SC's Palms and Fingers

[Holly Goodhead]

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 also you say you don't believe the swabs were swapped but there's documentary evidence showing the swabs taken at PM and received at the lab on 9th Aug were rejected as they were sent in with a firearm.  As we know a set of swabs were eventually analysed.  Which swabs were analysed?

- The original swabs taken at PM?  Rejected by the lab but resubmitted under some other guise/exhibit number?

- Another set of swabs were taken post PM pre cremation?  In this scenario SC's hands had been washed?

[Holly Goodhead]

David taking the docs you posted above (thanks btw) there are two measurements: lead measured in micrograms and also wavelength based on how the lead responds when bombarded with gamma rays:

Testee/SC     Hand      Mg          G           Wavelength

JWH              RH          15          0.15       11425

JWH              LH           3           0.003       3480

SW               RH           8           0.008       8019

SW               LH            4          0.004       4425

SC               RH           1.2        0.0012      1345

SC               LH           0.10       0.0001       337

Hand = Left/Right
Mg = Microgram
G = Gram

I've added in an extra column for gram as this is something we can all relate to from measuring out cooking ingredients. 

The microgram wasn't provided for SC but I've worked it out approx based on the wavelength and micrograms provided for the testees.   

At 1.28min in the D lead vid shows pads containing 20, 50 and 100 micrograms of lead taken from the hand.  You will see how the area containing 20 mg is very small and this is more than twice the amount on JWH's RH.

https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=moz35&p=d+lead+youtube+testing+lead+on+hands#id=1&vid=feeccc9564ac8d525c67dc7edbd763d7&action=click

In the 2002 appeal Dr Lloyd is quoted as saying the results were not qualitatively different.  Was this a typo and should it have read quantitatively?

218. Dr Lloyd's conclusions, as apparent from a report with which we were supplied, were principally that the lead found on the handswabs from Sheila Caffell and from those tested in the laboratory came from petrol combustion residues and was not connected with the handling of bullets. Secondly that the handswabs from Sheila Caffell were not qualitatively different from those from the testees. He was critical of the laboratory test saying that swabs should have been taken both before the handling of the bullets so that a comparison could have been made between the two. Accordingly in his opinion the test results were of no assistance to the determination of whether or not Sheila Caffell had handled the cartridges in the same manner as the testees.

or quantitatively?
               

David I see you are still holding dear to your theory that the hand swabs referred to at trial are evidence that SC handled the cartridges.  They aren't!  I invited you to pop over to discuss the matter but you ignored my request.

I've set out in this thread the reasons why the hand swabs are completely meaningless ie another completely flawed test/results produced by FSS.

You claim the swabs support SC handling the cartridges as the swab supposedly taken from the right hand was said to contain 4 x's as much lead as the left hand and SC was right handed.  Please refer to the table above to look at the quantities involved.  They are tiny, tiny, tiny!  The results show levels consistent with everyday handling of ordinary items containing lead.  In any event the argument isn't about left and right it's about testees hands showing higher levels than SC's hands.  Testees' hands also show higher levels on right hand.  As Dr Lloyd stated they are not quantitively different.   

Have you actually handled the cartridges and/or loaded them into the mag?  I have and intuitively picked them out the case by the brass end and inserted them into the mag by handling the brass end.  The hand doesn't come into contact with the lead bullet which in any event is completely sealed by the paraffin wax lubricant ie the lead is not exposed. 

I invited you to take part in my vid to demonstrate these facts but no response.     

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8728.msg418109.html?PHPSESSID=4aqubo9vl8khs06ajrbt60u2n6#msg418109

[Holly Goodhead]

David properties like WHF would be full of paint work containing lead.  The paint on the Aga surround was said to contain 15 layers.

Also you're wrong about the quantities representing 4x's more on right hand.  Wavelengths were 4 x's greater when bombarded with gamma rays.   

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/221085/pb10973-leadpaintleaflet.pdf

We know that too much lead in our bodies isn’t healthy. Over the last
30 years or so, a lot has been done to get rid of lead in this country,
but you may still come across it in old paint.

