UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: Holly Goodhead on February 27, 2017, 11:42:26 PM
-
Some have made much of SC's palms and fingers being bloodstained eg suggesting they graced the pages of the bible. Is there any evidence for this?
Dr Vanezis' trial testimony confirms SC's palms and fingers were not bloodstained.
Of course SC may have handled the bible with bloodied palms/fingers before washing her hands?
-
Some have made much of SC's palms and fingers being bloodstained eg suggesting they graced the pages of the bible. Is there any evidence for this?
Dr Vanezis' trial testimony confirms SC's palms and fingers were not bloodstained.
Of course SC may have handled the bible with bloodied palms/fingers before washing her hands?
1) If she handled the Bible with bloody fingers and hands then the outside of the Bible would have had blood not simply the inside.
2) why would she handle the Bible, put it down and then go wash her hands before being killed?
3) The Bible was sitting in a pool of blood that formed after she died, it was placed in that pool after it formed so she can't have been the one who put it where it was found.
4) The bible was tested for fingerprints, if there had been finger/palm prints in blood the people doing the fingerprint testing would have recognized it and would have paid extra attention to such areas. Prints in blood are the ultimate in the fingerprint world.
-
1) If she handled the Bible with bloody fingers and hands then the outside of the Bible would have had blood not simply the inside.
2) why would she handle the Bible, put it down and then go wash her hands before being killed?
3) The Bible was sitting in a pool of blood that formed after she died, it was placed in that pool after it formed so she can't have been the one who put it where it was found.
4) The bible was tested for fingerprints, if there had been finger/palm prints in blood the people doing the fingerprint testing would have recognized it and would have paid extra attention to such areas. Prints in blood are the ultimate in the fingerprint world.
Just to be clear I don't believe SC touched the bible on the night of 6th/7th Aug.
1. I guess it would depend how she held it.
2. According to Prof Knight those that commit murder and then take their own life can perform actions which seem unfathomable to most. Eg murder, washing milk bottles, suicide.
3. The page of the bible with the heaviest blood stain was furtherest away from SC's body. I can't take the credit for recognising this fact; the credit must go to Caroline for her research in PH's book.
4. You would hope so yes but afaik the blood on the bible wasn't tested or if it was the results appear to be unknown so I am somewhat sceptical about the care taken over the fingerprinting.
-
Just to be clear I don't believe SC touched the bible on the night of 6th/7th Aug.
1. I guess it would depend how she held it.
The Bible got blood on it and then closed. This created a mirror image of the blood stains on both sides. It was reopened to that same page and then placed upside down.
Let's pretend it was sitting open on it's back on the ground as small amounts of blood dripped on it. It was then kicked closed. It was subsequently reopened to the same page it had been opened to before it was closed. That requires someone to have reopened it with hands not just using feet. It's not possible to reopen it without touching the cover. Thus if the person who reopened it had blood on the inside of his/her hands then blood would have gotten on the cover.
2. According to Prof Knight those that commit murder and then take their own life can perform actions which seem unfathomable to most. Eg murder, washing milk bottles, suicide.
He was talking about extremely rare ritualistic killings which would hold no relevance to this case. There was no ritualistic killing it supposedly was a woman who had a schizophrenic episode.
The only way to argue she would have washed herself would be if she intended to try to get away with the murders so was trying to get rid of the evidence. That is totally different from murder suicide though. The only examples of that happening with murder suicide is where the person who committed the murders cleaned up and planned to try to pretend they were not involved in the murders but they subsequently realized their efforts failed and they were implicated anyway and they chose to kill themselves rather than be taken into custody. That is vastly different from people who decide they are going to take their own life but determined to take others with them first which is straight up murder suicide. People who plan to end their own life kill their dependents first because that makes killing themselves easier. It does so because:
1) knowing their dependents will still need to be cared after and supported after they are dead for provides a reason for them to live
2) they know that it will be hard on their dependents emotionally to deal with the suicide
3) it forces their hand because a) it makes them feel even more miserable to have killed and they will go to jail if they don't kill themselves so it forces their hand in a way. Sometimes they still chicken out and don't follow through though it is not foolproof at forcing them.
In contrast some people don't plan to kill themselves. They plan to kill their dependents to be free of responsibility so they can start over living a carefree life. Sometimes their plans catch up with them and they commit suicide later to avoid facing justice.
One of the biggest problems with Sheila killing her parents is that they were not dependents. If anything she was their dependent. If she had some delusion that they and her kids were holding her back that would be a motive to kill them all. For example if she had some delusion that she could be a supermodel if they were not holding her back. This is characteristic of murder not murder-suicide- the suicide would not fit in.
3. The page of the bible with the heaviest blood stain was furtherest away from SC's body. I can't take the credit for recognising this fact; the credit must go to Caroline for her research in PH's book.
The Bible was not lying flat like this:
(http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-book-upside-down-727982.jpg)
A page is folded over.
(https://s11.postimg.org/56t5mgw37/whfbiblefoldedover1.jpg)
(https://s16.postimg.org/sjmqjbjth/biblefolded.jpg)
Looking at the photos you see that it its the bottom page on the left side in the photo was sitting in the blood pool as well as a portion of the right side. Some of the right is up in the air so not touching.
When you flip the Bible over and sit it on its back to look at the pages the pages reverse. What was left in the photo is now right and what was right is left.
Here is a blood pool similar to sheilas, you have the trail leading to the pool and then the pool itself:
(https://s22.postimg.org/nmuizig7l/bloodpooling.jpg)
Pretend Sheila's body is to the right of it. If the Bible is placed upside down in it like in the images above the stain on the right side would be thinner and confined to a strip at the top while the stain on the right side will go further down the page. When flipped over that means the left side will be the page with it confined to very top while it will extend further on the right. There is no mystery.
4. You would hope so yes but afaik the blood on the bible wasn't tested or if it was the results appear to be unknown so I am somewhat sceptical about the care taken over the fingerprinting.
They fingerprinted the Bible and found some prints that were not in blood. If there were prints in blood they would have photographed them and attempted to identify those as well. Since they found no prints in the blood testing the blood would be meaningless. They didn't see any point in damaging the Bible to remove the blood since it was clearly sitting in the pool of Sheila's blood.
Let's pretend they ripped out the pages and tested the blood and found the mirror image stains were June's blood while the larger staining at the top was sheila's. What would such prove? All it would prove is that when June was walking around the bed dripping blood on the carpet that the Bible had been sitting on the floor opened and she thus dripped on it as well. Then subsequently someone closed the Bible and placed it in Sheila's blood pool. The only significant fact in that is that someone closed the bible then reopened it and placed it in her blood pool. The only reason that is even significant is because the blood pool formed after her death so she can't have been the one who put it there. Whose blood constituted the blood that created the mirror image is not significant only the fact a mirror image was created is. So there was no reason to remove the blood from the Bible to try to test it.
If the Bible had bloody prints they would have tested them to try to see if the prints belonged to Jeremy. Jeremy's prints in blood of a victim would be quite damning. It is unfathomable they fingerprinted it and found prints in blood yet decided not to record that they found such and not try to compare same to Jeremy's prints. Basically you need someone who is in tank for Jeremy examining the Bible for prints to not do such or to be the most incompetent moron imaginable. That is a whole different level of ineptitude than the ineptitude associated with the things we currently criticize the investigators for.
-
The bible in the crime scene photo is not open at the pages which are bloodstained (656-657). Look at the difference between that photo and the recent one using a new identical copy of the bible. The original bible is opened towards the end of the book, whereas (stained) pages 656-657 of the copy are in the middle of the book. Easily recognised by looking at the spine in both photos.
-
Do soc photos exist of any non-drip bloodstains to the carpet surrounding SC's body/the bible?
-
Do soc photos exist of any non-drip bloodstains to the carpet surrounding SC's body/the bible?
If they do, they're not available to thee and me... or you and I.
-
Do soc photos exist of any non-drip bloodstains to the carpet surrounding SC's body/the bible?
what do you mean by non-drip?
The pool of blood leaked from her neck to the carpet where it pooled technically that is dripped blood. Naturally leaking blood forms a different shape that drops falling from a body that is standing and dripping blood. You can see some of that blood in the photos of the Bible in place but the bulk you can't see the pooling that is under the Bible only that which is above it.
They either didn't remove the Bible and then take photos of the carpet or haven't released photos of the carpet with the Bible removed. They detailed removing the rifle and then taking photos but no mention of removing the Bible and taking photos which suggests they didn't.
-
The bible in the crime scene photo is not open at the pages which are bloodstained (656-657). Look at the difference between that photo and the recent one using a new identical copy of the bible. The original bible is opened towards the end of the book, whereas (stained) pages 656-657 of the copy are in the middle of the book. Easily recognised by looking at the spine in both photos.
They look exactly the same part of the book to me. The only difference is in yours the pages are flat while in that one the pages are folded over more.
-
They look exactly the same part of the book to me. The only difference is in yours the pages are flat while in that one the pages are folded over more.
Look closely at the publisher's logo at the base of the spine and where the pages are bound/joined to it - in the reconstruction photo, the pages where the book is open line up more or less central to the logo, whereas in the crime scene photo, the pages are open to the left of the logo... in other words, the bible was placed face down and open at later pages than the stained ones, 656-657.
Holly or anyone... do you see what I see?
-
Look closely at the publisher's logo at the base of the spine and where the pages are bound/joined to it - in the reconstruction photo, the pages where the book is open line up more or less central to the logo, whereas in the crime scene photo, the pages are open to the left of the logo... in other words, the bible was placed face down and open at later pages than the stained ones, 656-657.
Holly or anyone... do you see what I see?
Yes, Myster, with the aid of a magnifying glass -unless it's an optical illusion- I certainly, as far as it's possible to say, believe I see what you see. 8)--))
-
Look closely at the publisher's logo at the base of the spine and where the pages are bound/joined to it - in the reconstruction photo, the pages where the book is open line up more or less central to the logo, whereas in the crime scene photo, the pages are open to the left of the logo... in other words, the bible was placed face down and open at later pages than the stained ones, 656-657.
Holly or anyone... do you see what I see?
Yes I think I can see what you see! What do YOU think it means in the grand scheme of things?
-
Yes I think I can see what you see! What do YOU think it means in the grand scheme of things?
Either...
1). The police or doctor moved the book to examine Sheila's body/neck wounds more closely (when Ron Cook moved her arm, say) and it closed unintentionally causing the mirror image, after which they reopened it at any old page and replaced it for the cs photo to be taken.
2). Jeremy Bamber might have had a problem when placing it on Sheila's arm so that it stayed in the open position. If the stain was from the carpet, the book closed causing the mirror image, after which he opened it at the later pages and hoped the police didn't notice.
But I'm still of the opinion that it was a palm print, most likely June's, who after feeling her wounds, placed her right hand on it as she was getting out of bed. The book closed through disturbance of the bedclothes creating the mirror image, after which JB placed it on Sheila's arm at the stained pages.
(http://i.imgur.com/mxoQV4d.jpg?1)
-
Either...
1). The police or doctor moved the book to examine Sheila's body/neck wounds more closely (when Ron Cook moved her arm, say) and it closed unintentionally causing the mirror image, after which they reopened it at any old page and replaced it for the cs photo to be taken.
By the time police were inside the blood was dry. Moreover, the mirror image was from before the larger stains or they also would have created a mirror image on both sides.
-
what do you mean by non-drip?
The pool of blood leaked from her neck to the carpet where it pooled technically that is dripped blood. Naturally leaking blood forms a different shape that drops falling from a body that is standing and dripping blood. You can see some of that blood in the photos of the Bible in place but the bulk you can't see the pooling that is under the Bible only that which is above it.
They either didn't remove the Bible and then take photos of the carpet or haven't released photos of the carpet with the Bible removed. They detailed removing the rifle and then taking photos but no mention of removing the Bible and taking photos which suggests they didn't.
By non-drip I mean the image of a bloodstain which in some ways resembles a horseshoe above the bible - see attached. By dripped bloodstains I mean the stains which appear to originate from June's gsw's as she walked around the bed and represent small circular stains. To my eye/mind the horseshoe stain on the carpet doesn't appear to originate from SC based on the position she was found as per soc photos.
I would like to see an image of the entire horseshoe bloodstain that appears partly hidden by the bible. I would also like to know whose blood and how it came to be there. Along with confirmation whose blood stains the pages of the bible.
The above are all things we should know, not be guessing about 32 years on.
-
It seems there's quite a debate going on over at Blue re abrasions to SC's hands.
Anthony Arlidge at trial specifically asked Dr Vanezis about marks to SC's hands he said he didn't see any. Relevant trial transcript attached below.
Scipio argued that had SC been responsible she would have sustained damage to her hands not so according to Dr Vanezis. Now posters on Blue appear to be saying SC sustained damage to her hands indicative of being responsible. &%+((£
The idea that Dr Vanezis bent the truth for the prosecution I think is stretching it a bit. By his own admission in his written reports pre trial and during his trial testimony he readily admits the UK lacked experience with firearms. This is different from deliberately altering or withholding evidence.
-
The autopsy reports states SC was wearing two rings which upon removal leave indentations.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=666
-
The autopsy reports states SC was wearing two rings which upon removal leave indentations.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=666
and can also leave marks on adjacent fingers from rubbing/friction.
-
Is it possible one of the Blue posters can enlighten us here with the images re these marks to SC's hands? Thanks in anticipation.
Calling Adam, Caroline, David1819, JaneJ...
I'm bored!
-
Is it possible one of the Blue posters can enlighten us here with the images re these marks to SC's hands? Thanks in anticipation.
Is this the photo? If so, I don't see any scratches at all, but simply two dried up streams of her own blood which appear to have been partially rubbed off, either by the perp as he was staging the scene, or by one of the police, Ron Cook say, when her hand was moved to take photos of stains on her nightdress.
If they were scratches/gouges, Vanezis would definitely have noted them down as such.
-
Is this the photo? If so, I don't see any scratches at all, but simply two dried up streams of her own blood which appear to have been partially rubbed off, either by the perp as he was staging the scene, or by one of the police, Ron Cook say, when her hand was moved to take photos of stains on her nightdress.
If they were scratches/gouges, Vanezis would definitely have noted them down as such.
Thanks. Yes I think so as Roch has referred to a crescent shape. Bit of a damp squib then. I can't see any abrasions. Was this photo taken at soc or pm?
Yep, I agree and to suggest otherwise is imo the stuff of cranks and conspiracy theorists. He noted all sorts of fine detail about SC eg nicotine stains, abrasion to abdomen, stretch marks, menstruating with tampon inserted. The idea he would overlook, accidentally or deliberately, scatches/gouges just doesn't hold water imo.
-
Thanks. Yes I think so as Roch has referred to a crescent shape. Bit of a damp squib then. I can't see any abrasions. Was this photo taken at soc or pm?
Yep, I agree and to suggest otherwise is imo the stuff of cranks and conspiracy theorists. He noted all sorts of fine detail about SC eg nicotine stains, abrasion to abdomen, stretch marks, menstruating with tampon inserted. The idea he would overlook, accidentally or deliberately, scatches/gouges just doesn't hold water imo.
SoC photo.
I also think the two crescent shapes are remnants of blobs of blood which have been knocked off when the hand was moved, again either by perp or police.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUSiK6NmxNg
-
Is this the photo? If so, I don't see any scratches at all, but simply two dried up streams of her own blood which appear to have been partially rubbed off, either by the perp as he was staging the scene, or by one of the police, Ron Cook say, when her hand was moved to take photos of stains on her nightdress.
If they were scratches/gouges, Vanezis would definitely have noted them down as such.
Myster, is there any way that this image could be enhanced so we could see clearly the 28 different wounds and abrasions ?
I have to say I'm v. disappointed this is the magic carrot that all the fuss is about - we were promised Camberwell but, as per, just got Chantenay. It's been like this for 6 years now.....I'm seriously beginning to wonder if Jeremy will ever get a farm. 8(8-))
-
There has been a spate of burglaries in our village recently. (We don't have a local bobby anymore - not that they were any cop (!) when we did have one.) The burglars are targeting women on their own during the day (without dogs) and bursting into the house, taking whatever is to hand and demanding car keys. Every single one of these poor women (all young, fit and feisty) have been so frightened and shocked that they've let the horrible sods rampage around the house, rob them, then leave. Literally petrified with fear.
The thought that Sheila - young, medicated, disorientated and terrified, would have "fought like a wildcat" is extremely unlikely. Pulled by her wrist, with a gun in her face, I think the poor girl did exactly what she was made to do.
-
Another thing that's always confuzzled me.... why did Bamber pull over on his way to WHF, when his "dear old mum and dad's" lives were in peril, to put on a wooly pully? Why did he suddenly need another layer of clothing when his "nutter" sister had gone "crazy with a gun"? It was a clear, warm night. His dad had begged him to come quickly.
"Come quick. Your sister has gone crazy with a gun. But mind that you put your jumper on, I don't want you to catch your death, snowflake."
%56&
-
I'm not sure if this has ever been addressed, but if Bamber wanted to prove that a call had been made from WHF (by him, before he left) all he had to do was pull the little plug from the wall in his cottage. The call would still go through, but wouldn't ring out in his cottage. I did it loads of times. If I knew a dodgy boyf was going to call me, or I'd booked an alarm call but didn't want to wake the whole house, I'd just pull the little plug out. The call would still go through, but wouldn't ring out. Easy peesy.
-
Just more of the same BS from blue, if they scrape the backside off the barrel any more there will be no barrel left. @)(++(*
-
Just more of the same BS from blue, if they scrape the backside off the barrel any more there will be no barrel left. @)(++(*
Fundementally, Bamber is a psychopath. He gambled everything on one night, and nearly got away with it. He has a tiny band of supporters who wrestle with their own demons, and conveniently pretend that he didn't kill two small children. I can understand fruitloops like susan and clappedout, but ngb is a whole new ball game. Why would you want to help a creature who shot 2 small boys as they slept? Horrible.
-
Myster, is there any way that this image could be enhanced so we could see clearly the 28 different wounds and abrasions ?
I have to say I'm v. disappointed this is the magic carrot that all the fuss is about - we were promised Camberwell but, as per, just got Chantenay. It's been like this for 6 years now.....I'm seriously beginning to wonder if Jeremy will ever get a farm. 8(8-))
Not much, ma'am... it's a screenshot of a YouTube video of a CS photo, and even uploading it here could affect the quality and sharpness. But anyways, I don't think this is the one with 28 wounds (yeah, sure) that Private Investigator (LOL!!) Robertson has stashed away somewhere and won't reveal lest it should harm the campaign efforts (an even bigger LOL!!!).
Haven't you heard?... Farmer Jem has already got his heart's desire. Not just one, but dozens, kindly donated by his groupie fan club...
https://www.farmtoysonline.co.uk/farms-animals/farm-buildings/c107 (https://www.farmtoysonline.co.uk/farms-animals/farm-buildings/c107)
-
This whole idea that Dr Vanezis deliberately changed the outcome of the autopsy to suit DCI Ainsley/prosecution case against JB is imo complete nonsense. It's this sort of thing that harms JB's case.
Why on earth would Dr Vanezis put his professional reputation on the line for anyone let alone a mid-ranking police officer? I know I maintain the silencer 'evidence' was fabricated but this is far more doable as it's a small inanimate object handled by numerous bods in large organisations and capable of getting lost so to speak in the system. Not so with a deceased 28 year old woman in a path lab.
Roch you do realise that the following were present during PM:
DI Miller
DI Cook
DS Davidson
PC Wright (Coroners office)
DC Bird
DC Hammersley
All these officers would need to sign up to writing off these 28 injuries.
