| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
I don't think Nicholls is the significant part. As with the Croydon Playboy case, a small time crim was trying to persuade the police (or the police were trying to persuade him) that playing a small part in a notorious case and thereby becoming the star witness would get him off his latest brush with the law.
Since these 'spurious supergrasses' have no knowledge other than what they've read in the papers, the police have to provide them with all the telling details. (Which they did very badly in the Croydon case because they had to this before they'd heard all the forensic evidence.)
How did the Crown Prosecution Service treat Nicholls subsequently? That was a significant part of the Croydon case.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The Media Show
Not the least surprising thing about Elon Musk is that he doesn't have a PR department. He doesn't have 'handlers'. This emerged from the Media Show interviewing the Editor-in-Chief of The Economist, Zanny Minton Beddoes.
She had approached Musk for an interview when they met at a Californian function (she knew him 'slightly). He told her to contact him on X. She did. He agreed. Next thing she was turning up at Musk HQ in Texas and was, basically, ushered in to Musk's office and the interview started (albeit an hour late).
Ms Beddoes is well used to interviewing the rich and famous (she was very waspish about Benjamin Netanyahu) but was amazed at the lack of palaver, the lack of screening for this question but not that question, the lack of any sort of time frame. Musk and her just chatted for an hour and a half about whatever entered their heads. (Apart from them both being communication professionals.)
It was all recorded on film so why Musk later went ballistic about Zanny's treatment of him to his quarter-billion followers on X is something you'll have to ask him when you next meet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Sorry to return to Farmer Giles & Friend but it's been nagging at me and that's always a good sign. I get the impression the discovery of the Land Rover and the bodies took place quite early in the morning. We know the entire farm was either covered in snow or 'snowy'.
But before all that, I would like to remark on the two men's names, Peter Theobald and Ken Jiggins. I don't think I'm being classist if I say the first name has a somewhat patrician air and the second a more Andy Capp quality. I might turn out to be completely wrong, but they seem an ill-assorted couple. Yet they are described as 'friends'.
But now let us examine their behaviour if, as reported, they were simply making a random tour of the farm. Such an early start would appear to mean Jiggins had stayed the night. Unless he had turned up early doors for some specific reason. To have a wander round white-blanketed fields would not, to my mind, qualify as a specific reason.
I don't care who you are, I don't care how close the relationship is, the one thing you don't inflict on a friend is to invite him for a casual walk round your farm, first thing in the morning, in the biting cold of an Essex winter, with virtually nothing to see. But if you do, it would have to be a fairly long walk to randomly encompass a part of the farm that is both remote and of little apparent interest.
I don't think Theobald and Jiggins were friends exactly. I think Jiggins had turned up at first light bearing some bad news. They then set out to find out what had happened -- unless it was Jiggins conducting Theobald rather than the other way round because he already knew -- and when they found out what it was, they had a long slow walk back to the farmhouse to discuss how they were going to deal with it. It's not every day you... etc etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | I don't think Nicholls is the significant part. As with the Croydon Playboy case, a small time crim was trying to persuade the police (or the police were trying to persuade him) that playing a small part in a notorious case and thereby becoming the star witness would get him off his latest brush with the law.
Since these 'spurious supergrasses' have no knowledge other than what they've read in the papers, the police have to provide them with all the telling details. (Which they did very badly in the Croydon case because they had to this before they'd heard all the forensic evidence.)
How did the Crown Prosecution Service treat Nicholls subsequently? That was a significant part of the Croydon case. |
Nicholls was placed under witness protection and has according to him lived his life still in fear, for grassing up his former friend Michael Steele. Nicholls was not charged with being the getaway driver, which if we are to beleive his story (despite the many inconsistencies) he was.
Its Wileys belief, as it is of many others, that Michael Steele and Jack Whomes were innocent of the murders.
