Was Malcolm Fletcher A Credible and Reliable Expert Witness?

[david1819]

It should not have been a case of thinking about in 85/86; powder tatoos and abrasion rings are part and parcel of a shooting incident and further evidence that the lawyers and experts were not up to the task.

Given the evidence could have been adjudicated on at trial it shows a measure of goodwill in that it could have be thrown back on this basis alone.

Malcom Fletcher did do some comparison experiments in the lab shooting stuff with and without the silencer to compare the soot patterns and marks. He was never questioned on these experiments at trial but we know he done them because they are in his notes. He admits under cross examination that there is no evidence to show the silencer was used when shooting Neville, June and the Twins. He also agreed that the ONLY reason he came to believe the silencer was used when Sheila was shot was the blood inside the baffle plates.

So I am going to deduce from this that Fletchers experiments did not support the silencer being used. Otherwise I cannot imagine why he would not bring them up and instead admit its all down to the blood.

According to journalist Jim Shelley. Major Freddie told him “there aren’t any grounds to believe a silencer was involved, apart from that the silencer was found.” How Mead came to that conclusion I do not know.

But none of this would really help if the defence case is trying to persuade the jury that Sheila shot four people with the silencer on and the blood is June and Nevills.

[Holly Goodhead]

Malcom Fletcher did do some comparison experiments in the lab shooting stuff with and without the silencer to compare the soot patterns and marks. He was never questioned on these experiments at trial but we know he done them because they are in his notes. He admits under cross examination that there is no evidence to show the silencer was used when shooting Neville, June and the Twins. He also agreed that the ONLY reason he came to believe the silencer was used when Sheila was shot was the blood inside the baffle plates.

So I am going to deduce from this that Fletchers experiments did not support the silencer being used. Otherwise I cannot imagine why he would not bring them up and instead admit its all down to the blood.

I think he does touch on the experiments during his testimony which I am just re-reading and will report back later.  However as I understand it these experiments were carried out to determine range/distance of shots as opposed to whether or not the silencer was attached to the rifle when SC sustained her 2 gsw's.

According to journalist Jim Shelley. Major Freddie told him “there aren’t any grounds to believe a silencer was involved, apart from that the silencer was found.” How Mead came to that conclusion I do not know.

But none of this would really help if the defence case is trying to persuade the jury that Sheila shot four people with the silencer on and the blood is June and Nevills.

Yes I see what you mean.  Maybe he thought like us ie the silencer wasn't used period and Rivlin's strategy of choregraphing a correlation between the silencer and soc was as daft as it sounds.  The Major was looking at it from a ballistics perspective and Rivlin was looking at it from a lawyer's perspective and thought it the best way to secure an acquittal.

[Caroline]

Yes I agree I have no idea exactly what the "high profile quality failures" involved but it does give me some hope I'm right about the tests and testimonies of Malcolm Fletcher and Brian Elliot being wrong.   Some criticise the likes of Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis, Prof Knight and Dr Llloyd when there's not a shred of evidence they were anything other than competent, credible and reliable. 

I disgree that it's opinion based where one off-sets another.  Simple tests can show who's right and who's wrong:

- Fletcher asserted at trial that he sustained black discolouration to his hands from loading cartridges into mag.  As I think you know this contradicts my own findings from carrying out the task in a local gun shop.  The test could be replicated under scientific conditions: forensic scientist loads cartridges into mag.  Assuming no discoluration to hands the scientist would then write to Eley confirming nothing has changed with manufacturing of the bullets since WHF. 

- Fletcher also asserted at trial that he would have expected to find gun oil on SC's nightdress.  This was from the barrel, ports, and vents when rifle discharged.  Again the same rifle used at WHF could be discharged 25/26 times to see if does indeed eject gun oil.