At least I just prattle on about the silencer 'evidence' being fabricated which even some in the guilty camp agree with. Whereas JB supporters want us to believe EP covered up so much: evidence of phone calls (NB to EP); evidence EP were in communication with SC inside farmhouse; evidence at PM altered to suit prosecution case. Absolute madness.
-
Fundementally, Bamber is a psychopath. He gambled everything on one night, and nearly got away with it. He has a tiny band of supporters who wrestle with their own demons, and conveniently pretend that he didn't kill two small children. I can understand fruitloops like susan and clappedout, but ngb is a whole new ball game. Why would you want to help a creature who shot 2 small boys as they slept? Horrible.
I was surprised to see ngb supporting Roch over the image.
-
Oh no now Harry has started up about the wet blood photo 8)><(
Harry how do you explain the fact SC was found presumed dead at circa 7.30am and certified dead at circa 8.30am. Police photographer DC Bird arrived at WHF at circa 9.30am and didn't photograph SC until circa 10.30am. 3 hours Harry, 3 hours?
As far as I'm concerned JB is innocent but I disagree with most supporters.
-
I assume police photographer DC Bird was responsible for all post mortem photos?
-
Hi All,
The video still isn't the picture that Roch and Bill posted. I have saved the actual pictures posted on blue and uploaded them here.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The first photo is the same as the one of the video screenshot I posted, but with better definition, that's all.
Vanezis was correct, no matter how many times the campaign team, Bill Robertson or Roch obfuscate the issue. They are dried up remains of two blood streams from Sheila Caffell's neck wounds, which have been partially brushed away; by the perp when staging her suicide, or by Ron Cook when moving her hand for PC Bird to photograph, or by the firearms officer to make safe the rifle. And as I said before, there also appear to have been two blobs of dried blood at the end of those streams which have been rubbed/knocked off at the same time, leaving crescent-shaped remnants.
The second picture isn't clear enough to be certain of exactly what it is - cut, graze or smear. But it seems they're up to the same trick that David Bain supporters tried on with the indents on Robin Bain's thumb resulting from loading bullets into the rifle magazine.
-
The first photo is the same as the one of the video screenshot I posted, but with better definition, that's all.
Vanezis was correct, no matter how many times the campaign team, Bill Robertson or Roch obfuscate the issue. They are dried up remains of two blood streams from Sheila Caffell's neck wounds, which have been partially brushed away; by the perp when staging her suicide, or by Ron Cook when moving her hand for PC Bird to photograph, or by the firearms officer to make safe the rifle. And as I said before, there also appear to have been two blobs of dried blood at the end of those streams which have been rubbed/knocked off at the same time, leaving crescent-shaped remnants.
The second picture isn't clear enough to be certain of exactly what it is - cut, graze or smear. But it seems they're up to the same trick that David Bain supporters tried on with the indents on Robin Bain's thumb resulting from loading bullets into the rifle magazine.
I believe it's the same CS photograph but wasn't taken from the still of the video. I agree they aren't cuts ot abrasions as I have seen nothing to prove otherwise - yet.
-
Hi All,
The video still isn't the picture that Roch and Bill posted. I have saved the actual pictures posted on blue and uploaded them here.
Thanks Caroline.
I think it's the first time I've heard the name DCI Smith. Do you know who the sender of this so-called report is and when it was sent?
To my eye these marks look like blood stains. And to my mind anyone suggesting Dr Vanezis would deliberately 'hide' 70 wounds on 3 victims makes Mike sound normal, sane and sober! Bearing in mind 6 police officers were present during autopsy so they would also have to be on it including Dr Craig and numerous officers who observed victims at SoC.
The rifle was manufactured by German company Anschutz with a century plus history of such. Are there any know cases of users damaging hands after discharging the rifle 25/26 times? Bearing in mind the rifle is designed to be fired multiple times in quick succession.
I doubt I will ever think about Roch again whilst sipping on a can of Carlsberg Special Brew listening to Barry White.
-
Ewwww! Barry White?!!! Ya need to get some proper music down yer lug'oles!
-
And you're right (for once) about the stains... they don't just look like, they ARE.
-
Thanks Caroline.
I think it's the first time I've heard the name DCI Smith. Do you know who the sender of this so-called report is and when it was sent?
To my eye these marks look like blood stains. And to my mind anyone suggesting Dr Vanezis would deliberately 'hide' 70 wounds on 3 victims makes Mike sound normal, sane and sober! Bearing in mind 6 police officers were present during autopsy so they would also have to be on it including Dr Craig and numerous officers who observed victims at SoC.
The rifle was manufactured by German company Anschutz with a century plus history of such. Are there any know cases of users damaging hands after discharging the rifle 25/26 times? Bearing in mind the rifle is designed to be fired multiple times in quick succession.
I doubt I will ever think about Roch again whilst sipping on a can of Carlsberg Special Brew listening to Barry White.
I have to agree because he didn't mention them even in his written notes.
-
It's not just a case of damaging hands when firing and loading, but also by beating somebody hard enough with enough force to shear a piece off the stock, while gripping it with both hands. Vanezis examined them and would you believe it?... there were no cuts, gouges or bruising at all!
-
I have to agree because he didn't mention them even in his written notes.
Do these people think these things through? They seem to home in on a narrow aspect and forget all the surrounding facts. Eg claims of wet blood when the police photographer didn't arrive at WHF until 2 hours after SC was found presumed dead. Even the CT's timeline has police photographer, DC Bird, photographing SC at 10.30am.
-
It's not just a case of damaging hands when firing and loading, but also by beating somebody hard enough with enough force to shear a piece off the stock, while gripping it with both hands. Vanezis examined them and would you believe it?... there were no cuts, gouges or bruising at all!
Yes Dr V was specifically asked the question about any damage to SC's hands from wielding the rifle by barrel and stock and he said he wouldn't expect to see any damage.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7970.msg415541#msg415541
-
IMO SC shot June 5 x's with a possible 6th graze only wound whilst June was in bed and SC stood at the foot of the bed. These GSW's alone would have killed June had the 2 head GSW's not supervened. A rifle measuring 43" was between victim and perp there's no evidence of any contact fighting. NB's 4 GSW's sustained on the landing would have killed him had the 4 GSW's to his head not supervened.
I know I've quoted the case of Lee Harvey in the past. Tracie Andrews of average build stabbed Lee Harvey to death with a pen knife 40 plus times. Lee Harvey was a young fit athletic looking man. Andrews was devoid of any marks on her person other than a black eye (was this inflicted by Lee Harvey or self-inflicted)? Anyway there's a world of difference in terms of lethality between a semi auto rifle and a pen knife.
As far as I'm concerned all victims found states as per autopsy are entirely consistent with SC being perp.
-
Yaaawwn!
... and Mark Lundy outdid Jeremy Bamber for the most outrageous OTT feigned grief at a funeral award.
Mind you, he had the advantage of being his former Scout group's comedy actor!
Around 28:28... http://www.tagtele.com/videos/voir/242397
(http://www.tagtele.com/videos/voir/242397)
-
Samson is it worth starting up a thread for the Lundy case?
I know I asked the question on IA and didn't get a response so I'll ask the same here. Afaik the prosecution case against ML is that he used his own car to make the journey from the hotel to home ie no talk of borrowing, hiring, stealing a car etc? In fact I think a prosecution witness claims to have observed a car similar to ML's at his home during a crucial window of time? Therefore I'm struggling to understand why there's no cctv footage of ML somewhere en route?
-
Samson is it worth starting up a thread for the Lundy case?
I know I asked the question on IA and didn't get a response so I'll ask the same here. Afaik the prosecution case against ML is that he used his own car to make the journey from the hotel to home ie no talk of borrowing, hiring, stealing a car etc? In fact I think a prosecution witness claims to have observed a car similar to ML's at his home during a crucial window of time? Therefore I'm struggling to understand why there's no cctv footage of ML somewhere en route?
Did the video I linked to above play OK, Holly? I tried it on a different computer this morning without success.
-
Did the video I linked to above play OK, Holly? I tried it on a different computer this morning without success.
Yes, thank-you. I started watching then realised it went on for some 40 mins so will watch later.
-
Yaaawwn!
... and Mark Lundy outdid Jeremy Bamber for the most outrageous OTT feigned grief at a funeral award.
Mind you, he had the advantage of being his former Scout group's comedy actor!
Around 28:28... http://www.tagtele.com/videos/voir/242397
(http://www.tagtele.com/videos/voir/242397)
Watched it in full now. Thanks.
It reminds me so much of the docu-dramas about JB: big on ML's behaviour and lay witness testimony but short on expert testimony and forensic evidence. Also there's no evidence the psychologist who contributed formally assessed ML. He just seems to think ML is a narcissist based on some pretty spurious reasons imo.
I know squat about the case and have no idea whatsoever whether ML is guilty or innocent but there's nothing in this docu/drama that does it for me.
Blimey Samson are most Kiwis grossly overweight with an appalling dress sense?
-
Watched it in full now. Thanks.
It reminds me so much of the docu-dramas about JB: big on ML's behaviour and lay witness testimony but short on expert testimony and forensic evidence. Also there's no evidence the psychologist who contributed formally assessed ML. He just seems to think ML is a narcissist based on some pretty spurious reasons imo.
I know squat about the case and have no idea whatsoever whether ML is guilty or innocent but there's nothing in this docu/drama that does it for me.
Blimey Samson are most Kiwis grossly overweight with an appalling dress sense?
I had to laugh at that ridiculous mock fainting fiasco. It even counfounded Lundy's drama coach!
And his uncaring spendthrift behaviour in the days/weeks afterwards echoed Bamber to a tee. So obvious that he was planning a future life without his wife (and burdensome daughter) and looking forward to building a house entirely for his own narcissistic self, once he'd gotten his hands on her life insurance payout.
As far as I can see, like others family murders before (Newall, Menendez, Seddon, Bamber), it was a crime based on greed for a hefty payout, not on excessive overkill for just a cheap jewellry box.
-
I had to laugh at that ridiculous mock fainting fiasco. It even counfounded Lundy's drama coach!
And his uncaring spendthrift behaviour in the days/weeks afterwards echoed Bamber to a tee. So obvious that he was planning a future life without his wife (and burdensome daughter) and looking forward to building a house entirely for his own narcissistic self, once he'd gotten his hands on her life insurance payout.
As far as I can see, like others family murders before (Newall, Menendez, Seddon, Bamber), it was a crime based on greed for a hefty payout, not on excessive overkill for just a cheap jewellry box.
The victims were found dead on 29th Aug 2000 and ML arrested and charged Feb 2001. If strong evidence existed linking ML to the crime why the delay?
-
The victims were found dead on 29th Aug 2000 and ML arrested and charged Feb 2001. If strong evidence existed linking ML to the crime why the delay?
I don't know enough about it, so need to find out a lot more before committing one way or the other. Questions concerning his journey times seem to be the main stumbling block.
-
I don't know enough about it, so need to find out a lot more before committing one way or the other. Questions concerning his journey times seem to be the main stumbling block.
It seems the proseuction case is based on the following:
- Two tiny specs of matter found on polo shirt belonging to ML. The matter supposedly Christine's brain tissue.
- Paint found in the victims' hair said to match paint ML used to mark up his tools. The murder weapon wasn't found but thought to have been a small tomahawk or the like.
- Timings in terms of tod. Various bits here about the journey from the motel and back and when a home computer was turned off.
-
I had to laugh at that ridiculous mock fainting fiasco. It even counfounded Lundy's drama coach!
And his uncaring spendthrift behaviour in the days/weeks afterwards echoed Bamber to a tee. So obvious that he was planning a future life without his wife (and burdensome daughter) and looking forward to building a house entirely for his own narcissistic self, once he'd gotten his hands on her life insurance payout.
As far as I can see, like others family murders before (Newall, Menendez, Seddon, Bamber), it was a crime based on greed for a hefty payout, not on excessive overkill for just a cheap jewellry box.
The fainting fiasco is the only bit I have seen so far, it would be quite funny were it not so sad.
-
The fainting fiasco is the only bit I have seen so far, it would be quite funny were it not so sad.
I feel sorry for the two mates who were conned into holding him up and taken in by his absurd scam!
-
Reading up on the case of David Bain got me thinking again about the above. The NZ police appear to have made the same mistakes as EP over the taking of GSR samples. However in DB's case I've been unable to find anything about other tests on hands eg for lead or other chemicals used in the production of bullets. I've often wondered about this in relation to JB's case as lead on hands doesn't seem to feature as a regular forensic test? It seems bullets found at soc are tested for the presence of lead along with other other chemiclas in an attempt to identify the bullets used where bullets found are unrecognisable.
At JB's 2002 appeal much was made about the lead tests and swabs and yet no mention of GSR tests which is the norm.
&%+((£
-
I have an electronic copy of 'Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques' by Dr Vincent DiMaio and have just searched for 'LEAD' and it has only turned up lead poisoning from lead bullets entering the body.
-
Looked on the websites of UK based providers of forensic services under ballistics and trace evidence and can't find any tests for lead from handling bullets or indeed any other tests for handling alone, only GSR upon discharge of firearm.
It seems to me testing for lead from a suspects hands are not routinely used or if they were they have been discredited and are no longer used.
-
Ok I've got it now and think this will make yet another nice little add on to a third and final appeal resulting in an acquittal. It's necessary to refer back to the CoA doc:
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
176. It is necessary to start by examining those parts of the evidence which are not in issue. It is clear that the police from an early stage appreciated the possible significance of the state of Sheila Caffell's hands and of anything that might connect them with the use of the gun. To preserve any available evidence, the hands were covered with plastic bags before the body was removed. When the post-mortem examination of the bodies of Nevill Bamber & Sheila Caffell took place later that day an officer, DC Hammersley, took swabs from the hands of Sheila Caffell using a special kit made for taking samples for testing for firearm residues. He labelled the swabs with the reference DRH/33. There is evidence from which it can be established that these samples were taken at 3.15 p.m. on 7 August.
So the kit used to swab SC's hands was designed for testing firearm residues as in gunshot residue. When a firearm is discharged ie particles made up of various matter which are dispelled from the muzzle when the bullet exits and/or possibly the casing from the ejection port. The kit was not designed to test for lead but this is what ended up happening:
197. Mr Wingard was asked whether in any event he would expect to see a record of the rejection in the statements provided by the scientists. He said that it would very much depend on the reason for the rejection and its possible effect on the outcome of the tests. It was not normal to recount the history unless it had a bearing on the evidential value of the conclusions. If rejection might in any way invalidate conclusions that might be drawn from the evidence of the tests, then he would expect that it would be recorded. However, that was not the situation here since there was no way in which contamination by proximity to firearms could have decreased the quantity of lead found on the swabs from Sheila Caffell's hands. The rejection, and the reasons for it were, therefore, not relevant to the inference suggested from the testing that Sheila Caffell had not been responsible for the repeated handling of the bullets. He made clear that the testing was for the presence of lead, and was not testing for firearms residue as such.
It's difficult to know whether those involved at FSS were complicit with EP in fabricating evidence or grossly incompetent. Michael Turner QC and the judges obviously fall into the latter category.
The test was completely invalid.
-
Ok I've got it now and think this will make yet another nice little add on to a third and final appeal resulting in an acquittal. It's necessary to refer back to the CoA doc:
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
176. It is necessary to start by examining those parts of the evidence which are not in issue. It is clear that the police from an early stage appreciated the possible significance of the state of Sheila Caffell's hands and of anything that might connect them with the use of the gun. To preserve any available evidence, the hands were covered with plastic bags before the body was removed. When the post-mortem examination of the bodies of Nevill Bamber & Sheila Caffell took place later that day an officer, DC Hammersley, took swabs from the hands of Sheila Caffell using a special kit made for taking samples for testing for firearm residues. He labelled the swabs with the reference DRH/33. There is evidence from which it can be established that these samples were taken at 3.15 p.m. on 7 August.
So the kit used to swab SC's hands was designed for testing firearm residues as in gunshot residue. When a firearm is discharged ie particles made up of various matter which are dispelled from the muzzle when the bullet exits and/or possibly the casing from the ejection port. The kit was not designed to test for lead but this is what ended up happening:
197. Mr Wingard was asked whether in any event he would expect to see a record of the rejection in the statements provided by the scientists. He said that it would very much depend on the reason for the rejection and its possible effect on the outcome of the tests. It was not normal to recount the history unless it had a bearing on the evidential value of the conclusions. If rejection might in any way invalidate conclusions that might be drawn from the evidence of the tests, then he would expect that it would be recorded. However, that was not the situation here since there was no way in which contamination by proximity to firearms could have decreased the quantity of lead found on the swabs from Sheila Caffell's hands. The rejection, and the reasons for it were, therefore, not relevant to the inference suggested from the testing that Sheila Caffell had not been responsible for the repeated handling of the bullets. He made clear that the testing was for the presence of lead, and was not testing for firearms residue as such.
It's difficult to know whether those involved at FSS were complicit with EP in fabricating evidence or grossly incompetent. Michael Turner QC and the judges obviously fall into the latter category.
The test was completely invalid.
Michael Turner QC had hired Dr John Lloyd (http://www.expertsearch.co.uk/cgi-bin/find_expert?2870) to give evidence at the appeal in regards to the hand swaps.
The Judges didn't allow him to give evidence. He just sat in the waiting room all day then told him to go home.
See attachment below.
-
Michael Turner QC had hired Dr John Lloyd (http://www.expertsearch.co.uk/cgi-bin/find_expert?2870) to give evidence at the appeal in regards to the hand swaps.
The Judges didn't allow him to give evidence. He just sat in the waiting room all day then told him to go home.
See attachment below.
Freudian slip, maybe
Dr Lloyd's input is included in the 2002 appeal:
217. The evidence which Mr Turner sought to call was that of Dr Lloyd, a chemist. He contended that Dr Lloyd's evidence would cast doubt upon the test findings and that if it had been available at trial, it might very well have obviated the need to advance the ritualistic washing theory that the jury may well have found unsatisfactory.
218. Dr Lloyd's conclusions, as apparent from a report with which we were supplied, were principally that the lead found on the handswabs from Sheila Caffell and from those tested in the laboratory came from petrol combustion residues and was not connected with the handling of bullets. Secondly that the handswabs from Sheila Caffell were not qualitatively different from those from the testees. He was critical of the laboratory test saying that swabs should have been taken both before the handling of the bullets so that a comparison could have been made between the two. Accordingly in his opinion the test results were of no assistance to the determination of whether or not Sheila Caffell had handled the cartridges in the same manner as the testees.
The bottom line is that the swabbing kit was designed to capture the fallout from firearm discharge residue (GSR) not lead as a stand alone chemical. The test/results used by the prosecution were/are invalid. There's no scientific basis to assert the theory that had SC handled the bullets the swabs taken from her hands at PM on at 3.15pm on 7th Aug and tested on 13th Sept would show "significantly higher levels of lead" comparable with live testees.
-
Freudian slip, maybe
Dr Lloyd's input is included in the 2002 appeal:
217. The evidence which Mr Turner sought to call was that of Dr Lloyd, a chemist. He contended that Dr Lloyd's evidence would cast doubt upon the test findings and that if it had been available at trial, it might very well have obviated the need to advance the ritualistic washing theory that the jury may well have found unsatisfactory.