This is because up until the mid-1960s, lead was used to make some
kinds of paint – for windows, doors and other woodwork as well as
for some metal items, like radiators. A few minor uses continued until
the 1980s.

How will I know if there’s lead in my paintwork?

• The age of your home is a good guide. If it was built before the
1960s and still has original coats of paint, there could be some
lead around.

•  Another clue is if your paintwork is quite thick – lead could be
locked into the oldest layers. That’s not a problem if it’s in good
condition and you don’t plan to decorate. If it has recently had
a new coat of paint, this probably will have sealed any lead in.

• Modern household paints do not contain added lead and are not
dangerous. So if your home is newer, there won’t be any lead there."

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/221085/pb10973-leadpaintleaflet.pdf

The swab supposedly taken from SC's right hand was found to contain 0.0012 grams of lead.  Think about how small this is from when you weigh out ingredients for your curries?  It's negligible and entirely consistent with SC touching leaded paint at WHF and/or handling other everyday items containing lead.  The lead levels between the testees and SC are not quantitavely different ie they are all so tiny they are negligible and do not prove anything other than the test/results presented at trial were misleading and support the following:

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

3.3 FSS Quality

3.3.1 Following some high profile quality failures in the 1980s the FSS implemented accreditation to quality standards from 1993 onwards, a world first for forensic science. The present FSS in-house quality framework goes well beyond the basic requirements of ISO17025 and is in close accord with the FSR’s forthcoming Codes. Indeed, before closure was announced the FSS were planning to act as a test-bed for compliance to this code later this year.

David this is your last opportunity to take part in my vid either as a co-presenter or behind the scenes with a video and power point presentation?  Your shout boyo. 

Venue : Gun shop in North Bucks. 

Test : Use D Lead solution to neutralise hands.  Load full mag with Eley bullets x 2.  Retest hands using D Lead solution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJVKnnF-240

[Holly Goodhead]

David we could also look at deliberate over handling of the bullet to see if the lead is capable of pentrating the parrafin wax lubricant. 

Come and play with Holly in the N.Bucks gun shop.  You know you want to  *&*%£

[david1819]

0.10 mg on the left hand and 1.2 mg on the right hand?  That's over 10x as much on her right hand!

I believe the swaps tested are the ones rejected. Because I remember reading some police documents discussing the swabs being rejected but due to the developments later on they felt it was important to test them anyway.

The low quantity of lead is only a problem if you believe she loaded the magazine shortly before her death.

[Holly Goodhead]

0.10 mg on the left hand and 1.2 mg on the right hand?  That's over 10x as much on her right hand!

I believe the swaps tested are the ones rejected. Because I remember reading some police documents discussing the swabs being rejected but due to the developments later on they felt it was important to test them anyway.

The low quantity of lead is only a problem if you believe she loaded the magazine shortly before her death.

The Mg figs for SC were not supplied but I worked them out approx based on the other data for SC and testees.  Yes 10 x's but the amount of lead on the right hand is negligible so it's all relative eg 1 grain of salt or 10 grains.    As you've pointed out SC was right handed so imagine her going around WHF whether perp or victim and sustaining innocent contamination by touching paintwork and other everyday items containing lead.    Had swabs been taken from the other victims my guess is that they would show similar results.  Hand washing alone will not remove all lead.   

Even today it is claimed lipsticks contain traces of lead.  32 years ago H&S wasn't what it is today. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3264193/Is-make-bag-poisoning-Lead-lipsticks-toxic-nail-polish-fake-tan-causes-wrinkles.html

Often when adult children visit grandparents old toys are brought out for grandchildren which may well contain lead.  It seems it's still happening today:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8944028/One-third-of-Chinese-toys-contain-heavy-metals.html

Jewellery too:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/costume-jewelry-found-to-have-high-levels-of-toxins-and-carcinogens-tests-show/

SC was found wearing a ring which looked more costume than precious which may well have contained small amounts of lead. 

