enough for him. Stan Jones didn't have any authority to search the house in the presence of Taff - who frankly seemed a bit volatile when challenged (there's a lot of that about! @)(++(*)
-
Before handing the keys back, both Taff and Stan Jones went to see Jeremy and asked him if the silencer was on the weapon the night before the murders when he left it out. Taff Jones believed Jeremy when he said it wasn't and as such, didn't bother to look for the silencer (why would he?) before handing the keys back. Jeremy's word that it wasn't on the weapon, was good enough for him. Stan Jones didn't have any authority to search the house in the presence of Taff - who frankly seemed a bit volatile when challenged (there's a lot of that about! @)(++(*)
Yes on 8th Aug JB was asked to complete a further ws clarifying various points incl silencer/scope:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5632.msg200222#msg200222
Well we don't really know exactly what went on. It seems various people came and went between 7th Aug - 9th Aug.
According to RB, NB likened EP to Dad's Army and judging by the sound of some of them I don't think he was far wrong! Maybe DCI Jones just got exasperated with them.
-
Yes on 8th Aug JB was asked to complete a further ws clarifying various points incl silencer/scope:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5632.msg200222#msg200222
Well we don't really know exactly what went on. It seems various people came and went between 7th Aug - 9th Aug.
According to RB, NB likened EP to Dad's Army and judging by the sound of some of them I don't think he was far wrong! Maybe DCI Jones just got exasperated with them.
Or maybe he was the Capt Mainwaring Figure?
-
Or maybe he was the Capt Mainwaring Figure?
With DC Bird as Pike: "You stupid boy"' try taking the lens cover off'! @)(++(*
-
With DC Bird as Pike: "You stupid boy"' try taking the lens cover off'! @)(++(*
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
I think it's also a word that is quote popular in certain quarters?
Along with aforementioned @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Wow, this was whilst I was away.
That looks like such a legit document doesn't it? .../Sarcasm. If that's the best forgery that can be created, retire.
I will bring this up the next time JackieDPreece posts how lucky we are to have a barrister on the forum. A Barrister that is willing to pay for a forum that posts fake documents in a case where two children were murdered.
I don't understand the NEED for Jeremy to be guilty/innocent that some people have. If he's innocent, fine - but it should be evidence based. If you need to 'create' evidence to suit your argument - it should cause alarm bells in your own head.
-
Wow, this was whilst I was away.
That looks like such a legit document doesn't it? .../Sarcasm. If that's the best forgery that can be created, retire.
I will bring this up the next time JackieDPreece posts how lucky we are to have a barrister on the forum. A Barrister that is willing to pay for a forum that posts fake documents in a case where two children were murdered.
I don't understand the NEED for Jeremy to be guilty/innocent that some people have. If he's innocent, fine - but it should be evidence based. If you need to 'create' evidence to suit your argument - it should cause alarm bells in your own head.
David thought it was genuine and backed Tesko (wonder why 8(>(() Next time you go on the blue forum, put the word aforementioned in the search and see who has used that word before? Double figures and the only person to use that word @)(++(*
Maybe Lookout could show it to her daughter and Special Branch who monitor forums, falsifying police statements is a criminal offence I would have thought? &^^&*
-
Wow, this was whilst I was away.
That looks like such a legit document doesn't it? .../Sarcasm. If that's the best forgery that can be created, retire.
I will bring this up the next time JackieDPreece posts how lucky we are to have a barrister on the forum. A Barrister that is willing to pay for a forum that posts fake documents in a case where two children were murdered.
I don't understand the NEED for Jeremy to be guilty/innocent that some people have. If he's innocent, fine - but it should be evidence based. If you need to 'create' evidence to suit your argument - it should cause alarm bells in your own head.
He's basically bought himself his own little amusement park - a forum that consists almost entirely of libel, bigotry and filth. He likes to be the Monarch of all he surveys!! &^^&*
-
Wow, this was whilst I was away.
That looks like such a legit document doesn't it? .../Sarcasm. If that's the best forgery that can be created, retire.
I will bring this up the next time JackieDPreece posts how lucky we are to have a barrister on the forum. A Barrister that is willing to pay for a forum that posts fake documents in a case where two children were murdered.
I don't understand the NEED for Jeremy to be guilty/innocent that some people have. If he's innocent, fine - but it should be evidence based. If you need to 'create' evidence to suit your argument - it should cause alarm bells in your own head.