218. Dr Lloyd's conclusions, as apparent from a report with which we were supplied, were principally that the lead found on the handswabs from Sheila Caffell and from those tested in the laboratory came from petrol combustion residues and was not connected with the handling of bullets. Secondly that the handswabs from Sheila Caffell were not qualitatively different from those from the testees. He was critical of the laboratory test saying that swabs should have been taken both before the handling of the bullets so that a comparison could have been made between the two. Accordingly in his opinion the test results were of no assistance to the determination of whether or not Sheila Caffell had handled the cartridges in the same manner as the testees.
The bottom line is that the swabbing kit was designed to capture the fallout from firearm discharge residue (GSR) not lead as a stand alone chemical. The test/results used by the prosecution were/are invalid. There's no scientific basis to assert the theory that had SC handled the bullets the swabs taken from her hands at PM on at 3.15pm on 7th Aug and tested on 13th Sept would show "significantly higher levels of lead" comparable with live testees.
Nah I often get mixed up with swab swap.. XD
Lead is one of the elements a GSR kit is designed to pick up on. I don't believe the tests are invalid or anything was swapped around.
Read the lab documents below. "These findings indicate that Sheila Caffell is unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine shortly before her death" Its a well known fact that trace elements do not stay on living subjects for that long. The magazine could have last been loaded several hours before her death.
Furthermore the XRF results show that Sheila had four times as much lead on her right hand than her left hand. As it goes the same ratio as one of the lab testees. It is no coincidence IMO that Sheila being right handed had four times as much lead on her right hand than her left hand.
-
Nah I often get mixed up with swab swap.. XD
Lead is one of the elements a GSR kit is designed to pick up on. I don't believe the tests are invalid or anything was swapped around.
Read the lab documents below. "These findings indicate that Sheila Caffell is unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine shortly before her death" Its a well known fact that trace elements do not stay on living subjects for that long. The magazine could have last been loaded several hours before her death.
Furthermore the XRF results show that Sheila had four times as much lead on her right hand than her left hand. As it goes the same ratio as one of the lab testees. It is no coincidence IMO that Sheila being right handed had four times as much lead on her right hand than her left hand.
I don't have Roger Wilkes book to hand at the moment but I recall reading and posting up about the Gov of the day sending a team in to FSS, Hunts post JB's trial to address failings. I don't believe this had anything to do with JB's case per se and I have no idea exactly what it was all about but the place certainly doesn't fill me with confidence.
Please find me details about forensic tests to assess lead levels on hands in connection with handling bullets. Check out forensic service websites, FBI list of tests etc.
Have you actually handled the bullets and loaded them into the mag? I have and instinctively handled them by the brass end and loaded them into the mag nose in (lead bullet end) ie no need for hand/fingers to come into contact with lead.
The swabbing kit was designed to test GSR. The shooter would have no control over this. Upon discharge GSR emits from muzzle, vents and port. This will deposit on shooters person, clothes. Handling the bullets and testing for lead as a stand alone chemical is completely different.
https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=moz35&p=youtube+testing+hands+for+lead#id=1&vid=feeccc9564ac8d525c67dc7edbd763d7&action=click
GSR is widely used forensic test and this is what DC Hammersley tested for at PM using a kit specifically designed for this purpose. For various reasons this test would not withstand scrutiny and therefore the lab went down the road of testing for lead from handling bullets which in this case is not a valid scientific experiment and the test results are meaningless.
http://www.horiba.com/fileadmin/uploads/Scientific/Documents/XRay/xgtfor03.pdf
https://leb.fbi.gov/2011/may/the-current-status-of-gsr-examinations
A particle must meet certain criteria to become characterized as GSR. Three specifications, in particular, determine if a particle originates from the primer of a discharged firearm.17 The elemental composition of the particle is the most diagnostic criterion. Most primers used in North America consist of lead styphnate (Pb) as an initiating explosive, barium nitrate (Ba) as an oxidizer, and antimony sulfide (Sb) as a fuel; therefore, a combination of these elements in a single particle proves very significant. ASTM 1588 Standard Guide for Gunshot Residue Analysis by Scanning Electron Microscopy/Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectrometry (SEM/ EDS) contains a complete list of elemental compositions allowed in primer GSR determinations. Second, the morphology of the tiny condensed primer residue particles typically is spheroid or shows shape characteristics of having been molten.18
-
Nah I often get mixed up with swab swap.. XD
Lead is one of the elements a GSR kit is designed to pick up on. I don't believe the tests are invalid or anything was swapped around.
Read the lab documents below. "These findings indicate that Sheila Caffell is unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine shortly before her death" Its a well known fact that trace elements do not stay on living subjects for that long. The magazine could have last been loaded several hours before her death.
Furthermore the XRF results show that Sheila had four times as much lead on her right hand than her left hand. As it goes the same ratio as one of the lab testees. It is no coincidence IMO that Sheila being right handed had four times as much lead on her right hand than her left hand.
David I assume you realise that some lead on hands would be expected from handling everyday items containing lead?
The bullets use paraffin wax as a lubricant which I guess will act as somewhat of a barrier.
Why was the evidence at trial and appeal presented as lead and not GSR?
The docs you posted above are extremely poor quality in terms of content. These tests produce independent readings where are they? (Same goes for the blood serology tests using gel electrophoresis which produce photographic evidence, where are they?) The test referred to in you post is XRF analysis. You will hopefully identify the flaws of using such in this case:?
http://aboutforensics.co.uk/x-ray-fluorescence-spectroscopy/
-
David are you hiding from Holly?
I've been unable to find my post quoting Roger Wilkes re failings at FSS but you can hear it here from Gov:
3.3.1 Following some high profile quality failures in the 1980s the FSS implemented accreditation to quality standards from 1993 onwards, a world first for forensic science.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm
John Hayward who carried out the XRF analysis told the court at trial he had a degree in general science with an emphasis on biology. Today a degree in chemistry would probably be the minimum requirement to carry out the test and apply meaning to it. Do you have Brian Elliot's testimony? It seems he was the one who provided the trial testimony about the results? I don't have any confidence in the set up:
- DC Hammersley swabbed for GSR using a kit for this specific purpose. This then becomes a test for lead from handling bullets.
- John Hayward carries out XRF analysis and applies meaning re lead and handling bullets.
- Malcolm Fletcher's trial testimony covers discharge residues, oil and lubricants. (This is Malcolm Fletcher who told the court his relevant experience included use of an air rifle as a boy).
- Brian Elliot's trial testimony covers the swabs although I've yet to read this.
The standard of documention is appalling. These people come over to me as totally incompetent along with their processes and systems. Was there anyone at the lab who was capable of standing up to the police or did they just engineer tests/results based on police requirements?
I've seen so many tests/results which just dont stack up:
- Above re GSR/lead from handling
- Blood in the rifle capable of being typed after multiple test fires
- MF's claims that the bullets emitted black specks/beeswax
What did the "high profile quality failures" involve?
-
David are you hiding from Holly?
I've been unable to find my post quoting Roger Wilkes re failings at FSS but you can hear it here from Gov:
3.3.1 Following some high profile quality failures in the 1980s the FSS implemented accreditation to quality standards from 1993 onwards, a world first for forensic science.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm)
John Hayward who carried out the XRF analysis told the court at trial he had a degree in general science with an emphasis on biology. Today a degree in chemistry would probably be the minimum requirement to carry out the test and apply meaning to it. Do you have Brian Elliot's testimony? It seems he was the one who provided the trial testimony about the results? I don't have any confidence in the set up:
- DC Hammersley swabbed for GSR using a kit for this specific purpose. This then becomes a test for lead from handling bullets.
- John Hayward carries out XRF analysis and applies meaning re lead and handling bullets.
- Malcolm Fletcher's trial testimony covers discharge residues, oil and lubricants. (This is Malcolm Fletcher who told the court his relevant experience included use of an air rifle as a boy).
- Brian Elliot's trial testimony covers the swabs although I've yet to read this.
The standard of documention is appalling. These people come over to me as totally incompetent along with their processes and systems. Was there anyone at the lab who was capable of standing up to the police or did they just engineer tests/results based on police requirements?
I've seen so many tests/results which just dont stack up:
- Above re GSR/lead from handling
- Blood in the rifle capable of being typed after multiple test fires
- MF's claims that the bullets emitted black specks/beeswax
What did the "high profile quality failures" involve?
We've all got to start somewhere!
Might have been a substitute batch of beeswax for paraffin wax which the recent Eley office staff you wrote to never knew about, if it wasn't accounted for and noted down in their 1980's records.
-
We've all got to start somewhere!
Try telling that to anyone who may have suffered a moj as a result of any incompetence/wrongdoing at the lab.
Might have been a substitute batch of beeswax for paraffin wax which the recent Eley office staff you wrote to never knew about, if it wasn't accounted for and noted down in their 1980's records.
Maybe but the 2002 appeal notice doesn't fill me with confidence when FSS refer to carrying out tests using "similar" cartridges.
177. At trial Brian Elliott, a scientist from the Home Office Forensic Science Laboratory, gave evidence that the item DRH/33 described as "Swabbing Kit – hands of Sheila Caffell" had been received at the laboratory on 13 September 1985. He said that tests had been carried out for the presence of lead and that only "very low levels of lead have been detected on the two hand swabs". He further reported that tests had been carried out on two members of the laboratory staff who had loaded eighteen cartridges, similar to those used to shoot those who died at White House Farm, into the magazine of the rifle, and "significantly higher levels of lead" had been detected. Clearly if this evidence was right it cast doubt upon Sheila Caffell having loaded the cartridges into the gun and thus to her having killed the others and then herself.
If a scientist wants to carry out such a test surely it's obvious that the cartridges need to be the exact same cartridges used at WHF not similar ones. How similar was similar?
-
Nah I often get mixed up with swab swap.. XD
Lead is one of the elements a GSR kit is designed to pick up on. I don't believe the tests are invalid or anything was swapped around.
Read the lab documents below. "These findings indicate that Sheila Caffell is unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine shortly before her death" Its a well known fact that trace elements do not stay on living subjects for that long. The magazine could have last been loaded several hours before her death.
Furthermore the XRF results show that Sheila had four times as much lead on her right hand than her left hand. As it goes the same ratio as one of the lab testees. It is no coincidence IMO that Sheila being right handed had four times as much lead on her right hand than her left hand.
David, Holly is waiting for you, again!
http://www.tapeast.co.uk/
I refer you to the 2002 appeal points 175 - 232.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
Lets park claims of swapping swabs and just stick to the validity of the test(s).
Point 176. DC Hammersley took swabs from the hands of SC using a special kit made for taking samples for testing firearms residue. Documents show the swabs were taken at PM on 7th Aug at 3.15pm
Point 177. Brian Elliot at trial told the court he received the swabs on 13th Sep 85. Tests were carried out for the presence of lead and only very low levels were detected on the two hand swabs. He further reported that tests were carried out on two members of the laboratory staff who loaded 18 cartridges, similar to those used at WHF, into the magazine and the results showed significantly higher levels of lead compared with the swabs.
As you know GSR is made up of various matter. Singling out a stand alone chemical eg lead doesn't qualify as GSR.
Testing for GSR is a long established widely used test across the world. Afaik using the kit described in point 176 above in an attempt to identify lead from handling bullets is not a valid test:
- The shooter wouldn't necessarily touch the bullet when loading into mag. Even if they did the bullets are coated with lubricant which would act as a barrier?
- The test carried out at the lab used "similar" bullets. How similar is similar?
- The expert evidence states SC died around the same time as the other victims. Even if I go with some of the whacky theories that SC took her own life shortly before or after the police broke in this would put the time at approx 7.30am. Swabs were taken some 8 hours later? The swabs were then analysed some 5 weeks later. Did the lab test mirror this?
- The swabs were initially rejected by the lab but when DCI Ainsely took over he insisted they were examined:
The hands – were swabbed – swabs rejected by the laboratory. Later raised by D/Superintendent Ainsley in conference at the laboratory when the laboratory again stated that it was too costly to do and that it would be expected to show a positive result as the body of Sheila was in a room contaminated by gunfire. D/Superintendent Ainsley made issue that the swabs should be examined and if not done he wished a statement to explain why it had not been done. As a result they were examined and found to be virtually negative of residue, i.e. lead, oil and propellant."
There was an assumption that a positive result was expected as SC was found in a room contaminated by gunfire. However test results were neagtive for GSR, lead, oil and propellant.
At point 197 Peter Wingard: "He made clear that the testing was for the presence of lead, and was not testing for firearms residue as such".
215. At trial Mr Elliott had given evidence of the results of testing the swabs for lead, which included information about other elements detectable on the swab. He had also given evidence of the comparative tests carried out on other scientists after they had handled ammunition from the same source as that used in the killings and loaded it into the magazine. The tests were said to demonstrate appreciably higher lead levels on the scientists' hands than were found on the swabs taken from the hands of Sheila Caffell.
Now there's talk of other elements.
216. At trial, Mr Rivlin QC, who appeared for the appellant at trial, sought to counteract this evidence in two ways. First in cross-examination of the scientist, he drew his attention to traces of other elements in the test results from the swabs, iron and copper, and queried whether these were significant. The scientist said that they were no more than might have been obtained from the atmosphere. He did not think the copper could have come from the bullets unless they had been scratched. The other defence approach to this evidence was the theory of ritualistic washing to which reference has earlier been made.
Then a kit designed for testing GSR takes another turn:
228. The reason why the judge approached the matter in this way becomes apparent when the evidence of Mr Fletcher, the prosecution's firearms expert is considered. Mr Fletcher gave the jury a demonstration of loading the magazine with the bullets. He commented that in his experience loading a full magazine would leave marks on the hands adding "in this case you get a black discolouration". (Transcript PMS/10 page 18B). When he was cross-examined by Mr Lawson, junior counsel for the appellant at trial, he was asked about this part of his evidence and said (Transcript PMS/10 page 47H):
"Well they are my own observations, and I think the observations of the court yesterday when the demonstration was made, that by loading cartridges into the magazine you get residues on your hands from the bullets and cartridges."
230. We should perhaps point out that quite apart from Mr Fletcher's evidence, the matters were also apparent in the notes that he made of the experimental loading of cartridges. He had noted after the first loading "some lead specks and frags and some discolouration"; after the second "Further specks and frags and darker discolouration"; and after the third "quite a few specks and fragments of lead and grey/black discolouration". (See memorandum of Dr Lloyd dated 14 October 2002). As Dr Lloyd points out it may have been an assumption that the particles were lead, but the fact that the hands became dirty was noted on that occasion as well.
231. Thus even if the scientific testing for lead could have been discredited, it would not have answered the essential point that if Sheila Caffell had loaded the magazine in the way that the killer did, she must have cleaned her hands afterwards. The ritualistic cleaning theory, with all its imperfections, was thus the essential matter upon which the jury had to concentrate.
When jurors were invited to handle the cartridges and load them into mag were they the exact same type used at WHF or "similar" as used in tests above? Were the cartridges taken from a sealed box?
I know from my own experience of loading the cartridges into the mag at the gun shop that my hands were spotlessly clean to the naked eye.
David do you still maintain the test was a valid one with reliable results?
-
Nah I often get mixed up with swab swap.. XD
Lead is one of the elements a GSR kit is designed to pick up on. I don't believe the tests are invalid or anything was swapped around.
Read the lab documents below. "These findings indicate that Sheila Caffell is unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine shortly before her death" Its a well known fact that trace elements do not stay on living subjects for that long. The magazine could have last been loaded several hours before her death.
Furthermore the XRF results show that Sheila had four times as much lead on her right hand than her left hand. As it goes the same ratio as one of the lab testees. It is no coincidence IMO that Sheila being right handed had four times as much lead on her right hand than her left hand.
Based on the experience and qualifications of the lab staff at FSS Dr Lloyd appears far better qualified:
http://www.expertsearch.co.uk/cgi-bin/find_expert?2870
He stated:
218. Dr Lloyd's conclusions, as apparent from a report with which we were supplied, were principally that the lead found on the handswabs from Sheila Caffell and from those tested in the laboratory came from petrol combustion residues and was not connected with the handling of bullets. Secondly that the handswabs from Sheila Caffell were not qualitatively different from those from the testees. He was critical of the laboratory test saying that swabs should have been taken both before the handling of the bullets so that a comparison could have been made between the two. Accordingly in his opinion the test results were of no assistance to the determination of whether or not Sheila Caffell had handled the cartridges in the same manner as the testees.
Although it does appear the lab took swabs from the testees before handling the cartridges?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7970.0;attach=10677
The test results show higher amounts of lead on right hands of testees and SC. If the lead/results (petrol combustion residues according to Dr Lloyd) were from handling the cartridges only then how do you account for the fact that some lead/results were on left hand too? A right handed person wouldn't touch the cartridges with the left hand?
-
Here's a DEFRA leaflet printed in 2005 20 years after WHF:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/221085/pb10973-leadpaintleaflet.pdf
We know that too much lead in our bodies isn’t healthy. Over the last
30 years or so, a lot has been done to get rid of lead in this country,
but you may still come across it in old paint.
Lead was present in everyday items in 1985 and is still in old paintwork.
The handswab tests are completely meaningless.
-
http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/lead/lead.pdf
David hows about you meeting me at my local gun shop to make a vid to rival Mike's and Trood's? A Holls n Dave special? You could do the recording and all the tech stuff?
I'll get the D Lead test kit:
https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=moz35&p=d+lead+youtube+testing+lead+on+hands#id=1&vid=feeccc9564ac8d525c67dc7edbd763d7&action=click
And arrange for the gun shop to make available the Anshutz mag and Eley subsonic bullets which I will then load into the mag we can then use the D Lead test kit to check my hands for lead?
Can anyone see any flaws in this test?
-
Kill 2 birds with one stone as MF claimed the mere handling of the cartridges caused discolouration to the hands/fingers.
-
The only major flaw is that on meeting young David you scare the living daylights out of him!
-
Nah I often get mixed up with swab swap.. XD
Lead is one of the elements a GSR kit is designed to pick up on. I don't believe the tests are invalid or anything was swapped around.
Read the lab documents below. "These findings indicate that Sheila Caffell is unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine shortly before her death" Its a well known fact that trace elements do not stay on living subjects for that long. The magazine could have last been loaded several hours before her death.
Furthermore the XRF results show that Sheila had four times as much lead on her right hand than her left hand. As it goes the same ratio as one of the lab testees. It is no coincidence IMO that Sheila being right handed had four times as much lead on her right hand than her left hand.
David I am just trying to understand the test results you posted above:
SC's swabs for both hands showed much lower levels than the testees: SW and JH. The results for JH's right hand were significantly higher than the right hand results of SW. The left hand results for SW and JH were similar.
If this test was capable of determining whether SC loaded the mag based on lead levels on hand swabs compared with the two scientists who loaded 18 cartridges into the mag I am confused about the following:
- Why did SC have any lead on her hands? If we're saying well she handled other items containing lead then how do we know that the scientists didn't handle more items or items with a higher lead content?
- Why was JH's right hand result signficiantly greater than SW's right hand? If they loaded the same number of cartridges surely they would be similar? If we're saying he handled other items containing lead then how do we know how much lead to attribute to the other items and how much to the cartridges?
- Very approximately the left hand swab for SC and JH show 25% of the result for the right hand and 50% for SW. Assuming they were all right handed how come lead is on the left hand and if it is from elsewhere how do we know how much to attribute to other items and how much to the cartridges.
- I said up thread that swabs from SW and JH had been taken prior to the tests. I was thinking this was the control swab but I think this refers to just a clean swab since there's also a control swab for SC.
Based on the above it seems to me the lab staff had lead on their hands prior to the tests from unrelated items and had simply handled more items containing lead or items containing higher levels of lead than SC had. Perhaps not surprising. Two scientists working in a lab most probably car drivers (lead petrol 1985) compared with SC who didn't drive and was down on the farm.
