Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence

[APRIL]

It's all in a file entitled "How we stitched Bamber up - Please do not read" 

 

[Holly Goodhead]

Are you saying that your hands and clothes do not get covered in lead from gunshot residue when you fire a gun?  Cite please.  In any case my point stands.  There was no evidence she fired a gun.

I'm saying the only reliable test used to determine whether or not someone has recently discharged a firearm is a test for gunshot residue which wasn't carried out in this case.

I've posted up a directory for UK forensic service providers.  Please identify one offering tests for lead or oil in connection with the discharge of a firearm:

https://www.justicedirectory.co.uk/directory/forensic-services/

The tests presented at trial are completely bogus.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I'm saying the only reliable test used to determine whether or not someone has recently discharged a firearm is a test for gunshot residue which wasn't carried out in this case.

I've posted up a directory for UK forensic service providers.  Please identify one offering tests for lead or oil in connection with the discharge of a firearm:

https://www.justicedirectory.co.uk/directory/forensic-services/

The tests presented at trial are completely bogus.

Why are you attempting to send me on a fool’s errand?  A list of UK forensic service providers now, together with the services they provide is likely to be quite different to a list of same fro. 35 years ago, so it’s a pointless ask.  You appear to be besmirching the integrity of those who presented their test evidence in court, is that your intention?

[Caroline]

Why are you attempting to send me on a fool’s errand?  A list of UK forensic service providers now, together with the services they provide is likely to be quite different to a list of same fro. 35 years ago, so it’s a pointless ask.  You appear to be besmirching the integrity of those who presented their test evidence in court, is that your intention?

Of course that is the intention - which is why it will fail together with the fact that as the gun was found on Sheila, and her hand on the trigger a test for GSR would be moot. It would be no surprise to find GSR on Sheila but Bamber escaped being tested due to the initial call of murder/suicide on the crime. The GSR test couldn't tell you who the murderer was or wasn't. Another waste of time.

[Holly Goodhead]

Why are you attempting to send me on a fool’s errand?  A list of UK forensic service providers now, together with the services they provide is likely to be quite different to a list of same fro. 35 years ago, so it’s a pointless ask.  You appear to be besmirching the integrity of those who presented their test evidence in court, is that your intention?

Please provide a cite for a case anywhere in the world where the sort of tests presented by Elliot and Fletcher at trial were used to support the idea someone didn't handle cartridges and discharge a firearm.

I don't need to besmirch anyone since Parliament has already acknowledged quality issues at FSS during the 80's.

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

@ 3.3.1

FOI 

[Holly Goodhead]

Of course that is the intention - which is why it will fail together with the fact that as the gun was found on Sheila, and her hand on the trigger a test for GSR would be moot. It would be no surprise to find GSR on Sheila but Bamber escaped being tested due to the initial call of murder/suicide on the crime. The GSR test couldn't tell you who the murderer was or wasn't. Another waste of time.

A test for GSR wasn't carried out.  We're talking about the lead and oil test and what jurors were told at trial.

[Caroline]

Please provide a cite for a case anywhere in the world where the sort of tests presented by Elliot and Fletcher at trial were used to support the idea someone didn't handle cartridges and discharge a firearm.

I don't need to besmirch anyone since Parliament has already acknowledged quality issues at FSS during the 80's.

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

@ 3.3.1

FOI 

That doesn't extend to this case.

[Caroline]

A test for GSR wasn't carried out.  We're talking about the lead and oil test and what jurors were told at trial.

I know, they didn't need to carry out a GSR test, Sheila would have already been contaminated with it from the rifle itself.

[Common sense]

I'm saying the only reliable test used to determine whether or not someone has recently discharged a firearm is a test for gunshot residue which wasn't carried out in this case.

I've posted up a directory for UK forensic service providers.  Please identify one offering tests for lead or oil in connection with the discharge of a firearm:

https://www.justicedirectory.co.uk/directory/forensic-services/

The tests presented at trial are completely bogus.

What on earth do you think GSR is made up of? Lead, propellant and oil? Or is there a magical other substance that those amateur scientists with their bogus degrees failed to look for?

If you think GSR is such a reliable test and that both a shooter and the victim won't be contaminated, why do you refuse to accept the fact that no such substances could be detected on Sheila? This is despite the fact that any issue with contamination would only have INCREASED the levels of anything on the swabs.

The FACT that GSR is NOT reliable on a shooting victim meant that other case specific tests were devised and they also came up negative against the controls.

I thought you might be onto something but having looked into it a bit, it seems you only have your fabled reconstructions. Come over to the light side and we will never mention your folly, I promise

[Vertigo Swirl]

Please provide a cite for a case anywhere in the world where the sort of tests presented by Elliot and Fletcher at trial were used to support the idea someone didn't handle cartridges and discharge a firearm.

I don't need to besmirch anyone since Parliament has already acknowledged quality issues at FSS during the 80's.

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

@ 3.3.1

FOI 

Another fool’s errand, unfortunately for you I am not a fool, especially as you failed to provide a cite to show that firing a gun usually leaves hands largely free from lead residue. 

[Common sense]

I know, they didn't need to carry out a GSR test, Sheila would have already been contaminated with it from the rifle itself.

They didn't need to but they did at the insistence of the police.

App point 187
 
"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."

[Caroline]

What on earth do you think GSR is made up of? Lead, propellant and oil? Or is there a magical other substance that those amateur scientists with their bogus degrees failed to look for?

If you think GSR is such a reliable test and that both a shooter and the victim won't be contaminated, why do you refuse to accept the fact that no such substances could be detected on Sheila? This is despite the fact that any issue with contamination would only have INCREASED the levels of anything on the swabs.

The FACT that GSR is NOT reliable on a shooting victim meant that other case specific tests were devised and they also came up negative against the controls.

I thought you might be onto something but having looked into it a bit, it seems you only have your fabled reconstructions. Come over to the light side and we will never mention your folly, I promise

There are two types of GSR, one is made up pf the compounds found in the primer of the bullet and the other is gunpowder compound. They tested for the primer compound but not the gunpowder.

[Common sense]

There are two types of GSR, one is made up pf the compounds found in the primer of the bullet and the other is gunpowder compound. They tested for the primer compound but not the gunpowder.

Thanks Caroline, I bow to your superior knowledge.

The gunpowder test then was the useless one as Sheila was in a room where a gun had been fired.

Can you confirm my notion that as well as testing control swabs for lead to indicate loading of the cartridges, a further test was done, firing the rifle 25 times and comparing the levels of residues on the test garment with SCs nightdress?

Holly seems to imagine a bunch of students with a junior chemistry set but I suspect those scientists knew what they were doing!

[Caroline]

Thanks Caroline, I bow to your superior knowledge.

The gunpowder test then was the useless one as Sheila was in a room where a gun had been fired.

Can you confirm my notion that as well as testing control swabs for lead to indicate loading of the cartridges, a further test was done, firing the rifle 25 times and comparing the levels of residues on the test garment with SCs nightdress?

Holly seems to imagine a bunch of students with a junior chemistry set but I suspect those scientists knew what they were doing!

  - you would certainly expect to find it on her - pity they didn't get the chance to swab Bamber because it shouldn't have been on him, said the weapon wasn't fired that evening by him.

[Common sense]

- you would certainly expect to find it on her - pity they didn't get the chance to swab Bamber because it shouldn't have been on him, said the weapon wasn't fired that evening by him.

Yes, it's a shame. Although from my understanding, an absence wouldn't necessarily have proven anything if he had changed his clothes, had a shower, worn gloves etc - Such an absence might have impressed a jury however so perhaps it's not such a shame after all.