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?
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.