- If the results were indicative of lead from the cartridges only then surely you would expect nothing detected on SC's swabs and very similar results for whichever hand the scientists used and a nothing detected for the hand not used?
As the 2002 appeal note states the hand swabs were not a very important aspect at trial but if I'm right about the above it does show FSS were either grossly incompetent or they were simply providing tests/results to support the prosecution. For sure there were problems at FSS during the 80's as per the Gov:
3.3.1 Following some high profile quality failures in the 1980s the FSS implemented accreditation to quality standards from 1993 onwards, a world first for forensic science.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm
-
Nah I often get mixed up with swab swap.. XD
Lead is one of the elements a GSR kit is designed to pick up on. I don't believe the tests are invalid or anything was swapped around.
Read the lab documents below. "These findings indicate that Sheila Caffell is unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine shortly before her death" Its a well known fact that trace elements do not stay on living subjects for that long. The magazine could have last been loaded several hours before her death.
Furthermore the XRF results show that Sheila had four times as much lead on her right hand than her left hand. As it goes the same ratio as one of the lab testees. It is no coincidence IMO that Sheila being right handed had four times as much lead on her right hand than her left hand.
David taking the docs you posted above (thanks btw) there are two measurements: lead measured in micrograms and also wavelength based on how the lead responds when bombarded with gamma rays:
Testee/SC Hand Mg G Wavelength
JWH RH 15 0.15 11425
JWH LH 3 0.003 3480
SW RH 8 0.008 8019
SW LH 4 0.004 4425
SC RH 1.2 0.0012 1345
SC LH 0.10 0.0001 337
Hand = Left/Right
Mg = Microgram
G = Gram
I've added in an extra column for gram as this is something we can all relate to from measuring out cooking ingredients.
The microgram wasn't provided for SC but I've worked it out approx based on the wavelength and micrograms provided for the testees.
At 1.28min in the D lead vid shows pads containing 20, 50 and 100 micrograms of lead taken from the hand. You will see how the area containing 20 mg is very small and this is more than twice the amount on JWH's RH.
https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=moz35&p=d+lead+youtube+testing+lead+on+hands#id=1&vid=feeccc9564ac8d525c67dc7edbd763d7&action=click
In the 2002 appeal Dr Lloyd is quoted as saying the results were not qualitatively different. Was this a typo and should it have read quantitatively?
218. Dr Lloyd's conclusions, as apparent from a report with which we were supplied, were principally that the lead found on the handswabs from Sheila Caffell and from those tested in the laboratory came from petrol combustion residues and was not connected with the handling of bullets. Secondly that the handswabs from Sheila Caffell were not qualitatively different from those from the testees. He was critical of the laboratory test saying that swabs should have been taken both before the handling of the bullets so that a comparison could have been made between the two. Accordingly in his opinion the test results were of no assistance to the determination of whether or not Sheila Caffell had handled the cartridges in the same manner as the testees.
or quantitatively?
-
The only major flaw is that on meeting young David you scare the living daylights out of him!
David knows I'm a harmless little pussy cat.
-
David knows I'm a harmless little pussy cat.
... with retractable claws.
-
He's also got some velly intelesting developments re the scratches... stay tooned!
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/6197144/Children-exposed-to-dangerous-levels-of-lead-from-soil.html
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/lead/safe.html
The first article shows how prevalent lead was and still is albeit to a lesser degree.
The second article shows it is not possible to remove lead from hands by simply washing with soap and water. Therefore in terms of the test carried out on testees and SC's hands it is clearly not a valid test as there's no evidence the testees hands were checked for lead content prior to the tests. The fact JWH had higher lead test results might simply be down to filling up his car with leaded petrol, gardening, living in a house with old leaded paint or coming into contact with other items containing lead.
I am struggling to see how the scientists at FSS could be so incompetent as to see the test was a valid scientific one capable of demonstrating it was unlikely SC handled the cartridges based on lead levels on hands. Paul Terzeon, Geoffrey Rivlin and Ed Lawson did not investigate this properly and consequently went with the "ritualistic cleanse". I wonder how the trial would have gone had JB stuck with local solicitor Bruce Bowler.
-
... with retractable claws.
That's catty!
-
He's also got some velly intelesting developments re the scratches... stay tooned!
Well I hope before the intelesting developments are announced re the scratches David will respond to my posts on this thread.
David on 2nd Sept you posted:
"Lead is one of the elements a GSR kit is designed to pick up on. I don't believe the tests are invalid or anything was swapped around".
I have made a number of posts since arguing against anticipating a robust mass debating session but nothing...
-
Nah I often get mixed up with swab swap.. XD
Lead is one of the elements a GSR kit is designed to pick up on. I don't believe the tests are invalid or anything was swapped around.
Read the lab documents below. "These findings indicate that Sheila Caffell is unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine shortly before her death" Its a well known fact that trace elements do not stay on living subjects for that long. The magazine could have last been loaded several hours before her death.
Furthermore the XRF results show that Sheila had four times as much lead on her right hand than her left hand. As it goes the same ratio as one of the lab testees. It is no coincidence IMO that Sheila being right handed had four times as much lead on her right hand than her left hand.
I also disagree with your assertion that trace elements do not stay on living subjects that long. GSR dissipates but not lead on skin. In fact it is difficult to remove lead from skin.
https://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/JOURNALS/JAI/PAGES/JAI103527.htm
-
I also disagree with your assertion that trace elements do not stay on living subjects that long. GSR dissipates but not lead on skin. In fact it is difficult to remove lead from skin.
https://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/JOURNALS/JAI/PAGES/JAI103527.htm (https://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/JOURNALS/JAI/PAGES/JAI103527.htm)
After you've been working an eight hour shift making car batteries, in a factory contaminated with lead on materials, machinery, other objects and in the air. As you said yourself when loading a magazine, there was no need to touch any part of the lead bullet, only the brass casing.
-
After you've been working an eight hour shift making car batteries, in a factory contaminated with lead on materials, machinery, other objects and in the air. As you said yourself when loading a magazine, there was no need to touch any part of the lead bullet, only the brass casing.
Yes I agree I was just responding to David's assertion that "Its a well known fact that trace elements do not stay on living subjects for that long". This is so for GSR but not so for lead. The subject under discussion is lead not GSR. David is doing what other have done and conflating the two.
The lead present on the hands of the testees and SC, which in all cases was very little, was most likely from touching everday items. Perhaps if they washed their hands thoroughly it would all be removed but a little may remain. Even in the absence of hand washing GSR would dissipate.
-
David it would be nice if you could either put up some counter arguments to my posts or concede that you didn't think it though properly and the test results used at trial were meaningless. Thanks in anticipation. Holly.
-
David it would be nice if you could either put up some counter arguments to my posts or concede that you didn't think it though properly and the test results used at trial were meaningless. Thanks in anticipation. Holly.
He's busily engaged at the mo, trumpeting some trumpery about Trump.
-
He's busily engaged at the mo, trumpeting some trumpery about Trump.
Oh yes just had a peep. Well to some degree I agree with David on this. I don't really have a problem with DT. A lot of what is said is just social and mainstream media drivel. When someone asked Hilary Clinton if there was anything she admired about DT she answered his children. I agree they all seem well adjusted decent people albeit they have had every advantage going. The fact they have all turned out well must to some degree be down to how he brought them up. Contrast the likes of Ivanka Trump with Chloe Green or the Ecclestone sisters. Oops seriously off topic.
You can see Baron Trump here play peekaboo with his little nephew. Cute. Hardly the sort of thing a 12 year old boy would do if his father is the sort of person Maggie believes him to be. And apparently no nannies or the like involved with BT unlike the Bambers with SC and JB.
https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=moz35&p=baron+trump+playing+with+nehew#id=1&vid=950030bc15fe93b98f9629bbd4000dca&action=click
Maggie makes such a big thing about racism I wonder if there's something going on in her subsconscience.
-
Oh yes just had a peep. Well to some degree I agree with David on this. I don't really have a problem with DT. A lot of what is said is just social and mainstream media drivel. When someone asked Hilary Clinton if there was anything she admired about DT she answered his children. I agree they all seem well adjusted decent people albeit they have had every advantage going. The fact they have all turned out well must to some degree be down to how he brought them up. Contrast the likes of Ivanka Trump with Chloe Green or the Ecclestone sisters. Oops seriously off topic.
You can see Baron Trump here play peekaboo with his little nephew. Cute. Hardly the sort of thing a 12 year old boy would do if his father is the sort of person Maggie believes him to be. And apparently no nannies or the like involved with BT unlike the Bambers with SC and JB.
https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=moz35&p=baron+trump+playing+with+nehew#id=1&vid=950030bc15fe93b98f9629bbd4000dca&action=click (https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=moz35&p=baron+trump+playing+with+nehew#id=1&vid=950030bc15fe93b98f9629bbd4000dca&action=click)
Maggie makes such a big thing about racism I wonder if there's something going on in her subsconscience.
So long as Trump doesn't let a big stinker off on North Korea, he'll muddle through controversially for the rest of his term. The Yanks own fault for electing him, but they hadn't much choice and couldn't stomach another Clinton in power.
-
He's also got some velly intelesting developments re the scratches... stay tooned!
The developments on the scratches were not supplied yesterday. Which was dissappointing but not surprising.
Maybe they will supplied today.
-
So long as Trump doesn't let a big stinker off on North Korea, he'll muddle through controversially for the rest of his term. The Yanks own fault for electing him, but they hadn't much choice and couldn't stomach another Clinton in power.
I would imagine any such military decisions are made by military chiefs who are psychometrically screened to the nth degree for emotional stability.
Chelsea Clinton and Ivanka Trump are apparently very good friends. I wonder if one day one of them might be US pres. I find both impressive.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11865654/Ivanka-Trump-and-Chelsea-Clinton-are-not-so-secretly-friends.html
-
The developments on the scratches were not supplied yesterday. Which was dissappointing but not surprising.
Maybe they will supplied today.
I am disappointed David has not had the courtesy of responding to my posts when I can see him posting on Blue and hope he will find the time to do so before moving on to the scratches.
-
I am disappointed David has not had the courtesy of responding to my posts when I can see him posting on Blue and hope he will find the time to do so before moving on to the scratches.
He's playing hard to get... can't you tell? Maybe he's not into older women. &%+((£
-
I would imagine any such military decisions are made by military chiefs who are psychometrically screened to the nth degree for emotional stability.
Chelsea Clinton and Ivanka Trump are apparently very good friends. I wonder if one day one of them might be US pres. I find both impressive.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11865654/Ivanka-Trump-and-Chelsea-Clinton-are-not-so-secretly-friends.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11865654/Ivanka-Trump-and-Chelsea-Clinton-are-not-so-secretly-friends.html)
Not in NK, where the generals are as loopy as their beloved leader.
No opinion on the ambitions of US Presidential offspring, and can't say I'm all that bothered as I won't be on this god-forsaken planet long enough to find out.
Of more interest to me recently are the forthcoming elections in NZ, and MvB's travels around the country in an old Australian-made Holden Kingswood sedan car, to gauge voter opinion.
As a women's libber, you might favour Labour leader Jacinda Ardern... even though she's on the wrong side.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/96220505/kingswood-election-tour-on-the-road-again--from-bluff-to-cape-reinga (https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/96220505/kingswood-election-tour-on-the-road-again--from-bluff-to-cape-reinga)
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/kingswood-tour (https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/kingswood-tour)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacinda_Ardern (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacinda_Ardern)
-
He's playing hard to get... can't you tell? Maybe he's not into older women. &%+((£
Oh I think he's into older women alright, given the opportunity. More likely he is unable to argue against the posts.
David how do you account for the bruising? Scratches caused by fingernails don't leave those sort of bruises.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8526.msg410256.html#msg410256
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=205.0;attach=730
The scratches and bruising were most likely caused by the end of the barrel or stock or any part sticking out eg deflector plate as per Dr Vanezis testimony above.
I just don't buy into the idea that a highly trained and experienced pathologist such as Dr Vanezis would mistake fingernail scratches for wounds caused by a linear object.
David honestly you are sounding more like Mike every day. You're moving away from reasonable interpretation of the facts and drifting off into la la land.
-
Don't know why I'm even bothering to link to this baloney, because Caroline has said all that needs to be said regarding a non-existent 999 call at 6am, and police being in conversation with someone from inside the farm...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=tLeIK00f7kI&app=desktop (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=tLeIK00f7kI&app=desktop)
-
Don't know why I'm even bothering to link to this baloney, because Caroline has said all that needs to be said regarding a non-existent 999 call at 6am, and police being in conversation with someone from inside the farm...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=tLeIK00f7kI&app=desktop (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=tLeIK00f7kI&app=desktop)
Yep I agree it's baloney. It's a bit like politics we have the extremes at one end and the centrists!
-
Oh I think he's into older women alright, given the opportunity. More likely he is unable to argue against the posts.
David how do you account for the bruising? Scratches caused by fingernails don't leave those sort of bruises.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8526.msg410256.html#msg410256 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8526.msg410256.html#msg410256)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=205.0;attach=730 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=205.0;attach=730)
The scratches and bruising were most likely caused by the end of the barrel or stock or any part sticking out eg deflector plate as per Dr Vanezis testimony above.
I just don't buy into the idea that a highly trained and experienced pathologist such as Dr Vanezis would mistake fingernail scratches for wounds caused by a linear object.
David honestly you are sounding more like Mike every day. You're moving away from reasonable interpretation of the facts and drifting off into la la land.
Not like me to vote for the oppo, but I'm giving you a like on that!
-
Not like me to vote for the oppo, but I'm giving you a like on that!
Awww shucks!
-
David I'm not wanting to sound overly critial BUT the author of the text book you have referred to, Prof Knight, acted for JB's defence at trial. Obviously he didn't have the advantage of viewing the victims but he had access to all autopsy and soc images.
I might be wrong but I don't think for one minute either Dr Vanezis or Prof Knight would overlook scratch marks on victims and mistake them for something else. I put these experts, along with Dr Craig, into a different category to the 'experts' at FSS. Although I accept it is somewhat disconcerting that Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight were unable to agree on the so-called burn marks.
1. Their qualifications, training and experience are far superior to the 'experts' at FSS.
2. There's no evidence of any issues either as indivduals or collectively unlike FSS where the Gov admitted to failings. I know rumours exist about Dr Craig having a fondness for booze but there's no evidence anything affected his ability to perform his duties competently.
-
Don't know why I'm even bothering to link to this baloney, because Caroline has said all that needs to be said regarding a non-existent 999 call at 6am, and police being in conversation with someone from inside the farm...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=tLeIK00f7kI&app=desktop (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=tLeIK00f7kI&app=desktop)
David provided the documentary evidence showing the 999 call was simply the police hooking up to the line at WHF to listen in:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8338.msg419260#msg419260
Had the police made contact with anyone inside WHF on 7th Aug or anyone from within had phoned out after the police arrived there would be no reason for this info/conversations to be withheld. This applies to any phone call from NB to EP. If any such calls were made or received it would have come out during the early part of the investigation. There is no reason for any such info/conversations to be withheld from others: police officers, media, JB, relatives, CC, local gossip etc, etc.
-
David how do you account for the bruising? Scratches caused by fingernails don't leave those sort of bruises.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8526.msg410256.html#msg410256
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=205.0;attach=730
Nevill's body was not examined until almost 12 hours post-mortem. Thus those marks can be postmortem discoloration from the damaged tissue. Its easy to mistake one for the other http://bit.ly/2eLs47X (http://bit.ly/2eLs47X)
The scratches and bruising were most likely caused by the end of the barrel or stock or any part sticking out eg deflector plate as per Dr Vanezis testimony above.
I just don't buy into the idea that a highly trained and experienced pathologist such as Dr Vanezis would mistake fingernail scratches for wounds caused by a linear object.
Its not an 'idea' there is precedence for such errors and negligence from medical examiners.
"On January 17, 1989, Loveless and Miller were arrested on a charge of felony injury to a child. The charge was soon elevated to murder.
The couple went on trial on October 31, 1989 with the prosecution arguing that Miller had beaten and cut the child to death.
The most significant testimony came from the medical examiner, who said that the edges of the wound were cleanly cut—as if by a knife—and did not resemble the jagged edges that would be expected in an attack by a dog.
The defense did not raise the dog attack theory and only called two witnesses—Mr. Miller’s ex-wife from Kentucky and a state crime lab analyst who said no blood was found on the knife.
The couple was convicted on November 5, 1989 and both were sentenced to life in prison.
In December 1990, the 6th District Court of Appeals in Texarkana rejected their appeal.
In 1992, lawyers for the couple obtained the emergency room and autopsy photos, which had not been turned over the defense prior to the trial.
In one photo, a paw print was visible on April’s back. Several medical experts viewed the material and all concluded April was the victim of a dog attack."
The paw print mentioned above was in the form of scratches caused by the dogs nails. I will try and find the photo that i have seen of it.
David honestly you are sounding more like Mike every day. You're moving away from reasonable interpretation of the facts and drifting off into la la land.
Drifting off into la la land?
June walking around after having two bullets put in her brain? Andrew Hunter taking photos of some strangers feet and saying they are Sheila's from the CCRC? Why accuse me of doing the very thing that you are guilty of yourself?
Besides, I am under the impression the only reason you are so obstinate in refusing to accept even the slightest possibility of these ideas is because in doing so that would ruin the "mystery" for you and you want to keep it that way. Thus i have little motivation it debating these particular subjects with you, as it would go nowhere but in circles.
-
Nevill's body was not examined until almost 12 hours post-mortem. Thus those marks can be postmortem discoloration from the damaged tissue. Its easy to mistake one for the other http://bit.ly/2eLs47X (http://bit.ly/2eLs47X)
Its not an 'idea' there is precedence for such errors and negligence from medical examiners.
"On January 17, 1989, Loveless and Miller were arrested on a charge of felony injury to a child. The charge was soon elevated to murder.
The couple went on trial on October 31, 1989 with the prosecution arguing that Miller had beaten and cut the child to death.
The most significant testimony came from the medical examiner, who said that the edges of the wound were cleanly cut—as if by a knife—and did not resemble the jagged edges that would be expected in an attack by a dog.
The defense did not raise the dog attack theory and only called two witnesses—Mr. Miller’s ex-wife from Kentucky and a state crime lab analyst who said no blood was found on the knife.
The couple was convicted on November 5, 1989 and both were sentenced to life in prison.
In December 1990, the 6th District Court of Appeals in Texarkana rejected their appeal.
In 1992, lawyers for the couple obtained the emergency room and autopsy photos, which had not been turned over the defense prior to the trial.
In one photo, a paw print was visible on April’s back. Several medical experts viewed the material and all concluded April was the victim of a dog attack."
The paw print mentioned above was in the form of scratches caused by the dogs nails. I will try and find the photo that i have seen of it.
Drifting off into la la land?
June walking around after having two bullets put in her brain? Andrew Hunter taking photos of some strangers feet and saying they are Sheila's from the CCRC? Why accuse me of doing the very thing that you are guilty of yourself?
Besides, I am under the impression the only reason you are so obstinate in refusing to accept even the slightest possibility of these ideas is because in doing so that would ruin the "mystery" for you and you want to keep it that way. Thus i have little motivation it debating these particular subjects with you, as it would go nowhere but in circles.
