Author Topic: Ballistics - spent bullet cases - the impossible comparison tests...  (Read 444 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45577
The ballistic Expert, Malcolm Fletcher, has a lot of explaining yet to do, because according to him he did not test fire any control ammunition in the anshuzt rifle until the 20th September 1985, followed by further test firings of the same which occurred on the 25th September, and the 1st and 2nd October 1985...

Once these test firings had been completed, markings found on the spent bullet cases of the test fired control rounds, were compared against similar markings found on the batch of crime scene ammunition in the form of those spent bullet cases, to try and confirm whether or not, this part of the crime scene ammunition, had been loaded, fired and ejected and extracted from the anshuzt rifle during the shooting tragedy? Based upon the testimony and witness statements of the ballistic expert, no such comparison checks could possibly have been attempted any sooner than 20th September 1985 (the first occasion which Fletcher claimed he had test fired the anshuzt rifle, adding that at the time he first fired the rifle with the control ammunition (DRH/22) he did not know when if at all the rifle in question had last been fired!

Malcolm Fletcher lied!

Here are the general examination records, of numerous crime scene spent bullet cases which had comparison checks made against test fired control rounds on dates prior to 20th September 1985 - this leads to the inevitable conclusion that for one reason or another, there had been a much earlier test firing of the anshuzt rifle with at least two control rounds, and that these test firings must have occurred either before, or on the 12th September 1985, since the very first comparisons occurred on dates, 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985. Moreover, the ballistic expert, Fletcher, knew this to have been true because his signature appears on the damning general examination records, which are dated as such...
« Last Edit: October 31, 2018, 06:44:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45577
Re: Ballistics - spent bullet cases - the impossible comparison tests...
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2018, 06:54:PM »
Spent bullet cases, DRH/4, DRH/19, DRH/20, DRH/37, DRH/40, DRH/41and DRH/43, all have something in common, not only because comparison tests were conducted before the official test firing of control ammunition in the rifle (18), but also by the same sub heading contained on the general examination records 'SIMILAR IN DESCRIPTIONTO ITEM 24' which itself was a spent cartridge case bearing the exhibit reference DRH/1...
« Last Edit: October 31, 2018, 07:01:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45577
Re: Ballistics - spent bullet cases - the impossible comparison tests...
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2018, 07:12:PM »
Spent bullet cases, DRH/4, DRH/19, DRH/20, DRH/37, DRH/40, DRH/41and DRH/43, all have something in common, not only because comparison tests were conducted before the official test firing of control ammunition in the rifle (18), but also by the same sub heading contained on the general examination records 'SIMILAR IN DESCRIPTIONTO ITEM 24' which itself was a spent cartridge case bearing the exhibit reference DRH/1...

In total, there were some 19 spent bullet cases with the same, or a similar reference written upon the corresponding general examination records, as opposed to six others which had no references to those being similar in description to item 24...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45577
Re: Ballistics - spent bullet cases - the impossible comparison tests...
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2018, 07:13:PM »
In total, there were some 19 spent bullet cases with the same, or a similar reference written upon the corresponding general examination records, as opposed to six others which had no references to those being similar in description to item 24...

I identify the 7 spent bullet cases and their corresponding general examination records for reference, below:-

« Last Edit: October 31, 2018, 08:42:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45577
Re: Ballistics - spent bullet cases - the impossible comparison tests...
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2018, 09:07:AM »
I am not happy with the fact that no less than 7 spent cartridge cases were checked against control rounds on various dates between 12th and 19th September 1985, when the test firing of rifle (18) using the control ammunition did not take place until on and after 20th September 1985!

It stinks of a deception - why does evidence in the form of individual general examination records pertaining to at least 7 Spent crime scene bullets, state that comparison tests were completed against test fired ammunition during a period when there had not been any official test firing of control rounds via the rifle (18)?
« Last Edit: November 01, 2018, 09:08:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45577
Re: Ballistics - spent bullet cases - the impossible comparison tests...
« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2018, 09:22:AM »
I am not happy with the fact that no less than 7 spent cartridge cases were checked against control rounds on various dates between 12th and 19th September 1985, when the test firing of rifle (18) using the control ammunition did not take place until on and after 20th September 1985!

It stinks of a deception - why does evidence in the form of individual general examination records pertaining to at least 7 Spent crime scene bullets, state that comparison tests were completed against test fired ammunition during a period when there had not been any official test firing of control rounds via the rifle (18)?

What we can adduce is that there must have been an earlier test fire of control ammunition from exhibit DRH/22, which for one reason or another, the cops and their Lab' experts didn't intend for anyone to find out about?

The presentation of this lie, backed up by the ballistic expert Fletcher claiming that he had not test fired the rifle (18) with the 29 control rounds (DRH/22) until on and after 20 the September 1985. Fletcher telling the COLP investigators that although there should have been 29 rounds subject of DRH/22, he only had records of test firing 27 on and after the 20th September 1985, and that the other two control rounds must have been misplaced, or simply lost. In his working notes from the Lab' he stated that prior to him firing the rifle (18) with the control ammunition from DRH/22, on the 20th September 1985, and onward, that he did not know when the rifle (18) had last been used or fired!

