In my opinion no she wasn't. For example -
Here is CAL telling the reader about the ballistic "experts" trial testimony.
"Under Edmund Lawson’s cross-examination the following morning, Fletcher acknowledged that not all gun experts were convinced by backspatter. To that end, Lawson pointed out that Nicholas had received at least one wound thought to have been caused when the weapon was against his skin, yet ‘there’s no forensic scientific evidence to suggest that anything attributable to the body of young Nicholas was found in the moderator or the gun.’ Fletcher explained that it might have been that the shot was inflicted after a fatal wound, when the blood was no longer pumping around his body. He added: ‘You have to take into account the position of the actual wounds themselves, and the amount of blood available at those particular points that could come out."Interesting she mentions that Fletcher acknowledged that not all gun experts were convinced by backspatter. This can be found on page 77 of his sworn testimony. On the very same page Fletcher also acknowledged that back-spatter is most commonly seen in contact wounds to the head.
Q. That is what is known as back-spattering?
A. Yes sir.
Q. That phenomenon is the most commonly seen in contact gun-shot wounds to the head?
A. Yes sir.
Why omit this discrepancy? She must have read it. Edmund Lawson mentioned two contact wounds to the head of Nicholas not "at least one" Furthermore Fletcher admitted that the wound to the head of Nicholas that was not in contact with the skin was "very close" and close enough to produce back-spatter. Thus contradicting his claims of "the shot was inflicted after a fatal wound" Because this accounts for all three shots fired.
Here is the examination
"He explained the phenomenon of ‘backspatter’, declaring: ‘My opinion on this is that the blood in the sound moderator was due to the contact shot to the neck of Sheila Caffell.’ He confirmed that there was no substantial residue on Sheila’s hands or nightdress from the rifle or bullets to indicate that she was the killer."
No mention of Fletcher conceding that his opinion on the nightdress was meaningless?
Relevant part here -
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10038.msg459422.html#msg459422The testimony of Malcom Fletcher is one the most important parts of the case. Its 50 pages long. Yet CAL only gives it three paragraphs. She interviewed Malcom Fletcher but did she even try to contact ballistic experts used by the defense who had a different opinion? such as Philip Boyce or Dr Fowler?
She interview Peter Vanezis but not the defense pathologist Bernard Knight. Why?
It becomes apparent that the book is deliberately peddling a guilt a narrative. But masquerading as fair and balanced in such a way that only those well versed in the case will realize.