I don't doubt across planet earth cases exist of pathologists making errors but we're discussing Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight and there's no evidence of incompetence and/or negligence on their part. You find me some and I'll certainly have a rethink. In the case of Dr Vanezis he carried out PM's on NB and SC. The idea he was so incompetent as to overlook scratch marks and/or tissue, blood etc under nails is just fanciful imo. Or do you think SC hunted out a nail brush? Everything was fact checked by Prof Knight for the defence. I have total confidence in both of them along with Dr Craig.
Hahaha I knew you would bring up the fact I mooted whether it was possible for June to have walked around the bed with the gsw's she sustained to her head. Unlike you I know my limitations and this was the reason I sought opinion from a pathologist. Again unlike you once I was shown the error of my ways I dropped it like a ton of hot bricks.
Whether the image of a foot presented by AH is that of SC's or not how does it advance anything?
Mystery? The case is all wrapped up as far as I am concerned. I believe I now have enough for an appeal and acquittal and I am very happy with my own narrative.
-
David provided the documentary evidence showing the 999 call was simply the police hooking up to the line at WHF to listen in:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8338.msg419260#msg419260
Had the police made contact with anyone inside WHF on 7th Aug or anyone from within had phoned out after the police arrived there would be no reason for this info/conversations to be withheld. This applies to any phone call from NB to EP. If any such calls were made or received it would have come out during the early part of the investigation. There is no reason for any such info/conversations to be withheld from others: police officers, media, JB, relatives, CC, local gossip etc, etc.
Also although it seems DCI Jones was always inclined to view JB as innocent it's worth noting that he was present when JB was first arrested and carried out JB's first interviews under caution. If EP
- received a call from NB
- made contact with anyone inside WHF via a loudhailer
- were aware of anyone inside WHF calling out via 999
there is no earthly reason why DCI Jones would be kept in the dark about this. If DCI Jones was aware of such he would not have arrested JB and/or interviewed him under caution.
-
I am disappointed David has not had the courtesy of responding to my posts when I can see him posting on Blue and hope he will find the time to do so before moving on to the scratches.
I don't think either will be supplied by David. Which is disappointing but expected.
If David wants to say he is going to do something & then not do it, or say he has breakthroughs or letters & then not publish them, that is fine. But I do object to me being accused of making up 54 pieces of forensic evidence.
Anyway, I've now provided the source for each piece. Posters are still entitled to dispute the published evidence or source. David disputed 6 of the 54 pieces earlier this week by posting counter documents.
-
Nah I often get mixed up with swab swap.. XD
Lead is one of the elements a GSR kit is designed to pick up on. I don't believe the tests are invalid or anything was swapped around.
Read the lab documents below. "These findings indicate that Sheila Caffell is unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine shortly before her death" Its a well known fact that trace elements do not stay on living subjects for that long. The magazine could have last been loaded several hours before her death.
Furthermore the XRF results show that Sheila had four times as much lead on her right hand than her left hand. As it goes the same ratio as one of the lab testees. It is no coincidence IMO that Sheila being right handed had four times as much lead on her right hand than her left hand.
David also you say you don't believe the swabs were swapped but there's documentary evidence showing the swabs taken at PM and received at the lab on 9th Aug were rejected as they were sent in with a firearm. As we know a set of swabs were eventually analysed. Which swabs were analysed?
- The original swabs taken at PM? Rejected by the lab but resubmitted under some other guise/exhibit number?
- Another set of swabs were taken post PM pre cremation? In this scenario SC's hands had been washed?
-
David taking the docs you posted above (thanks btw) there are two measurements: lead measured in micrograms and also wavelength based on how the lead responds when bombarded with gamma rays:
Testee/SC Hand Mg G Wavelength
JWH RH 15 0.15 11425
JWH LH 3 0.003 3480
SW RH 8 0.008 8019
SW LH 4 0.004 4425
SC RH 1.2 0.0012 1345
SC LH 0.10 0.0001 337
Hand = Left/Right
Mg = Microgram
G = Gram
I've added in an extra column for gram as this is something we can all relate to from measuring out cooking ingredients.
The microgram wasn't provided for SC but I've worked it out approx based on the wavelength and micrograms provided for the testees.
At 1.28min in the D lead vid shows pads containing 20, 50 and 100 micrograms of lead taken from the hand. You will see how the area containing 20 mg is very small and this is more than twice the amount on JWH's RH.
https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=moz35&p=d+lead+youtube+testing+lead+on+hands#id=1&vid=feeccc9564ac8d525c67dc7edbd763d7&action=click
In the 2002 appeal Dr Lloyd is quoted as saying the results were not qualitatively different. Was this a typo and should it have read quantitatively?
218. Dr Lloyd's conclusions, as apparent from a report with which we were supplied, were principally that the lead found on the handswabs from Sheila Caffell and from those tested in the laboratory came from petrol combustion residues and was not connected with the handling of bullets. Secondly that the handswabs from Sheila Caffell were not qualitatively different from those from the testees. He was critical of the laboratory test saying that swabs should have been taken both before the handling of the bullets so that a comparison could have been made between the two. Accordingly in his opinion the test results were of no assistance to the determination of whether or not Sheila Caffell had handled the cartridges in the same manner as the testees.
or quantitatively?
David I see you are still holding dear to your theory that the hand swabs referred to at trial are evidence that SC handled the cartridges. They aren't! I invited you to pop over to discuss the matter but you ignored my request.
I've set out in this thread the reasons why the hand swabs are completely meaningless ie another completely flawed test/results produced by FSS.
You claim the swabs support SC handling the cartridges as the swab supposedly taken from the right hand was said to contain 4 x's as much lead as the left hand and SC was right handed. Please refer to the table above to look at the quantities involved. They are tiny, tiny, tiny! The results show levels consistent with everyday handling of ordinary items containing lead. In any event the argument isn't about left and right it's about testees hands showing higher levels than SC's hands. Testees' hands also show higher levels on right hand. As Dr Lloyd stated they are not quantitively different.
Have you actually handled the cartridges and/or loaded them into the mag? I have and intuitively picked them out the case by the brass end and inserted them into the mag by handling the brass end. The hand doesn't come into contact with the lead bullet which in any event is completely sealed by the paraffin wax lubricant ie the lead is not exposed.
I invited you to take part in my vid to demonstrate these facts but no response.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8728.msg418109.html?PHPSESSID=4aqubo9vl8khs06ajrbt60u2n6#msg418109
-
David properties like WHF would be full of paint work containing lead. The paint on the Aga surround was said to contain 15 layers.
Also you're wrong about the quantities representing 4x's more on right hand. Wavelengths were 4 x's greater when bombarded with gamma rays.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/221085/pb10973-leadpaintleaflet.pdf
We know that too much lead in our bodies isn’t healthy. Over the last
30 years or so, a lot has been done to get rid of lead in this country,
but you may still come across it in old paint.
This is because up until the mid-1960s, lead was used to make some
kinds of paint – for windows, doors and other woodwork as well as
for some metal items, like radiators. A few minor uses continued until
the 1980s.
How will I know if there’s lead in my paintwork?
• The age of your home is a good guide. If it was built before the
1960s and still has original coats of paint, there could be some
lead around.
• Another clue is if your paintwork is quite thick – lead could be
locked into the oldest layers. That’s not a problem if it’s in good
condition and you don’t plan to decorate. If it has recently had
a new coat of paint, this probably will have sealed any lead in.
• Modern household paints do not contain added lead and are not
dangerous. So if your home is newer, there won’t be any lead there."
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/221085/pb10973-leadpaintleaflet.pdf
The swab supposedly taken from SC's right hand was found to contain 0.0012 grams of lead. Think about how small this is from when you weigh out ingredients for your curries? It's negligible and entirely consistent with SC touching leaded paint at WHF and/or handling other everyday items containing lead. The lead levels between the testees and SC are not quantitavely different ie they are all so tiny they are negligible and do not prove anything other than the test/results presented at trial were misleading and support the following:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm
3.3 FSS Quality
3.3.1 Following some high profile quality failures in the 1980s the FSS implemented accreditation to quality standards from 1993 onwards, a world first for forensic science. The present FSS in-house quality framework goes well beyond the basic requirements of ISO17025 and is in close accord with the FSR’s forthcoming Codes. Indeed, before closure was announced the FSS were planning to act as a test-bed for compliance to this code later this year.
David this is your last opportunity to take part in my vid either as a co-presenter or behind the scenes with a video and power point presentation? Your shout boyo.
Venue : Gun shop in North Bucks.
Test : Use D Lead solution to neutralise hands. Load full mag with Eley bullets x 2. Retest hands using D Lead solution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJVKnnF-240
-
David we could also look at deliberate over handling of the bullet to see if the lead is capable of pentrating the parrafin wax lubricant.
Come and play with Holly in the N.Bucks gun shop. You know you want to *&*%£
-
0.10 mg on the left hand and 1.2 mg on the right hand? That's over 10x as much on her right hand!
I believe the swaps tested are the ones rejected. Because I remember reading some police documents discussing the swabs being rejected but due to the developments later on they felt it was important to test them anyway.
The low quantity of lead is only a problem if you believe she loaded the magazine shortly before her death.
-
0.10 mg on the left hand and 1.2 mg on the right hand? That's over 10x as much on her right hand!
I believe the swaps tested are the ones rejected. Because I remember reading some police documents discussing the swabs being rejected but due to the developments later on they felt it was important to test them anyway.
The low quantity of lead is only a problem if you believe she loaded the magazine shortly before her death.
The Mg figs for SC were not supplied but I worked them out approx based on the other data for SC and testees. Yes 10 x's but the amount of lead on the right hand is negligible so it's all relative eg 1 grain of salt or 10 grains. As you've pointed out SC was right handed so imagine her going around WHF whether perp or victim and sustaining innocent contamination by touching paintwork and other everyday items containing lead. Had swabs been taken from the other victims my guess is that they would show similar results. Hand washing alone will not remove all lead.
Even today it is claimed lipsticks contain traces of lead. 32 years ago H&S wasn't what it is today.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3264193/Is-make-bag-poisoning-Lead-lipsticks-toxic-nail-polish-fake-tan-causes-wrinkles.html
Often when adult children visit grandparents old toys are brought out for grandchildren which may well contain lead. It seems it's still happening today:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8944028/One-third-of-Chinese-toys-contain-heavy-metals.html
Jewellery too:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/costume-jewelry-found-to-have-high-levels-of-toxins-and-carcinogens-tests-show/
SC was found wearing a ring which looked more costume than precious which may well have contained small amounts of lead.
There's no expert evidence SC died significantly later than the other victims just a lot of theories that don't stand up to scrutiny.
The testees hands probably showed higher levels of lead as they may well have been exposed to leaded fuel when filling up their cars. SC wasn't a car driver. Testees were scientists at the lab so chances are they were car drivers.
Are you conflating GSR with lead? GSR dissipates regardless of any other factors. Lead will remain on the skin even after washing.
You seem to believe that the difference in lead levels between SC's right and left hand support SC handling the cartridges. I believe the tests undertaken at the lab are flawed and the results meaningless. I have suggested simple tests to prove one way or another:
- Obtain the D lead solution kit.
- Test for lead levels before handling cartridges
- If lead present use the D lead solution to remove and retest until hands are completely lead free
- Load Anshutz mag to full capacity x 2 and test hands for lead. I don't believe lead will present as the cartridges are instinctively held at the brass end and the bullet (lead) is coated in parrafin wax which effectively seals in the lead and acts as a barrier. I might be wrong and maybe small amounts of lead will present. Either way it will show the tests/results presented at trial were flawed. If loading the bullets shows high levels of lead then it's back to the ritual cleansing theory. Washing/wiping hands will remove some lead but not all.
Trouble with your theories David is that they constantly go against expert opinion. IMO the better trained an expert is by way of qualifications and experience the more reliable they are likely to be. I am happy to rely on Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis, Prof Knight and Dr Lloyd. Your theories depend on all these experts being wrong.
The staff at FSS were generalists and MF appears totally unreliable. IMO the tests/results emanating from the lab are totally unreliable. This is also supported by the governments own findings @ 3.3.1:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm
-
SC was found wearing a ring which looked more costume than precious which may well have contained small amounts of lead.
On her left hand!
There's no expert evidence SC died significantly later than the other victims just a lot of theories that don't stand up to scrutiny.
There is and they do. You simply don't want to believe it. Either out of stubbornness or wanting to keep the case a "mystery"
Are you conflating GSR with lead? GSR dissipates regardless of any other factors. Lead will remain on the skin even after washing.
Lead is an element of gunshot residue. The test is designed to look for lead (Pb), antimony (Sb), and barium (Ba)
Most GSR (unique and characteristic) and Pb-rich particles firing showed that the memory effect 1191 was connected were lost during the first two to four hours, confirming the with the residual GSR ejected from the inside of the weapon observations of Knechtle and Gallusser [41, Murdock [Ill and also that present on the weapon's surface (e.g., grip, and Nesbitt et al. [l2,l81. This also showed that parti- breech, trigger, magazine) released by the firing. In fact, the chemicle retention does not depend on their chemical nature. amounts of GSR present at t=O on the left hand (back and The distribution of GSR on both hands immediately after palm) and on the right hand palm were only due to the handling and/or loading of the firearm [2]. The highest amount of GSR due to the memory effect is generally present on the right palm and is deposited by contact with the grip; the roughness of this surface and the strength of the contact during firing can explain this result.
IPSC, University of Lausanne, Chemistry Building, 1015, Lausanne-Dorigny, Switzerland
Trouble with your theories David is that they constantly go against expert opinion. IMO the better trained an expert is by way of qualifications and experience the more reliable they are likely to be. I am happy to rely on Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis, Prof Knight and Dr Lloyd. Your theories depend on all these experts being wrong.
I always back up my claims with expert evidence. Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight have conflicting opinions on some subjects as you already know, they cant both be correct can they? So yes they can be wrong. Dr Craig cant even notice a gunshot wound that's right infront of him. The irony of it all is, had Dr Craig actually paid closer attention and done his job we would not need to have this discussion, here you are using Dr Craig to back up your claims.
-
On her left hand!
And which hand do you think she used to remove and put on with? Which hand did she use if she twiddled with it and rubbed her hands?
There is and they do. You simply don't want to believe it. Either out of stubbornness or wanting to keep the case a "mystery"
There isn't. Your opinions about Dr Vanezis' comments about partially digested food in SC's stomach meaning SC died later than other victims don't count. Dr Vanezis explains this in CAL's book. Moreover Prof Knight for the defence had access to the autopsy report; if it was something capable of being pursued from a defence perspective this would've happened. Prof Knight wrote a tomb about time of death and concludes there's nothing reliable for a narrow window ie nothing that could assist JB. Your perception of SoC/autopsy images with questionable provenance don't count either. Again Prof Knight had access to all SoC/autopsy images. At the time of WHF Prof Knight was a pathologist of long experience with an excellent reputation if he could see what you think you can see from SoC/autopsy images ie difference in stages of RM etc he would've pursued.
Lead is an element of gunshot residue. The test is designed to look for lead (Pb), antimony (Sb), and barium (Ba)
Most GSR (unique and characteristic) and Pb-rich particles firing showed that the memory effect 1191 was connected were lost during the first two to four hours, confirming the with the residual GSR ejected from the inside of the weapon observations of Knechtle and Gallusser [41, Murdock [Ill and also that present on the weapon's surface (e.g., grip, and Nesbitt et al. [l2,l81. This also showed that parti- breech, trigger, magazine) released by the firing. In fact, the chemicle retention does not depend on their chemical nature. amounts of GSR present at t=O on the left hand (back and The distribution of GSR on both hands immediately after palm) and on the right hand palm were only due to the handling and/or loading of the firearm [2]. The highest amount of GSR due to the memory effect is generally present on the right palm and is deposited by contact with the grip; the roughness of this surface and the strength of the contact during firing can explain this result.
IPSC, University of Lausanne, Chemistry Building, 1015, Lausanne-Dorigny, Switzerland
You're conflating 2 entirely different tests:
- GSR = particles of various matter produced from gunshot discharge.
- The test carried out on the swabs was concerned SOLELY with lead from handling cartridges ie picking them up and and loading them into mag. It had nothing whatsoever to do with GSR.
I always back up my claims with expert evidence. Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight have conflicting opinions on some subjects as you already know, they cant both be correct can they? So yes they can be wrong. Dr Craig cant even notice a gunshot wound that's right infront of him. The irony of it all is, had Dr Craig actually paid closer attention and done his job we would not need to have this discussion, here you are using Dr Craig to back up your claims.
What aspects of the case do Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight disagree on? The burns? That's it afaik. In this regard they both acknowledge being unsure.
It has been pointed out to you numerous times Dr Craig was not called to WHF to carry out mini post mortems. He was there simply to certify death. It is obvious to you looking at SoC images SC sustained 2 GSW's having also read the PM but you don't know what Dr Craig saw that morning. You think because he may have overlooked 1 of SC's GSW's measuring 1/4" or 3/16" in an area that was bloody means he overlooked a different stage of RM on all the exposed areas of her body compared with other victims.
How many times has it been pointed out to you that he only acknowledged 1 GSW per victim. Did any of the officers identify 2 at SoC and before autopsy carried out? Is it in Chief Sup Harris' WS or DCI Jones' notebook?
-
David why haven't you helped Kaldin out over the 14th casing found upstairs? Based on trial testimony from Dr Vanezis and MF it seems June was shot an 8th time. June sustained a bruise to her chest and one theory is that this was a GSW which caused a graze only wound. This would then account for the 4th spent bullet in the main bedroom and the 14th casing found in the main bedroom/landing. I thought you were offay with this?
-
And which hand do you think she used to remove and put on with? Which hand did she use if she twiddled with it and rubbed her hands?
There isn't. Your opinions about Dr Vanezis' comments about partially digested food in SC's stomach meaning SC died later than other victims don't count. Dr Vanezis explains this in CAL's book. Moreover Prof Knight for the defence had access to the autopsy report; if it was something capable of being pursued from a defence perspective this would've happened. Prof Knight wrote a tomb about time of death and concludes there's nothing reliable for a narrow window ie nothing that could assist JB. Your perception of SoC/autopsy images with questionable provenance don't count either. Again Prof Knight had access to all SoC/autopsy images. At the time of WHF Prof Knight was a pathologist of long experience with an excellent reputation if he could see what you think you can see from SoC/autopsy images ie difference in stages of RM etc he would've pursued.
You're conflating 2 entirely different tests:
- GSR = particles of various matter produced from gunshot discharge.
- The test carried out on the swabs was concerned SOLELY with lead from handling cartridges ie picking them up and and loading them into mag. It had nothing whatsoever to do with GSR.
What aspects of the case do Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight disagree on? The burns? That's it afaik. In this regard they both acknowledge being unsure.
It has been pointed out to you numerous times Dr Craig was not called to WHF to carry out mini post mortems. He was there simply to certify death. It is obvious to you looking at SoC images SC sustained 2 GSW's having also read the PM but you don't know what Dr Craig saw that morning. You think because he may have overlooked 1 of SC's GSW's measuring 1/4" or 3/16" in an area that was bloody means he overlooked a different stage of RM on all the exposed areas of her body compared with other victims.
How many times has it been pointed out to you that he only acknowledged 1 GSW per victim. Did any of the officers identify 2 at SoC and before autopsy carried out? Is it in Chief Sup Harris' WS or DCI Jones' notebook?
Excellent post Holly - 100% agree. David's 'theories' depend on either everyone (expect nd unqualified David) being wrong, or everyone lying. It's just not credible.
-
Whatever happened to the campaign team and all their boasts of a breakthrough?
-
Whatever happened to the campaign team and all their boasts of a breakthrough?