Trial judge Mr Justice Hidden had warned the jury to treat Nicholls's evidence with "great caution", adding "it was in his own interest" to support the prosecution.
"Darren Nicholls lied, no doubt about it," says David McKelvey, despite being the man who arrested him.
"The evidence that Steele and Whomes were wrongly convicted is overwhelming."
The ex-detective initially had "no doubt" they were guilty, but that changed in 2020 when their defence team contacted him with what he believes is compelling new evidence.
Now a private investigator, he is contacted daily by people who believe there has been a miscarriage of justice. |
The problem when looking at, who killed the Essex boys, is the number of false trails, the truth is that by 1995, Tony Tucker, Pat Tate and Craig Rolfe had fallen out and owed money to a number of heavy characters, who were all cashing in on the rave/ectasy/drugs boom in Essex. Tucker, Tate and Rolfes own dealings had been hit by buying dodgy cannibis, and they had just been involved in an operation to return these drugs and get their money back. Their finances were not helped as they were doing various drugs continually themselves, all the time they were under the eyes of the police. The police were suddenly not turning a blind eye, because of the death of Leah Betts. The trio were feeling "the heat".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | Sorry to return to Farmer Giles & Friend but it's been nagging at me and that's always a good sign. I get the impression the discovery of the Land Rover and the bodies took place quite early in the morning. We know the entire farm was either covered in snow or 'snowy'.
But before all that, I would like to remark on the two men's names, Peter Theobald and Ken Jiggins. I don't think I'm being classist if I say the first name has a somewhat patrician air and the second a more Andy Capp quality. I might turn out to be completely wrong, but they seem an ill-assorted couple. Yet they are described as 'friends'.
But now let us examine their behaviour if, as reported, they were simply making a random tour of the farm. Such an early start would appear to mean Jiggins had stayed the night. Unless he had turned up early doors for some specific reason. To have a wander round white-blanketed fields would not, to my mind, qualify as a specific reason.
I don't care who you are, I don't care how close the relationship is, the one thing you don't inflict on a friend is to invite him for a casual walk round your farm, first thing in the morning, in the biting cold of an Essex winter, with virtually nothing to see. But if you do, it would have to be a fairly long walk to randomly encompass a part of the farm that is both remote and of little apparent interest.
I don't think Theobald and Jiggins were friends exactly. I think Jiggins had turned up at first light bearing some bad news. They then set out to find out what had happened -- unless it was Jiggins conducting Theobald rather than the other way round because he already knew -- and when they found out what it was, they had a long slow walk back to the farmhouse to discuss how they were going to deal with it. It's not every day you... etc etc. |
I didnt buy the poachers story.
My thoughts were that "someone annonymous" had tipped off Theobald, that something had happened, on his land, and the next morning, he took back up Jiggins to investigate.
Theobald did not declare this to the Police, as this would imply that he was connected to the killer (s), and having witnessed the crime scene, you would not want to be giving the police help.
You distance yourself.
Theobald has also not reported hearing shots....yet if anyone was going to hear them, other than the shooter(s), it was surely he.
He was not assisting the investigation......
You are onto something........
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Lets tentatively summarise, with a list.
1. There is no such thing as 'isolated farmland' in Essex.
2. The killer(s) carefully selected the ambush spot, much in the same way as a hunter would say choose a river crossing, they chose the precise location. Craig Rolfe, Tony Tucker, and Pat Tate, were all huge dangerous characters, experienced in intimidating and extorting others. They were shot in a confined space in the Range Rover.
3. The killer(s) must have known the location.
4. The killer(s) likley knew both Theobald and the location.
5. Craig Rolfe, Tony Tucker, and Pat Tate, likley knew Theobald and the location, as they felt safe enough to travel there........
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | | I didnt buy the poachers story. My thoughts were that "someone annonymous" had tipped off Theobald, that something had happened, on his land, and the next morning, he took back up Jiggins to investigate. |
This makes absolutely no sense.
