Author Topic: SC's Palms and Fingers  (Read 6514 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John

Re: SC's Palms and Fingers
« Reply #165 on: February 13, 2018, 12:46:01 AM »
All this is getting very technical Holly, I fear the passage of time is not helpful.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Myster

Re: SC's Palms and Fingers
« Reply #166 on: February 13, 2018, 09:37:36 AM »
All this is getting very technical Holly, I fear the passage of time is not helpful.

Och aye the noo!...Time and tide bade nae man.
One for APRIL.  I know you like ol' Bob and in fine voice as usual, LOL!... https://youtu.be/7seZjqkk2n0?t=1s

Offline Myster

Re: SC's Palms and Fingers
« Reply #167 on: February 13, 2018, 09:40:20 AM »
David I'm struggling to decipher all the chemical elements on the graph:

For what it's worth.....

Potassium?..... Yes
Calcium
Ch ?..... Chromium
Iron
Copper
Zinc
Lead
Bromide?..... Bromine
One for APRIL.  I know you like ol' Bob and in fine voice as usual, LOL!... https://youtu.be/7seZjqkk2n0?t=1s

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: SC's Palms and Fingers
« Reply #168 on: February 13, 2018, 01:16:21 PM »
All this is getting very technical Holly, I fear the passage of time is not helpful.

Yes as I see it the case has become a mess and over complicated with input from the various experts and lawyers over many years.  It needs condensing and simplifying.  Eg the CoA 2002 appeal hearing is set out over 522 points.  The background amounts to 174 points.  So the actual appeal takes up 348 points of which the hand swabs take up 56 points (approx 16%).  As I see it appeal court judges are not looking at ways of overturning convictions rather they are inclined towards looking at ways to uphold convictions and maintaining the status quo.  Imo if you need to take up 56 points on the hand swabs you're on a hiding to nothing ie if you have something hard hitting in the tool bag, which is what appeal court judges are looking for, why does it take 56 points amounting to pages and pages of text?   

I believe fresh forensic tests measuring lead levels on testees hands from loading the magazine with Eley cartridges will show the reverse of Brian Elliot's trial testimony ie the level of lead found on handswabs taken from SC will show SC might well have loaded the mag.  Brian Elliot testified the lead levels on the handswabs showed it was unlikely SC loaded the mag.  This is a simple test and doesn't need to cover more than a dozen or so points amounting to a page of A4 text.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: SC's Palms and Fingers
« Reply #169 on: February 13, 2018, 01:18:58 PM »

Offline Caroline

Re: SC's Palms and Fingers
« Reply #170 on: February 15, 2018, 06:46:37 PM »
Yes as I see it the case has become a mess and over complicated with input from the various experts and lawyers over many years.  It needs condensing and simplifying.  Eg the CoA 2002 appeal hearing is set out over 522 points.  The background amounts to 174 points.  So the actual appeal takes up 348 points of which the hand swabs take up 56 points (approx 16%).  As I see it appeal court judges are not looking at ways of overturning convictions rather they are inclined towards looking at ways to uphold convictions and maintaining the status quo.  Imo if you need to take up 56 points on the hand swabs you're on a hiding to nothing ie if you have something hard hitting in the tool bag, which is what appeal court judges are looking for, why does it take 56 points amounting to pages and pages of text?   

I believe fresh forensic tests measuring lead levels on testees hands from loading the magazine with Eley cartridges will show the reverse of Brian Elliot's trial testimony ie the level of lead found on handswabs taken from SC will show SC might well have loaded the mag.  Brian Elliot testified the lead levels on the handswabs showed it was unlikely SC loaded the mag.  This is a simple test and doesn't need to cover more than a dozen or so points amounting to a page of A4 text.

I understand what you are getting at but they won't kick out Elliot's findings for the simple fact that any such test can never be conducted with like for like.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: SC's Palms and Fingers
« Reply #171 on: February 15, 2018, 08:21:07 PM »
I understand what you are getting at but they won't kick out Elliot's findings for the simple fact that any such test can never be conducted with like for like.

Elliot claimed hand swabs taken from testees hands after handling and loading the cartridges showed appreciably higher levels of lead than the hand swabs taken from SC meaning SC was unlikely to have handled/loaded the cartridges. 