There's no expert evidence SC died significantly later than the other victims just a lot of theories that don't stand up to scrutiny. 

The testees hands probably showed higher levels of lead as they may well have been exposed to leaded fuel when filling up their cars.  SC wasn't a car driver.  Testees were scientists at the lab so chances are they were car drivers. 

Are you conflating GSR with lead?  GSR dissipates regardless of any other factors.  Lead will remain on the skin even after washing. 

You seem to believe that the difference in lead levels between SC's right and left hand support SC handling the cartridges.  I believe the tests undertaken at the lab are flawed and the results meaningless.  I have suggested simple tests to prove one way or another:

- Obtain the D lead solution kit.

- Test for lead levels before handling cartridges

- If lead present use the D lead solution to remove and retest until hands are completely lead free

- Load Anshutz mag to full capacity  x 2 and test hands for lead.  I don't believe lead will present as the cartridges are instinctively held at the brass end and the bullet (lead) is coated in parrafin wax which effectively seals in the lead and acts as a barrier.  I might be wrong and maybe small amounts of lead will present.  Either way it will show the tests/results presented at trial were flawed.  If loading the bullets shows high levels of lead then it's back to the ritual cleansing theory.  Washing/wiping hands will remove some lead but not all. 

Trouble with your theories David is that they constantly go against expert opinion.  IMO  the better trained an expert is by way of qualifications and experience the more reliable they are likely to be.  I am happy to rely on Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis, Prof Knight and Dr Lloyd.  Your theories depend on all these experts being wrong. 

The staff at FSS were generalists and MF appears totally unreliable.   IMO the tests/results emanating from the lab are totally unreliable.  This is also supported by the governments own findings @ 3.3.1:

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

[david1819]

SC was found wearing a ring which looked more costume than precious which may well have contained small amounts of lead. 

On her left hand!

There's no expert evidence SC died significantly later than the other victims just a lot of theories that don't stand up to scrutiny. 

There is and they do. You simply don't want to believe it. Either out of stubbornness or wanting to keep the case a "mystery"

Are you conflating GSR with lead?  GSR dissipates regardless of any other factors.  Lead will remain on the skin even after washing. 

Lead is an element of gunshot residue. The test is designed to look for lead (Pb), antimony (Sb), and barium (Ba)

Most GSR (unique and characteristic) and Pb-rich particles firing showed that the memory effect 1191 was connected were lost during the first two to four hours, confirming the with the residual GSR ejected from the inside of the weapon observations of Knechtle and Gallusser [41, Murdock [Ill and also that present on the weapon's surface (e.g., grip, and Nesbitt et al. [l2,l81. This also showed that parti- breech, trigger, magazine) released by the firing. In fact, the chemicle retention does not depend on their chemical nature. amounts of GSR present at t=O on the left hand (back and The distribution of GSR on both hands immediately after palm) and on the right hand palm were only due to the handling and/or loading of the firearm [2]. The highest amount of GSR due to the memory effect is generally present on the right palm and is deposited by contact with the grip; the roughness of this surface and the strength of the contact during firing can explain this result.

IPSC, University of Lausanne, Chemistry Building, 1015, Lausanne-Dorigny, Switzerland

Trouble with your theories David is that they constantly go against expert opinion.  IMO  the better trained an expert is by way of qualifications and experience the more reliable they are likely to be.  I am happy to rely on Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis, Prof Knight and Dr Lloyd.  Your theories depend on all these experts being wrong. 

I always back up my claims with expert evidence. Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight have conflicting opinions on some subjects as you already know, they cant both be correct can they? So yes they can be wrong. Dr Craig cant even notice a gunshot wound that's right infront of him. The irony of it all is, had Dr Craig actually paid closer attention and done his job we would not need to have this discussion, here you are using Dr Craig to back up your claims.

[Holly Goodhead]

On her left hand!

And which hand do you think she used to remove and put on with?  Which hand did she use if she twiddled with it and rubbed her hands?

