Was the GSR Hand Swab Evidence Flawed?

[david1819]

I Posted this on the other forum, I will post it here also as I don't really understand the science of this subject, maybe someone here will. According to the forensic textbooks I have the type of ammunition used in the murders at that time does not use the typical propellants that GSR swabs are designed to detect possibly rendering them meaningless.

Depending on how the home office Laboratory conducted its testing on the hand swabs in 1985 it may be that the entire process was fundamentally flawed. I am over my head when it comes to the science of this but for anyone that is familiar with the subject it might be worth further examination.

Here is part of page 208 of the book Forensic Science From the Crime Scene to the Crime Lab by RICHARD SAFERSTEIN, PH.D. Forensic Science Consultant, Mt. Laurel


However, hand swabbing or the application of an adhesive cannot be
used to detect firings of most .22-caliber rim-fire ammunition. Such ammunition’s
primer may contain only barium or neither barium nor antimony


Here is an extract of page 101 of Current methods in forensic gunshot residue analysis by
A. J. Schwoeble and David L. Exline forensic scientists at RJ Lee Group


The manufactures of Remington rimfire ammunition is ELEY LTD


Now I have obtained a copy of the 1983 patent for that type of ammunition listing the ingredients
however I still cannot be sure its the exact production of the ammo used at whf

[scipio_usmc]

There are higher levels of lead among other things on the hands from firing 22LR Eley rounds and the lab was fully aware of such.  In the late 1970s there were articles about the differences between looking for PGSR from firing 22LR weapons versus centerfire cartridges.

PGSR lead has a different shape than ordinary lead mind you because of additional elements that are present with the lead.

   

[Holly Goodhead]

I Posted this on the other forum, I will post it here also as I don't really understand the science of this subject, maybe someone here will. According to the forensic textbooks I have the type of ammunition used in the murders at that time does not use the typical propellants that GSR swabs are designed to detect possibly rendering them meaningless.

Depending on how the home office Laboratory conducted its testing on the hand swabs in 1985 it may be that the entire process was fundamentally flawed. I am over my head when it comes to the science of this but for anyone that is familiar with the subject it might be worth further examination.

Here is part of page 208 of the book Forensic Science From the Crime Scene to the Crime Lab by RICHARD SAFERSTEIN, PH.D. Forensic Science Consultant, Mt. Laurel


However, hand swabbing or the application of an adhesive cannot be
used to detect firings of most .22-caliber rim-fire ammunition. Such ammunition’s
primer may contain only barium or neither barium nor antimony


Here is an extract of page 101 of Current methods in forensic gunshot residue analysis by
A. J. Schwoeble and David L. Exline forensic scientists at RJ Lee Group


The manufactures of Remington rimfire ammunition is ELEY LTD


Now I have obtained a copy of the 1983 patent for that type of ammunition listing the ingredients
however I still cannot be sure its the exact production of the ammo used at whf

I find it difficult to believe that the manufacturers, Eley, are not legally obliged to make available the exact content of the cartridges.  David how old is that material you posted above? 

DC Hammersley's trial testimony states he used a swabbing kit, guess standard Home Office issued, and when he took SC's hand swabs at PM it was only his second time in five years experience.  The previous occasion was not similar to WHF.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=165.0;attach=227

I posted recently that SC's hands were not swabbed until PM.  This was probably some 12 hours after the tragedy unfolded.  And after her hands had been placed in polythene bags and the body placed in a bag and moved from the upstairs of WHF to the path lab.  Some considerable movement.  The bags were not forensically analysed.

Yes IMO the GSR/lead from handling bullets 'evidence' appears unreliabable in many ways.  Is there any documentary evidence describing step-by-step the experiment at the lab using the hands of lab staff? 

I dont think any of the 'experts' had the necessary training and experience to deal with a SoC such as WHF.  In CAL's book Dr Vanezis said he/they experienced few cases involving firearms which is understandable given the low rates of gun ownership/crime in the UK compared with say US or S.Africa.  No evidence of any of them going on secondment overseas to get more experience.  Digressing slightly but if you take a look at Dr Vanezis' website you will see none of his 'notable cases' involve firearms.  At least I dont think they do  &%+((£  Also look at his 'research interestes' - nothing to do with firearms.  These people will not put their hands up and admit they were out of their depth/called it wrong when their professional reputations are at stake.  They must realise they were some 30 years on with the benefit of 30 years experience under their belts and access to www.

http://www.petervanezis.com/research_interests.html

Dr Vanezis and Malcolm Fletcher both contradicted each other in their interviews with CAL and for whatever reason(s) she made no attempt to investigate further and/or probe and disturb them.

