Does this sneer directed towards an ITN cameraman speak volumes.

[scipio_usmc]

John, I rather suspect that if JB's conviction is quashed by CoA, as I believe it will be, you will still continue to believe him guilty as charged at his 1986 trial.

The fact you believe the COA is going to quash his conviction demonstrates you live in lala land.  What arguments will even be made at this point to the CCRC that will get past them let alone will actually get the COA to rule in Jeremy's favor?

[Holly Goodhead]

Blimey Holl, it's been 30 years and sod-all to show for it....if they turn much slower and grind much finer, he'll be having his sprouts intravenously.

 

Positive Mental Attitude 

[scipio_usmc]

Positive Mental Attitude 

He must be smoking a joint

[Holly Goodhead]

Modern forensics shows that a lack of GSR means diddly-squat and lack of fingerprints on firearms is the norm.  How can this point to SC's non culpability?

Yes lack of GSR didn't form part of the prosecution case at trial.  Perhaps it was known then that a lack of GSR doesn't indicate innocence?

"A rifle or shotgun may not deposit GSR on hands, but more likely in the crook of the support arm". (Dalby et al, 2010)

"A rapid loss in numbers of GSR particles occurs from 1 to 3 hours post firearm discharge, though maximum recovery times of 1 to 48 hours have been reported". (Dalby et al, 2010)

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNGSR.html

The absence of GSR does not indicate innocence.

"There are factors that contribute to particulate loss that must also be taken into consideration. For instance, suppose a firearm is discharged in a static environment (no wind or airflow). Hand samples are then collected immediately after the discharge on clean, dry hands. It would not be unusual to detect hundreds to thousands of GSR particles on these samples. Alternately, suppose a firearm was discharged outside during a windy day with inclement weather. Samples are collected several hours after the discharge, giving the subjects ample time to move, shake off, wipe, or wash their hands. In this instance, it might not be possible to find any GSR particles on the samples. This absence of gunshot residue is not an indication that the subject is innocent of discharging a firearm. All factors concerning particulate loss must be taken into account when determining if results are consistent with the aspects of a specific scenario".

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2012/09/science-behind-gsr-separating-fact-fiction

So based on the above it appears if a rifle or shotgun is fired GSR is more likely to be deposited in the crook of the arm and in any event a rapid loss of particles occurs 1 to 3 hours post firearm discharge.  Plus environmental conditions such as airflow and movement might remove GSR particles.

The situation at WHF:

- Rifle

- SC was found in the main bedroom near an open window which created some airflow

- DI Cook moved SC's hand

- hand swabs were not taken until post mortem which was afternoon of 7th Aug so assuming SC died at circa 3.30am some 10 hours later at least after rifle last discharged

- bags used at SoC to secure SC's hands for forensic evidence were not examined so they may have yielded vital evidence

[scipio_usmc]

Yes lack of GSR didn't form part of the prosecution case at trial.  Perhaps it was known then that a lack of GSR doesn't indicate innocence?

Yes it did.  You are living in lala land again.  One of the arguments made to the jury was the lack of soot and GSR on her hands and clothing proved she didn't fire a weapon.

"A rifle or shotgun may not deposit GSR on hands, but more likely in the crook of the support arm". (Dalby et al, 2010)

Generalizations like this are totally worthless. There are many different types of shotguns and rifles and each type are very different from one another. 

This is a 22LR semi-auto that functions exactly like the murder weapon:

 

oops it send GSR over the shooting hand not just the crook.  This is normal operation mind you not discussing how it would be if one hugged the weapon and fired like you want to pretend she did which would not only deposit GSR on her but also soot on her gown.

But of course the gun had the moderator attached as well though you pretend it didn't...

*&*%£
"A rapid loss in numbers of GSR particles occurs from 1 to 3 hours post firearm discharge, though maximum recovery times of 1 to 48 hours have been reported". (Dalby et al, 2010)

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNGSR.html

The absence of GSR does not indicate innocence.

"There are factors that contribute to particulate loss that must also be taken into consideration. For instance, suppose a firearm is discharged in a static environment (no wind or airflow). Hand samples are then collected immediately after the discharge on clean, dry hands. It would not be unusual to detect hundreds to thousands of GSR particles on these samples. Alternately, suppose a firearm was discharged outside during a windy day with inclement weather. Samples are collected several hours after the discharge, giving the subjects ample time to move, shake off, wipe, or wash their hands. In this instance, it might not be possible to find any GSR particles on the samples. This absence of gunshot residue is not an indication that the subject is innocent of discharging a firearm. All factors concerning particulate loss must be taken into account when determining if results are consistent with the aspects of a specific scenario".

