I disagree. We are not talking about one bullet/casing we're talking about at least 13 bullets/casings. If SC's prints are on 13 bullets/casings it's almost certain CoA will overturn JB's conviction. The criteria is simple 'had the jury have known about this would they have returned a different verdict'?
A few months ago Myster and myself had one of our mutually rewarding mass debating sessions re lead and residues from handling the bullets (you were too busy mass debating with Mike at the time to notice). I concluded that the description of the bullets provided by Malcolm Fletcher bears no resemblance with the manufacturers product literature. I made contact with Eley via email and telephone to confirm - see my email confirmation in the thread. Furthermore the CoA doc states that:
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.
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.
As you will see above the document refers to "similar" bullets and also the "same" bullets. Were they similar or the same? A scientific experiment requires the exact same bullet.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6629.msg272805#msg272805
1) Fletcher's descriptions match perfectly with what Eley sold and what Nevill purchased. Nevill purchased Eley 22LR subsonic hollow-points. That is what all the bullets tested were including the 30 in the kitchen. Nevill didn't purchase any other ammunition. Such ammunition had a E on the back of the casing just like Fletcher described and the bullets were hollow points. I don't know what thread you are talking about but your inclinations are wrong. I asked Eley to research whether they sold any 37.5 grain hollow-points at the time or they were 40 at that point but Eley agents never got back to be they only said they sold 37.5 in the past not when they ceased. So it is possible they were only 37.5 grain not 40 but no way to know for sure which Eley was selling at the time.
2) They tested bullets from the SAME source = they test fired bullets from the supply of 30 that was found in the kitchen. The 22LR hollow-points they used for the loading test was not from the kitchen supply because nearly all of the were expended. they used the same kind of bullets but not from the supply that had been in the kitchen. Only something like 3 if that of the kitchen bullets were not used in the test firing.
3) The evidence that proved Jeremy did it is the proof that Sheila can't have killed herself. Whose prints were on the shell casings doesn't change that. She can't have killed herself regardless of whether she handled the ammunition or not and could have handled it for innocent reasons. It doesn't impact the major legs of the case so the COA would view it as irrelevant and not capable of disturbing the verdict.
Judges decide whether new evidence is objectively strong enough to undercut a major leg of a case and objectively would get a jury to acquit. They look at the evidence sufficient for the jury to convict and then look at whether than can be undermined. Her prints on the casings would undermine neither Julies testimony nor the evidence that she can't have killed herself. Nor would it undermine the evidence that had she loaded the ammunition at the time of the killings that she would have had evidence on her hands. A fingerprint on a casing but a lack of lead would evidence touching the case innocently not loading it into a magazine.
You grossly overestimate how an Appeals Court would view it.
A good lawyer looks at what convicted the person and then tried to undermine that red herrings won't cut it. The jury was told they could convict based on either of 2 things:
1) if they believed Julie's testimony
2) the evidence proving Sheila could not have killed herself
It is not some accident that on appeal lawyers have tried to find ways to attack Julie's credibility and the moderator evidence that is what was used at trial to convict her.
Evidence she loaded and fired the weapon is what the defense needs not evidence she simply touched the casings but didn't load it and didn't fire the weapon.
Take the George case. The prosecution told jurors that proof George fired a weapon and did it was the fact that he had a single grain of gunshot residue on him. For whatever reason the defense did a horrible job and failed to get an expert to counter this. The main premise of their case was bogus. It takes a lot more than a single grain to establish one fired a weapon very recently. A single grain is easy to transfer and much more than a single grain will deposit on a shooter. Defense experts undermined the main plank of the case establishing he fired a weapon and thus his conviction was overturned. Without this bogus claim the jury would not have convicted.
The defense needs to establish she loaded bullets and fired the gun and could have killed herself to get a new trial. Evidence she simply handled some of the bullets at some point in time and didn't even touch the lead bullet as would happen when you load them into a magazine would not cut it. Only Julie recanting would be the other way to get a new trial.
