Yes, it is fake, because it refers to a different silencer than she was presented with, and she didn't have possession of the silencer long enough to give such a detailed analysis - she took a swab from the aperture that's all she did on the 13th August 1985, she couldn't have thought that the silencer she examined on that day, was referred to previously by the different exhibit reference of SBJ/1, because the silencer bearing that configuration was never taken to the Lab', nor could she have known on 13th August 1985, that the next time the silencer would arrive at the Lab' let's say on 30th August 1985 that it would be referred to as exhibit DB/1 (23), and that by November 1985, somebody would be requesting the ballistic expert, to alter lab' item no.23, into no.22..
Information which Glynis Howard could not possibly have known about on 13th August 1985, was added Much later on with deception in mind..
I note that you deliberately did not post the first page of that document, also dated 13th August 1985, where it clearly states on the diagram that red paint particles noticed in knurled pattern of the silencers end cap after the silencer had been returned to the Lab' for fingerprinting of it by the police! This gives a clear indication that the red paint was only noticed on the silencer after it returned to the lab' on a second occasion! I don't believe that it was sent back to the lab' in the ' guise of exhibit DB/1, 23, (or 22) on 30th August 1985, I think the item sent to the lab' on that occasion was the source for the blood group results obtained afterwards, but certainly not prior to 20th September 1985 when a silencer arrived at the Lab' for the second time!
In view of there existing no fingerprint evidence pertaining to any silencer as alluded to by DI Cook on either 15th and 23rd August 1985 at the Sandridge police research and development centre, as confirmed by the COLP investigation, the only reliable information that a silencer did get fingerprinted, was that it got fingerprinted by DS Eastwood and DS Davison (HQ SOCO) on 13th September 1985. This being the now indisputable case, the silencer with the red pain particles upon it could only have been received at the Lab on some occasion after Eastwood and Davison had fingerprinted 'it'..
This fits in snugly with the now known fact that the silencer did not get sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985, which was the second time a silencer had been sent / taken to the Lab'. Indeed, when this silencer was eventually examined (26th September 1985), this was the occasion when the paint from the kitchen aga was first noted! Moreover, this wasn't the original silencer which Cook had taken to the Lab' on 13th August 1985, this was a different silencer (DRB/1) found at the scene in September 1985 by the relatives..
So, the document you have sought to rely upon by claiming that there was red paint noted on the first silencer on 13th August 1985, was created much later on by adding information onto it, which could not possibly have been noted until over a month later on a different silencer altogether..
It is the handwriting of Glynnis Howard. She must have realised that there were two silencers and that the one she had examined on August 13th was not the one with paint found on it. The cops must have asked her to help out and she agreed.
It is notable that the exhibit reference on the left has been changed from SBJ/1 to DB/1. I take it that there is proof that the reference which the silencer had at that stage, when sent to Huntingdon laboratory was SJ/1 and not SBJ/1. There you see the dark arts being used, but with a mistake being made. They should have written SJ/1 and crossed that out, if I have understood your point correctly.
The trouble with this case is that even when blatant skulduggery is exposed nothing happens, because there is no attempt to communicate the truth to the public. It's all about people agreeing not to reveal what they know and keeping the truth secret. The mentality goes something like this.
"It doesn't matter what the public think, all that matters is what the CCRC think"
There is now enough evidence to expose the conspirators. If the relatives were openly accused of perverting the course of justice by a national daily and challenged to sue, you would see that they wouldn't dare. But instead, the lawyers have asked the Guardian not to reveal what they have been told about two silencers.
Even worse, we can tell that the lawyers are sticking with outdated assumptions accepted by the Court of Appeal in 2002, like Sheila being shot twice twice in the master bedroom and PC West mistiming his log and PC Collins mistaking Nevill Bamber's body for that of a woman wearing pyjamas.
There WERE two silencers, but the relatives found BOTH of them on August 10th. As the saying goes, always bet on stupid.