Very interesting! I would be digging further and asking the manufacturer directly about these designs and their views, from a historical perspective (perhaps not specifically referring to the case). Did it state the exact bag it was in the official report? (they should have a model or product number, say - an important detail). Or ask for it. Then compare it with historical information from the manufacturer. I would also be digging into the background of the person providing the very detailed rebuttal. Why are they so interested, do they have connections to the case, or those with vested interest? (I’m cynical because I have experienced similar issues from those I know have vested interest and I know others have too). This can be a problem when exposing uncomfortable observations.
The handle stitching on the police evidence photo, doesn't match the street arrest photo.
It does match that on the bags seen in Pumas advertising photos.
Conversely the bag in the street arrest photo clearly looks like a Puma bag, yet the stitching on the handles is wrong compared to both the police evidence photo and the Puma advertising photos.....
Could the handle have been repaired / reinforced on the outside?
But then why wouldn't the stitches appear inside?
Could the street bag have been a knock off copy of a Puma bag, but then why doesn't it match the evidence photo?
According to Pat, the retired forensics engineer, I am imagining a different handle patch shape? Everyone who I ask to draw the handle patch shape of what they see, draws the tapering outwards towards the top. I don't think I am imagining anything. If it was a teardrop shaped patch, I would see it, but it is not. Yet the police photo shows the wrong shape.
The bag was switched. They put a tent over the bag, so easily could have switched it then. Plus, we on have 1 photo by the police of the bag, out of 118 photos taken. Plus, the forensics guy was never called to court, and was never named. Very strange.
I spent more time than was good for me revisiting this evidence yesterday with Pat's challenge in mind. In short, I have no doubt that Mark's observation is both valid and significant. Along the way I learnt far more than I cared to know about Puma bags and Puma branding... including that the "swoosh" is actually called a "formstrip".
Great response, Mark. Again, you “changed my mind” by producing what I called a “Type 3” Puma hold-all bag, which I hoped you would do. We’re almost done here, so this can be brief.
Basically, I’m refining your case for you, by doing what eagle-eyed QC’s often did to me many times in my professional career; “testing” for weak points in your evidence, by “cross-examining” you, as though you were a witness, under oath in the witness box, in a courtroom.
This time, all you need to do is demonstrate that “Type 3 Puma bags” can have different “gaps” between the rounded bottom of the “downward tapering, double-riveted, handle reinforcement patch” and the “Puma swoosh mark”. By comparison with “Tommy’s bag” in Fig B (which shows virtually NO GAP), your “green Type 3 bag” has a HUGE GAP.
Such obscure differences will be jumped on by any KC worth his salt., but I’m betting that you will find that “gap” does vary in fact, so it’s not going to damage your argument, in which case you can indeed, “rest your case”, knowing that you’ve covered the obvious points on which your evidence might have been challenged.
I will passively keep an eye out, but I think it will be a mission to try and track it down to be honest. I think my main point I was trying to show that Puma did use that type of shape, and also other shapes with their handle patch designs. I may see if I can contact Puma, and see if I can get more information. I will keep you posted.
Many thanks for your engagement, information, knowledge and expertise.
Yes, my brain was a bit drained with it all too. Please do keep me in the loop, if you manage to find anything with it.
I think it is very telling that the other 117 photos taken by the anonymous police crime scene forensic man, who was also never called to the court, didn't publish those other photos, which would show the bag in full view in the road. I think it would be too revealing that the bag didn't match Mair's.
Yes, I'll probably write a Substack with my findings/thoughts once I've finished my analysis of the Liverpool Parade Incident... nearly there on that - it's been quite a journey.
Very interesting! I would be digging further and asking the manufacturer directly about these designs and their views, from a historical perspective (perhaps not specifically referring to the case). Did it state the exact bag it was in the official report? (they should have a model or product number, say - an important detail). Or ask for it. Then compare it with historical information from the manufacturer. I would also be digging into the background of the person providing the very detailed rebuttal. Why are they so interested, do they have connections to the case, or those with vested interest? (I’m cynical because I have experienced similar issues from those I know have vested interest and I know others have too). This can be a problem when exposing uncomfortable observations.
