You mean someone other than Fletcher? But that is still more than one - I suspect it's been said by others. I'll have a look.
There is mention of case head here too and I imagine the person who wrote it is familiar with ammo?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartridge_(firearms)
I was referring to those who contributed to the thread.
The manufacturer makes clear the lubricant is a firm hydrocarbon and non-greasy. I doubt they would get away with marketing the product in this way if it was unable to deliver:
http://www.eley.co.uk/eley-subsonic-hollowThe point of the lubrication is to improve performance. If it was coming off on the hands prior to firearm discharge it would be useless.
Fletcher's trial testimony involved loading cartridges which had been radically altered from the manufactured product used at WHF. Those exhibited at trial contained holes to empty the gunpowder and primer supposedly to make safe for judge and jurors to handle. Unless they were cleaned thoroughly then yes there would be gunpowder (black) hanging around and adhering to the firm lubricant and potentially causing black discolouration to hands as claimed by Fletcher when he loaded into mag. Arlidge QC then interjects asking Fletcher to hold his hands up to the jury. You would think Lawson might have asked the question of Fletcher ie are these cartridges a true representation of those used at WHF or has the fact they now have holes in them and the gunpowder removed altered them resulting in the black discolouration to your hands or any other effect?
I can't see any danger in jury handling live cartridges and loading into mag providing they didn't have an opportunity to then insert the mag into the rifle! If they wanted to be ultra cautious then I would have thought it best for the test to be carried out at the lab overseen by the experts and counsel and videoed for court.
The defence instructed Major Mead (firearms) and a chemist (re lead) by the name of Mr Edwards as we don't have their testimonies it's difficult to see whether they were able to raise effective challenges to these points or not. I think not on the basis of the 2002 appeal.
I think simple tests carried out by forensic scientists are the way forward then it will be up to the prosecution to instruct its own experts to counter or not.
I think the courts operate on the basis of plausibility and I don't think it's plausible to say the 500 rounds NB purchased in Nov '84 were different in some way when the product is manufactured on a production line, providing Eley can confirm no known changes/recalls. Pretty certain forensic scientists working in ballistics will know the answer.