They announce that they have one, then scrape every barrel they can find, hoping to find one?
-
They announce that they have one, then scrape every barrel they can find, hoping to find one?
And someone alerted the press to their behaviour. (Graveyard Vlog).. So they've got to be more careful.
-
Excellent post Holly - 100% agree. David's 'theories' depend on either everyone (expect nd unqualified David) being wrong, or everyone lying. It's just not credible.
Thanks.
Just reading some posts from over the way re so-called marks on SC's hands apparently overlooked by Dr Vanezis. I don't know whether or not I've seen the images and even if I have I often struggle to make much sense of them. I prefer to look at the bigger picture and again it just doesn't stack up to my mind.
- Dr Vanezis appears to have been very thorough documenting all bodily marks etc even when clearly unrelated to 7th Aug other than possibly the graze.
- Stretch marks
- Nicotine stains
- Scars from implants
- Tampon inserted
- Graze on abdomen covered by dressing
Why would he go into such detail if he was just going thru the motions? As he went into such detail why overlook marks on SC's hands?
Unlike evidence evaluated by the lab eg hand swabs and silencer where it could be argued these exhibits have a questionable chain of custody and where the final analysis was produced after JB's interviews under caution this was not the case with the autopsies. The victims were removed from WHF in body bags used for 'suspicious deaths'. Dr Vanezis made notes on 7th/8th Aug and these tally with the autopsy report.
More importantly for me is the fact that Prof Knight for the defence reviewed all Dr Vanezis' findings:
- Autopsy report
- SoC images
- PM images
Prof Knight and Dr Vanezis are known internationally and afaik have unblemished records. At the time of WHF Prof Knight had about 10 years more experience than Dr Vanezis. He was hugely experienced and well qualified and if there was anything untoward I believe he would have unearthed it.
I think those that believe they can see things overlooked by Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight are either misinterpreting the images or the images are fakes/have been doctored probably from the time convicted conman GDS was involved.
-
David can I ask what your views are on these marks on SC's hands? From your posts you seem to be saying they're blood stains? As an aside I recall from IA you were arguing NB sustained fingernail gouges to his arm, again not noted by Dr Vanezis or Prof Knight, are you still holding out on this?
-
David can I ask what your views are on these marks on SC's hands? From your posts you seem to be saying they're blood stains? As an aside I recall from IA you were arguing NB sustained fingernail gouges to his arm, again not noted by Dr Vanezis or Prof Knight, are you still holding out on this?
Venezis went further than that, he said they were NOT gouges and more in line with being pistol whipped.
-
Venezis went further than that, he said they were NOT gouges and more in line with being pistol whipped.
Did he use the term "pistol whipped"? Thought he referred to non-gunshot injuries as "blows" from a "blunt instrument"?
-
David you have recently exchanged posts with Mat on Blue:
The rifle is not covered in lead based lubricant the brass shell casings are. Furthermore you have copper and zinc traces on her hands that are both alloy components of what would make up the brass shell casings.
What would Sheila be doing that night in order to get those on her hands?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9173.msg431262/topicseen.html#msg431262
If you Google Copper and Zinc you will find they are found in many food stuffs and everday items:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc
SC may have eaten a bar of chocolate before bed which contains copper and zinc. The body requires these minerals to function!
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vitamins-and-minerals/
You're not helping JB with your poorly researched arguments.
The test presented at trial is invalid as it's impossible to conclude scientifically he/she did/didn't handle x when he/she may well have handled y containing the same materials.
-
SC may have eaten a bar of chocolate before bed which contains copper and zinc. The body requires these minerals to function!
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vitamins-and-minerals/
You're not helping JB with your poorly researched arguments.
Milk Chocolate is roughly 0.002% copper. Dark Chocolate is roughly 0.006% copper. Brass is 65% copper
Considering the copper levels on her hands are similar to the testees who with absolute certainty handled 18 brass casings. Loaded them into the magazine that causes brass particles to be scratched off onto the loaders hands.
(https://s10.postimg.org/sk26sg1i1/trial4.png)
So.
How much chocolate would have to be smeared onto Sheila hands to get the same level of reading?
Did Vanezis report any chocolate stains on her hands? No.
Did the lab staff notice chocolate on the swabs? No.
Have you ever heard of a defence lawyer arguing their client ate chocolate instead of loading a gun? No
Am I the one here with poorly researched arguments? No.
I dont even know why I bother.
-
Milk Chocolate is roughly 0.002% copper. Dark Chocolate is roughly 0.006% copper. Brass is 65% copper
Considering the copper levels on her hands are similar to the testees who with absolute certainty handled 18 brass casings. Loaded them into the magazine that causes brass particles to be scratched off onto the loaders hands.
(https://s10.postimg.org/sk26sg1i1/trial4.png)
So.
How much chocolate would have to be smeared onto Sheila hands to get the same level of reading?
Did Vanezis report any chocolate stains on her hands? No.
Did the lab staff notice chocolate on the swabs? No.
Have you ever heard of a defence lawyer arguing their client ate chocolate instead of loading a gun? No
Am I the one here with poorly researched arguments? No.
I dont even know why I bother.
The test carried out by Brian Elliot and the results presented at trial were based on lead not brass, copper or zinc.
I've already explained to you in 1985 lead was still present in everyday items eg petrol and items still in use from a bygone era eg paintwork, childrens toys.
The test results presented at trial were meaningless as firstly the testees hands were not swabbed beforehand to ascertain lead levels, secondly the results between SC and testees were not quantitatively different, thirdly given everyday items contained lead in 1985 the test results are meaningless as there's no way of knowing whether the low levels of lead found on swabs from testees and SC orginated from handling cartridges and/or some other item(s).
I was being somewhat facetious about the chocolate although it does contain copper and zinc. David it seems everyone other than yourself understands brass, copper and zinc can be found in everyday items with copper and zinc present in a wide variety of foods:
- Batteries
- Childrens toys
- Cutlery
- Coins
- Jewellery
- Make-up
- Pipe Fittings including taps
- Prescription drugs
- White goods
It would be a miracle if the hands of testees and SC didn't contain traces of copper, lead and zinc (and brass).
You say Dr Vanezis didn't identify any chocolate stains on SC's hands which is correct. According to Dr Vanezis and DC Hammersley SC's hands, palms and fingers, were clean to the naked eye so how did lead, copper and zinc present on the hand swabs? This is how poor your arguments and reasonsing are. These substances present on the skin (swabs) under certain conditions (gamma rays with lead) but are not visible to the naked eye.
There's a simple answer to all this:
Testees hands are swabbed for lead levels. If lead presents it is removed.
Testees load cartridges into mag
Testees hands are swabbed and tested for lead.
I don't believe the swabs will detect lead as the bullet is coated in parrafin wax and it is only possible to load the cartridges into the mag by pressing down on the brass end not the bullet (lead).
Take another peep at Farm Girl and note how she loads the ammo pressing down on the brass end not the bullet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdAI9j_lDbc
Anyway it doesn't matter the bottom line is the test results presented at trial are meaningless and do not mean that had SC handled the cartridges higher levels of lead would present on the swabs taken from her hands.
-
Quite interesting
2. Gunpowder residue leaves expected patterns
When a gun is fired, the bullet is not the only thing that comes out of the barrel. Burning powder particles also expectorate and will create a pattern on the object closest to the barrel. This pattern varies by how far the weapon is from the target. By knowing the patterns of a particular firearm, a consensus can be reached about how close or how far away the gun was. If there are no powder marks on the hand holding the gun or the forehead around the bullet hole, it is unlikely that the victim shot himself, so suicide can be ruled out no matter how convincing the pose looks to the untrained eye.
http://forensicoutreach.com/library/6-remarkable-ways-guns-can-be-linked-to-a-crime-scene/
-
Quite interesting
2. Gunpowder residue leaves expected patterns
When a gun is fired, the bullet is not the only thing that comes out of the barrel. Burning powder particles also expectorate and will create a pattern on the object closest to the barrel. This pattern varies by how far the weapon is from the target. By knowing the patterns of a particular firearm, a consensus can be reached about how close or how far away the gun was. If there are no powder marks on the hand holding the gun or the forehead around the bullet hole, it is unlikely that the victim shot himself, so suicide can be ruled out no matter how convincing the pose looks to the untrained eye.
http://forensicoutreach.com/library/6-remarkable-ways-guns-can-be-linked-to-a-crime-scene/
Yes gunpowder residue (usually referred to as gunshot residue (GSR)) is an established forensic test but that's not what we're talking about here. The test carried out by Brian Elliot was for lead from handling cartridges not GSR from firearm discharge. GSR contains a unique combination of particles linked soley to firearm discharge.
Fletcher claims he sustained black discolouration to his hands from simply loading the cartridges not discharging the firearm.
-
Yes gunpowder residue (usually referred to as gunshot residue (GSR)) is an established forensic test but that's not what we're talking about here. The test carried out by Brian Elliot was for lead from handling cartridges not GSR from firearm discharge. GSR contains a unique combination of particles linked soley to firearm discharge.
Fletcher claims he sustained black discolouration to his hands from simply loading the cartridges not discharging the firearm.
If she discharged the firearm, she should have had GSR on at least the trigger hand. She didn't.
-
If she discharged the firearm, she should have had GSR on at least the trigger hand. She didn't.
SC's hands were not tested in accordance with GSR test procedures:
- GSR only last a few hours until it dissipates
- Any movement will accelerate the above
- SC's trigger hand was moved at soc to take soc images
- Both hands were moved to place in bags
- SC was placed in a bag and transported to path lab
- At path lab DC Hammersley swabbed her hands and forehead by which time any GSR would potentially be lost
- Swabs were sent to FSS with an unrelated firearm
- Lab rejected swabs as potential for contamination
- DCI Ainsley took over and insisted the swabs were examined
- Brian Elliot conjured up the lead test instead in an attempt to demonstrate SC didn't handle the cartridges
The lead test isn't a valid forensic scientific test.
No GSR testing was ever carried out.
-
Here is an extract from an American COA document
"One of the particles found on appellant's right hand showed the presence of lead, copper, zinc, barium, calcium, and silica. These same elements were present in the ammunition found in the weapon at the scene. Hence, the elemental composition of this particle was entirely consistent with the ammunition used to fire the fatal shot. Mr. Fong could not think of anything other than a gunshot which would account for such a particle."
No counter argument by the defence of eating Chocolate
Can you find any case where chocolate has been misinterepreted to the extent that it appears like someone could have used a gun?
-
Here is an extract from an American COA document
"One of the particles found on appellant's right hand showed the presence of lead, copper, zinc, barium, calcium, and silica. These same elements were present in the ammunition found in the weapon at the scene. Hence, the elemental composition of this particle was entirely consistent with the ammunition used to fire the fatal shot. Mr. Fong could not think of anything other than a gunshot which would account for such a particle."
No counter argument by the defence of eating Chocolate
Can you find any case where chocolate has been misinterepreted to the extent that it appears like someone could have used a gun?
Please refrain from using emoticons, gifs and any other images which have the potential to sow discord on the forum.
The operative word above is particle David. It appears the particle contained enough elements to link it to the soc. Are you able to find me any JB/SC case related docs referring to particles? I certainly haven't seen any. SC's hands were found to contain traces of lead, copper, Zinc (and calcium if my memory serves me correctly). These chemicals were found and identified independently of one another suggesting they were present from handling everyday items and ingesting foods containing copper and zinc which present on the skin from the biological system.
-
The test carried out by Brian Elliot and the results presented at trial were based on lead not brass, copper or zinc.
I've already explained to you in 1985 lead was still present in everyday items eg petrol and items still in use from a bygone era eg paintwork, childrens toys.
The test results presented at trial were meaningless as firstly the testees hands were not swabbed beforehand to ascertain lead levels, secondly the results between SC and testees were not quantitatively different, thirdly given everyday items contained lead in 1985 the test results are meaningless as there's no way of knowing whether the low levels of lead found on swabs from testees and SC orginated from handling cartridges and/or some other item(s).
I was being somewhat facetious about the chocolate although it does contain copper and zinc. David it seems everyone other than yourself understands brass, copper and zinc can be found in everyday items with copper and zinc present in a wide variety of foods:
- Batteries
- Childrens toys
- Cutlery
- Coins
- Jewellery
- Make-up
- Pipe Fittings including taps
- Prescription drugs
- White goods
It would be a miracle if the hands of testees and SC didn't contain traces of copper, lead and zinc (and brass).
You say Dr Vanezis didn't identify any chocolate stains on SC's hands which is correct. According to Dr Vanezis and DC Hammersley SC's hands, palms and fingers, were clean to the naked eye so how did lead, copper and zinc present on the hand swabs? This is how poor your arguments and reasonsing are. These substances present on the skin (swabs) under certain conditions (gamma rays with lead) but are not visible to the naked eye.
There's a simple answer to all this:
Testees hands are swabbed for lead levels. If lead presents it is removed.
Testees load cartridges into mag
Testees hands are swabbed and tested for lead.
I don't believe the swabs will detect lead as the bullet is coated in parrafin wax and it is only possible to load the cartridges into the mag by pressing down on the brass end not the bullet (lead).
Take another peep at Farm Girl and note how she loads the ammo pressing down on the brass end not the bullet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdAI9j_lDbc
Anyway it doesn't matter the bottom line is the test results presented at trial are meaningless and do not mean that had SC handled the cartridges higher levels of lead would present on the swabs taken from her hands.
Just to clear things up.
Fact- Brian Elliot said at trial the testees washed their hands prior to doing the experiment.
Fact- Rivlin and Munday brought up the similar levels of copper and iron between SC and the testees. Along with the different levels of copper between the SC control swab and the hand swabs.
I believe Rivlin and Munday were onto something too little too late because its not going to fit in with their ritualistic cleansing argument. Make sense?
My explanation for the graphs is that SC loaded the lead coated bullets into the magazine. This also resulted in brass scrapings going onto her left hand that was holding the magazine. Hence higher levels of lead on her right hand and higher levels of copper on her left hand. and the similar copper levels on the testees.
Of course I am not arguing this in isolation proves that happened. But it fits into the bigger picture of things.
I have overlapped some of the XRF charts. The first one shows SC control swab in green, left hand in pink and right and in red.
The second chart shows SC left hand in pink and testee SW left hand in blue.
I plan to make more when I get more time 8((()*/
-
Just to clear things up.
Fact- Brian Elliot said at trial the testees washed their hands prior to doing the experiment.
It is generally known washing alone will not remove lead. A lead removal product is required.
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/lead/safe.html
Dr Lloyd criticised the fact swabs were not taken from the testees prior to handling the cartridges and he's right imo. Surely this alone tells you all you need to know about the numpty so-called scientists at FSS? Without knowing whether or not lead was present on their hands prior to handling the cartridges how can you attribute anything to the cartridges when the low levels found on their hands could just as easily be attributed to filling up a car with leaded petrol or numerous other explanations.
Fact- Rivlin and Munday brought up the similar levels of copper and iron between SC and the testees. Along with the different levels of copper between the SC control swab and the hand swabs.
I believe Rivlin and Munday were onto something too little too late because its not going to fit in with their ritualistic cleansing argument. Make sense?
Munday? You mean Lawson? Munday was junior for the prosecution with Lawson for the defence?
David the levels of these chemicals presenting are incredibly small and can easily be accounted for by everyday items, the atmosphere and biological system eg sweat.
My explanation for the graphs is that SC loaded the lead coated bullets into the magazine. This also resulted in brass scrapings going onto her left hand that was holding the magazine. Hence higher levels of lead on her right hand and higher levels of copper on her left hand. and the similar copper levels on the testees.
Of course I am not arguing this in isolation proves that happened. But it fits into the bigger picture of things.
I have overlapped some of the XRF charts. The first one shows SC control swab in green, left hand in pink and right and in red.
The second chart shows SC left hand in pink and testee SW left hand in blue.
I plan to make more when I get more time 8((()*/
I think you over complicate things. As I said these low levels of chemicals including lead can be accounted for by the atmosphere, biological system and everyday items.
The bullet (lead) is about 0.5cm long and 0.5cm at its widest point and coated with parrafin wax. It hasn't even been proven whether or not the lead can penetrate the parrafin wax when handled through the course of loading the mag.
http://www.eley.co.uk/eley-subsonic-hollow
There are a million and one things at play here eg SC's hands were placed in plastic bags what effect, if any, did this have on chemicals on her hands?
I've no idea what you hope to achieve by poring over this? As far as I can see the only way to advance it is by carrying out new tests:
-Swab hands
-If lead present remove with lead removal product
-Swab again to check all lead removed and keep repeating until all lead removed ie clear lead free swab
-Load cartridges into mag 26 times
-Swab hands and check for lead levels
-If no lead present or same levels of lead as SC's swabs = probably indicative of her loading cartridges
-If more lead then we're back to ritual washing or considering JB might be guilty! 8((()*/
-
Another point to consider is which part of the hand was swabbed.
DC Hammersley swabbed SC's hands for GSR and may have swabbed her palms or the back of the hands.
Swabs taken from the testees may have been taken from the fingers which is the area most likely to come into contact with the lead bullet.
Pointless poring over what's gone as there are too many unknowns.
-
David why not just take part in the experiment?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?PHPSESSID=8rdbfh3fldcp4shui0p9a00dm7&topic=7970.msg422228#msg422228
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9173.msg431364.html?PHPSESSID=2qg62bui5t6e94m05lrdj62391#msg431364
Where Caroline refers to "beauty products" I'm assuming she is referring to cleansers, moisturisers etc many of which contain copper and zinc. This is how common these chemicals are in everyday items so trying to connect them with the cartridges is imo futile.
-
I've no idea what you hope to achieve by poring over this? As far as I can see the only way to advance it is by carrying out new tests:
I am not trying to advance anything. I am simply trying to interpret the evidence available.
How do you believe the lead, Iron and copper got on Sheila's hands that night? And don't say well it could be this or that or chocolate. Sheila must done or engaged in some task using inanimate objects containing those elements. What do you believe that was?
-Swab hands
-If lead present remove with lead removal product
-Swab again to check all lead removed and keep repeating until all lead removed ie clear lead free swab
-Load cartridges into mag 26 times
-Swab hands and check for lead levels
-If no lead present or same levels of lead as SC's swabs = probably indicative of her loading cartridges
-If more lead then we're back to ritual washing or considering JB might be guilty! 8((()*/
No. Just that she didn't load the weapon shortly before her death. Since Venezis never gave a time of death Rivlin could have made such argument in court whether you believe its true or not.
Just like he could have argued Neville made the phone call before rushing upstairs hearing Sheila shooting June. Nevill entered the bedroom and got shot. There was nothing to preclude that argument either.
Sometimes I think Rivlin was deliberately making life easier for his fellow prosecutor.
-
I am not trying to advance anything. I am simply trying to interpret the evidence available.
How do you believe the lead, Iron and copper got on Sheila's hands that night? And don't say well it could be this or that or chocolate. Sheila must done or engaged in some task using inanimate objects containing those elements. What do you believe that was?
I'm just reading one of JB's letters about the matter. He states he has both graphs in front of him which for SC he refers to as 3314. He states shows raised levels of zinc, copper, bromine and low levels of lead. For the male member of staff he refers to graph 3285 showing raised levels of calcium, zinc, copper, bromine and a raised level of lead.
I know Elliot used gamma rays to detect and measure lead. How were the other chemicals detected and measured? Do these tests identify all chemicals present on the hand swabs or just the chemicals picked up by whatever method they used to detect and measure the other chemicals?
