The frown was because he'd realised his plan had been rumbled... and grin appeared when the cameraman shouted - "SAY CHEESE!"
Cue Holly - "You can't tell anything from a person's expression!"
The frown was because he'd realised his plan had been rumbled... and grin appeared when the cameraman shouted - "SAY CHEESE!"
Cue Holly - "You can't tell anything from a person's expression!"
I pinched the following short video clip from the other place as the event is something which has always intrigued me.
Jeremy Bamber had just left court and had up until this point maintained his composure for the sake of the cameras. An ITN cameraman continued to film however and caught these last few seconds through the side windows of the prison transit.
(http://i.giflike.com/uL2AI3N.gif)
It clearly was a sneer but why then?
Was this for a split second, the real Jeremy?
That's not strictly true, if it was we wouldn't have body language experts, but I don't think it's possible to determine the underlying emotions without understanding the circumstances/stimuli. In the case of the JB clip above he was actually smiling at his friends and supporters who stood outside court to show their support:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2011/jan/30/jeremy-bamber-new-evidence-video (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2011/jan/30/jeremy-bamber-new-evidence-video)
@ 11.20 in
I'm sure we can all picture images of notorious criminals driven in and out of court in secure vehicles with a baying public and a handful breaking police barriers to bang on the vehicle. Where was the baying crowd when JB appeared at court?
I thought lessons might have been learned after Christopher Jefferies/Joanna Yeates but sadly not 8(8-))
I can appreciate others not sharing my views on JB's case based on the main aspects eg phone calls, JM's testimony, silencer etc, etc but an attempt to draw something meaningful from the above is imo nothing other than a modern day witch hunt and the sort of low level debate I have come to expect from the Blue Forum.
I suspect many would like to put me on witches chair over my support for JB 8)><(
PS Myster is it poss to add times to non YouTube links?
His eyes followed the video camera, not his friends' faces (if he had any by that time).
I noticed in the Guardian video that the moderator on a blue background is not the one with the blood, scratches and embedded paint which was analyzed. Probably one handed in later by the relatives.
I don't know any way of adding times to other video types, but some geeky McCannic might.
Put a selfie up and if we see you've got a stubbly chin and warty nose, then you're definitely for the ducking stool.
Ugh. Not a shred of grief for his dead family, or incredulity at being arrested for a crime he didn't commit. The arrogant, fish-faced git.
I wonder how he's getting on playing hunt-the-carbolic with Mick Philpott? 8)-)))
Golly! You guys attach weight to this crap? Oh dear.
Naahh, it's just a bit of tongue-in-cheek entertainment to pass time while we're all completely bambered... but I still don't trust shifty-looking chancers whose eyebrows meet in the middle.
I was expecting earth-shattering evidence from these two recent books, but all we got was a regurgitation of material from previous authors and the net, and a questionable lag's letter fantasizing about puppet-master Bamber standing behind Sheila, pulling her strings, directing the shots, and reloading the magazine.
Naahh, it's just a bit of tongue-in-cheek entertainment to pass time while we're all completely bambered... but I still don't trust shifty-looking chancers whose eyebrows meet in the middle.
I was expecting earth-shattering evidence from these two recent books, but all we got was a regurgitation of material from previous authors and the net, and a questionable lag's letter fantasizing about puppet-master Bamber standing behind Sheila, pulling her strings, directing the shots, and reloading the magazine.
As I've said previously I have reason to believe another book is in the making with an altogether different edge! Nothing concrete 8(0(* . Author not H G Wells.
I pinched the following short video clip from the other place as the event is something which has always intrigued me.
Jeremy Bamber had just left court and had up until this point maintained his composure for the sake of the cameras. An ITN cameraman continued to film however and caught these last few seconds through the side windows of the prison transit.
(http://i.giflike.com/uL2AI3N.gif)
It clearly was a sneer but why then?
Was this for a split second, the real Jeremy?
That's incorrect. This was taken when he was re arrested once he returned from holiday September 29th 1985.
John's right - he was leaving court after a short appearance. ITN news footage, see beginning (entering) and end (leaving)...
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/1985/09/30/AS300985018/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1 (http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/1985/09/30/AS300985018/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1)
(http://i.imgur.com/BT4hLg6.jpg?1)
29 September 1985 – Jeremy Bamber was re-arrested on his return to England after two weeks on holiday in France and charged with five counts of murder. The picture was taken as he left court after being remanded in custody.
