Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Mike Tesko who are you ? Blogger from 2008 with a valid question who is Mike Tesko...

You sound different from your first postings, as if another person were posting

Mike. You are posting on at least 3 sites, one of which appears to be your own, you know the one i refer to, S L I, and numerous references to the Bamber case by yourself come up on the internet.

You post in the name of Mike Tesko, and yet refer to him in the third person! Are you that Mike Tesko, who was charged with some counts of burglary and two assaults against police, and the corruption by police of which you spoke?
This would account for the fact that you may have spent time sharing a cell with Bamber. (But would a mere burglar be placed in the same cell as a convicted killer) i don't know.

You see, i asked if you were actually a lawyer, but you declined to answer! Therefore, it's open to speculation. I have to then ask myself, why would you spend what seems to be any spare time you have. almost obssessively posting about Bamber's innocence.

I'm not saying he's guilty, i'm not saying he's innocent. I feel the judge at the time hadn't any right to say, 'the killer could only have been Sheila, or Jeremy. But in the extensive research and reading i've done, i have to agree with him. In all honesty, if the case were tried today, with all evidence submitted, i feel that the conviction would have been declared 'UNSAFE'

Mike Tesko answers:

I have never tried to hide my past, it is an integral part of what makes me who I am.

Unless you have ever been the victim of police corruption you will never understand the effect such exposure has upon a person.

I do not hold that against you or anybody else, for that matter, but as a victim of police corruption in the circumstances of my own case, it HAS allowed me to examine other cases from the same sort of general era to see if similar tactics were used or adopted in these other prosecutions.

I must admit that in the vast majority of cases, police investigations are carried out in an exemplary fashion but every now and then comes along a case where the rule book is thrown out of the window.

During the 1970's and up to and including the late 1980's, the crime squads up and down the length and breath of the UK developed a bad reputation for falsifying evidence that was to be used to prosecute certain types of individual.

 Suspected terrorists, bank robbers, burglars and murderers, all fell foul to such practices and the courts turned their faces away from what was taking place. The case of Jeremy Bamber is one of these cases.

However, it would be true to say that it was never the intention of Essex police to implicate Jeremy Bamber in these killings, in fact, they went out of their way to keep him out of the picture during the first month of the investigation.

 Essex police were only interested in keeping the cover up under wraps and they almost got away with it had not the relatives not got suspicious of what the police had been telling them?

By the time ACC Peter Simpson got around to ordering a fresh investigation into the killings (6th September 1985) the bodies of the three adult victims had already been disposed of by way of cremation and the police had already informed the Coroners court of the circumstances surrounding Sheila Caffells death and how she had killed the others before taking her own life with the family owned rifle in the main bedroom.

 By the time the investigation changed, a lot of water had already passed under the bridge and the police who were involved in the cover up were put in a catch 22 situation:-

(1) was it time to own up and admit the truth about what had really taken place?

(2) Did they let the new investigation take its natural course?

The officers involved in the cover up, decided on option (2). It was one thing to admit that the police operation inside the house had gone dramatically wrong which had led to the loss of life in Sheila Caffells case, and to have to admit to failing to seize the rifle at the bedroom window and to make it safe so as to prevent Sheila taking possession of it and using it upon herself in the main bedroom, but the police went even further and lied to the Corner about the circumstances of Sheila's death, which caused him to authorize the release of the bodies for disposal.

All these things had happened and taken place before the nature of the investigation changed. From my point of view, it was at this stage that the police who were involved in the cover up to try and save their own skins, went along with allowing a false case to be built up to prosecute Bamber for these murders.

Some of the officers involved in the second part of the police investigation (from 6th September 1985, onwards) were not privy to the fact that the police operation inside whf had gone dramatically wrong or that Sheila's body was originally found in the kitchen.

For the record, I have never shared a cell with Jeremy Bamber, I was merely in the same maximum security prison as he was, on the same wing, in the cell next door to him.

 Although, I did spend Christmas dinner (December 1989) in his cell with him for a period of about four hours.

In the main I spoke to Jeremy a lot about his case whenever we had the opportunity, both during the day when we were studying on university courses and evening in our recreation time.
I have never refused to answer any questions about being a lawyer, fact is I am not and never have been one.