I've only see the quantities for lead but these were negligible and could just be from touching that old paintwork in WHF eg pushing open doors. Or old items in existence from an age when lead was used in many products. Don't ask me exactly what coz I don't know but WHF looks like it contained lots of old tat. Lead on hands from scientist could come from filling up car with leaded petrol. I've already said copper and zinc are everywhere: atmosphere, everday items, food stuff, body and will present on skin as sweat. Check it out for yourself.
Can't you just accept Elliot and Fletcher were not forensic scientists as we know them today. At best they were guys with a science degree. You will recall Fletcher's intro to the court: "small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a boy", and we know high profile quality failings prevailed at FSS during the 80's. Need I say more!? These hand swab test results are meaningless and the jury were misled for sure. In the same way they were misled when Fletcher said it was "virtually certain" SC's gsw's would result in drawback.
No. Just that she didn't load the weapon shortly before her death. Since Venezis never gave a time of death Rivlin could have made such argument in court whether you believe its true or not.
You've lost me!? DC Hammersley swabbed SC's hands during the afternoon of 7th Aug at PM. The chemicals clearly still present on the swab so I don't see how tod or when SC loaded rifle impacts? If indeed SC did load rifle!
Just like he could have argued Neville made the phone call before rushing upstairs hearing Sheila shooting June. Nevill entered the bedroom and got shot. There was nothing to preclude that argument either.
Sometimes I think Rivlin was deliberately making life easier for his fellow prosecutor.
It's hardly surprising it went the way it did with the numpty scientists from FSS, Elliot and Fletcher in particular, and the lawyers.
-
I'm just reading one of JB's letters about the matter. He states he has both graphs in front of him which for SC he refers to as 3314. He states shows raised levels of zinc, copper, bromine and low levels of lead. For the male member of staff he refers to graph 3285 showing raised levels of calcium, zinc, copper, bromine and a raised level of lead.
I know Elliot used gamma rays to detect and measure lead. How were the other chemicals detected and measured? Do these tests identify all chemicals present on the hand swabs or just the chemicals picked up by whatever method they used to detect and measure the other chemicals?
The machine will pick up on most metals in the period table such as gold, mercury, silver and everything else you see on the charts. The machines have detection limitations. If the composition is too low the elements will not be picked up on.
I've only see the quantities for lead but these were negligible and could just be from touching that old paintwork in WHF eg pushing open doors. Or old items in existence from an age when lead was used in many products. Don't ask me exactly what coz I don't know but WHF looks like it contained lots of old tat. Lead on hands from scientist could come from filling up car with leaded petrol. I've already said copper and zinc are everywhere: atmosphere, everday items, food stuff, body and will present on skin as sweat. Check it out for yourself.
XRF tests will not pick up on copper or lead in sweat or the body. In order to find the composition of sweat scientists have to put subjects in full body bags and have them exercise for long periods of time. Like chocolate your going to need a lot of sweat to finds its composition.
Can you please answer my question?
You've lost me!? DC Hammersley swabbed SC's hands during the afternoon of 7th Aug at PM. The chemicals clearly still present on the swab so I don't see how tod or when SC loaded rifle impacts? If indeed SC did load rifle!
Seriously? Ive discussed this with you several times already. Detectible lead particles dont stay on the hands for very long. Unless the person is dead! Try reading the stuff I post. You can go on about lead and copper in skin, sweat and chocolate all you like but those are not detectible with a hand swab. The composition is FAR too low. Read what Brian Elliot writes in his conclusions.
-
Can't you just accept Elliot and Fletcher were not forensic scientists as we know them today. At best they were guys with a science degree. You will recall Fletcher's intro to the court: "small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a boy", and we know high profile quality failings prevailed at FSS during the 80's. Need I say more!? These hand swab test results are meaningless and the jury were misled for sure. In the same way they were misled when Fletcher said it was "virtually certain" SC's gsw's would result in drawback.
Brian Elliot is not Malcom Fletcher and Malcom Fletcher is not Brian Elliot.
Here is Brian Elliot's CV from 2007. He was not just a "guy with a science degree"
-
Brian Elliot is not Malcom Fletcher and Malcom Fletcher is not Brian Elliot.
Here is Brian Elliot's CV from 2007. He was not just a "guy with a science degree"
It's exactly as I said a guy with a science degree. There's no evidence he had any academic qualifications or training in forensic science.
Even I would know that if you wanted to compare SC's swabs with swabs taken from testees after loading mag you would need to take control swabs from testees hands prior to the test being carried out as washing alone is insufficient to remove all trace elements. A so-called scientist that makes such a simple error over such an important matter is not to be relied upon IMO.
I've pointed out to you that this test doesn't feature in VDM's book or any other forensic science text book. Nor does it feature as an available test/service with UK providers of forensic science services. Why? Because the test has no forensic scientific basis to it. You're trying to make sense out of something that's senseless and in the fullness of time I'm sure you will come to appreciate this.
-
The machine will pick up on most metals in the period table such as gold, mercury, silver and everything else you see on the charts. The machines have detection limitations. If the composition is too low the elements will not be picked up on.
XRF tests will not pick up on copper or lead in sweat or the body. In order to find the composition of sweat scientists have to put subjects in full body bags and have them exercise for long periods of time. Like chocolate your going to need a lot of sweat to finds its composition.
Can you please answer my question?
Please allow Dr Lloyd to answer on my behalf:
218. Dr Lloyd's conclusions, as apparent from a report with which we were supplied, were principally that the lead found on the handswabs from Sheila Caffell and from those tested in the laboratory came from petrol combustion residues and was not connected with the handling of bullets. Secondly that the handswabs from Sheila Caffell were not qualitatively different from those from the testees. He was critical of the laboratory test saying that swabs should have been taken both before the handling of the bullets so that a comparison could have been made between the two. Accordingly in his opinion the test results were of no assistance to the determination of whether or not Sheila Caffell had handled the cartridges in the same manner as the testees.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
Seriously? Ive discussed this with you several times already. Detectible lead particles dont stay on the hands for very long. Unless the person is dead! Try reading the stuff I post. You can go on about lead and copper in skin, sweat and chocolate all you like but those are not detectible with a hand swab. The composition is FAR too low. Read what Brian Elliot writes in his conclusions.
Likewise
The following is in the link I provided here:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7970.msg444167#msg444167
Use an effective lead removal product to clean your hands. Washing skin with standard soap and water is not enough to remove lead residues.
Lets be clear what we're talking about here: the test results revolve around whether or not the levels of lead detected on the swabs indicate whether or not SC handled the cartridges. Other chemicals presented on the graph eg copper etc are a sideshow.
I must say Brian Elliot's conclusions are presented very professionally NOT. Am I supposed to be impressed with this scrap of paper where he appears to have difficulty constructing a single sentence? You will note above Dr Lloyd produced a report.
-
Please allow Dr Lloyd to answer on my behalf:
218. Dr Lloyd's conclusions, as apparent from a report with which we were supplied, were principally that the lead found on the handswabs from Sheila Caffell and from those tested in the laboratory came from petrol combustion residues and was not connected with the handling of bullets. Secondly that the handswabs from Sheila Caffell were not qualitatively different from those from the testees. He was critical of the laboratory test saying that swabs should have been taken both before the handling of the bullets so that a comparison could have been made between the two. Accordingly in his opinion the test results were of no assistance to the determination of whether or not Sheila Caffell had handled the cartridges in the same manner as the testees.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
Likewise
The following is in the link I provided here:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7970.msg444167#msg444167
Use an effective lead removal product to clean your hands. Washing skin with standard soap and water is not enough to remove lead residues.
Lets be clear what we're talking about here: the test results revolve around whether or not the levels of lead detected on the swabs indicate whether or not SC handled the cartridges. Other chemicals presented on the graph eg copper etc are a sideshow.
I must say Brian Elliot's conclusions are presented very professionally NOT. Am I supposed to be impressed with this scrap of paper where he appears to have difficulty constructing a single sentence? You will note above Dr Lloyd produced a report.
And he wasn't alone, was he! What better endorsement than parliament!
3.3.1 Following some high profile quality failures in the 1980s the FSS implemented accreditation to quality standards from 1993 onwards, a world first for forensic science.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm
-
I must say Brian Elliot's conclusions are presented very professionally NOT. Am I supposed to be impressed with this scrap of paper where he appears to have difficulty constructing a single sentence? You will note above Dr Lloyd produced a report.
They are lab notes and the far right of the page has not been scanned. It does not really matter how his hand writing looks. Its what is written that is important.
"These findings indicate that Sheila Caffell is unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine shortly before her death."
The prosecution misrepresented this as. Sheila Caffell is unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine period. Once you look at the primary source (Elliots Notes) you will find they are not incriminating at all.
I do not know if these notes were avalaible at trial or not. But it would have been so simple to cross examine BE on the them.
Here is what could have transpired. I have used capital letters to represent hypothetical time.
Q: Mr Elliot. These are your lab notes on the experiment. Correct?
A: Correct.
Q: In your own words you arrived at the conclusion that Sheila is "unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine shortly before her death"
A: That is what I wrote yes.
Q: What period of time do you mean by shortly?
A: Anywhere between X amount of time and Y amount of time.
Q: So based on your findings Sheila may well have loaded the weapon at A o'clock and taken her own life at say B o'clock?
A: Yes.
Q: And would it not be very misleading and factualy incorrect Mr Elliot to say as the prosecution claim that Sheila is unlikley to have loading the gun to any extent that night?
A: That is correct.
Done.
Whether you agree with Brian Elliot or not, his evidence could easily have been dealt with.
-
They are lab notes and the far right of the page has not been scanned. It does not really matter how his hand writing looks. Its what is written that is important.
"These findings indicate that Sheila Caffell is unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine shortly before her death."
The prosecution misrepresented this as. Sheila Caffell is unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine period. Once you look at the primary source (Elliots Notes) you will find they are not incriminating at all.
I do not know if these notes were avalaible at trial or not. But it would have been so simple to cross examine BE on the them.
Here is what could have transpired. I have used capital letters to represent hypothetical time.
Q: Mr Elliot. These are your lab notes on the experiment. Correct?
A: Correct.
Q: In your own words you arrived at the conclusion that Sheila is "unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine shortly before her death"
A: That is what I wrote yes.
Q: What period of time do you mean by shortly?
A: Anywhere between X amount of time and Y amount of time.
Q: So based on your findings Sheila may well have loaded the weapon at A o'clock and taken her own life at say B o'clock?
A: Yes.
Q: And would it not be very misleading and factualy incorrect Mr Elliot to say as the prosecution claim that Sheila is unlikley to have loading the gun to any extent that night?
A: That is correct.
Done.
Whether you agree with Brian Elliot or not, his evidence could easily have been dealt with.
Nothing to do with handwriting. I was basing my criticism of his notes on the fact he seemed to struggle to construct a single sentence based on the crossing out and amendments. Have you got the rest of the doc or Elliot's trial testimony and/or any other docs relating to his evidence? Elliot was responsible for analysing the windows too I think?
I think you're reading too much into "shortly before her death" because it fits with your view that SC took her life much later than the other victims ie potentially there was a lengthy delay between SC last loading the rifle/handling cartridges and taking her own life, not a view I share I hasten to add in terms of SC taking her life later.
There's a reason such a test (handling cartridges) doesn't feature in forensic text books and/or is not offered as a test/service by forensic scientists in private practice and it's because such a test can never be carried out on a scientific basis. A half decent defence would kill it dead before it got off the starting block.
Elliot's flawed trial testimony re levels of lead on hands was very harmful to JB and likely to be the sort of thing that would resonate with jurors. Along with Fletcher's claims of black discolouration. Chipping away in the minds of jurors.
The expert evidence at trial was that SC was either murdered or took her own life around the same time the other victims lost their lives circa 3.30am. Yes I support Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight in this regard and I find your RM/LM images very unconvincing.
-
They are lab notes and the far right of the page has not been scanned. It does not really matter how his hand writing looks. Its what is written that is important.
"These findings indicate that Sheila Caffell is unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine shortly before her death."
The prosecution misrepresented this as. Sheila Caffell is unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine period. Once you look at the primary source (Elliots Notes) you will find they are not incriminating at all.
I do not know if these notes were avalaible at trial or not. But it would have been so simple to cross examine BE on the them.
Here is what could have transpired. I have used capital letters to represent hypothetical time.
Q: Mr Elliot. These are your lab notes on the experiment. Correct?
A: Correct.
Q: In your own words you arrived at the conclusion that Sheila is "unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine shortly before her death"
A: That is what I wrote yes.
Q: What period of time do you mean by shortly?
A: Anywhere between X amount of time and Y amount of time.
Q: So based on your findings Sheila may well have loaded the weapon at A o'clock and taken her own life at say B o'clock?
A: Yes.
Q: And would it not be very misleading and factualy incorrect Mr Elliot to say as the prosecution claim that Sheila is unlikley to have loading the gun to any extent that night?
A: That is correct.
Done.
Whether you agree with Brian Elliot or not, his evidence could easily have been dealt with.
I give it a few months until someone quotes the bits in bold by DDavid and quote it as trial testimony.
-
The expert evidence at trial was that SC was either murdered or took her own life around the same time the other victims lost their lives circa 3.30am. Yes I support Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight in this regard and I find your RM/LM images very unconvincing.
You support Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight in what?
Did Vanezis give a time of death? No
Did Prof Knight give a time of death? No
Is Dr Craig a pathologist? No
Did Dr Craig carry out an examination of the bodies? No
Did police ask Dr Craig to establish a TOD? No
Do you have any good reason to believe Sheila died around 3.30am? No
Are you trying to create a false impression that Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight disagree on a late TOD? Yes
Are you trying to create a false impression that Dr Craig was in the eligible position to give an accurate TOD? Yes
Is it a double standard to critisize Brian Elliots expert capacity and then find every excuse under the sun for Dr Craig? Yes.
-
You support Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight in what?
Did Vanezis give a time of death? No
Did Prof Knight give a time of death? No
Is Dr Craig a pathologist? No
Did Dr Craig carry out an examination of the bodies? No
Did police ask Dr Craig to establish a TOD? No
Do you have any good reason to believe Sheila died around 3.30am? No
Are you trying to create a false impression that Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight disagree on a late TOD? Yes
Are you trying to create a false impression that Dr Craig was in the eligible position to give an accurate TOD? Yes
Is it a double standard to critisize Brian Elliots expert capacity and then find every excuse under the sun for Dr Craig? Yes.
I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions it is impossible to provide an exact time of death so why would anyone attempt to do so? Perhaps you would prefer the doctors cobbled together something like Elliot with the handswabs or Fletcher with his "virtually certain" drawback?
Dr Craig said the following and I've no reason to believe otherwise:
38. At 8.10 a.m., Dr Craig attended the scene to formally certify the deaths. In cross-examination at the trial he said the deaths could have occurred at any time during the previous night. The appearance of Sheila Caffell's body suggested to him that the wounds had been inflicted by her own hand. In answer to the judge the witness made it clear this was not an opinion the jury should rely upon as a true indication that the injuries had been self-inflicted.
I also have confidence in Chief Sup Harris. Had SC's state in terms of Lividity/Rigmor Mortis appeared different to other victims I've no doubt he would have observed such and noted in his wit stat but he didn't. You don't get to rise thru the ranks to Chief Sup if you're a numpty. Prior to WHF he had presided over some 60 murders. Remember also Dr Craig was president of police surgeons association. Both men were hugely experienced along with Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight. The medi people well qualified by way of formal qualifications and on the job training. Of course medi people are capable of calling it wrong eg Sir Roy Meadows and perpetuating acts of pure evil eg Dr Shipman but in this case we would have to say Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight all overlooked what you think you can see and I just don't buy it.
Difference between Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis, Prof Knight and the likes of Elliot and Fletcher is that they were all well qualified and trained in their respective fields. The likes of Elliot (and Fletcher whose qualifications are unclear) is that they were not forensic scientists as we know them today just guys with science degrees attempting to apply such to the criminal justice system ie forensic science. They were allowed to do so unfettered as the lawyers were out of their depth with such a soc. The lawyers should have sought experts from US familiar with mass shootings and gun crime.
-
I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions it is impossible to provide an exact time of death so why would anyone attempt to do so? Perhaps you would prefer the doctors cobbled together something like Elliot with the handswabs or Fletcher with his "virtually certain" drawback?
Dr Craig said the following and I've no reason to believe otherwise:
38. At 8.10 a.m., Dr Craig attended the scene to formally certify the deaths. In cross-examination at the trial he said the deaths could have occurred at any time during the previous night. The appearance of Sheila Caffell's body suggested to him that the wounds had been inflicted by her own hand. In answer to the judge the witness made it clear this was not an opinion the jury should rely upon as a true indication that the injuries had been self-inflicted.
I also have confidence in Chief Sup Harris. Had SC's state in terms of Lividity/Rigmor Mortis appeared different to other victims I've no doubt he would have observed such and noted in his wit stat but he didn't. You don't get to rise thru the ranks to Chief Sup if you're a numpty. Prior to WHF he had presided over some 60 murders. Remember also Dr Craig was president of police surgeons association. Both men were hugely experienced along with Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight. The medi people well qualified by way of formal qualifications and on the job training. Of course medi people are capable of calling it wrong eg Sir Roy Meadows and perpetuating acts of pure evil eg Dr Shipman but in this case we would have to say Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight all overlooked what you think you can see and I just don't buy it.
Difference between Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis, Prof Knight and the likes of Elliot and Fletcher is that they were all well qualified and trained in their respective fields. The likes of Elliot (and Fletcher whose qualifications are unclear) is that they were not forensic scientists as we know them today just guys with science degrees attempting to apply such to the criminal justice system ie forensic science. They were allowed to do so unfettered as the lawyers were out of their depth with such a soc. The lawyers should have sought experts from US familiar with mass shootings and gun crime.
How can Dr Craig give a time frame when he did not examine the body? He does not elaborate on what he means by "previous night" This enables you to frame the statement into any timeframe that suits your argument.
Furthermore Prof Knight does say that there can be hours of delay between the murders and the suicide. And that "typical activities" and "mundane tasks" are done by the killer hours after the murders. But you wont listen to Prof Knight when it comes to this. Why?
I wont use Knights claims of a delay to support my argument regardless because I think his trial testimony was very harmful to JB and Knight made a total idiot of himself.
Alridge QC: You see, what you say is this it is headed, this particular section
"Accident, Suicide or Murder? certain elementary observations can give
immediate answers in some cases. The absense of a weapon at the scene
of a shooting naturally excludes suicide" -- So that if there is not
a weapon there, then it cannot be suicide?
Numpty Knight: Well Agatha Christie used this in a plot once.
Arlidge QC: I see, so even that is possible is it?
Numpty Knight: Well, yes.
Arlidge QC: "Several other useful pointers exist in suicide by shooting. One general
principle is" and this is where you have italicised it "a shot woman is
a murdered woman until proven otherwise"
Numpty Knight: Yes.
Knight then goes on to say that "anything is possible in forensics". Which more or less defeats the whole object of what forensics is for.
It would not surprise me if Robert Boutflour borrowed a book from his local library shorty after the tragedy. The book was Accident, Suicide or Murder? by Bernard Knight. As soon as he read the words "One general
principle is a shot woman is a murdered woman until proven otherwise" JBs fate was sealed.
-
How can Dr Craig give a time frame when he did not examine the body? He does not elaborate on what he means by "previous night" This enables you to frame the statement into any timeframe that suits your argument.