(http://i.imgur.com/BT4hLg6.jpg?1)
29 September 1985 – Jeremy Bamber was re-arrested on his return to England after two weeks on holiday in France and charged with five counts of murder. The picture was taken as he left court after being remanded in custody.
That's not a look an innocent person would have when charged with multiple murder,surely....looks like he's posing for some pre raphaelite painting wtf
That's not a look an innocent person would have when charged with multiple murder,surely
And what is an innocent person charged with multiple murder supposed to look like? There is no benchmark or standard to this and it will largely depend on the persons personality and how familiar they are with the legal system.
You could interpret this photograph as an innocent man ignorant of the possibility that innocent people get found guilty, so treats the situation like a Joke.
There was a time when I was younger I thought if your Innocent you will be found not guilty and the legal system was perfect. Had I been wrongly arrested and charged with multiple murder back then in that state of mind I would probably laugh
And what is an innocent person charged with multiple murder supposed to look like? There is no benchmark or standard to this and it will largely depend on the persons personality and how familiar they are with the legal system.
You could interpret this photograph as an innocent man ignorant of the possibility that innocent people get found guilty, so treats the situation like a Joke.
There was a time when I was younger I thought if your Innocent you will be found not guilty and the legal system was perfect. Had I been wrongly arrested and charged with multiple murder back then in that state of mind I would probably laugh
When you began the threat I misunderstood you when said court. I thought you where meaning court asif the trial in 1986
And what is an innocent person charged with multiple murder supposed to look like? There is no benchmark or standard to this and it will largely depend on the persons personality and how familiar they are with the legal system.
You could interpret this photograph as an innocent man ignorant of the possibility that innocent people get found guilty, so treats the situation like a Joke.
There was a time when I was younger I thought if your Innocent you will be found not guilty and the legal system was perfect. Had I been wrongly arrested and charged with multiple murder back then in that state of mind I would probably laugh
Well, a bit horrified sickened and scared at least? More so if accused of slaughtering your own family. And if he was so young and innocent even more so, and shitting hs pants too. Smiling would be my last choice.I agree with you body language/single photos can't be taken as evidence of anything, maybe he was on the wacky backy at the tme and very laid back, was just saying. I have not studied this case so know jack.But I know many posters here who have and who normally don't get thngs too wrong.
That's not a look an innocent person would have when charged with multiple murder,surely....looks like he's posing for some pre raphaelite painting wtf
Well david what can i say except for to observe that discussion about the case and conviction has gone on for decades...could be a sign of a NOT cut and dry case.....is there any case in history where someone professed their innocence for so long and was found guilty after all ? By irrefutBle evidence? iF there WAS irrefutable evidence here why is he protesting innocence still?
David, if you thnk he is innicent who do u thnk set him up?
He looks stunned in this pic:
Post trial/sentencing. Perhaps the enormity of it all finally hit home maybe sadly too late &%+((£
If he is innocent I don't think anyone maliciously set him up knowing he is innocent. The only plausible situation I would accept is that after Julie Mugford told the police they took her word for it and under the impression they made a huge mistake by dismantling evidence and closing the case they felt justified in manufactured evidence believing it would bring Justice.police f** up, or manipulating, what a surprise
It is well known that prisoners who deny their guilt and who have spent many years in prison often honestly believe in their own innocence. Jeremy has been incarcerated since 1985 and has spent much longer in prison than his original sentence of 25 years. Can you just imagine how that alone has affected his ability to make sound and reasoned judgements any more.
I think it is now time for Jeremy to undergo hypnosis. It may jog his memory as to exactly what happened that night!
I think it is now time for Jeremy to undergo hypnosis. It may jog his memory as to exactly what happened that night!
It is well known that prisoners who deny their guilt and who have spent many years in prison often honestly believe in their own innocence. Jeremy has been incarcerated since 1985 and has spent much longer in prison than his original sentence of 25 years. Can you just imagine how that alone has affected his ability to make sound and reasoned judgements any more.