[david1819]

I find it difficult to believe that the manufacturers, Eley, are not legally obliged to make available the exact content of the cartridges.  David how old is that material you posted above? 

DC Hammersley's trial testimony states he used a swabbing kit, guess standard Home Office issued, and when he took SC's hand swabs at PM it was only his second time in five years experience.  The previous occasion was not similar to WHF.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=165.0;attach=227

I posted recently that SC's hands were not swabbed until PM.  This was probably some 12 hours after the tragedy unfolded.  And after her hands had been placed in polythene bags and the body placed in a bag and moved from the upstairs of WHF to the path lab.  Some considerable movement.  The bags were not forensically analysed.

Yes IMO the GSR/lead from handling bullets 'evidence' appears unreliabable in many ways.  Is there any documentary evidence describing step-by-step the experiment at the lab using the hands of lab staff? 

I dont think any of the 'experts' had the necessary training and experience to deal with a SoC such as WHF.  In CAL's book Dr Vanezis said he/they experienced few cases involving firearms which is understandable given the low rates of gun ownership/crime in the UK compared with say US or S.Africa.  No evidence of any of them going on secondment overseas to get more experience.  Digressing slightly but if you take a look at Dr Vanezis' website you will see none of his 'notable cases' involve firearms.  At least I dont think they do  &%+((£  Also look at his 'research interestes' - nothing to do with firearms.  These people will not put their hands up and admit they were out of their depth/called it wrong when their professional reputations are at stake.  They must realise they were some 30 years on with the benefit of 30 years experience under their belts and access to www.

http://www.petervanezis.com/research_interests.html

Dr Vanezis and Malcolm Fletcher both contradicted each other in their interviews with CAL and for whatever reason(s) she made no attempt to investigate further and/or probe and disturb them.

The first text is from 2013 the second is from 2000.

Yes I do realise forensics in this country do not deal with gun deaths that often. On average you have around 30-50 gun murders nationwide in this country that is what makes me uneasy about the experts involved in this case and will always favour the opinion of an American expert when it comes to guns for obvious reasons.

[scipio_usmc]

I find it difficult to believe that the manufacturers, Eley, are not legally obliged to make available the exact content of the cartridges.  David how old is that material you posted above? 

DC Hammersley's trial testimony states he used a swabbing kit, guess standard Home Office issued, and when he took SC's hand swabs at PM it was only his second time in five years experience.  The previous occasion was not similar to WHF.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=165.0;attach=227

I posted recently that SC's hands were not swabbed until PM.  This was probably some 12 hours after the tragedy unfolded.  And after her hands had been placed in polythene bags and the body placed in a bag and moved from the upstairs of WHF to the path lab.  Some considerable movement.  The bags were not forensically analysed.

Yes IMO the GSR/lead from handling bullets 'evidence' appears unreliabable in many ways.  Is there any documentary evidence describing step-by-step the experiment at the lab using the hands of lab staff? 

I dont think any of the 'experts' had the necessary training and experience to deal with a SoC such as WHF.  In CAL's book Dr Vanezis said he/they experienced few cases involving firearms which is understandable given the low rates of gun ownership/crime in the UK compared with say US or S.Africa.  No evidence of any of them going on secondment overseas to get more experience.  Digressing slightly but if you take a look at Dr Vanezis' website you will see none of his 'notable cases' involve firearms.  At least I dont think they do  &%+((£  Also look at his 'research interestes' - nothing to do with firearms.  These people will not put their hands up and admit they were out of their depth/called it wrong when their professional reputations are at stake.  They must realise they were some 30 years on with the benefit of 30 years experience under their belts and access to www.

http://www.petervanezis.com/research_interests.html

Dr Vanezis and Malcolm Fletcher both contradicted each other in their interviews with CAL and for whatever reason(s) she made no attempt to investigate further and/or probe and disturb them.