- Brian Elliot swabbed the hands of two scientists and compared them with the swabs taken from SC's hands.  He concluded that SC had not handled the cartridges as the scientists hands showed higher levels of lead.  Dr Lloyd at appeal criticised this experiment as Elliot didn't swab the hands of the scientists before handling the cartridges and in his opinion the difference in lead levels between the swabs taken from scientists and SC's hands were not quantitatively different.  Based on my own handling of the cartridges the actual lead bullet is sealed with a parrafin wax lubricant and I intutively picked them up and loaded them by the brass end.  In any event a simple experiement could easily be carried out by washing hands, checking lead levels, load cartridges into mag and then check lead levels on hands. 

In any event as I said to David, Elliot's experiment doesn't seem a valid scientific one as the level of lead found on the swabs from scientists and SC could just as easily be from handling every day items containing lead.  As far as I can see this test isn't found in any forensic text books.  It seems the lab rejected the swabs first time around as they were sent in with a firearms from an unrelated case (this was for GSR) and then looked to conjure up an alternative test due to pressure from DCI Ainsley.

I agree with most of what you say but unless you were able to load the 'same; cartridges (from the actual box used at WHF), it would have little value.

[Holly Goodhead]

I agree with most of what you say but unless you were able to load the 'same; cartridges (from the actual box used at WHF), it would have little value.

What makes you think it is necessary to carry out tests using cartridges from the box at WHF?  It doesn't seem they all came from the box on the kitchen top anyway.  I can't recall the figs now but the number found on kitchen top and the number used exceeds a full box (50).  I think the cartridges are manufactured to the same specification today as they were when NB purchased in Nov '84?  Eley should be in a position to advise on this.  I don't see anything unique about those used at WHF?

[Caroline]

What makes you think it is necessary to carry out tests using cartridges from the box at WHF?  It doesn't seem they all came from the box on the kitchen top anyway.  I can't recall the figs now but the number found on kitchen top and the number used exceeds a full box (50).  I think the cartridges are manufactured to the same specification today as they were when NB purchased in Nov '84?  Eley should be in a position to advise on this.  I don't see anything unique about those used at WHF?

Because that is the 'batch' handled by Fletcher.  Although producers of any item try to work to the same specifications, there are bound to be differences, which is why things have batch numbers. Testing a different box would only give you significant results for that box. If you tested a hundred boxes recently produced, you still couldn't be certain that those from 1985 would give the same results.

[Holly Goodhead]

Because that is the 'batch' handled by Fletcher.  Although producers of any item try to work to the same specifications, there are bound to be differences, which is why things have batch numbers. Testing a different box would only give you significant results for that box. If you tested a hundred boxes recently produced, you still couldn't be certain that those from 1985 would give the same results.

Why do you think there are bound to be differences?  I think the manufacturing process and materials used will ensure conformity to specification regardless of lot number?  Obviously the time since NB purchased the cartridges  is significant and this is the reason I said Eley will need to confirm no changes have been made.    According to my communication with Eley they have not made changes.  If it transpires they have made changes then they will need to produce cartridges for testing based on those used at WHF.  Or some from that era may still be hanging around assuming they don't change in some way over time.  

[Caroline]

Why do you think there are bound to be differences?  I think the manufacturing process and materials used will ensure conformity to specification regardless of lot number?  Obviously the time since NB purchased the cartridges  is significant and this is the reason I said Eley will need to confirm no changes have been made.    According to my communication with Eley they have not made changes.  If it transpires they have made changes then they will need to produce cartridges for testing based on those used at WHF.  Or some from that era may still be hanging around assuming they don't change in some way over time. 

So, you're in court and your guy states no residue but Fletcher maintains that the batch they tested produced residue - do you imagine that he would be accused of lying? I very much doubt it. It's something that can't be qualified because the batch that he tested no longer exits. Do you really think that at the time, he would have made up the residue when it was easily testable using the SAME box of cartridges? I think that particular ship has sailed.

[Holly Goodhead]

So, you're in court and your guy states no residue but Fletcher maintains that the batch they tested produced residue - do you imagine that he would be accused of lying? I very much doubt it. It's something that can't be qualified because the batch that he tested no longer exits. Do you really think that at the time, he would have made up the residue when it was easily testable using the SAME box of cartridges? I think that particular ship has sailed.

