Because his primary speciality is gunshot wounds. Not trace evidence.
The book is entitled: 'Gunshot Wounds - Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics and Forensic Techniques'. It contains chapters on 'Firearms and Ammunition' and 'Detection of Gunshot Residue'. If a reliable test existed for assessing whether victims/perps had recently handled ammunition then it would feature. It doesn't feature because there's no way of conducting such a test on a scientific basis. You need to develop your critical thinking skills. You find me some evidence to the contrary from a reliable source and next time we hook up the beers are on me.
Indeed he probably was and indeed he did
Indeed he did.
You have no evidence whatsoever that Dr Craig was an incompetent drunk. Find me some evidence to the contrary and next time we hook up the beers are on me.
It is easy some 3 decades on with the benefit of an autopsy report to appreciate SC sustained 2 gsw's. We are looking at soc images safe in the knowledge this was the case. Dr Craig was looking at SC with bloody smear marks across her neck. It was not his job to go wiping bloodstains and intefere with victims/soc. His role was simply to certify death. It has been pointed out to you countless times all victims sustained multiple gsw's and he only noted 1 gsw for each victim for obvious reasons ie it was not his role to intefere with soc/victims.
Did any of the officers at soc or those from coroners office observe more than 1 gsw on SC? Did Chief Sup Harris note in his WS? No. Did DCI Jones note in his pocket book? No. Did DS Jones say along the line of I suspected Bamber from the off because SC sustained 2 gsw's? No. Find me some evidence to the contrary, beers on me.
You don't know what he looked at. All the defence had was small poor small quality photos. According to his own bibliography the photo of the gun on Sheila confirms JB guilt.
I do know what he looked at because he talks at length about it in his trial testimony. He also wrote a tome about TOD and confirms it is impossible to provide a narrow time frame eg when JB was outside with police.
Now whose talking codswallop. He said, words to the effect, where it is thought women have committed suicide by firearms it should be investigated further and treated with suspicion. Hardly surprising when so few women in UK have access to firearms.
Not necessarily.
See my reply above - there's no scientific test capable of measuring metals on a person's hands and determining whether he/she handled ammunition when the metals involved are present in everyday items.
So you believe Sheila shot herself once. Then the police shot her a second time after Dr Craig had a look?
It is easy some 3 decades on with the benefit of an autopsy report to appreciate SC sustained 2 gsw's. We are looking at soc images safe in the knowledge this was the case. Dr Craig was looking at SC with bloody smear marks across her neck. It was not his job to go wiping bloodstains and intefere with victims/soc. His role was simply to certify death. It has been pointed out to you countless times all victims sustained multiple gsw's and he only noted 1 gsw for each victim for obvious reasons ie it was not his role to intefere with soc/victims.
Did any of the officers at soc or those from coroners office observe more than 1 gsw on SC? Did Chief Sup Harris note in his WS? No. Did DCI Jones note in his pocket book? No. Did DS Jones say along the line of I suspected Bamber from the off because SC sustained 2 gsw's? No. Find me some evidence to the contrary, beers on me.
The term GSR is ambiguous. Is often used to describe any trace evidence that involves using a Firearm. That includes handling and loading the weapon as well as firing it. Makes sense as they all need doing in order to shoot. In almost all studies I have read they describe the trace evidence from loading or handling the weapon as (GSR)
How do you account for the lead, copper and iron traces on Sheila's hands? Lead being on the shell casings, the same shell casings made of brass that contains copper that gets loaded in a steel gun that contains Iron.
Why is there more lead on the right hand. The hand that she would have used if she loaded the casings?
Why is there more iron on her left hand. The hand that she would have used to told magazine while loading it?
I am sure there are several innocent explanations and possibilitys. But to argue anything other that Sheila loading and handling the weapon would be to argue that she was not the shooter. But you believe she was.
See my reply above - there's no scientific test capable of measuring metals on a person's hands and determining whether he/she handled ammunition when the metals involved are present in everyday items.