"You don't know me, but I'd have a look at your top field if I was you."
"Ken? I've just had a peculiar call. Can you step over here so we can both go and have a look at whatever it is?... No, no reason, but if it's anything dangerous I'd rather we both went down than just me. That's what friends are for."
PS If you're right, the PNC would verify the anonymous call was made in two minutes flat.
| Theobald did not declare this to the Police, as this would imply that he was connected to the killer (s), and having witnessed the crime scene, you would not want to be giving the police help. You distance yourself. |
Wha-a-a-a? If you're not connected to the killings and you've just found three men shot dead on your property, you don't have to distance yourself from anything.
| Theobald has also not reported hearing shots....yet if anyone was going to hear them, other than the shooter(s), it was surely he. |
First possibility: he didn't hear the shots.
Second possibility: he heard the shots, but put it down to poachers.
But since Theobald said he hadn't heard any shots, the second possibility is ruled out because that is a perfectly reasonable and innocent explanation. Unless he is lying, in which case he has a connection to the shots, whether he heard them or didn't hear them.
| He was not assisting the investigation...... |
That cannot be assumed. The real question is why Theobald isn't being made to assist the investigation. It's not difficult investigating his relationship with Jiggins, establishing Jiggins' movements at the time, asking them (separately) the reason they are plodding round like Good King Wenceslas and his court jester, etc etc.
All this may have been done for all I know and everyone's come out of it white as the driven snow. But it doesn't sound as though it has. Either the police are carefully ignoring it or the MMS is.
| You are onto something........ |
Coo, ta very much. It's not often anyone says that to me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | | Lets tentatively summarise, with a list. 1. There is no such thing as 'isolated farmland' in Essex. |
OK
| 2. The killer(s) carefully selected the ambush spot, much in the same way as a hunter would say choose a river crossing, they chose the precise location. |
It depends what you mean by 'carefully selected'. The actual place does seem ideal in terms of (relative) isolation and discreet access [though I seem to remember some detail about locked gates]. But there must be a thousand and one such places in that part of rural Essex.
| Craig Rolfe, Tony Tucker, and Pat Tate, were all huge dangerous characters, experienced in intimidating and extorting others. They were shot in a confined space in the Range Rover. |
OK
| 3. The killer(s) must have known the location. |
I don't think 'must' applies unless you are assuming it was an ambush. It might have been Rolfe, Tucker, and Tate that chose the rendezvous. Or the killers were following them (is a tracker out of the question at that time?) or they flagged them down or... or... But, I agree, 'must have known the location' is the most likely explanation.
| 4. The killer(s) likley knew both Theobald and the location. |
Knowing the location does not automatically mean they knew Theobald. It only puts him in the frame.
| 5. Craig Rolfe, Tony Tucker, and Pat Tate, likley knew Theobald and the location, as they felt safe enough to travel there........ |
Yes, this is the critical point. The killers could not ask the victims for no particular reason to 'Go half a mile along the B345 till you get to a gate on the left hand side. Go through that and park up. We'll either be there waiting, or along shortly after, for the conflab.' Which might let Theobald out.
They would have to say something like, 'You can have a butchers at the landing strip we use if you go half a mile along the B345 etc etc.' Which puts Theobald back in.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Wiley is not claiming to have solved this.
The problem is one of being overwhelmed, there are too many enticing false trails.
I confess to being stumped, my normal technique in such a situation is to let it be, wait a bit, whilst the confusion passes, then take a fresh look for something simple and obvious, a second penetrating glance, attention rather than concentration.
Reflecting on the snails pace, I am travelling, this might not actually be working for me......
Still I doubt I will ever have the stamina for meticulous research.
