A Response To A Retired Forensic Engineer's Comments - Part One

Jo Cox Murder: Evidence of Fraud

Introduction

I posted an article on the 24th June 2025, regarding the evidence of fraud involving the official evidence relating to the assassination of MP Jo Cox.

You can read the article linked to below, if you would like to have some background knowledge as to why I am writing this follow-up article, which is to address a comment that was left in the comments section, which questions my findings.

See previous article below:

Jo Cox Murder: Damming Evidence Proves Tommy Mair's Puma Holdall Bag Was Not The Holdall Bag Presented In The Official Police Forensics Photograph
https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/jo-cox-murder-damming-evidence-proves/comments

Below, is a short video of Richard D. Hall presenting my evidence proving that the police switched Mair's Puma holdall bag, indicating Mair was framed and convicted for murdering British MP Jox Cox.

A Response To A Retired Forensic Engineer's Comments - Part One

The comment in question is from someone called Pat Cusack, who claims to be a retired “forensic engineer”. Pat raised doubts relating to the evidence I had presented, and also my findings.

See screen-shot of comment below:

In this article, I am going to directly address the points raised by Pat Cusack.

Firstly, I will address Pat Cusack’s points:

Point 1. Nothing in your photographs says “Puma”, and neither Grok3 nor CoPilot AI can confirm that it was a “Puma” bag.

Mark Conlon Response:

In the arrest photograph of Mair, it shows his holdall bag that he dropped when challenged by the Police officers. See below:

Mair’s holdall bag is photographed middle right. Partly visible on the bag is the typical “Puma” logo design pattern, which appeared on holdall bags of that era.

See below, Puma holdall bag with the “Puma” logo design pattern of that era.

Below, for comparison purposes, Mair’s holdall bag from the arrest photograph (Fig A) and a Puma holdall bag, showing the typical “Puma” logo design.

The partly visible Puma logo design can be observed on Mair’s holdall bag in (Fig A), compared to the Puma holdall bag in (Fig B).

To further support my identification that Mair’s holdall bag was indeed a “Puma” holdall bag, I cross-checked official CCTV footage of Mair carrying the same holdall bag the day before the murder on the 15th June 2016, and also on the day of the murder 16th June 2016.

See below, is the “official” police CCTV photographic evidence, which they released, which I used to identify the make of Mair’s holdall bag.

Note, in two of “official” CCTV photographs, the grey “Puma” logo design is visible on Mair’s holdall bag, and in the end-right photograph, you can see partly the end of the grey logo design between Mair’s legs. All three photographs are consistent showing a “Puma” holdall bag being carried by Mair.

Point 2. My AI-assisted search found no reference to a Puma bag connected with the Cox murder case.

Mark Conlon Response:

The police never specifically said it was a “Puma” holdall bag, as they only referred to it in their press-pack hand-outs as a “black holdall”, which were circulated via the media. So it is perfectly reasonable that your AI search would not find any specific information to the holdall bag being a “Puma” bag. See below:

Moreover, just because the police did not specifically state the make of the holdall, does not mean it was NOT a “Puma” holdall bag. Clearly, when observed with your own eyes, and some research comparisons, as I have done, it is easy to identify the make of Mair’s holdall bag.

Finally, I would suggest, Pat Cusack placed too much reliance on his AI search, when he should have done his own investigative research, and perhaps watched the documentary film in full that was embedded in my article.

Point 3. I was unable to locate a picture of any Puma product whose handle anchor has “two rivets” positioned “one above the other” as all your photographs depict.

Mark Conlon Response:

Again, Pat’s internet searches he conducted did not find a “Puma product” whose handle anchor has “two rivets” positioned “one above the other”.

Below, I have included a range of photos showing vintage “Puma” holdall bags from my internet searches I conducted at the time I was researching the holdall discrepancies in 2019. Also note, all the “Puma” holdall bags in all the photos show “two rivets” positioned “one above the other”.

Again, I can only suggest that Pat Cusack did not conduct enough exhaustive internet searches to find “Puma” holdall bags with “two rivets” positioned “one above the other”. Clearly, I show his assertion to be incorrect, as I found many with “two rivets” positioned “one above the other”, which is a common occurrence in that era of “Puma” holdall bags.

Pat Cusack’s Questions:

1. “What evidence tells you it was a 'Puma' bag?”

Mark Conlon’s Answer:

I conducted analysis of three pieces of “official” police CCTV evidence which they released showing Mair carrying his holdall bag, which visibly showed the classic “Puma” logo design.