Hi, RJ. I'm in Australia and have no connection to the Cox case.
Stay cynical, mate. I'm on Mark's (and Tommy's) side in this case.
Just thinking aloud here.
The handle stitching on the police evidence photo, doesn't match the street arrest photo.
It does match that on the bags seen in Pumas advertising photos.
Conversely the bag in the street arrest photo clearly looks like a Puma bag, yet the stitching on the handles is wrong compared to both the police evidence photo and the Puma advertising photos.....
Could the handle have been repaired / reinforced on the outside?
But then why wouldn't the stitches appear inside?
Could the street bag have been a knock off copy of a Puma bag, but then why doesn't it match the evidence photo?
Exactly!
According to Pat, the retired forensics engineer, I am imagining a different handle patch shape? Everyone who I ask to draw the handle patch shape of what they see, draws the tapering outwards towards the top. I don't think I am imagining anything. If it was a teardrop shaped patch, I would see it, but it is not. Yet the police photo shows the wrong shape.
The bag was switched. They put a tent over the bag, so easily could have switched it then. Plus, we on have 1 photo by the police of the bag, out of 118 photos taken. Plus, the forensics guy was never called to court, and was never named. Very strange.
I spent more time than was good for me revisiting this evidence yesterday with Pat's challenge in mind. In short, I have no doubt that Mark's observation is both valid and significant. Along the way I learnt far more than I cared to know about Puma bags and Puma branding... including that the "swoosh" is actually called a "formstrip".
Thanks for that info regarding the "formstrip".
Great response, Mark. Again, you “changed my mind” by producing what I called a “Type 3” Puma hold-all bag, which I hoped you would do. We’re almost done here, so this can be brief.
Basically, I’m refining your case for you, by doing what eagle-eyed QC’s often did to me many times in my professional career; “testing” for weak points in your evidence, by “cross-examining” you, as though you were a witness, under oath in the witness box, in a courtroom.
This time, all you need to do is demonstrate that “Type 3 Puma bags” can have different “gaps” between the rounded bottom of the “downward tapering, double-riveted, handle reinforcement patch” and the “Puma swoosh mark”. By comparison with “Tommy’s bag” in Fig B (which shows virtually NO GAP), your “green Type 3 bag” has a HUGE GAP.
Such obscure differences will be jumped on by any KC worth his salt., but I’m betting that you will find that “gap” does vary in fact, so it’s not going to damage your argument, in which case you can indeed, “rest your case”, knowing that you’ve covered the obvious points on which your evidence might have been challenged.
I do hope you succeed.
Hey Pat,
Good to hear from you!
I will passively keep an eye out, but I think it will be a mission to try and track it down to be honest. I think my main point I was trying to show that Puma did use that type of shape, and also other shapes with their handle patch designs. I may see if I can contact Puma, and see if I can get more information. I will keep you posted.
Many thanks for your engagement, information, knowledge and expertise.
Warm regards,
Mark.
My pleasure, Mark.
Did you know that all bank "loans" are based on a provable, centuries-old accounting fraud?
Your brain might enjoy a quick paddle in my little Substack evidence pond (if you haven't already checked me out). [https://patcusack.substack.com/p/welcome-to-forensic-focus]
Keep up the good work.
Pat
I may take you up on this challenge once my brain has recovered from yesterday's scrutiny of all things Puma.
Hi Pighooey,
Yes, my brain was a bit drained with it all too. Please do keep me in the loop, if you manage to find anything with it.
I think it is very telling that the other 117 photos taken by the anonymous police crime scene forensic man, who was also never called to the court, didn't publish those other photos, which would show the bag in full view in the road. I think it would be too revealing that the bag didn't match Mair's.
Yes, I'll probably write a Substack with my findings/thoughts once I've finished my analysis of the Liverpool Parade Incident... nearly there on that - it's been quite a journey.
Hi I look forward to your Liverpool analysis. Keep up the good work.
Great investigative skill ... brilliant Mark
Many thanks for your kind words.