There is and they do. You simply don't want to believe it. Either out of stubbornness or wanting to keep the case a "mystery"

There isn't.   Your opinions about Dr Vanezis' comments about partially digested food in SC's stomach meaning SC died later than other victims don't count.  Dr Vanezis explains this in CAL's book.  Moreover Prof Knight for the defence had access to the autopsy report; if it was something capable of being pursued from a defence perspective this would've happened.  Prof Knight wrote a tomb about time of death and concludes there's nothing reliable for a narrow window ie nothing that could assist JB.  Your perception of SoC/autopsy images with questionable provenance don't count either.  Again Prof Knight had access to all SoC/autopsy images.  At the time of WHF Prof Knight was a pathologist of long experience with an excellent reputation if he could see what you think you can see from SoC/autopsy images ie difference in stages of RM etc he would've pursued. 

Lead is an element of gunshot residue. The test is designed to look for lead (Pb), antimony (Sb), and barium (Ba)

Most GSR (unique and characteristic) and Pb-rich particles firing showed that the memory effect 1191 was connected were lost during the first two to four hours, confirming the with the residual GSR ejected from the inside of the weapon observations of Knechtle and Gallusser [41, Murdock [Ill and also that present on the weapon's surface (e.g., grip, and Nesbitt et al. [l2,l81. This also showed that parti- breech, trigger, magazine) released by the firing. In fact, the chemicle retention does not depend on their chemical nature. amounts of GSR present at t=O on the left hand (back and The distribution of GSR on both hands immediately after palm) and on the right hand palm were only due to the handling and/or loading of the firearm [2]. The highest amount of GSR due to the memory effect is generally present on the right palm and is deposited by contact with the grip; the roughness of this surface and the strength of the contact during firing can explain this result.

IPSC, University of Lausanne, Chemistry Building, 1015, Lausanne-Dorigny, Switzerland

You're conflating 2 entirely different tests: 

- GSR = particles of various matter produced from gunshot discharge.

- The test carried out on the swabs was concerned SOLELY with lead from handling cartridges ie picking them up and  and loading them into mag.  It had nothing whatsoever to do with GSR.

I always back up my claims with expert evidence. Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight have conflicting opinions on some subjects as you already know, they cant both be correct can they? So yes they can be wrong. Dr Craig cant even notice a gunshot wound that's right infront of him. The irony of it all is, had Dr Craig actually paid closer attention and done his job we would not need to have this discussion, here you are using Dr Craig to back up your claims.

What aspects of the case do Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight disagree on?  The burns?  That's it afaik.  In this regard they both acknowledge being unsure. 

It has been pointed out to you numerous times Dr Craig was not called to WHF to carry out mini post mortems.  He was there simply to certify death.  It is obvious to you looking at SoC images SC sustained 2 GSW's having also read the PM but you don't know what Dr Craig saw that morning.  You think because he may have overlooked 1 of SC's GSW's measuring 1/4" or 3/16" in an area that was bloody means he overlooked a different stage of RM on all the exposed areas of her body compared with other victims. 

How many times has it been pointed out to you that he only acknowledged 1 GSW per victim.  Did any of the officers identify 2 at SoC and before autopsy carried out?  Is it in Chief Sup Harris' WS or DCI Jones' notebook? 

[Holly Goodhead]

David why haven't you helped Kaldin out over the 14th casing found upstairs?  Based on trial testimony from Dr Vanezis and MF it seems June was shot an 8th time.  June sustained a bruise to her chest and one theory is that this was a GSW which caused a graze only wound.  This would then account for the 4th spent bullet in the main bedroom and the 14th casing found in the main bedroom/landing.  I thought you were offay with this?

[Caroline]

And which hand do you think she used to remove and put on with?  Which hand did she use if she twiddled with it and rubbed her hands?