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2012/09/science-behind-gsr-separating-fact-fiction

So based on the above it appears if a rifle or shotgun is fired GSR is more likely to be deposited in the crook of the arm and in any event a rapid loss of particles occurs 1 to 3 hours post firearm discharge.  Plus environmental conditions such as airflow and movement might remove GSR particles.

The situation at WHF:

- Rifle

- SC was found in the main bedroom near an open window which created some airflow

- DI Cook moved SC's hand

- hand swabs were not taken until post mortem which was afternoon of 7th Aug so assuming SC died at circa 3.30am some 10 hours later at least after rifle last discharged

- bags used at SoC to secure SC's hands for forensic evidence were not examined so they may have yielded vital evidence

The source you posted is referring to GSR leaving the hands of someone ALIVE moving around touching thing for 1-3 hours not dead bodies.  Clothing and hair take FAR longer to have GSR leave and transfer elsewhere.  Her clothing had no GSR either.

She was dead not moving around.

Police put bags over her hands to prevent any loss of GSR while they moved her body.  Just moving her arm would not result in all GSR leaving her hands and getting on the cop who touched her.

Your claim they didn't examine the bags is an out and out lie.  It doesn't matter if they examined her 48 hours after the bags were placed on her hands the GSR had no way to leave it doesn't breakdown and dissipate it is removed by transfer.

The airflow from the slightly open window would not have done squat to her it wasn't near her body there used to be a window near her body but it was sealed up.

All your claims are complete nonsense from start to finish.

[Holly Goodhead]

Yes it did.  You are living in lala land again.  One of the arguments made to the jury was the lack of soot and GSR on her hands and clothing proved she didn't fire a weapon.

Can you provide any trial testimony which refers to soot and GSR.  The prosecution case against JB is set out at point 151 in the CoA doc no mention of soot or GSR:

151. The prosecution relied upon the following areas of evidence:

i) The appellant's expressed dislike of his family;

ii) His speaking of his plans to kill his family and thereafter his confessions to his girlfriend, Julie Mugford;

iii) The finding of his mother's bicycle at Goldhanger;

iv) The appellant's admitted ability to effect covert entry into and exit from the farmhouse and the finding of the hacksaw blade outside the bathroom window. His claim to have entered the house in that way after the first arrest was an attempt to explain these findings;

v) Because on the facts of the case it could only have been the appellant or Sheila Caffell who carried out the killings, the factors below proved they were not the responsibility of the appellant's sister:

a) Although seriously mentally ill, there had been no indication of any deterioration in her mental health in the days before the killings. Neither had she expressed any recent suicidal thoughts and the expert evidence was that she would not have harmed her children or her father;

b) Save for the appellant nobody had seen her use a gun and she had no interest in them. Sheila Caffell also had very poor co-ordination and would not have been capable of loading and operating the rifle nor would she have had the required knowledge to do so;

c) She would not have been able physically to have overcome her father (who was fit, strong and 6' 4" tall) during the struggle which undoubtedly took place before his death in the kitchen;

d) Her hands and feet were clean. They were not blood stained and neither was there any sugar upon them;

e) Hand swabs from her body did not reveal the levels of lead to be expected in somebody who must have re-loaded the magazine of the gun on at least two occasions; and

f) Her clothing was relatively clean and she was not injured in the way that might be expected of somebody involved in a struggle. Her long fingernails were still intact and undamaged.

vi) The sound moderator had on any view been attached to the rifle during the fight with Nevill Bamber in the kitchen. But if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide it must have been removed before she shot herself. The following aspects of the evidence established it was still in place on the gun when the appellant's sister was murdered:

a) The blood grouping analysis proved (on the particular facts of the case) that Sheila Caffell's blood was inside the moderator; and

b) Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room.

vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:

a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;

b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;

c) As a matter of common sense, Nevill Bamber would have called the police before the appellant;

d) Had the appellant really received such a call, he would have immediately made a 999 call, alerted the farm workers who lived close to the farmhouse and then driven at speed to his parents home; and

e) Instead he had spoken to Julie Mugford before calling the police. When he subsequently contacted the Police, it was not by way of the emergency system.

viii) He stood to inherit considerable sums of money.