Methinks there are too many skeletons in his cupboard that a hypnotist might reveal. 8(8-))
And if he can fiddle a polygraph test, then he'll be genning up on how to feign a hypnotic trance! %56&
I think it is now time for Jeremy to undergo hypnosis. It may jog his memory as to exactly what happened that night!
Hello Daisy 8((()*/
Hello Daisy 8((()*/
It is also well known that prisoners who deny their guilt are actually innocent and the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
Hello Holly. I am trying to find proof of innocence or guilt and thought hypnosis may help. It is going to be very difficult for Jeremy due to so much evidence being destroyed. Another thing concerns me. Jeremy claims to have climbed through the window to collect his passport during September. However CAL states in her book that during that entire week Jeremy was in London under police surveillance. Can she provide documents to back this up?
I think proof of innocence or guilt can be found by today's science and technology. What was available at the time of the investigation/JB's trial is radically different compared with now.
- Ballistics testing on rifle/ammo with silencer to determine whether 'draw-back' is possible.
- Analyse blood using conventional serology: antigens, enzymes and protein after subjecting to the same conditions as the 'flake' underwent: firing of rifle/hot gases and ambient temperature over 5 weeks
- Test whether females long polished finger nails are able to prepare rifle for fire and fire 25 rounds without causing damage to nails and polish.
- Test how many times novices need to observe an experienced handler prepare the weapon for fire before they are able to accomplish.
- Complete tests on the scratch marks found on the aga. As I understand it the CCRC rejected Peter Sutherst's evidence based on another expert (Andy Law off the top of my head) criticising his methods rather than the conclusion.
- Review of SoC using crime scene photos enhanced by modern technology eg location of casings to determine who was shot where exactly.
- Review of pathological evidence with particular emphasis on the wounds NB sustained upstairs to determine whether or not he was capable of entering into a violent struggle downstairs.
- Review of June and SC's psychiatric histories based on experts using modern psychiatry/psychology and neuroscience.
- Test bullets used and compare any chemical deposits left on hands; it appears bullets tested for trial compared with SC's hand swabs were different from the actual bullets used.
Only the above can assist JB. He is not entitled to legal aid and I see no evidence of JB or his campaign team fund raising. IMO poring over case docs is not the way forward. If there's anything incriminating for the prosecution it will surely be long gone ie destroyed not held under PII? Paperwork that gives the appearance of assisting the defence eg call from NB to EP will simply be written off by CCRC.
Can you think of any tests?
Much of what we discuss on the forums and is presented in the media is irrelevant. Only new evidence that is measurable by established branches of science can assist JB now.
I'll come back to you later re the other points.
I am sure Jeremy has gone through every scenario with a fine tooth comb. If I trawl through the many documents I have I could probably find answers to many of your questions. You are obviously intelligent and have a real interest in the case. Have you thought of joining the campaign team? They are going nowhere at the moment and think they have lost momentum. You may be looking too deeply though. These murders were carefully planned and the shots were on target. I cannot believe Sheila was capable with or without medication. As I know Jeremy and have spent many hours with him I don't want to believe he could be capable but it is becoming increasingly likely that he carried out this terrible act.
I don't know which woman of the campaign team is narrating that god awful video... but her voice is full of sarcastic venomous spite!
(http://i.imgur.com/K1Du4XL.gif)
It's enough to turn anyone off, whether sympathetic to his case or not!!! %56&
[/quote
I seem to remember Jeremy saying they use an actor and actress for the videos.
Holly what about the claim in CAL's book? If she is correct then Jeremy lied and what else has he lied about?
I don't know which woman of the campaign team is narrating that god awful video... but her voice is full of sarcastic venomous spite!
(http://i.imgur.com/K1Du4XL.gif)
It's enough to turn anyone off, whether sympathetic to his case or not!!! %56&
[/quote
I seem to remember Jeremy saying they use an actor and actress for the videos.
Hmmm Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction springs to mind. The narrator sounds barking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecWhXP2jM28
You need to meet him Holly. It is easy to form an opinion without ever knowing the man. It is only by communicating closely with him that you can get a real feel for the case. Why do you think so many of his long term close friends have walked away from him? He has told lie after lie and in the end one loses trust in him. Sad to say but Jeremy has no hope of ever being released. I think with your enquiring mind and speaking to him you may change your opinion.
Holly what about the claim in CAL's book? If she is correct then Jeremy lied and what else has he lied about?
