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

Jo Cox Murder: Evidence of Fraud

Introduction

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

On the 27th June 2025, I wrote a follow-up article addressing points made in the comments section refuting some of my claims I made regarding the evidence I had presented in my original article.

It is probably best, that both previous articles are read for background purposes of the issues raised, so this article makes more sense for the reader, and the reason for writing this article.

Original Article:

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

Follow-up Article:

A Response To A Retired Forensic Engineer's Comments - Part One
https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/a-response-to-a-retired-forensic

This article I have written deals with a further comment from retired forensic engineer Pat Cusack. Pat raised further doubts relating to the evidence I have presented, in both previous articles, and also my findings.

For full transparency of Pat’s comment, I have posted a screen-shot below:

Just to quickly recap before I continue with my response to Pat’s further assertions, I will recap the discrepancy between the holdall bag that Tommy Mair dropped at his arrest scene, and also the holdall bag presented in the Police forensics photograph.

Below, is my analysis pointing out the discrepancies:

See below, the tapering of the handle reinforcement material tapering outwards towards the top, and not tapering inwards, which is observed in the police photograph, of the inside stitching of the handle reinforcement, which is different to what we should be observing.

Below, my analysis shows how the holdall bag reinforcement stitching should have looked in the police forensics photograph if the Puma holdall bag was the same holdall that Mair dropped at his arrest scene.

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.

Rebuttal of Pat’s further assertions

Below, I am going refute further flawed assertions made in Pat’s comment posting.

Specifically, I am going to deal with the assertion that, Pat makes regarding the presence of “two rivets” in Fig B, which he says provides sufficient conclusive evidence to establish positive identification of a Type 2 Puma bag, and that evidence is not consistent with the trapezoid stitching pattern in Type 1 which I seek to impose on the police photograph in Fig A, without any evidence supporting the possible existence of such an hypothetical “Type 3” Puma bag.

Pat says,

All three of your Type 1 bags (with the “trapezoid” patch), have either ONE rivet or NO rivets, not TWO. Also, the positive identification of Tommy’s bag as a Type 2 by “rivet pattern alone” is further reinforced by the presence of the Puma “swoosh” mark, which is absent on all three of your Type 1 bags. See below

Pat says,

So, the one thing that could change his mind is the discovery of this (hypothetical) “Type 3 bag”, which would be a hybrid mix of both Type 2 [“two rivets” + Puma “swoosh”] and Type 1 [“trapezoid” anchor patch + NO “swoosh”], but until it is located, I think you will agree that the “trapezoid” shape you claim to “see” in Fig B contradicts the “two rivets” and “swoosh” mark. I hope you agree that, although the two rivets and “swoosh” mark in Fig B are both fuzzy, they are much more clearly discernible than the “ambiguous shape” of the anchor patch in question in that out-of-focus enlargement taken from the arrest scene.

Mark Conlon’s Response:

Pat has made the assertion, that Puma made only “teardrop” and “trapezoid” shaped handle reinforcements during the late 1970’s into the 1980’s. In fact Puma made several different types of shaped material for their handle reinforcement designs, as their holdall bags were evolving, with various modifications and design logo changes.

Note, in the photograph above, Puma had a straight-up, and down handle reinforcement material design, which was neither “teardrop”, nor “trapezoid”, with the introduction of “two rivets”, but had not introduced the Puma swoosh design in these holdall bag editions.

Below, is a slightly “outwardly” tapered design of the Puma handle reinforcement material, also with “two rivets”, but without the Puma swoosh design on the bag.

Below, Puma produced a holdall bag with the “trapezoid” handle reinforcement material shape tapering outward towards the top of the bag, and also with “two rivets”, including, the Puma “swoosh logo” design.

The photographs above shows that Puma did indeed produce holdall bags with the tapering “outward” handle material reinforcement design towards the top, with the addition of “two rivets”, along with the Puma “swoosh” design. This evidence shows how Puma was not just limited to holdall bags with just the “teardrop” design of the handle reinforcement with “two rivets”, but also introduced the Puma swoosh logo.

Below, is Tommy Mair’s hodall bag displayed on the middle right in the arrest photograph, showing all 3 types of criteria.

Below, is a close-up of Mair’s holdall bag showing, 1. Trapezoid tapered outward towards the top of the handle reinforcement, 2. Two rivets, 3. Puma swoosh design.

Note, the photograph does not show a “teardrop” shape handle design, which it should have done if Pat is correct, and should have been visible in the photograph, which it is NOT.

However, we do observe the reflective light off the bag showing the outline of the “trapezoid” shape material tapering outward handle reinforcement towards the top of the holdall bag. The handle reinforcement material is overlaid onto the bag, this creates a slight difference which is captured in the photograph, showing the shape of the material, which is certainly NOT a teardrop shape.

To conclude

The fact that Pat does not see what I am observing, along with many others, somehow according to Pat I and others are experiencing pareidolia, which is the psychological phenomenon where people perceive meaningful patterns, often faces or other familiar shapes, in random or ambiguous stimuli. It's the tendency to see something recognisable where it does not actually exist.

I don’t believe this to be the case, that I am imagining the shape in the photograph, because the reflective light is absolutely consistent. Moreover, bearing in mind the photographical history I have provided and evidenced in this article regarding the evolution of Puma’s holdall bags throughout the years, thus showing the 3 types of criteria which Puma produced at some point in their production, discounts the suggestion that I am experiencing pareidolia. I believe this to be a cop-out, after the many points when I disproved Pat’s earlier points/assertions he made, which in all fairness he did acknowledge, however apparently I am still wrong, even though I corrected him on a number of the other points.

However, I don’t think this will be enough to sway Pat, but after all it is up to him what he thinks or makes of it, and I thank Pat for his comments, and interactions. I have respect for his professional knowledge, and engagement. This article is in no way to be disrespectful to Pat. We just have a difference of opinions on this area.

I wish him well.

Thanks for reading & caring.