Generalizations like this are totally worthless. There are many different types of shotguns and rifles and each type are very different from one another. 

This is a 22LR semi-auto that functions exactly like the murder weapon:

 

oops it send GSR over the shooting hand not just the crook.  This is normal operation mind you not discussing how it would be if one hugged the weapon and fired like you want to pretend she did which would not only deposit GSR on her but also soot on her gown.

But of course the gun had the moderator attached as well though you pretend it didn't...

Rifle being fired which illustrates GSR

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5594.msg268494#msg268494

The source you posted is referring to GSR leaving the hands of someone ALIVE moving around touching thing for 1-3 hours not dead bodies.  Clothing and hair take FAR longer to have GSR leave and transfer elsewhere.  Her clothing had no GSR either.

She was dead not moving around.

Police put bags over her hands to prevent any loss of GSR while they moved her body.  Just moving her arm would not result in all GSR leaving her hands and getting on the cop who touched her.

Your claim they didn't examine the bags is an out and out lie.  It doesn't matter if they examined her 48 hours after the bags were placed on her hands the GSR had no way to leave it doesn't breakdown and dissipate it is removed by transfer.

The airflow from the slightly open window would not have done squat to her it wasn't near her body there used to be a window near her body but it was sealed up.

All your claims are complete nonsense from start to finish.

The source I quoted in my post above makes the following points:

- GSR particles start to disappear after discharge
- GSR particles are more likely to land in the crook of the arm when a rifle or shotgun is fired unlike a handgun
- Any movement of the person can cause a loss of GSR particles
- Environmental factors such as airflow can cause a loss of GSR particles

All the above factors were relevant to the situation at WHF. 

SC's hands were not swabbed at SoC.  They were swabbed many hours later after DI Cook had moved her hand for DC Bird to photograph and  after DC Hammersely had moved her hands to place them in bags to preserve any forensic evidence.  SC was then placed in a body bag and transported to the lab for post-mortem.  Some considerable movement took place.  At post-mortem DC Hammersley swabbed SC's hands.  The bags secured to SC's hands were not sent for foresnic analysis as per DC Hammersely's cross-examination by Geoffrey Rivlin QC:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=165.0;attach=229

So your claim that I lied about the bags not being sent to the lab for forensic analysis is wrong.

[scipio_usmc]

Can you provide any trial testimony which refers to soot and GSR.  The prosecution case against JB is set out at point 151 in the CoA doc no mention of soot or GSR:

151. The prosecution relied upon the following areas of evidence:

e) Hand swabs from her body did not reveal the levels of lead to be expected in somebody who must have re-loaded the magazine of the gun on at least two occasions; and

f) Her clothing was relatively clean and she was not injured in the way that might be expected of somebody involved in a struggle. Her long fingernails were still intact and undamaged.

The Appeal decision didn't go into exacting detail of all the trial testimony.  The background SUMMARY is meant to provide a general background sufficient to make the appeal understandable.

E and F were the summaries that related to the issues.  They also noted how no GSR was found on the clothing and hands in another section.

22LR is a rimfire cartridge not centerfire.  The primer is mainly lead.  It is mainly lead that would be searched for in searching for GSR and oil/soot stains on clothing.  There would also be lead and soot stains looked for on the shooting hand as well as well as loading stains on the hand.

The prosecution expert asserted:

Gown
No soot or oil as would be expected
No GSR

Hands
No visible lead loading stains
No elevated lead levels found which would be present if having loaded the gun
No GSR which is very closely related to the finding of no elevated lead levels.

Here is where Fletcher discussed the oil/sooting that would be on the clothing:





The hands have been discussed so many times you should know it by heart.

That you don't know so many basic things about this case is very telling. It underscores you made up your mind about the case without bothering to learn about the facts and evidence but you demonstrate that always.

Rifle being fired which illustrates GSR

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5594.msg268494#msg268494

That shows a rifle being fired it doesn't show the GSR plume.  A special camera must be used to capture the GSR plume it is invisible to the naked eye.  The image I posted is from a book where a special camera was used to capture the plume of a wide variety of different weapons.  While I go to materials that discuss the exact issue at bar you always go to sources of a general nature that fail to deal with the exact issue at hand and just make a giant leap about how there is no GSR plume because it wasn't captured in a video that didn't use the type of camera necessary because it was not videoed for that purpose. It is jsut an ordinary yourube video made by a shooter.