Why does it keep attaching my reply as part of the previous persons post? Help me out John!
If you haven't yet worked it out, Daisy... I think you deleted the "]" after the second "/quote" by mistake.
Daisy I've read the excerpt in CAL's book re JB entering WHF via a window post tragedy. P334/5. As far as I can see it's a repeat of what I posted from the CoA doc. It seems JB gave the incorrect dates but I don't see the advantage to him in doing this. Think he was genuinely mistaken.
Jeremy is very precise about every other date so why would he be mistaken? You are doing what so many of his friends have done.....made excuses for him. We have seen the light and hope you do one day. I don't mean this unkindly.
#54 looks like a wish-list you wish Daisy would finance, but I think she's seen the light after having her fingers burnt time and time again.
Thing is... when are you going to U-turn? &%+((£
(Note to self: I must stop riddling my sentences with batty cliches).(http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/images/smilies/halloween-icons.gif)
I made the offer to JB to fund some tests. No response. I know he received the email too.
None of the tests I have suggested involve expensive materials so costs are in the main professional fees. I doubt many charge more than £350 per hour. A reasonable level of funding could wrap the case up one way or the other fairly swiftly. I can't see any evidence of fund raising on the 'official' site. Therefore the saga is ongoing 8)><( The idea there's some golden nugget in the case docs, whether released or held under pii, capable of getting past CCRC, let alone the CoA, is imo pie in the sky.
Without funding and further tests JB can expect many more Xmases on mushy sprouts and lovingly stroking many lathered up pussy soaps on rope 8)><( 8)><(
I don't believe any tests will do any good at this stage Holly.
We shall see...
Unless there are further breakthroughs in DNA analyses of course.
I dont believe DNA testing could be used for or against JB due to the fact it hadn't even been envisaged in 85/86 and therefore exhibits were not protected against contamination.
Imo the tests I have suggested have plenty of mileage.
This forum asserts (along with the prosecution at trial) SC could not have loaded the gun without damaging her long manicured and polished nails. So lets bring together a dozen or so females with long manicured and polished nails and ask them to load the mag twice and fire the rifle 25 times each and lets see what impact this has on their nails and polish if indeed any. This in itself is clearly nowhere near enough to overturn JB's conviction but it's a point that is currently based on fiction not fact.
I've got a better idea, which needs only one healthy but desperate participant. Grow your nails to a suitable length, then make a return trip to your beloved gunsmith and ask if you can let one off in their back room (an Anschutz, I mean). Video your beautifully manicured and painted fingernails before, during and after loading the magazine twice, then upload it to Youtube for us to see how many you broke.
For more authenticity and extra titillation, I'd prefer it if you wore a rig-out similar to Farm Girl's. 8((()*/
As long as the dozen or so females have the same mental, medication and coordination problems as Sheila did, Holl.
I dont believe DNA testing could be used for or against JB due to the fact it hadn't even been envisaged in 85/86 and therefore exhibits were not protected against contamination.If they pass that test, put them in a ring with a 6'4" man and see how they fair.
Imo the tests I have suggested have plenty of mileage.
This forum asserts (along with the prosecution at trial) SC could not have loaded the gun without damaging her long manicured and polished nails. So lets bring together a dozen or so females with long manicured and polished nails and ask them to load the mag twice and fire the rifle 25 times each and lets see what impact this has on their nails and polish if indeed any. This in itself is clearly nowhere near enough to overturn JB's conviction but it's a point that is currently based on fiction not fact.
Had Sheila carried out the murders she would have been highly emotional due to her state of mind. She would have fired in a chaotic way. These were carefully planned executions carried out by someone without emotion and all shots were on target. All other theories re painted nails, adoption and June's depression are irrelevant.
I dont believe DNA testing could be used for or against JB due to the fact it hadn't even been envisaged in 85/86 and therefore exhibits were not protected against contamination.
Imo the tests I have suggested have plenty of mileage.
This forum asserts (along with the prosecution at trial) SC could not have loaded the gun without damaging her long manicured and polished nails. So lets bring together a dozen or so females with long manicured and polished nails and ask them to load the mag twice and fire the rifle 25 times each and lets see what impact this has on their nails and polish if indeed any. This in itself is clearly nowhere near enough to overturn JB's conviction but it's a point that is currently based on fiction not fact.
