Other High Profile Cases and Persons of Interest > Twenty years on, the mystery of who shot Jill Dando still prevails.
Differences In Forensics And Trial Between WHF And Murder Of Jill Dando
Holly Goodhead:
I know I've posted previously about the fact jurors were taken to Jill Dando's home to view soc which wasn't the case at WHF. It would have been helpful to jurors to see how easy, difficult or impossible it was for JB to enter WHF and exit leaving the window secured from within.
Also just reading that in the case of Jill Dando;
“The post-mortem report, the injuries to her head, the markings (on the bullet) indicated a silencer couldn’t have been on the gun.”
I wonder why in one case it was possible to say a silencer wasn't used and in another the firearms 'expert' *Malcolm Fletcher was unable to say one way or another?
*Told the court his relevant experience included a small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy.
APRIL:
--- Quote from: Holly Goodhead on April 07, 2019, 11:16:42 PM ---I know I've posted previously about the fact jurors were taken to Jill Dando's home to view soc which wasn't the case at WHF. It would have been helpful to jurors to see how easy, difficult or impossible it was for JB to enter WHF and exit leaving the window secured from within.
Also just reading that in the case of Jill Dando;
“The post-mortem report, the injuries to her head, the markings (on the bullet) indicated a silencer couldn’t have been on the gun.”
I wonder why in one case it was possible to say a silencer wasn't used and in another the firearms 'expert' *Malcolm Fletcher was unable to say one way or another?
*Told the court his relevant experience included a small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy.
--- End quote ---
I'm interested that something which still appears to be worrying you is what Malcolm Fletcher said in court and from which you seem to conclude -and would like us to believe- that his ONLY experience with firearms MAY stem from "a small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy". However, what he actually said was that his relevant experience INCLUDED...........which suggests to me that he'd had an interest in firearms which started in childhood.
I'm not going to begin to suggest what prompted one expert to be restrained in their assertions whilst another was so confident, but I can point out several variables. The skin covering a skull is tight. I imagine a firearm pressed, and fired, anywhere against it, the nozzle being unlikely to move, would leave very definite/measurable marks on skin or equally discernable marks where hair has been. Skin around the neck and throat is looser, the victim has time to move, their movements possibly blurring any definite marks, making it difficult to make finite claims on the use of a silencer. For others, we need to know what was the expert's mindset. If they're of the school that believes, and holds onto, one and one ALWAYS makes two, they will be firm and confident. If they believe there's a margin for error, their claims are likely to be less forceful. At the end of the day, it's down to a jury to come to a decision on what they've heard.
Holly Goodhead:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0003w40/the-murder-of-jill-dando
@ 21 mins in the lead detective on the Jill Dando case, Chief Sup Hamish Campbell, talks about the fact a silencer wasn't used based on pathological evidence and the markings on the bullet.
@ 48 mins in a forensic scientist, Angela Shaw, who specialises in gunshot residue, talks about particles. In JB's case we have no particles!
https://www.csofs.org/Angela-Shaw
Holly Goodhead:
--- Quote from: APRIL on April 08, 2019, 01:49:03 PM ---
I'm interested that something which still appears to be worrying you is what Malcolm Fletcher said in court and from which you seem to conclude -and would like us to believe- that his ONLY experience with firearms MAY stem from "a small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy". However, what he actually said was that his relevant experience INCLUDED...........which suggests to me that he'd had an interest in firearms which started in childhood.
--- End quote ---
I have posted MF's intro to the court numerous times so anyone can make of it what they will - attached below. If you or a loved one were due to have some surgery and the surgeon said I work in the heart department and have done so for the past 13 years. If you then asked what experience he/she had prior to this and they said a small amount of experience of 'Operation' (the game) as a child how reassured would you be you were in safe hands?
--- Quote from: APRIL on April 08, 2019, 01:49:03 PM ---I'm not going to begin to suggest what prompted one expert to be restrained in their assertions whilst another was so confident, but I can point out several variables. The skin covering a skull is tight. I imagine a firearm pressed, and fired, anywhere against it, the nozzle being unlikely to move, would leave very definite/measurable marks on skin or equally discernable marks where hair has been. Skin around the neck and throat is looser, the victim has time to move, their movements possibly blurring any definite marks, making it difficult to make finite claims on the use of a silencer. For others, we need to know what was the expert's mindset. If they're of the school that believes, and holds onto, one and one ALWAYS makes two, they will be firm and confident. If they believe there's a margin for error, their claims are likely to be less forceful. At the end of the day, it's down to a jury to come to a decision on what they've heard.
--- End quote ---
Yes there's the pathology of the wounds but there's also the markings on the bullets. In the case of WHF either 25 or 26 bullets were fired. Many fragmented but some were whole or virtually whole and yet according to Malcolm Fletcher he was unable to discern whether or not a silencer was used? Has anyone ever carried out any independent tests in an attempt to check MF's findings and see if it is possible to determine whether or not a silencer was used?
APRIL:
--- Quote from: Holly Goodhead on April 08, 2019, 02:30:39 PM ---
I have posted MF's intro to the court numerous times so anyone can make of it what they will - attached below. If you or a loved one were due to have some surgery and the surgeon said I work in the heart department and have done so for the past 13 years. If you then asked what experience he/she had prior to this and they said a small amount of experience of 'Operation' (the game) as a child how reassured would you be you were in safe hands?
Yes there's the pathology of the wounds but there's also the markings on the bullets. In the case of WHF either 25 or 26 bullets were fired. Many fragmented but some were whole or virtually whole and yet according to Malcolm Fletcher he was unable to discern whether or not a silencer was used? Has anyone ever carried out any independent tests in an attempt to check MF's findings and see if it is possible to determine whether or not a silencer was used?
--- End quote ---
Well naturally, should I have believed the surgeon's only prior experience had been that which you describe, I would, undoubtedly, have had grave concerns. However, whilst I feel I'd be unlikely to challenge an expert, I do accept that some can slip through nets, as in a recent case of an NHS 'psychiatrist' in this area who'd been treating patients for years when it was discovered she had no psychiatric qualifications -one assumes she got away with it -albeit it's arguable that the potential for damage may be greater- because damage done to an already damaged mind shows rather less than damage done to an already damaged body? I don't believe she was struck off, simply returned to what her medical qualifications allowed. I think that in most circumstances there may be found a margin for error.
In answer to your question regarding independent tests being carried out to test MF's findings. HAD such been carried out and discrepancies found, we'd surely be straying into the realms of (even more) conspiracy theories -involving high finance?- if it's being suggested that the results were hidden? Surely there must be some forensic scientists/firearms specialists out there who are more concerned about the integrity of their work, than financial reward?
There's an interesting programme presently being aired in which living relatives of the previously convicted -and hanged- challenge the courts decision. The evidence accrued by two barristers is then heard by a, now retired, High Court judge. Thus far, of those I've watched, he's only found one conviction unsafe.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version