Fletcher was an employee of FSS so the buck will stop with FSS rather than any individual employee unless any individual(s) are found to have deliberately falsified evidence and then that will be a matter for DPP/courts.  It's not a case of one test being wrong but it seems at least 3 and quite possibly 4.  The UK gov has already acknowledged "high profile quality failures" although I accept this might have no bearing on JB's case but it's not like FSS was without it's failings and these failings may well have impacted on JB's case/trial/appeal hearings.

In terms of the cartridges manufactured by Eley I don't think the lot number matters so long as Eley can confirm any cartridges tested today use the same materials and manufacturing processes as those used to produce the cartridges NB purchased in Nov '84.  They have to perform to a certain specification and can only do this if the manufacturing process is uniform producing a consistent end product.

http://www.eley.co.uk/eley-subsonic-hollow

If you and I purchased a branded bottle of shampoo a year apart, you in the north and me in the south, with different lot numbers we would expect them to be identical assuming the manufacturer hadn't tweaked the processes or ingredients?  Some products require a controlled environment eg temperature but this will also be factored into the process to ensure uniformity and consistency of end product.

[Caroline]

Fletcher was an employee of FSS so the buck will stop with FSS rather than any individual employee unless any individual(s) are found to have deliberately falsified evidence and then that will be a matter for DPP/courts.  It's not a case of one test being wrong but it seems at least 3 and quite possibly 4.  The UK gov has already acknowledged "high profile quality failures" although I accept this might have no bearing on JB's case but it's not like FSS was without it's failings and these failings may well have impacted on JB's case/trial/appeal hearings.

In terms of the cartridges manufactured by Eley I don't think the lot number matters so long as Eley can confirm any cartridges tested today use the same materials and manufacturing processes as those used to produce the cartridges NB purchased in Nov '84.  They have to perform to a certain specification and can only do this if the manufacturing process is uniform producing a consistent end product.

http://www.eley.co.uk/eley-subsonic-hollow

If you and I purchased a branded bottle of shampoo a year apart, you in the north and me in the south, with different lot numbers we would expect them to be identical assuming the manufacturer hadn't tweaked the processes or ingredients?  Some products require a controlled environment eg temperature but this will also be factored into the process to ensure uniformity and consistency of end product.

I think it does matter because if you or I had a problem with the shampoo and complained, they would ask for the batch number and if various other people made the same complaint, the batch would be recalled. Same if it's white goods.

[Holly Goodhead]

I think it does matter because if you or I had a problem with the shampoo and complained, they would ask for the batch number and if various other people made the same complaint, the batch would be recalled. Same if it's white goods.

Lot numbers are used for tracking (recall) not batch numbers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lot_number

If tests are carried out to determine whether the cartridges produce black discolouration on hands as Fletcher claimed at trial and it transpires there's no black discoluration then we would have to conclude

- Fletcher's trial testimony was wrong
- Changes were made to cartridges which no longer result in black discolouration to hands
- The cartridges NB purchased in '84 were faulty causing black discolouration to hands

I have already said Eley would need to be involved to confirm no changes were made to the cartridges and this would extend to confirming no known defects circa 1984.

[Holly Goodhead]

David here's the challenge:

- Look at websites for UK's providers of forensic science eg Forensic Equity, Key Forensic etc.  You will find they are all set out in a similar format eg Ballistics, DNA, Trace etc.

- Check out ballistics and trace evidence and then see whether tests exist to determine whether or not someone has handled cartridges from lead on hand swabs.  I know the answer but if you check it out yourself you might conclude I am right in this regard.   

Please do not conflate with GSR.  GSR has a clear definition and this is not what Brian Elliot testified on at trial.  We are talking levels of lead from handling cartridges not GSR from firearm discharge.

I see you've so far been unable to rise to the challenge David.

