Author Topic: Why Was Malcom Fletcher Chosen Over John Burns?  (Read 944 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Caroline

Re: Why Was Malcom Fletcher Chosen Over John Burns?
« Reply #30 on: April 29, 2019, 02:06:26 PM »
Not really no.  It would depend what the criteria for 'expert' was at criminal trials in 1986.  MF told the court he had 13 years experience in the firearms dept but that does not tell us exactly what his experience involved and whether or not it qualified him to provide credible and reliable testimony at JB's trial.  By MF's own admission he told the court the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated.
 
According to Parliament the FSS suffered quality failures during the 1980's.  I've no idea what is meant by this.  Maybe some or all was down to incompetent staff.

3.3.1 Following some high profile quality failures in the 1980s...

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm

Whatever his qualifications and experience were, he was allowed in as an expert witness. It was good enough for the court and the defense didn't challenge his qualifications either. There is no reason to believe this man wasn't qualified - other than a throw away comment that you have latched onto.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Why Was Malcom Fletcher Chosen Over John Burns?
« Reply #31 on: April 30, 2019, 07:46:19 AM »
Whatever his qualifications and experience were, he was allowed in as an expert witness. It was good enough for the court and the defense didn't challenge his qualifications either. There is no reason to believe this man wasn't qualified - other than a throw away comment that you have latched onto.

If by throw away comment you mean MF's intro to the court which included "a small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy" this is not my only reason for believing this expert was not 'fit for purpose'.  The other reasons are:

- Unlike all other expert witnesses at JB's trial he did not provide any detail about high level qualifications and/or membership of professional bodies and/or outline exactly how his experience within the firearms dept qualified him to provide expert testimony at JB's trial.

- The most important aspect to his testimony ie the drawback phenomenon was by his own admission complicated and not fully appreciated at the time.
Setting the pussy among the pigeons!

Offline APRIL

Re: Why Was Malcom Fletcher Chosen Over John Burns?
« Reply #32 on: April 30, 2019, 09:04:06 AM »
If by throw away comment you mean MF's intro to the court which included "a small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy" this is not my only reason for believing this expert was not 'fit for purpose'.  The other reasons are:

- Unlike all other expert witnesses at JB's trial he did not provide any detail about high level qualifications and/or membership of professional bodies and/or outline exactly how his experience within the firearms dept qualified him to provide expert testimony at JB's trial.

- The most important aspect to his testimony ie the drawback phenomenon was by his own admission complicated and not fully appreciated at the time.


But he wasn't questioned or challenged on what you're suggesting is a gross lack of qualifications. It's also highly likely that those you'd name "real" experts, ie those with qualifications (although, perhaps not experience?) would have agreed with his statement that the drawback phenomenon was "complicated and not fully appreciated at the time"?

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Why Was Malcom Fletcher Chosen Over John Burns?
« Reply #33 on: May 01, 2019, 07:55:23 AM »

But he wasn't questioned or challenged on what you're suggesting is a gross lack of qualifications. It's also highly likely that those you'd name "real" experts, ie those with qualifications (although, perhaps not experience?) would have agreed with his statement that the drawback phenomenon was "complicated and not fully appreciated at the time"?

I don't believe I've ever used the word gross when describing MF's lack of academic qualifications as per his trial testimony.

The title thread and post 1 refer to a John Burns who at the time of JB's trial possessed both the academic qualifications and experience.  Like MF he worked out of the lab at FSS, Hunts at the time of the murders/trial.

Yes even experts in the US at the time of JB's trial said the drawback phenomenon was poorly understood.  But the point here is that those experts were unlikely to have told the court the contact gunshot wounds to SC's neck would "almost certainly" result in blood depositing inside the silencer if it was attached and if it wasn't attached then blood would deposit in or on the barrel.  This is factually wrong unless one chooses to believe MF over arguably the world's foremost expert in pathology of gunshot wounds who perhaps unsurprisingly had both the academic qualifications and experience in abundance. 
Setting the pussy among the pigeons!

Offline adam

Re: Why Was Malcom Fletcher Chosen Over John Burns?
« Reply #34 on: May 01, 2019, 08:34:17 AM »
As with Bamber's journey to/from WHF, everything else on him committing the massacre can be easily explained. The fight, his entrance/exit etc. This is not the case with Sheila.

Longest term supporter Mike only said 'by shooting them', when asked how Sheila committed the massacre. While passionate supporter Roch just says 'Sheila shot them but I can't explain the phone calls'.

David has submitted 5 different explanations, trying to find one that matches the evidence. At the other extreme, Nugs & JackieD refuse to submit anything.

Luminous Wanderer submitted a detailed explanation. Then claimed Nevill was not shot upstairs when it was challenged. When a source was supplied, he got abusive and left the Blue forum that day. Retreating to the 'Injustice Anywhere' forum where his views will not be challenged.

Offline APRIL

Re: Why Was Malcom Fletcher Chosen Over John Burns?
« Reply #35 on: May 01, 2019, 09:02:14 AM »
I don't believe I've ever used the word gross when describing MF's lack of academic qualifications as per his trial testimony.

The title thread and post 1 refer to a John Burns who at the time of JB's trial possessed both the academic qualifications and experience.  Like MF he worked out of the lab at FSS, Hunts at the time of the murders/trial.

Yes even experts in the US at the time of JB's trial said the drawback phenomenon was poorly understood.  But the point here is that those experts were unlikely to have told the court the contact gunshot wounds to SC's neck would "almost certainly" result in blood depositing inside the silencer if it was attached and if it wasn't attached then blood would deposit in or on the barrel.  This is factually wrong unless one chooses to believe MF over arguably the world's foremost expert in pathology of gunshot wounds who perhaps unsurprisingly had both the academic qualifications and experience in abundance.

As a rank amateur, knowing less than nothing of the intricacies of firearms, I fail to see why it's so extraordinary that blood wouldn't find it's way into a weapon which had been in close contact with/pressed up against the victim's body, however if experts claim such is not possible......................

"Gross" is my own interpretation of your continued attacks on what you believe to be MF's lack of qualifications. You could, justifiably, have levied the same at M., my late partner. Lack of funds prevented him from going to university so he had to go down the apprenticeship route in conjunction with night school. However, Concorde wouldn't have left the ground without one of his design features installed and our latest battle ship, launched years after his death, and the last thing he worked on, also carries one of his design features................he was called as "expert witness" at numerous trials in which industrial competency was being challenged.