Furthermore Prof Knight does say that there can be hours of delay between the murders and the suicide. And that "typical activities" and "mundane tasks" are done by the killer hours after the murders. But you wont listen to Prof Knight when it comes to this. Why?
I wont use Knights claims of a delay to support my argument regardless because I think his trial testimony was very harmful to JB and Knight made a total idiot of himself.
Alridge QC: You see, what you say is this it is headed, this particular section
"Accident, Suicide or Murder? certain elementary observations can give
immediate answers in some cases. The absense of a weapon at the scene
of a shooting naturally excludes suicide" -- So that if there is not
a weapon there, then it cannot be suicide?
Numpty Knight: Well Agatha Christie used this in a plot once.
Arlidge QC: I see, so even that is possible is it?
Numpty Knight: Well, yes.
Arlidge QC: "Several other useful pointers exist in suicide by shooting. One general
principle is" and this is where you have italicised it "a shot woman is
a murdered woman until proven otherwise"
Numpty Knight: Yes.
Knight then goes on to say that "anything is possible in forensics". Which more or less defeats the whole object of what forensics is for.
It would not surprise me if Robert Boutflour borrowed a book from his local library shorty after the tragedy. The book was Accident, Suicide or Murder? by Bernard Knight. As soon as he read the words "One general
principle is a shot woman is a murdered woman until proven otherwise" JBs fate was sealed.
You believe SC took her own life much later than the other victims were murdered due to differences in physical appearance ie lividity/rigor mortis? If this is so how come no one else observed what you think you can see? Not only a medi doctor but numerous police officers one of whom had presided over some 60 murder investigations ie observed lots of dead bodies.
Was Dr Craig criticised for his role by judge or in the Dickenson report?
From Prof Knight:
The time of death is sometimes extremely important. It is a question almost invariably asked by police officers, sometimes with a touching faith in the accuracy of the estimate. Determining the time of death is extremely difficult, and accuracy is impossible.
-Bernard Knight, Legal Aspects of Medical Practice, 4th edition, 1987, Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh page 115
You seem to think a physician can walk into a soc like WHF and say X died at 3.49.20 when it's impossible to do so.
Prof Knight CV:
https://www.uc.pt/fmuc/DocumentosHomepage/2009/Maio/CVKnight
V
Malcom Fletcher - "Small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a boy"
I rest my case.
And don't bother attempting to contact Prof Knight as I beat you to it over a year ago.
-
And how come Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight overlooked what you think you can see on soc images assuming these images were made available to defence? and the images you are looking at haven't been doctored?
-
And how come Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight overlooked what you think you can see on soc images assuming these images were made available to defence? and the images you are looking at haven't been doctored?
Neither Knight or Vanezis were asked if they could give an opinion on the TOD based on the photos. I doubt Vanezis would give an opinion in court on photos alone.
Rivlin should have asked DI Cook how easy it was for him to move Sheilas hand/arm and when he moved it was it relaxed or slighly stiff ect ect. Then he should have shown Vanezis both the photos before and after combined with DI Cooks answer. Then asked Vanezis for a time a frame.
As for Bernard Knight here are some of his answers to questions at JBs trial.
"Oh, anything can happen in forensic medicine. One can never exclude anything."
"Almost nothing is impossible in forensic medicine."
There is not much point in asking Knight anything if he thinks anything is possible and cites Agatha Christie crime fiction novels for claiming things are possible. There is also no point in relying on Dr Craig who cant see whats right infront of him. If you want to rely on Knight and Craig to find the answers thats your problem not mine.
-
And how come Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight overlooked what you think you can see on soc images assuming these images were made available to defence? and the images you are looking at haven't been doctored?
The allegation that Di-Stefano doctored the photo submitted in 2005 is unfounded. Because other photos exist showing the same thing that have no link to Di-Stefano.
Futhermore that photo has been disclosed via the CCRC. So who would be stuipd enough the send them back the same photo looking very different from when they handed it over a year prior?
-
The allegation that Di-Stefano doctored the photo submitted in 2005 is unfounded. Because other photos exist showing the same thing that have no link to Di-Stefano.
Futhermore that photo has been disclosed via the CCRC. So who would be stuipd enough the send them back the same photo looking very different from when they handed it over a year prior?
But the images you posted on IA show completely different background colours when comparing June and SC? Had SC taken her own life shortly before the raid team entered or shortly afterwards I think it would be rather obvious to the numerous police officers. The firearms team are trained to be observant. Officers observed many incidentals eg A/PS Woodcock noted a box of Tampons on SC's bed and yet you would have us believe SC was in a completely different state in terms of Lividity/RM which everyone overlooked except you? And this is despite the fact you weren't there but have come across images hitherto unseen? You will forgive me being sceptical.
DI Cook lifted SC's arm he didn't need to bend it or manipulate it in some way. Anyway when he did this it was 2 - 3 hours after raid team entered.
-
http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/lead/lead.pdf
David hows about you meeting me at my local gun shop to make a vid to rival Mike's and Trood's? A Holls n Dave special? You could do the recording and all the tech stuff?
I'll get the D Lead test kit:
https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=moz35&p=d+lead+youtube+testing+lead+on+hands#id=1&vid=feeccc9564ac8d525c67dc7edbd763d7&action=click
And arrange for the gun shop to make available the Anshutz mag and Eley subsonic bullets which I will then load into the mag we can then use the D Lead test kit to check my hands for lead?
Can anyone see any flaws in this test?
Think I have alread stated the flaws but it would be interesting to see what happens.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9173.msg431364.html?PHPSESSID=2qg62bui5t6e94m05lrdj62391#msg431364
Where Caroline refers to "beauty products" I'm assuming she is referring to cleansers, moisturisers etc many of which contain copper and zinc. This is how common these chemicals are in everyday items so trying to connect them with the cartridges is imo futile.
Exactly.
-
But the images you posted on IA show completely different background colours when comparing June and SC? Had SC taken her own life shortly before the raid team entered or shortly afterwards I think it would be rather obvious to the numerous police officers. The firearms team are trained to be observant. Officers observed many incidentals eg A/PS Woodcock noted a box of Tampons on SC's bed and yet you would have us believe SC was in a completely different state in terms of Lividity/RM which everyone overlooked except you? And this is despite the fact you weren't there but have come across images hitherto unseen? You will forgive me being sceptical.
DI Cook lifted SC's arm he didn't need to bend it or manipulate it in some way. Anyway when he did this it was 2 - 3 hours after raid team entered.
Totally agree!
-
Neither Knight or Vanezis were asked if they could give an opinion on the TOD based on the photos. I doubt Vanezis would give an opinion in court on photos alone.
Rivlin should have asked DI Cook how easy it was for him to move Sheilas hand/arm and when he moved it was it relaxed or slighly stiff ect ect. Then he should have shown Vanezis both the photos before and after combined with DI Cooks answer. Then asked Vanezis for a time a frame.
As for Bernard Knight here are some of his answers to questions at JBs trial.
"Oh, anything can happen in forensic medicine. One can never exclude anything."
"Almost nothing is impossible in forensic medicine."
There is not much point in asking Knight anything if he thinks anything is possible and cites Agatha Christie crime fiction novels for claiming things are possible. There is also no point in relying on Dr Craig who cant see whats right infront of him. If you want to rely on Knight and Craig to find the answers thats your problem not mine.
Are you able to cite other cases where pathologists have been able to provide a TOD within a narrow timeframe eg 4 hours thus providing the accused with a rock solid alibi?
I think Prof Knight was extremely helpful to the defence. I can't help thinking you disagree on the basis his testimony doesn't align with your theories.
-
Think I have alread stated the flaws but it would be interesting to see what happens.
Pity David doesn't seem up to playing the leading man.
-
Pity David doesn't seem up to playing the leading man.
Perhaps because he doesn't have the capacity to be either?
-
Are you able to cite other cases where pathologists have been able to provide a TOD within a narrow timeframe eg 4 hours thus providing the accused with a rock solid alibi?
I think Prof Knight was extremely helpful to the defence. I can't help thinking you disagree on the basis his testimony doesn't align with your theories.
David have you been able to find any cases where pathologists, at PM or from SOC/PM inages, have been able to narrow down the TOD thus providing the suspect/accused with a rock solid alibi?
-
David I have provided numerous examples of everyday items containing the trace elements found on handswabs taken from SC and testees. Gunmetal can also contain copper, zinc and lead amongst other elements.
http://copperalliance.eu/about-copper/alloys/gunmetal
Are you able to cite any other criminal case in the UK or elsewhere where handswab evidence has been used in an attempt to show victim/perp did/didn't handle X because Y was/wasn't found on handswab? I don't believe you will find such as IMO the test is fatally flawed but I will stand corrected if you are able to show me otherwise.
The reason gunshot residue (GSR) features as a recognised forensic test throughout the world is that upon firearm discharge it generates GSR which is unique in that it contains particles comprised of many elements not found elsewhere. To qualify as GSR a particle must contain a number of elements.
215. At trial Mr Elliott had given evidence of the results of testing the swabs for lead, which included information about other elements detectable on the swab. He had also given evidence of the comparative tests carried out on other scientists after they had handled ammunition from the same source as that used in the killings and loaded it into the magazine. The tests were said to demonstrate appreciably higher lead levels on the scientists' hands than were found on the swabs taken from the hands of Sheila Caffell. This was put forward as evidence that Sheila Caffell had not handled the cartridges in a manner consistent with her being the killer.
216. At trial, Mr Rivlin QC, who appeared for the appellant at trial, sought to counteract this evidence in two ways. First in cross-examination of the scientist, he drew his attention to traces of other elements in the test results from the swabs, iron and copper, and queried whether these were significant. The scientist said that they were no more than might have been obtained from the atmosphere. He did not think the copper could have come from the bullets unless they had been scratched. The other defence approach to this evidence was the theory of ritualistic washing to which reference has earlier been made.
Assuming the above is correct why did Elliot refer to the non-lead elements being obtained from the atmosphere when they may have originated from handling the magazine? Just one example as washing alone certainly doesn't remove lead and may well not remove other existing elements either. Elliot attempts to muddy the water with the potential of a scratched cartridge (he refers to the cartridge as bullet) which you seem to be hanging your hat on along with SC taking her life much later. You're wildly wrong IMO. This test is fatally flawed and the results presented at trial were utterly meaningless IMO.
-
Just to clear things up.
Fact- Brian Elliot said at trial the testees washed their hands prior to doing the experiment.
Fact- Rivlin and Munday brought up the similar levels of copper and iron between SC and the testees. Along with the different levels of copper between the SC control swab and the hand swabs.
I believe Rivlin and Munday were onto something too little too late because its not going to fit in with their ritualistic cleansing argument. Make sense?
My explanation for the graphs is that SC loaded the lead coated bullets into the magazine. This also resulted in brass scrapings going onto her left hand that was holding the magazine. Hence higher levels of lead on her right hand and higher levels of copper on her left hand. and the similar copper levels on the testees.
Of course I am not arguing this in isolation proves that happened. But it fits into the bigger picture of things.
I have overlapped some of the XRF charts. The first one shows SC control swab in green, left hand in pink and right and in red.
The second chart shows SC left hand in pink and testee SW left hand in blue.
I plan to make more when I get more time 8((()*/
David I'm struggling to decipher all the chemical elements on the graph:
Potassium?
Calcium
Ch ?
Iron
Copper
Zinc
Lead
Bromide?
-
David I'm struggling to decipher all the chemical elements on the graph:
Potassium?
Calcium
Ch ?
Iron
Copper
Zinc
Lead
Bromide?
I ended up as part of a lock-in last night in the local boozer. The manager has a degree in applied chemistry from Edinburgh and has agreed to take a look at the graphs and bumf. Strange choice of career but said he prefers it to working at GSK. He did say:
- the chemical elements in the middle of the periodic table bond easily to anything
- the lead on hands could originate from leaded petrol in the atmosphere. I assume this is what Dr Lloyd was referring to "petrol combustion residues".
- he thought it unlikely the lead on the bullets would be capable of penetrating the paraffin wax and contaminating the hands.
I might invite him to take part in my vid.
-
I ended up as part of a lock-in last night in the local boozer. The manager has a degree in applied chemistry from Edinburgh and has agreed to take a look at the graphs and bumf. Strange choice of career but said he prefers it to working at GSK. He did say:
- the chemical elements in the middle of the periodic table bond easily to anything
- the lead on hands could originate from leaded petrol in the atmosphere. I assume this is what Dr Lloyd was referring to "petrol combustion residues".
- he thought it unlikely the lead on the bullets would be capable of penetrating the paraffin wax and contaminating the hands.
I might invite him to take part in my vid.
David forgot to add can you clarify the chem. elements for me please so I can discuss with the above. Thanks.
-
All this is getting very technical Holly, I fear the passage of time is not helpful.
-
All this is getting very technical Holly, I fear the passage of time is not helpful.
Och aye the noo!...Time and tide bade nae man.
-
David I'm struggling to decipher all the chemical elements on the graph:
For what it's worth.....
Potassium?..... Yes
Calcium
Ch ?..... Chromium
Iron
Copper
Zinc
Lead
Bromide?..... Bromine
-
All this is getting very technical Holly, I fear the passage of time is not helpful.
Yes as I see it the case has become a mess and over complicated with input from the various experts and lawyers over many years. It needs condensing and simplifying. Eg the CoA 2002 appeal hearing is set out over 522 points. The background amounts to 174 points. So the actual appeal takes up 348 points of which the hand swabs take up 56 points (approx 16%). As I see it appeal court judges are not looking at ways of overturning convictions rather they are inclined towards looking at ways to uphold convictions and maintaining the status quo. Imo if you need to take up 56 points on the hand swabs you're on a hiding to nothing ie if you have something hard hitting in the tool bag, which is what appeal court judges are looking for, why does it take 56 points amounting to pages and pages of text?
I believe fresh forensic tests measuring lead levels on testees hands from loading the magazine with Eley cartridges will show the reverse of Brian Elliot's trial testimony ie the level of lead found on handswabs taken from SC will show SC might well have loaded the mag. Brian Elliot testified the lead levels on the handswabs showed it was unlikely SC loaded the mag. This is a simple test and doesn't need to cover more than a dozen or so points amounting to a page of A4 text.
-
Thank you Myster.
-
Yes as I see it the case has become a mess and over complicated with input from the various experts and lawyers over many years. It needs condensing and simplifying. Eg the CoA 2002 appeal hearing is set out over 522 points. The background amounts to 174 points. So the actual appeal takes up 348 points of which the hand swabs take up 56 points (approx 16%). As I see it appeal court judges are not looking at ways of overturning convictions rather they are inclined towards looking at ways to uphold convictions and maintaining the status quo. Imo if you need to take up 56 points on the hand swabs you're on a hiding to nothing ie if you have something hard hitting in the tool bag, which is what appeal court judges are looking for, why does it take 56 points amounting to pages and pages of text?
I believe fresh forensic tests measuring lead levels on testees hands from loading the magazine with Eley cartridges will show the reverse of Brian Elliot's trial testimony ie the level of lead found on handswabs taken from SC will show SC might well have loaded the mag. Brian Elliot testified the lead levels on the handswabs showed it was unlikely SC loaded the mag. This is a simple test and doesn't need to cover more than a dozen or so points amounting to a page of A4 text.
I understand what you are getting at but they won't kick out Elliot's findings for the simple fact that any such test can never be conducted with like for like.
-
I understand what you are getting at but they won't kick out Elliot's findings for the simple fact that any such test can never be conducted with like for like.
Elliot claimed hand swabs taken from testees hands after handling and loading the cartridges showed appreciably higher levels of lead than the hand swabs taken from SC meaning SC was unlikely to have handled/loaded the cartridges.
There's no evidence the lead came from the cartridges. It could just have easily come from handling lead in every day items or lead in the atmosphere. I'm suggesting the tests are re-run by ensuring testees hands are lead free and then have them load the cartridges into the mag and swab their hands. I don't believe lead will present on the swabs.
The test doesn't have to be on a like for like basis. The test is about the levels of lead on hands from handling and loading the cartridges. Since Elliot didn't test the levels of lead on testees hands prior to them handling and loading the cartridges there's no way of knowing whether the lead on hands/swabs originated from lead already present prior to the handling/loading. The lead bullet is coated in paraffin wax and there's no evidence the lead can penetrate and contaminate hands from handling and loading. If it is capable of penetrating it might be consistent with the low levels of lead found on SC's hands and the testees hands may have already contained lead from elsewhere. After all the prosecution claimed SC didn't handle/load the cartridges so where did the low levels of lead on her hands come from?
As far as I can see it's all to play for.
-
Elliot claimed hand swabs taken from testees hands after handling and loading the cartridges showed appreciably higher levels of lead than the hand swabs taken from SC meaning SC was unlikely to have handled/loaded the cartridges.
There's no evidence the lead came from the cartridges. It could just have easily come from handling lead in every day items or lead in the atmosphere. I'm suggesting the tests are re-run by ensuring testees hands are lead free and then have them load the cartridges into the mag and swab their hands. I don't believe lead will present on the swabs.
The test doesn't have to be on a like for like basis. The test is about the levels of lead on hands from handling and loading the cartridges. Since Elliot didn't test the levels of lead on testees hands prior to them handling and loading the cartridges there's no way of knowing whether the lead on hands/swabs originated from lead already present prior to the handling/loading. The lead bullet is coated in paraffin wax and there's no evidence the lead can penetrate and contaminate hands from handling and loading. If it is capable of penetrating it might be consistent with the low levels of lead found on SC's hands and the testees hands may have already contained lead from elsewhere. After all the prosecution claimed SC didn't handle/load the cartridges so where did the low levels of lead on her hands come from?
As far as I can see it's all to play for.
It's a scientific test and as such, does have to be on alike for like basis. You would also be testing bullets made over 30 years later and without knowing the conditions used in the first tests; for instance, did the testees wash their hands? If so, what with? All you can say with any new test is that you either got similar or completely different results, not that it makes the Elliot test redundant.
Sheila had reduced levels of lead in comparison, which could have come from other sources, she had a higher level on her right hand which was the hand on the rifle.
-
It's a scientific test and as such, does have to be on alike for like basis. You would also be testing bullets made over 30 years later and without knowing the conditions used in the first tests; for instance, did the testees wash their hands? If so, what with? All you can say with any new test is that you either got similar or completely different results, not that it makes the Elliot test redundant.
Sheila had reduced levels of lead in comparison, which could have come from other sources, she had a higher level on her right hand which was the hand on the rifle.
I don't think there was anything remotely scientific about it hence such tests aren't offered by FSP's and don't feature in forensic text books. It's impossible to say he/she did/didn't handle X when he/she may well have handled Y made of the same material.
The cartridges today are manufactured to the same spec as they were 30 plus years ago.
Yes the testees did wash their hands but washing alone doesn't remove lead from hands. The important thing is that control swabs were not taken from testees hands to determine the levels of lead already on hands prior to the handling and loading test.
The testees and SC's right hand showed higher levels of lead presumably because they were all right handed but there's no evidence the lead came from handling/loading the bullets or SC's right hand in contact with rifle. It could just as easily have come from handling everyday items many of which contained lead in the mid-80's.
The swabbing kit used on SC was for GSR not lead from handling/loading cartridges. Where did DC Hammersley swab SC's hand? GSR distributes widely like a dust cloud so there would be no need to be specific. Elliot may well have swabbed across testees fingertips which would be an area specific to handling and loading cartridges.
Whichever way you look at it Elliot's test/results will not stand up to scutiny at the next appeal.
I wouldn't mind betting its this sort of thing parliament was referring to when it identified high profile quality failures at FSS in the 1980's.