Manufacturers usually voluntarily provide information to labs.  Back in that era they were aware of differences and knew to change what they looked for depending upon manufacturer it is not a problem that was just discovered recently. They often tried to test unfired cartridges themselves. The defense didn't question them about these issues in enough detail for us to know in detail everything they did during their testing.  During questioning on the stand is how such becomes a matter of public record. Today they usually keep more detailed documentary records of what they did as opposed to then.

Speculating they made a mistake would be as useless as Webster speculating maybe the lab mistook a flake of soot for a flake of blood.  Speculation means nothing at this stage.  Whether she had evidence on her hands or not means nothing anyway because there is evidence proving Sheila could not have killed herself.  That is the evidence that must be overcome. 

[Holly Goodhead]

It seems GSR covers all residues from handling cartridges:

- Lubricant
- All materials used in the manufacturing of the cartridge and handling: bullet, casing, lubricant, primer and propellant
- GSR residue from firearm discharge.

The prosecution case seems to focus on the lack of lead on SC's hands as opposed to the lubricant and GSR from firearm discharge.

It appears Eley primer is manufactured differently from conventional primers but with the end result the same.  Whether or not this alters the amount of lead deposited on hands from handling I don't know.

"An interesting and extremely successful primer innovation was introduced by Eley and is known as Eleyprime.  Instead of using lead styphnate, with its inherent safety and processing difficulties, Eley uses calculated amounts of lead monoxide and styphnic acid which are much safer to process.  At the end of the processing stage a drop of water is added to each individual primer which initiates a chemical reaction between the lead monoxide and the sytphnic acid to form lead sytphnate.  The final product when dry is no different to conventional primer"

Author - James Smyth Wallace - Chemical Analysis of Firearms, Ammunition and Gunshot Residue.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dHbHS5GhCN4C&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=eley+primer+james+smyth&source=bl&ots=x2NvfsXiNV&sig=GevWjSrBwBe0vyVPkQxpILL7eVk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiR_ov2uY3LAhXH1RQKHWJ8DDcQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=eley%20primer%20james%20smyth&f=false

I am mindful of the CoA doc which refers to the "same" cartridges being used in tests and then refers to "similar" cartridges used. 

[Holly Goodhead]

SC's hand swabs:

Raised levels of Zinc
                         Copper
                         Bromine
Low levels of     Lead

Scientists' swabs:

Raised levels of: Zinc
                          Copper
                          Bromine
                          Lead
                          Calcium

CoA doc states:

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.

[Holly Goodhead]

It seems most bizarre to me that the defence engaged the services of experts such as Dr Lloyd and yet doesn't seem to have obtained a written report from Eley detailing the maufacturing process.

[scipio_usmc]

It seems most bizarre to me that the defence engaged the services of experts such as Dr Lloyd and yet doesn't seem to have obtained a written report from Eley detailing the maufacturing process.

Lead sytphnate is used by  most modern ammunition.  The labs were fully aware of what to look for.  There was no basis to suggest they didn't know what to look for.  The main evidence used at trial was the lack of residue that visibly would have been on her hand had she loaded the ammunition and visible evidence that would have been on her gown had she fired the weapon.  They didn't rely too heavily on PGSR which is microscopic but rather other residue deposits.

Since the hair sample was not used the defense could have requested to test it but was likely scared that they would find no PGSR and that this would hurt them even more. Nowadays the defense would want such tested anyway because if you are already behind the 8 ball you might as well have everything tested just in case you find something you can use even though it can just as easily hurt even more.  If you have a strong defense then you won't want to take the risk. Since PGSR remains in hair a long time the best chance of finding any is there. If none was found then in addition to the other evidence it would be very harmful to the defense so one can see why they would be scared.  If they actually believe he was innocent and it would be PGSR free only then would it be deemed good to test.  If I were his lawyer I would not trust him even if he did insist he was innocent.  Mind you some clients do admit guilt so defense lawyers know the limitations they need to face.  It is a double edged sword if guilt is admitted. You can't knowingly allow someone to lie on the stand so most lawyers don't want to know.  Someone with no scruples will just figure no one will know the client confessed so won't care and will let the lie but those who want to be totally ethical will not want to know so that the client can lie freely without them having the lawyer having a guilty conscience.