There isn't.   Your opinions about Dr Vanezis' comments about partially digested food in SC's stomach meaning SC died later than other victims don't count.  Dr Vanezis explains this in CAL's book.  Moreover Prof Knight for the defence had access to the autopsy report; if it was something capable of being pursued from a defence perspective this would've happened.  Prof Knight wrote a tomb about time of death and concludes there's nothing reliable for a narrow window ie nothing that could assist JB.  Your perception of SoC/autopsy images with questionable provenance don't count either.  Again Prof Knight had access to all SoC/autopsy images.  At the time of WHF Prof Knight was a pathologist of long experience with an excellent reputation if he could see what you think you can see from SoC/autopsy images ie difference in stages of RM etc he would've pursued. 

You're conflating 2 entirely different tests: 

- GSR = particles of various matter produced from gunshot discharge.

- The test carried out on the swabs was concerned SOLELY with lead from handling cartridges ie picking them up and  and loading them into mag.  It had nothing whatsoever to do with GSR.

What aspects of the case do Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight disagree on?  The burns?  That's it afaik.  In this regard they both acknowledge being unsure. 

It has been pointed out to you numerous times Dr Craig was not called to WHF to carry out mini post mortems.  He was there simply to certify death.  It is obvious to you looking at SoC images SC sustained 2 GSW's having also read the PM but you don't know what Dr Craig saw that morning.  You think because he may have overlooked 1 of SC's GSW's measuring 1/4" or 3/16" in an area that was bloody means he overlooked a different stage of RM on all the exposed areas of her body compared with other victims. 

How many times has it been pointed out to you that he only acknowledged 1 GSW per victim.  Did any of the officers identify 2 at SoC and before autopsy carried out?  Is it in Chief Sup Harris' WS or DCI Jones' notebook?

Excellent post Holly - 100% agree. David's 'theories' depend on either everyone (expect nd unqualified David) being wrong, or everyone lying. It's just not credible.

[John]

Whatever happened to the campaign team and all their boasts of a breakthrough? 

[APRIL]

Whatever happened to the campaign team and all their boasts of a breakthrough?

They announce that they have one, then scrape every barrel they can find, hoping to find one?

[ActualMat]

They announce that they have one, then scrape every barrel they can find, hoping to find one?

And someone alerted the press to their behaviour. (Graveyard Vlog).. So they've got to be more careful.

[Holly Goodhead]

Excellent post Holly - 100% agree. David's 'theories' depend on either everyone (expect nd unqualified David) being wrong, or everyone lying. It's just not credible.

Thanks. 

Just reading some posts from over the way re so-called marks on SC's hands apparently overlooked by Dr Vanezis.  I don't know whether or not I've seen the images and even if I have I often struggle to make much sense of them.  I prefer to look at the bigger picture and again it just doesn't stack up to my mind.

- Dr Vanezis appears to have been very thorough documenting all bodily marks etc even when clearly unrelated to 7th Aug other than possibly the graze.

- Stretch marks
- Nicotine stains
- Scars from implants
- Tampon inserted
- Graze on abdomen covered by dressing

Why would he go into such detail if he was just going thru the motions?  As he went into such detail why overlook marks on SC's hands? 

Unlike evidence evaluated by the lab eg hand swabs and silencer where it could be argued these exhibits have a questionable chain of custody and where the final analysis was produced after JB's interviews under caution this was not the case with the autopsies.  The victims were removed from WHF in body bags used for 'suspicious deaths'.  Dr Vanezis made notes on 7th/8th Aug and these tally with the autopsy report. 

More importantly for me is the fact that Prof Knight for the defence reviewed all Dr Vanezis' findings:

- Autopsy report
- SoC images
- PM images

Prof Knight and Dr Vanezis are known internationally and afaik have unblemished records.  At the time of WHF Prof Knight had about 10 years more experience than Dr Vanezis.  He was hugely experienced and well qualified and if there was anything untoward I believe he would have unearthed it.

I think those that believe they can see things overlooked by Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight are either misinterpreting the images or the images are fakes/have been doctored probably from the time convicted conman GDS was involved. 

[Holly Goodhead]

David can I ask what your views are on these marks on SC's hands?  From your posts you seem to be saying they're blood stains? As an aside I recall from IA you were arguing NB sustained fingernail gouges to his arm, again not noted by Dr Vanezis or Prof Knight, are you still holding out on this?