In fairness to KNGB he did point out the fact DCI Jones was referred to as "Taff" in a formal statement didn't ring true. I think he's right, the police are a hierarchal bunch where deference is expected akin to the military. During DS Jones' trial testimony he refers to colleagues by their titles:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1056.msg30124#msg30124
-
In fairness to KNGB he did point out the fact DCI Jones was referred to as "Taff" in a formal statement didn't ring true. I think he's right, the police are a hierarchal bunch where deference is expected akin to the military. During DS Jones' trial testimony he refers to colleagues by their titles:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1056.msg30124#msg30124
Have to agree 100% Holly, nothing but admiration for NGB, he knew it was fake and tried to steer Tesko away from it, NGB is not the owner and it puts him in a very awkward position, “but” if I was a moderator or financial backer of the forum I would have left I wouldn’t want to be associated with such low life who is uncontrollable. Wonder what he’s done with other documents, information he’s posted before?
-
The above doesn't stack up imo. I agree why use the word "covertly"?!
Coz he didn't know how to spell "surreptitiously"?
-
I think it's also a word that is quote popular in certain quarters?
Would that be, as in "...........And you are charged with, that you did, covertly (feel free to add whatever)"?
-
Have to agree 100% Holly, nothing but admiration for NGB, he knew it was fake and tried to steer Tesko away from it, NGB is not the owner and it puts him in a very awkward position, “but” if I was a moderator or financial backer of the forum I would have left I wouldn’t want to be associated with such low life who is uncontrollable. Wonder what he’s done with other documents, information he’s posted before?
Makes it worse.
I remember Bridget and Hartley once asked Mike to post something, can't quite remember who's statement they were looking for but Mike never posted it even though he promised he would - it made me realise at that time he's selective on what he posts.
If Bamber is innocent Mike should feel comfortable posting anything, surely?
Maybe it's time Mikes accused of non disclosure. @)(++(*
-
He's basically bought himself his own little amusement park - a forum that consists almost entirely of libel, bigotry and filth. He likes to be the Monarch of all he surveys!! &^^&*
An old style amusement park, one with a freakshow. Don't get me wrong there have been some good members on the site and there still are, and I mean on both sides. But it's ruined by those who don't know ANYTHING about the case. I truly don't understand the ones who don't know anything about the case that post 24/7 for months. Lookout knows nothing, Jackie has never known anything about the Bamber case, Maggie is absolutely clueless and always has been - read her posts and try and find one that's got any clue about the Bamber case - next time she gets me unfairly banned for any reason or posts how much of a FAIR moderator she is I will post the hundreds of her emails I have between her and Jackie where Maggie shows her true colours with her words about myself, Bridget, Holly, Adam, Jane - just digusting behaviour.
Does anyone have a link to the topic where the SJ 'statement' was actually posted?
-
An old style amusement park, one with a freakshow. Don't get me wrong there have been some good members on the site and there still are, and I mean on both sides. But it's ruined by those who don't know ANYTHING about the case. I truly don't understand the ones who don't know anything about the case that post 24/7 for months. Lookout knows nothing, Jackie has never known anything about the Bamber case, Maggie is absolutely clueless and always has been - read her posts and try and find one that's got any clue about the Bamber case - next time she gets me unfairly banned for any reason or posts how much of a FAIR moderator she is I will post the hundreds of her emails I have between her and Jackie where Maggie shows her true colours with her words about myself, Bridget, Holly, Adam, Jane - just digusting behaviour.
Does anyone have a link to the topic where the SJ 'statement' was actually posted?
Not Quite sure Matt, but, I think it went off the forum so that says a lot? Caroline might know. Very few believed it was real only David, no one would challenge it only me Caroline and Jane. I’ve not been back since.
-
An old style amusement park, one with a freakshow. Don't get me wrong there have been some good members on the site and there still are, and I mean on both sides. But it's ruined by those who don't know ANYTHING about the case. I truly don't understand the ones who don't know anything about the case that post 24/7 for months. Lookout knows nothing, Jackie has never known anything about the Bamber case, Maggie is absolutely clueless and always has been - read her posts and try and find one that's got any clue about the Bamber case - next time she gets me unfairly banned for any reason or posts how much of a FAIR moderator she is I will post the hundreds of her emails I have between her and Jackie where Maggie shows her true colours with her words about myself, Bridget, Holly, Adam, Jane - just digusting behaviour.
Does anyone have a link to the topic where the SJ 'statement' was actually posted?
It is surprising that supporters that are so passionate have no sources. Thought sources would be posted non stop.
The exception is Mike who has sources but then comes up with crazy theories.
Lookout has never supplied a source. If one is requested she says 'find it yourself'.
Nugs has only provided one source, on Barry George. This was to support his vision that The Sun turned down Bamber's offer of a free life story.
I did ask a moderator for a source once. That really upset her. The source was supplied the following day. The next two days was spent complaining that I had asked for a source. Thought moderators would have lots of information.
David provides snippets of documents. Together with his own diagrams. He gets very upset if guilters provide sources.
Roch, Bill, JackieD, David & Mike all have new information they won't supply.