But, he must have done because he signed the general examination records on at least 7 occasions, when comparison checks had been made between spent bullet cases, and test fired bullet cases on all occasions (12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985) before the 20th September 1985 - the only way such checks could have been made was if the rifle (18) had already been test fired with at least one or two of the control rounds from DRH/22..

It can't simply be a coincidence that two of the 29 control rounds from exhibit DRH/22 are missing and seemingly unaccounted for by Malcolm Fletcher to COLP - Fletcher has lied, and the lies he has told helped to force the jury to convict Jeremy Bamber of shooting dead his sister on the main bedroom floor, and staging her death scene as a purported suicide in an attempt to conceal his involvement!

The two missing rounds from exhibit DRH/22 were test fired via the anshuzt rifle either on or before 12th September 1985, which enabled the comparison checks to be carried out between spent crime scene bullet cases and test fired rounds on all occasions prior to 20th September 1985..

It must be the case, that Fletcher knew that if he admitted the earlier unofficial test fire of control rounds via the rifle (18) that he would have to account for the whereabouts of the missing two control rounds from DRH/22, which would inevitably lead on to the fact that the bullets, and the spent bullet cases of the two pieces of missing control ammunition, had been used in a substitution procedure, involving the swapping over of the original piece of a badly fragmented which was exhibit PV/20, resulting in a test fired control bullet which had been fired in rifle18, becoming part and parcel of the batch of crime scene ammunition, enabling Fletcher to conclude later on, that bullet PV/20 had been fired in rifle 18...

It would also be necessary, to use the spent control bullet case to add to the batch of crime scene ammunition, if the original bullet had been fired by way of a different gun (not the anshuzt rifle)..



« Last Edit: November 01, 2018, 09:43:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45577
Re: Ballistics - spent bullet cases - the impossible comparison tests...
« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2018, 09:46:AM »

It would also be necessary, to use the spent control bullet case to add to the batch of crime scene ammunition, if the original bullet had been fired by way of a different gun (not the anshuzt rifle)..

This would explain how the bullet and the spent cartridge case from one of the unaccounted for two control rounds from DRH/22 were disposed of - leaving one other control round to be accounted for?
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45577
Re: Ballistics - spent bullet cases - the impossible comparison tests...
« Reply #7 on: November 01, 2018, 09:50:AM »
This would explain how the bullet and the spent cartridge case from one of the unaccounted for two control rounds from DRH/22 were disposed of - leaving one other control round to be accounted for?

After a long hard think, I have come to the conclusion that the bullet part of the one remaining piece of control ammunition from DRH/22 became exhibit DRH/36 (remember that the pathologist did not recover one of the three bullets  which had been fired into Nicholas Caffells skull) supposedly the children's bedroom - thus leaving me to ponder regarding what could have happenned, if anything to the last piece of control ammunition in the form of it's spent bullet case?
« Last Edit: November 01, 2018, 10:01:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45577
Re: Ballistics - spent bullet cases - the impossible comparison tests...
« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2018, 09:58:AM »
After a long hard think, I have come to the conclusion that the bullet part of the one remaining piece of control ammunition from DRH/22 became exhibit DRH/36 (remember that the pathologist did not recover one of the three bullets  which had been fired into Nicholas Caffells skull) supposedly the children's bedroom - thus leaving me to ponder regarding what could have happened, if anything to the last piece of control ammunition in the form of it's spent bullet case?

First things first, we need to track down the expert, or assistant, (D TAYLOR) who examined the batches of all the crime scene ammunition. Since, there appears to have been a deliberate attempt to conceal his involvement in these proceedings! There has to be a reason why cops, and the experts at the Lab' did not want anyone to find out about the role he played in the 'tampering' process of the batches of crime scene ammunition, and to interference with the batch of control ammunition (DRH/22)...
« Last Edit: November 01, 2018, 10:01:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45577
Re: Ballistics - spent bullet cases - the impossible comparison tests...
« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2018, 10:00:AM »
I am onto 'it'...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45577
Re: Ballistics - spent bullet cases - the impossible comparison tests...
« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2018, 10:07:AM »
I am onto 'it'...

Let's start at the beginning (ground zero)...

There were 29 control rounds which formed part and parcel of exhibit DRH/22. Each round should have been given its own unique Lab' item number, so let's for arguments sake lay everything out here threadbare, and say the following exhibit reference system should have been adopted:-

The batch of control ammunition consisting 29 separate rounds, here goes...