There's no evidence the lead came from the cartridges.  It could just have easily come from handling lead in every day items or lead in the atmosphere.  I'm suggesting the tests are re-run by ensuring testees hands are lead free and then have them load the cartridges into the mag and swab their hands.  I don't believe lead will present on the swabs. 

The test doesn't have to be on a like for like basis.  The test is about the levels of lead on hands from handling and loading the cartridges.  Since Elliot didn't test the levels of lead on testees hands prior to them handling and loading the cartridges there's no way of knowing whether the lead on hands/swabs originated from lead already present prior to the handling/loading.  The lead bullet is coated in paraffin wax and there's no evidence the lead can penetrate and contaminate hands from handling and loading.  If it is capable of penetrating it might be consistent with the low levels of lead found on SC's hands and the testees hands may have already contained lead from elsewhere.  After all the prosecution claimed SC didn't handle/load the cartridges so where did the low levels of lead on her hands come from? 

As far as I can see it's all to play for. 

Offline Caroline

Re: SC's Palms and Fingers
« Reply #172 on: February 15, 2018, 08:42:07 PM »
Elliot claimed hand swabs taken from testees hands after handling and loading the cartridges showed appreciably higher levels of lead than the hand swabs taken from SC meaning SC was unlikely to have handled/loaded the cartridges. 

There's no evidence the lead came from the cartridges.  It could just have easily come from handling lead in every day items or lead in the atmosphere.  I'm suggesting the tests are re-run by ensuring testees hands are lead free and then have them load the cartridges into the mag and swab their hands.  I don't believe lead will present on the swabs. 

The test doesn't have to be on a like for like basis.  The test is about the levels of lead on hands from handling and loading the cartridges.  Since Elliot didn't test the levels of lead on testees hands prior to them handling and loading the cartridges there's no way of knowing whether the lead on hands/swabs originated from lead already present prior to the handling/loading.  The lead bullet is coated in paraffin wax and there's no evidence the lead can penetrate and contaminate hands from handling and loading.  If it is capable of penetrating it might be consistent with the low levels of lead found on SC's hands and the testees hands may have already contained lead from elsewhere.  After all the prosecution claimed SC didn't handle/load the cartridges so where did the low levels of lead on her hands come from? 

As far as I can see it's all to play for.

It's a scientific test and as such, does have to be on  alike for like basis. You would also be testing bullets made over 30 years later and without knowing the conditions used in the first tests; for instance, did the testees wash their hands? If so, what with? All you can say with any new test is that you either got similar or completely different results, not that  it makes the Elliot test redundant.


Sheila had reduced levels of lead in comparison, which could have come from other sources, she had a higher level on her right hand which was the hand on the rifle.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: SC's Palms and Fingers
« Reply #173 on: February 15, 2018, 09:08:24 PM »
It's a scientific test and as such, does have to be on  alike for like basis. You would also be testing bullets made over 30 years later and without knowing the conditions used in the first tests; for instance, did the testees wash their hands? If so, what with? All you can say with any new test is that you either got similar or completely different results, not that  it makes the Elliot test redundant.

Sheila had reduced levels of lead in comparison, which could have come from other sources, she had a higher level on her right hand which was the hand on the rifle.

I don't think there was anything remotely scientific about it hence such tests aren't offered by FSP's and don't feature in forensic text books.  It's impossible to say he/she did/didn't handle X when he/she may well have handled Y made of the same material.

The cartridges today are manufactured to the same spec as they were 30 plus years ago.

Yes the testees did wash their hands but washing alone doesn't remove lead from hands.  The important thing is that control swabs were not taken from testees hands to determine the levels of lead already on hands prior to the handling and loading test.

The testees and SC's right hand showed higher levels of lead presumably because they were all right handed but there's no evidence the lead came from handling/loading the bullets or SC's right hand in contact with rifle.  It could just as easily have come from handling everyday items many of which contained lead in the mid-80's.

The swabbing kit used on SC was for GSR not lead from handling/loading cartridges.  Where did DC Hammersley swab SC's hand?  GSR distributes widely like a dust cloud so there would be no need to be specific.  Elliot may well have swabbed across testees fingertips which would be an area specific to handling and loading cartridges. 

Whichever way you look at it Elliot's test/results will not stand up to scutiny at the next appeal. 

I wouldn't mind betting its this sort of thing parliament was referring to when it identified high profile quality failures at FSS in the 1980's.