The source I quoted in my post above makes the following points:

- GSR particles start to disappear after discharge
- GSR particles are more likely to land in the crook of the arm when a rifle or shotgun is fired unlike a handgun
- Any movement of the person can cause a loss of GSR particles
- Environmental factors such as airflow can cause a loss of GSR particles

All the above factors were relevant to the situation at WHF. 

SC's hands were not swabbed at SoC.  They were swabbed many hours later after DI Cook had moved her hand for DC Bird to photograph and  after DC Hammersely had moved her hands to place them in bags to preserve any forensic evidence.  SC was then placed in a body bag and transported to the lab for post-mortem.  Some considerable movement took place.  At post-mortem DC Hammersley swabbed SC's hands.  The bags secured to SC's hands were not sent for foresnic analysis as per DC Hammersely's cross-examination by Geoffrey Rivlin QC:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=165.0;attach=229

So your claim that I lied about the bags not being sent to the lab for forensic analysis is wrong.

The claim the particles start to vanish is nonsense.  They are heavy metals that don't simple break down rapidly. 

They leave by transfer.  The airflow from the slightly open window would be minimal and would travel to the door not the other side of the bed where Sheila's body was.  Her body was on the floor you want to suggest air would flow in the window then down to the floor around the bed?  It owuld go out the door into the hall and not low by the floor...

The police moving her arm so they could photo the blood was minimal movement that would not wash away all lead and soot.  It takes a very long time and a lot of effort to get it off clothing which also had none. They moved her ARM not hand slightly and they then covered her hands with bags to prevent any loss while she was being moved. 

Claiming the GSR left while her body was lying there is sheer fantasy.

You posted a GENERALITY about rifles and shotguns that doesn't take into account specific types that generality is wrong for many.  I posted a source that TESTED a weapon that functions exactly like the murder weapon. It was selected by the author to illustrate the typical characteristics of a GSR plume from a 22LR semi-auto with an ejection port int he same location as the murder weapon.

Your BS totally fell apart under scrutiny. 

[Holly Goodhead]

The Appeal decision didn't go into exacting detail of all the trial testimony.  The background SUMMARY is meant to provide a general background sufficient to make the appeal understandable.

E and F were the summaries that related to the issues.  They also noted how no GSR was found on the clothing and hands in another section.

22LR is a rimfire cartridge not centerfire.  The primer is mainly lead.  It is mainly lead that would be searched for in searching for GSR and oil/soot stains on clothing.  There would also be lead and soot stains looked for on the shooting hand as well as well as loading stains on the hand.

The prosecution expert asserted:

Gown
No soot or oil as would be expected
No GSR

Hands
No visible lead loading stains
No elevated lead levels found which would be present if having loaded the gun
No GSR which is very closely related to the finding of no elevated lead levels.

Here is where Fletcher discussed the oil/sooting that would be on the clothing:





The hands have been discussed so many times you should know it by heart.

That you don't know so many basic things about this case is very telling. It underscores you made up your mind about the case without bothering to learn about the facts and evidence but you demonstrate that always.


That shows a rifle being fired it doesn't show the GSR plume.  A special camera must be used to capture the GSR plume it is invisible to the naked eye.  The image I posted is from a book where a special camera was used to capture the plume of a wide variety of different weapons.  While I go to materials that discuss the exact issue at bar you always go to sources of a general nature that fail to deal with the exact issue at hand and just make a giant leap about how there is no GSR plume because it wasn't captured in a video that didn't use the type of camera necessary because it was not videoed for that purpose. It is jsut an ordinary yourube video made by a shooter.


The claim the particles start to vanish is nonsense.  They are heavy metals that don't simple break down rapidly. 

They leave by transfer.  The airflow from the slightly open window would be minimal and would travel to the door not the other side of the bed where Sheila's body was.  Her body was on the floor you want to suggest air would flow in the window then down to the floor around the bed?  It owuld go out the door into the hall and not low by the floor...

The police moving her arm so they could photo the blood was minimal movement that would not wash away all lead and soot.  It takes a very long time and a lot of effort to get it off clothing which also had none. They moved her ARM not hand slightly and they then covered her hands with bags to prevent any loss while she was being moved. 

Claiming the GSR left while her body was lying there is sheer fantasy.