Had Sheila carried out the murders she would have been highly emotional due to her state of mind. She would have fired in a chaotic way. These were carefully planned executions carried out by someone without emotion and all shots were on target. All other theories re painted nails, adoption and June's depression are irrelevant.
If they pass that test, put them in a ring with a 6'4" man and see how they fair.
It's not just the nails, it's everything else which goes along with firing so many shots in such a short space of time. No GSR on Sheila or her clothing, few fingerprints on the rifle and none on the magazine or on any of the empty casings etc etc...
There just is no forensic evidence which connects Sheila with the firing of that rifle and that is where the entire defence argument falls down.
I've got a better idea, which needs only one healthy but desperate participant. Grow your nails to a suitable length, then make a return trip to your beloved gunsmith and ask if you can let one off in their back room (an Anschutz, I mean). Video your beautifully manicured and painted fingernails before, during and after loading the magazine twice, then upload it to Youtube for us to see how many you broke.
For more authenticity and extra titillation, I'd prefer it if you wore a rig-out similar to Farm Girl's. 8((()*/
I agree the nails are a minor point but nevertheless it did form part of the prosecution case at trial. Whether the defence attempted to counter this I've no idea but there's no evidence of any tests carried out. So what we seem to have is a bunch of middle-aged males asserting if a female loaded the magazine twice, prepared the rifle for fire and fired 25 shots it would cause damage to her nails. Let's see the evidence?
The absence of GSR doesn't indicate innocence:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6629.msg272805#msg272805
Fingerprints are notoriously difficult to lift from many surfaces firearms being one such surface due to texture and gun oil. Hence only one fingerprint from JB and SC:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6547.msg268158#msg268158
No fingerprints found on silencer either despite being handled by relatives without gloves.
It might not be conclusive but it sure as hell points to her non culpability.
Modern forensics shows that a lack of GSR means diddly-squat and lack of fingerprints on firearms is the norm. How can this point to SC's non culpability?
The converse is what you have to prove and as it stands there is no evidence Sheila handled the rifle. And for its worth it is most unlikely that situation will ever change despite forensic advances.
It depends what the objective is eg proving a point on a forum between posters or points that will assist JB at any future appeal. GSR and fingerprints didn't even form part of the prosecution case at trial. Bizarrely SC's intact nails and lack of lead on her hands did form part of the prosecution case at trial. Lack of lead can almost certainly be accounted for by the actual bullets used which, were designed specifically to minimise any residues, were not the same as those used by scientists in tests and subsequently presented to the jury.
There will never be another appeal Holly, Jeremy Bamber's fate was sealed by his own actions.
John, I rather suspect that if JB's conviction is quashed by CoA, as I believe it will be, you will still continue to believe him guilty as charged at his 1986 trial.
Sorry Holly but Jeremy has had 30 years and many lawyers, law students and friends working for him and he is still no nearer having another appeal. If there was any evidence to prove his innocence then a lawyer would have found it. It would also significantly enhance his/her career. Unfortunately he is a lost cause and as each year goes by there is less and less interest in him. Very sad but that is the truth.
The truth's already out, it has been for quite a long time... and it's patently obvious that he doesn't have any close family support because he murdered them all.
I think it's time for your weary annual prediction which is always hopelessly innacurate and will never be fulfilled. You ready and waiting, sika?
Modern forensics shows that a lack of GSR means diddly-squat and lack of fingerprints on firearms is the norm. How can this point to SC's non culpability?
"The wheels of justice turn slowly but grind exceedingly fine."
Meanwhile CiN benefits from a little donation from little ol me 8((()*/
John, I rather suspect that if JB's conviction is quashed by CoA, as I believe it will be, you will still continue to believe him guilty as charged at his 1986 trial.
Blimey Holl, it's been 30 years and sod-all to show for it....if they turn much slower and grind much finer, he'll be having his sprouts intravenously.
@)(++(*
Positive Mental Attitude ?>)()<
Modern forensics shows that a lack of GSR means diddly-squat and lack of fingerprints on firearms is the norm. How can this point to SC's non culpability?
Yes lack of GSR didn't form part of the prosecution case at trial. Perhaps it was known then that a lack of GSR doesn't indicate innocence?
