Nah I often get mixed up with swab swap.. XD
Lead is one of the elements a GSR kit is designed to pick up on. I don't believe the tests are invalid or anything was swapped around.
Read the lab documents below. "These findings indicate that Sheila Caffell is unlikely to have loaded cartridges into the magazine shortly before her death" Its a well known fact that trace elements do not stay on living subjects for that long. The magazine could have last been loaded several hours before her death.
Furthermore the XRF results show that Sheila had four times as much lead on her right hand than her left hand. As it goes the same ratio as one of the lab testees. It is no coincidence IMO that Sheila being right handed had four times as much lead on her right hand than her left hand.
David, Holly is waiting for you, again!
http://www.tapeast.co.uk/I refer you to the 2002 appeal points 175 - 232.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.htmlLets park claims of swapping swabs and just stick to the validity of the test(s).
Point 176. DC Hammersley took swabs from the hands of SC using a special kit made for taking samples for testing firearms residue. Documents show the swabs were taken at PM on 7th Aug at 3.15pm
Point 177. Brian Elliot at trial told the court he received the swabs on 13th Sep 85. Tests were carried out for the presence of lead and only very low levels were detected on the two hand swabs. He further reported that tests were carried out on two members of the laboratory staff who loaded 18 cartridges, similar to those used at WHF, into the magazine and the results showed significantly higher levels of lead compared with the swabs.
As you know GSR is made up of various matter. Singling out a stand alone chemical eg lead doesn't qualify as GSR.
Testing for GSR is a long established widely used test across the world. Afaik using the kit described in point 176 above in an attempt to identify lead from handling bullets is not a valid test:
- The shooter wouldn't necessarily touch the bullet when loading into mag. Even if they did the bullets are coated with lubricant which would act as a barrier?
- The test carried out at the lab used "similar" bullets. How similar is similar?
- The expert evidence states SC died around the same time as the other victims. Even if I go with some of the whacky theories that SC took her own life shortly before or after the police broke in this would put the time at approx 7.30am. Swabs were taken some 8 hours later? The swabs were then analysed some 5 weeks later. Did the lab test mirror this?
- The swabs were initially rejected by the lab but when DCI Ainsely took over he insisted they were examined:
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." There was an assumption that a positive result was expected as SC was found in a room contaminated by gunfire. However test results were neagtive for GSR, lead, oil and propellant.
At point 197 Peter Wingard: "He made clear that the testing was for the presence of lead, and was not testing for firearms residue as such".
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.Now there's talk of other elements.
216. At trial, Mr Rivlin QC, who appeared for the appellant at trial, sought to counteract this evidence in two ways. First in cross-examination of the scientist, he drew his attention to traces of other elements in the test results from the swabs, iron and copper, and queried whether these were significant. The scientist said that they were no more than might have been obtained from the atmosphere. He did not think the copper could have come from the bullets unless they had been scratched. The other defence approach to this evidence was the theory of ritualistic washing to which reference has earlier been made. Then a kit designed for testing GSR takes another turn:
228. The reason why the judge approached the matter in this way becomes apparent when the evidence of Mr Fletcher, the prosecution's firearms expert is considered. Mr Fletcher gave the jury a demonstration of loading the magazine with the bullets. He commented that in his experience loading a full magazine would leave marks on the hands adding "in this case you get a black discolouration". (Transcript PMS/10 page 18B). When he was cross-examined by Mr Lawson, junior counsel for the appellant at trial, he was asked about this part of his evidence and said (Transcript PMS/10 page 47H):
"Well they are my own observations, and I think the observations of the court yesterday when the demonstration was made, that by loading cartridges into the magazine you get residues on your hands from the bullets and cartridges."230. We should perhaps point out that quite apart from Mr Fletcher's evidence, the matters were also apparent in the notes that he made of the experimental loading of cartridges. He had noted after the first loading "some lead specks and frags and some discolouration"; after the second "Further specks and frags and darker discolouration"; and after the third "quite a few specks and fragments of lead and grey/black discolouration". (See memorandum of Dr Lloyd dated 14 October 2002). As Dr Lloyd points out it may have been an assumption that the particles were lead, but the fact that the hands became dirty was noted on that occasion as well.
231. Thus even if the scientific testing for lead could have been discredited, it would not have answered the essential point that if Sheila Caffell had loaded the magazine in the way that the killer did, she must have cleaned her hands afterwards. The ritualistic cleaning theory, with all its imperfections, was thus the essential matter upon which the jury had to concentrate. When jurors were invited to handle the cartridges and load them into mag were they the exact same type used at WHF or "similar" as used in tests above? Were the cartridges taken from a sealed box?
I know from my own experience of loading the cartridges into the mag at the gun shop that my hands were spotlessly clean to the naked eye.
David do you still maintain the test was a valid one with reliable results?