You posted a GENERALITY about rifles and shotguns that doesn't take into account specific types that generality is wrong for many.  I posted a source that TESTED a weapon that functions exactly like the murder weapon. It was selected by the author to illustrate the typical characteristics of a GSR plume from a 22LR semi-auto with an ejection port int he same location as the murder weapon.

Your BS totally fell apart under scrutiny.

- GSR is more likely to fall in the crook of the arm when a rifle or shotgun is discharged
- GSR particles start to disappear after discharge
- SC's body was found near an open window and airflow might have exacerbated the disappearance of the particles
- SC's body was moved in the following ways prior to any analysis:

- DC Bird moved SC's hand to photograph
- DC Hammersley placed SC's hands in plastic bags to secure any forensice evidence
- SC was placed in a body bag and moved from the main bedroom at WHF to the path lab

At the path lab:

- DC Hammersley swabbed SC's hands and the plastic bags were not forensically analysed.  The swabs were only tested for lead deposits in connection with handling of the bullets not GSR.

- SC's nightie was foresnically analysed but obviously any forensic evidence needed capturing at the SoC not when the nightie had been in a body bag and on a journey from the main bedroom at WHF to the path lab.  Whether SC shot herself twice or JB murdered her with two shots the rifle would have been in approximately the same position for both with the rifle then remaining on her body so the fact there was no GSR on her nightie doesn't advance anything.

[scipio_usmc]

- GSR is more likely to fall in the crook of the arm when a rifle or shotgun is discharged
- GSR particles start to disappear after discharge
- SC's body was found near an open window and airflow might have exacerbated the disappearance of the particles
- SC's body was moved in the following ways prior to any analysis:

- DC Bird moved SC's hand to photograph
- DC Hammersley placed SC's hands in plastic bags to secure any forensice evidence
- SC was placed in a body bag and moved from the main bedroom at WHF to the path lab

At the path lab:

- DC Hammersley swabbed SC's hands and the plastic bags were not forensically analysed.  The swabs were only tested for lead deposits in connection with handling of the bullets not GSR.

- SC's nightie was foresnically analysed but obviously any forensic evidence needed capturing at the SoC not when the nightie had been in a body bag and on a journey from the main bedroom at WHF to the path lab.  Whether SC shot herself twice or JB murdered her with two shots the rifle would have been in approximately the same position for both with the rifle then remaining on her body so the fact there was no GSR on her nightie doesn't advance anything.

[ moderated ]

I already produced absolute evidence that with the murder weapon the GSR plum gets on the shooting hand, face, forehead and hair not simply the support arm.  That evidence is a source which even SHOWS the plume.  Sticking to a generalized claim about rifles and shotguns that doesn't apply to the murder weapon is either dishonesty or extreme ineptitude.

Was any GSR found on the support hand or left arm of the gown?  No!  What about her shooting hand?  No!  In addition to invisible (to the naked eye) GSR, visible soot is ejected from the vents and ejection port of the weapon.  Was any soot found on her gown or hands?  No!  In shooting others such soot would be the shoulder/underarm/chest region of her gown.  In shooting herself it would be the lower portion of her gown because the vents and ejection port would be down near her stomach/crotch area. In order to shoot herself the vents and ejection port would have to be very close to her gown. Was there any? soot?  Nope

Soot doesn't just vanish because of passage of time nor does GSR.  Your claim they naturally dissipate is false.  They are transferred form the body by natural processes.  After hours of natural living GSR will transfer- soot has to be washed it will not go away by simple transfer.

She was dead there was no natural processes to remove it from her body.  It didn't matter if her body body went to the mortuary in 1 hour and thus the samples taken after an hour or 24 hours the GSR would not naturally dissipate.

The window was only slightly open and any limited air flow would be from the window through the open bedroom door into the hall or the reverse.  It would not blow to the other side of the room around the bed to the floor.  The window was not near her body. 

Trying to pretend that the evidence would vanish from the nighty before it arrived at the lab is also sheer nonsense.  I posted numerous sources including an FBI source ages ago that note how GSR remains on clothing of active people much longer than skin and this was a dead person not an active one.

Moving her arm over to take the photo as worst would transfer some GSR to her gown where her hand was moved to but again there was none on her gown.


You failed miserably at responding to my points in fact you failed to respond to most of them let alone to respond in a manner that refuted my point.