"A rifle or shotgun may not deposit GSR on hands, but more likely in the crook of the support arm". (Dalby et al, 2010)
*&*%£
"A rapid loss in numbers of GSR particles occurs from 1 to 3 hours post firearm discharge, though maximum recovery times of 1 to 48 hours have been reported". (Dalby et al, 2010)
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNGSR.html
The absence of GSR does not indicate innocence.
"There are factors that contribute to particulate loss that must also be taken into consideration. For instance, suppose a firearm is discharged in a static environment (no wind or airflow). Hand samples are then collected immediately after the discharge on clean, dry hands. It would not be unusual to detect hundreds to thousands of GSR particles on these samples. Alternately, suppose a firearm was discharged outside during a windy day with inclement weather. Samples are collected several hours after the discharge, giving the subjects ample time to move, shake off, wipe, or wash their hands. In this instance, it might not be possible to find any GSR particles on the samples. This absence of gunshot residue is not an indication that the subject is innocent of discharging a firearm. All factors concerning particulate loss must be taken into account when determining if results are consistent with the aspects of a specific scenario".
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2012/09/science-behind-gsr-separating-fact-fiction
So based on the above it appears if a rifle or shotgun is fired GSR is more likely to be deposited in the crook of the arm and in any event a rapid loss of particles occurs 1 to 3 hours post firearm discharge. Plus environmental conditions such as airflow and movement might remove GSR particles.
The situation at WHF:
- Rifle
- SC was found in the main bedroom near an open window which created some airflow
- DI Cook moved SC's hand
- hand swabs were not taken until post mortem which was afternoon of 7th Aug so assuming SC died at circa 3.30am some 10 hours later at least after rifle last discharged
- bags used at SoC to secure SC's hands for forensic evidence were not examined so they may have yielded vital evidence
Yes it did. You are living in lala land again. One of the arguments made to the jury was the lack of soot and GSR on her hands and clothing proved she didn't fire a weapon.
Generalizations like this are totally worthless. There are many different types of shotguns and rifles and each type are very different from one another.
This is a 22LR semi-auto that functions exactly like the murder weapon:
(http://s4.postimg.org/c90tup7i5/gsrplume.jpg)
oops it send GSR over the shooting hand not just the crook. This is normal operation mind you not discussing how it would be if one hugged the weapon and fired like you want to pretend she did which would not only deposit GSR on her but also soot on her gown.
But of course the gun had the moderator attached as well though you pretend it didn't...
The source you posted is referring to GSR leaving the hands of someone ALIVE moving around touching thing for 1-3 hours not dead bodies. Clothing and hair take FAR longer to have GSR leave and transfer elsewhere. Her clothing had no GSR either.
She was dead not moving around.
Police put bags over her hands to prevent any loss of GSR while they moved her body. Just moving her arm would not result in all GSR leaving her hands and getting on the cop who touched her.
Your claim they didn't examine the bags is an out and out lie. It doesn't matter if they examined her 48 hours after the bags were placed on her hands the GSR had no way to leave it doesn't breakdown and dissipate it is removed by transfer.
The airflow from the slightly open window would not have done squat to her it wasn't near her body there used to be a window near her body but it was sealed up.
All your claims are complete nonsense from start to finish.
Can you provide any trial testimony which refers to soot and GSR. The prosecution case against JB is set out at point 151 in the CoA doc no mention of soot or GSR:
151. The prosecution relied upon the following areas of evidence:
e) Hand swabs from her body did not reveal the levels of lead to be expected in somebody who must have re-loaded the magazine of the gun on at least two occasions; and
f) Her clothing was relatively clean and she was not injured in the way that might be expected of somebody involved in a struggle. Her long fingernails were still intact and undamaged.
Rifle being fired which illustrates GSR
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5594.msg268494#msg268494
The source I quoted in my post above makes the following points:
- GSR particles start to disappear after discharge
- GSR particles are more likely to land in the crook of the arm when a rifle or shotgun is fired unlike a handgun
- Any movement of the person can cause a loss of GSR particles
- Environmental factors such as airflow can cause a loss of GSR particles
All the above factors were relevant to the situation at WHF.