(1) - DRH/22 (1)
(2) - DRH/22 (2)
(3) - DRH/22 (3)
(4) - DRH/22 (4)
(5) - DRH/22 (5)
(6) - DRH/22 (6)
(7) - DRH/22 (7)
(8) - DRH/22 (8)
(9) - DRH/22 (9)
(10) - DRH/22 (10)
(11) - DRH/22 (11)
(12) - DRH/22 (12)
(13) - DRH/22 (13)
(14) - DRH/22 (14)
(15) - DRH/22 (15)
(16) - DRH/22 (16)
(17) - DRH/22 (17)
(18) - DRH/22 (18)
(19) - DRH/22 (19)
(20) - DRH/22 (20)
(21) - DRH/22 (21)
(22) - DRH/22 (22)
(23) - DRH/22 (23)
(24) - DRH/22 (24)
(25) - DRH/22 (25)
(26) - DRH/22 (26)
(27) - DRH/22 (27)
(28) - DRH/22 (28)
(29) - DRH/22 (29)
« Last Edit: November 01, 2018, 11:22:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45577
Re: Ballistics - spent bullet cases - the impossible comparison tests...
« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2018, 11:27:AM »
Let's start at the beginning (ground zero)...

There were 29 control rounds which formed part and parcel of exhibit DRH/22. Each round should have been given its own unique Lab' item number, so let's for arguments sake lay everything out here threadbare, and say the following exhibit reference system should have been adopted:-

The batch of control ammunition consisting 29 separate rounds, here goes...

(1) - DRH/22 (1)
(2) - DRH/22 (2)
(3) - DRH/22 (3)
(4) - DRH/22 (4)
(5) - DRH/22 (5)
(6) - DRH/22 (6)
(7) - DRH/22 (7)
(8) - DRH/22 (8)
(9) - DRH/22 (9)
(10) - DRH/22 (10) 
(11) - DRH/22 (11)
(12) - DRH/22 (12)
(13) - DRH/22 (13)
(14) - DRH/22 (14)
(15) - DRH/22 (15)
(16) - DRH/22 (16)
(17) - DRH/22 (17)
(18) - DRH/22 (18)
(19) - DRH/22 (19)
(20) - DRH/22 (20)
(21) - DRH/22 (21)
(22) - DRH/22 (22)
(23) - DRH/22 (23)
(24) - DRH/22 (24)
(25) - DRH/22 (25)
(26) - DRH/22 (26)
(27) - DRH/22 (27)
(28) - DRH/22 (28)
(29) - DRH/22 (29)


In turn, once test fired in rifle (18), each of the above exhibits would have compromised of two separate parts of each piece of a control round, namely (a) the spent cartridge case, and secondly (b) the bullet, or as you wish, (b) the projectile...

This then would have created the following exhibit references available to each component part (a) or (b), of the DRH/22 basic exhibits (1) - (29), as follows:-

(1) - DRH/22 (1) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(2) - DRH/22 (2) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(3) - DRH/22 (3) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(4) - DRH/22 (4) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(5) - DRH/22 (5) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(6) - DRH/22 (6) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(7) - DRH/22 (7) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(8) - DRH/22 (8) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(9) - DRH/22 (9) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(10) - DRH/22 (10)  spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(11) - DRH/22 (11) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(12) - DRH/22 (12) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(13) - DRH/22 (13) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(14) - DRH/22 (14) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(15) - DRH/22 (15) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(16) - DRH/22 (16) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(17) - DRH/22 (17) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(18) - DRH/22 (18) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(19) - DRH/22 (19) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(20) - DRH/22 (20) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(21) - DRH/22 (21) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(22) - DRH/22 (22) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(23) - DRH/22 (23) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(24) - DRH/22 (24) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(25) - DRH/22 (25) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(26) - DRH/22 (26) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(27) - DRH/22 (27) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(28) - DRH/22 (28)  spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

(29) - DRH/22 (29) spent cartridge after test fire (a), bullet/projectile (b)

« Last Edit: November 01, 2018, 11:47:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45577
Re: Ballistics - spent bullet cases - the impossible comparison tests...
« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2018, 01:22:PM »
If there had been a proper handling of the 29 rounds which were exhibit DRH/22, we would have been able to identify which test fired control rounds had been test fired in the anshuzt rifle, and used to make the comparison tests against crime scene cartridge cases checked on 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45577
Re: Ballistics - spent bullet cases - the impossible comparison tests...
« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2018, 01:24:PM »
If there had been a proper handling of the 29 rounds which were exhibit DRH/22, we would have been able to identify which test fired control rounds had been test fired in the anshuzt rifle, and used to make the comparison tests against crime scene cartridge cases checked on 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985...

Fletchers handling of the ballistics side of things was amateurish to say the least, or despicably dishonest!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45577
Re: Ballistics - spent bullet cases - the impossible comparison tests...
« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2018, 04:32:PM »
According to the pathologist, one of the two bullet entry wounds to Sheila Caffell's neck (the lower wound) was 1/4 diameter, whilst the other bullet wound (above) measured only 3/16 in diameter..
« Last Edit: November 01, 2018, 04:34:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...