I noticed you had watched a doc, so thought that setting up a mini treasure hunt might help speed things up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley is not claiming to have solved this. The problem is one of being overwhelmed, there are too many enticing false trails. |
I know the feeling.
| I confess to being stumped, my normal technique in such a situation is to let it be, wait a bit, whilst the confusion passes, then take a fresh look for something simple and obvious, a second penetrating glance, attention rather than concentration. |
Very sound technique. It's one I use.
| Reflecting on the snails pace, I am travelling, this might not actually be working for me...... Still I doubt I will ever have the stamina for meticulous research. |
You could have fooled me.
| I noticed you had watched a doc, so thought that setting up a mini treasure hunt might help speed things up. |
I didn't watch the doc in the end (or have forgotten all about it, if I did). I was relying entirely on what you said! It was just the same with Lucy Letby, if you remember.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Mick wrote: | | I was relying entirely on what you said! |
This is an example of AE in action. When you are dealing with something notorious, you will--as Wiley said--be overwhelmed by the morass of information. Even if you make progress it is likely to be the same progress as other indefatigable researchers have made.
But if you perch yourself on the shoulders of one of them, you get to see what they--with their eyes cast down on detail--won't see. An anomaly that won't go away. Something that has... yes... been carefully ignored.
You might well make progress that others have not but then you will come up against an insurmountable barrier. You have no status. You can't, for instance, doorstep Farmer Theobald. And nor are you in a position to persuade the police to do it. Or get the MSM aroused so they can push the police to do it. And all this is dependent on your suspicions being correct in the first place.
So you move on to other things.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
This is an interesting documentary from Channel 4, it provides excellent insights into why the police still think they got it right, and why the conspiracy theorists' crazies (ouch!) are wrong.
If folks are not up to speed, then it is good background, into the 1990s, a by-gone age, when the police, were still getting to grips, with raves, ectasy , the use of supergrasses, and tracking peoples whereabouts through their use of their Nokia phone.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ3tvyQPl5Q
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I was none the wiser after watching it on YouTube this morning. Despite theoretically speaking Estuarine myself I could scarcely follow what people were saying! However one of the participants, Bernard O'Mahoney, happened to be someone I had written to on the grounds he had written six book about the case. This was his surprising reply:
Hi Mick, conspiracy theorists have trawled over this straightforward case for over 30 years now. The finest legal minds, 1 x 5 month trial and 2 x appeals have all failed to find ONE new piece of evidence that even suggests the convictions are unsafe.
John Whomes has said his brother is guilty, William Whomes has said his brother is guilty, Pam and Will Whomes were arrested mid trial for trying to nobble jurors. I recorded John Whomes confessing to getting a significant prosecution witness to change his evidence mid trial. The games up, in short, you and your good self are wasting your time.
I wish you well, B |
When I wrote to him asking for permission to post this up he sent me some further heartfelt thoughts along the same lines including this, which any AE-ist wll recognise
| What does OMahoney know, he was just a bouncer etc etc.....well, I challenge them to find anyone who knows more about the case who is willing to sit down with me and challenge the facts. |
But, he is not an AE-ist. He doesn't appreciate that facts are not at issue. Or at any rate not facts any of us are likely to be privy to. There's plenty for us rank amateur newcomers to get our snouts into if we have a mind. Including me anon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I've had more from my favourite source. When I questioned why the farmer and his oppo were traipsing the frigid acres he told me they had gone out to feed the pheasants. Apparently Peter Theobald ran commercial pheasant-shoots on his land.
The two were friends and business partners in the business. It would be more a case of "Oy, Ken, get your arse over here. Pheasants won't feed themselves, you know. Not in this parky weather."
As to all (my) talk of illicit landing strips I was informed by one who had actually inspected the scene of the crime that the farm consisted largely of a giant hill and small fields bounded by hedgerows. It would have to have been a Hawker Harrier bringing the gear in.
But wearing my AE hat, I would have to enter two very light caveats:
1. The two of them were in a business that features frequent use of shotguns.
2. We still have no (good) explanation as to why the three men drove to that particular spot. Four men actually. The driver made his excuses and left.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