2. I don’t consider your enlargements (Fig. B) as evidence of a “stitching pattern”.

Mark Conlon’s Answer:

In the (Fig B) photograph below, (highlighted in the red box), the handle shape of the reinforcement material is clearly observed. It is tapered, and splays wider at the top, while the bottom is rounded. See below:

Also, see the close-up enlargements of the photograph, with a highlight in red of the reinforcement material shape, which stands to reason that they are attached via stitching to the holdall bag, along with two rivets.

See below, an example of the newer era of the “Puma” holdall bags, showing the tear-drop shape material, which tapered inwards towards the top, and with the rounded bottom. I have highlighted in red the different shape compared to Mair’s “Puma” holdall bag.

Note, the police presented this type of era “Puma” holdall bag, with the handle reinforcement material tapering inwards to the top of the bag, which is the opposite to what is captured in Mair’s arrest photograph, where the handle reinforcement material is tapering outwards and not inwards. It is clearly visible, and evidential in the photograph.

Pat Cusack says he does not consider this as evidence?

I completely disagree, as it is observable evidence. The handle shape reinforcement material stands out, as it is attached on top of the underneath material. The stitching to attach the material would have followed the pattern of the reinforcement material, which is observed in the photograph, and also the example I have shown. The reflective light highlights the reinforcement material shape, which is observed in the Mair arrest photograph, and also the example photograph.

I would conclude, that Pat’s opinion is not evidence, it is just that, his opinion, however the photographic evidence is observable evidence, which supports my findings.

Pat Cusack’s Statement:

If I were your lawyer, I'd say, “Go find me a Puma bag with that exact rivet and stitching pattern”, because no stitching of the “handle anchor pad” is visible in those (blurred) enlargements and no stitching pattern can be inferred from the “vague blur” which you seem to believe defines the shape of a riveted anchor pad.

I fear you may be seeing a “rabbit” in a “fluffy cloud”. The terms “speculative interpretation”, “selective emphasis”, and “evidentiary ambiguity” spring to mind.

Finally, the visible stitching pattern in the “official” Fig. A (rounded at the bottom and tapering inwards towards the top) makes more practical engineering sense than your “adjustment". The actual stitching logically spreads the load over a wider area at the bottom of the anchor and tapers towards what seems to be a narrower (?) handle above it. That visible pattern can't be compared to the “invisible stitching” that you imagine you can “see” in Fig. B.

Mark Conlon’s Response to Pat’s Statement:

Pat says, “if I were your lawyer, I'd say”, “Go find me a Puma bag with that exact rivet and stitching pattern”.

Mark Conlon: Again, Pat is not a lawyer, and it is irrelevant to the observable evidence, stating to go and finding a bag with exactly the same rivet and stitching. Mair’s holdall bag is a 1980’s era “Puma” holdall bag. It is over years old, so finding one could be challenging, but that still does not discount the visual observable evidence.

Pat describes Mair’s holdall bag as a “vague blur”?

Mark Conlon: It is not a “vague blur”, there is enough detail to establish the rivets, and also the shape of the handle reinforcement material overlaid onto the under material, which stands to reason that it would be stitched in the shape of the material.

Also to note, the reflective light, highlights the shape of the material, as shown in both Mair’s arrest photograph and also the example photograph I used for comparison purposes in this refutation article.

Pat says, “Finally, the visible stitching pattern in the “official” Fig. A (rounded at the bottom and tapering inwards towards the top) makes more practical engineering sense than your “adjustment". The actual stitching logically spreads the load over a wider area at the bottom of the anchor and tapers towards what seems to be a narrower (?) handle above it. That visible pattern can't be compared to the “invisible stitching” that you imagine you can “see” in Fig. B.”

Mark Conlon: While this may be true, regarding engineering wise for strength, however the official photographic evidence shows what it shows, whether Pat can observe it or not? Perhaps this is why Puma changed the design of the shape of the handle reinforcements to taper inwards towards the top, compared to Mair’s which tapered outwards towards the top.

There are photographs of 1970’s “Puma” holdall bags with the handle reinforcement material tapering outwards towards the top, and not the later tear-drop tapered design seen in the later 1980’s era “Puma” holdall bags.

See below:

Note, the one rivet, which later become two in later editions of the “Puma” holdall bags. Perhaps this is why the tear-drop handle material design tapering inwards at the top was later introduced?

To Conclude

It appears that Pat Cusack did not do his homework and research in this case, and has made several claims which are incorrect, which I have shown in this follow-up article.

I cannot offer why Pat cannot visibly observe what I do and many others do in the photograph below? I am not imagining what I am observing in the photograph, it is observable and visible, despite Pat’s opinion.

I hereby rest my case!

Thanks for reading & caring.