SC's hands were not swabbed at SoC. They were swabbed many hours later after DI Cook had moved her hand for DC Bird to photograph and after DC Hammersely had moved her hands to place them in bags to preserve any forensic evidence. SC was then placed in a body bag and transported to the lab for post-mortem. Some considerable movement took place. At post-mortem DC Hammersley swabbed SC's hands. The bags secured to SC's hands were not sent for foresnic analysis as per DC Hammersely's cross-examination by Geoffrey Rivlin QC:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=165.0;attach=229
So your claim that I lied about the bags not being sent to the lab for forensic analysis is wrong.
The Appeal decision didn't go into exacting detail of all the trial testimony. The background SUMMARY is meant to provide a general background sufficient to make the appeal understandable.
E and F were the summaries that related to the issues. They also noted how no GSR was found on the clothing and hands in another section.
22LR is a rimfire cartridge not centerfire. The primer is mainly lead. It is mainly lead that would be searched for in searching for GSR and oil/soot stains on clothing. There would also be lead and soot stains looked for on the shooting hand as well as well as loading stains on the hand.
The prosecution expert asserted:
Gown
No soot or oil as would be expected
No GSR
Hands
No visible lead loading stains
No elevated lead levels found which would be present if having loaded the gun
No GSR which is very closely related to the finding of no elevated lead levels.
Here is where Fletcher discussed the oil/sooting that would be on the clothing:
(http://s4.postimg.org/88nmvpi5p/fletchersootgown.jpg)
(http://s14.postimg.org/635vzz0cx/fletchertestimonydischarges.jpg)
The hands have been discussed so many times you should know it by heart.
That you don't know so many basic things about this case is very telling. It underscores you made up your mind about the case without bothering to learn about the facts and evidence but you demonstrate that always.
That shows a rifle being fired it doesn't show the GSR plume. A special camera must be used to capture the GSR plume it is invisible to the naked eye. The image I posted is from a book where a special camera was used to capture the plume of a wide variety of different weapons. While I go to materials that discuss the exact issue at bar you always go to sources of a general nature that fail to deal with the exact issue at hand and just make a giant leap about how there is no GSR plume because it wasn't captured in a video that didn't use the type of camera necessary because it was not videoed for that purpose. It is jsut an ordinary yourube video made by a shooter.
The claim the particles start to vanish is nonsense. They are heavy metals that don't simple break down rapidly.
They leave by transfer. The airflow from the slightly open window would be minimal and would travel to the door not the other side of the bed where Sheila's body was. Her body was on the floor you want to suggest air would flow in the window then down to the floor around the bed? It owuld go out the door into the hall and not low by the floor...
The police moving her arm so they could photo the blood was minimal movement that would not wash away all lead and soot. It takes a very long time and a lot of effort to get it off clothing which also had none. They moved her ARM not hand slightly and they then covered her hands with bags to prevent any loss while she was being moved.
Claiming the GSR left while her body was lying there is sheer fantasy.
You posted a GENERALITY about rifles and shotguns that doesn't take into account specific types that generality is wrong for many. I posted a source that TESTED a weapon that functions exactly like the murder weapon. It was selected by the author to illustrate the typical characteristics of a GSR plume from a 22LR semi-auto with an ejection port int he same location as the murder weapon.
Your BS totally fell apart under scrutiny.
- GSR is more likely to fall in the crook of the arm when a rifle or shotgun is discharged
- GSR particles start to disappear after discharge
- SC's body was found near an open window and airflow might have exacerbated the disappearance of the particles
- SC's body was moved in the following ways prior to any analysis:
- DC Bird moved SC's hand to photograph
- DC Hammersley placed SC's hands in plastic bags to secure any forensice evidence
- SC was placed in a body bag and moved from the main bedroom at WHF to the path lab
At the path lab:
- DC Hammersley swabbed SC's hands and the plastic bags were not forensically analysed. The swabs were only tested for lead deposits in connection with handling of the bullets not GSR.
- SC's nightie was foresnically analysed but obviously any forensic evidence needed capturing at the SoC not when the nightie had been in a body bag and on a journey from the main bedroom at WHF to the path lab. Whether SC shot herself twice or JB murdered her with two shots the rifle would have been in approximately the same position for both with the rifle then remaining on her body so the fact there was no GSR on her nightie doesn't advance anything.