[Holly Goodhead]

Here's Fletchers trial testimony about the black discolouration to his hands.  Love Anthony Arlidge QC's "Could the witness hold his hand up so the jury can see" 

What concerns me here is that we have Fletcher who imo sounds a complete numpty and a bunch of defence lawyers who sound even numptier if that's possible.

There are many more questions than answers:

- The cartridges used at WHF didn't have holes in as they are not manufactured with holes in.  The holes were made specifically for JB's trial to empty the contents to make them safe for handling by judge and jurors.  The contents being gunpowder essentially.

- Once the holes were made and the contents emptied unless the cartridges were thoroughly cleaned then the potential existed for small amounts of powder to present on the cartridges with the potential for contamination to hands.

- How were these empty cartridges transported to court?  If they were just placed loose in some container rattling around with remnants of powder then the potential existed for small amounts of powder to present on the cartridges with the potential for contamination to hands.

The lawyers seem oblivious to all of this.  I just can't believe how poor it all is 


[attachment deleted by admin]

[Caroline]

Lot numbers are used for tracking (recall) not batch numbers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lot_number

If tests are carried out to determine whether the cartridges produce black discolouration on hands as Fletcher claimed at trial and it transpires there's no black discoluration then we would have to conclude

- Fletcher's trial testimony was wrong
- Changes were made to cartridges which no longer result in black discolouration to hands
- The cartridges NB purchased in '84 were faulty causing black discolouration to hands

I have already said Eley would need to be involved to confirm no changes were made to the cartridges and this would extend to confirming no known defects circa 1984.

Well, it really doesn't matter whether they are called batches or lot numbers - but if you really want to split hairs (as they are both the same thing)

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/batches-of-novopen-echo-novopen-5-recalled-due-to-risk-of-fault (Actual BATCH number list attached  )

https://www.claruswms.co.uk/lot-and-batch-number-tracking-in-your-good-distribution-warehouse/

Point is, you couldn't really conclude anything with 100% accuracy because you don't have a sample of the original cartridges.



[attachment deleted by admin]

[Holly Goodhead]

Well, it really doesn't matter whether they are called batches or lot numbers - but if you really want to split hairs (as they are both the same thing)

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/batches-of-novopen-echo-novopen-5-recalled-due-to-risk-of-fault (Actual BATCH number list attached  )

https://www.claruswms.co.uk/lot-and-batch-number-tracking-in-your-good-distribution-warehouse/

Point is, you couldn't really conclude anything with 100% accuracy because you don't have a sample of the original cartridges.

At one time lot numbers and batch numbers meant different things but it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, no.

Well we know for sure Fletcher's test at trial was not 100% accurate as he used empty cartridges with holes in and the cartridges used at WHF were the real McCoy for sure.

I have seen a soc image for the cartridge box on the kitchen worktop which contains a number but given the number of cartridges on the kitchen worktop and the number used exceeds the number of a full box it seems they came from two different boxes anyway.

[Holly Goodhead]

Here's Fletchers's trial testimony about SC's nightdress where he confirms he was unable to detect any residues or oil which he would expect to find.

As I said GSR testing was not carried out in this case.  Fletcher claims oil and debris would emit from barrel, port and vents of rifle and yet forensic tests do not seem to exist covering this ie reference to in forensic textbooks and it doesn't seem to appear on the websites of providers of forensic services.

Did he carry out tests using the WHF rifle and found that it emitted oil and debris?  If so did he compare with an undamaged rifle? 

Bottom line is that these tests carried out by Brian Elliot (lead on hands or rather lack of) and Malcolm Fletcher (black discolouration to hands and lack of oil and debris on nightdress) are not standard forensic science tests based on established principles. 

The fact we know FSS had quality issues in the 80's doesn't fill me with confidence.  In fact I would goes as far as saying I don't trust anything coming out of FSS at Huntingdon.  Difficult to say whether it was incompetence or deliberately fabricating evidence to secure a conviction on the basis of noble cause corruption or a combination of the two. 



[attachment deleted by admin]