Anyway the docs throw up some interesting points.
- Prof Knight states in his opinion the marks to NB's back were not burns. I have always thought this as it makes no sense to me that either SC or JB would single NB out for burning.
- Dr Vanezis states a graze wound to June's chest could have been caused by a bullet. Effectively an 8th bullet. If this is so it would account for the fourth bullet found in the bedroom DRH/5.
- He also states the soles of NB's feet were clean. If NB was involved in some sort of "violent struggle" with the perp then why would the perp sustain bloodstaining and debris attaching to the soles but not NB?
- Malcolm Fletcher starts his testimony by answering the prosecutors questions about his experience. He includes a small amount of experience with an air gun as a boy. Not sure if he was being serious or just trying to inject some humour into the proceedings. To my mind this seems a very strange thing for an expert witness to state at a criminal trial involving mass murder.
- He sounds frighteningly incompetent. He talks about breaking a nail during his tests on the rifle. When asked how long he kept his nails he replied short but not right down to the cuticle! For those that don't know what a cuticle is its the little whitish bit at the base of the nail. Lets put it this way if your nails were down by your cuticles you would have virtually 95% plus exposed nail bed
- He is asked about SC's nightdress and states it was checked for the presence of various firearm discharge residues including gun oil and found none. He states that these residues would exit the barrel (or silencer) side vents and casing ejection port. All concerned seem to overlook the fact that the rifle was found on SC's nightdress/person so whether she committed suicide or was murdered surely some residues would be expected from the firearm being fired over her body and residues that deposited on the rifle from the other 23/24 shots?
- Both Malcolm Fletcher and John Hayward say they came to the conclusion the silencer was attached on the basis that that a pull though (special cloth for checking barrel of rifle) was free of blood. And yet we know from a world expert on gunshot wounds - something Malcolm Fletcher and John Hayward were clearly not - that examinations of hundreds of firearms involved in contact gunshot wounds do not result in blood in or on the barrel. In fact its about 50 : 50 and that's with a cross range of firearms it would probably be less with low calibre firearms such as the one used at WHF.
No doubt all concerned were completely out of their depth with this unusual soc for Little Britian ie a mass shooting. When I say all concerned I am referring to the trial judge, defence, prosecution and expert witnesses. It is easy for me to say this now as at a click of a button I can turn up forensic textbooks and show that much of what the jury was told at trial was simply wrong or overlooked.
I came to the conclusion that Malcolm Fletcher was either grossly incompetent or deliberately misled the court for whatever reason(s). I wouldn't be surprised to one day learn he has been taken in for questioning.
