It is incorrect to say that the reason why Jeremy Bamber was arrested was due to a ballistic expert saying that Sheila did not shoot herself. Jeremy was arrested due to the persistent demands from Robert Boutflour and Ann Eaton for the police to accuse Jeremy of the murders and it was ultimately the allegations made by Julie Mugford that caused Jeremy to be arrested.
Hayward:What the ‘expert’ did was to conduct a limited experiment with his colleague Glynis Hayward whereby she said that she could not reach the trigger of the rifle with the silencer attached to it, therefore suggesting that it was impossible for Sheila to have shot herself, if as alleged, the silencer was fitted to the rifle. The only validity of the statement made by Hayward depended on the assumption that the silencer was fitted to the rifle. However, it was demonstrated well after the trial by a model, that it was possible to operate the trigger using the toes rather than the fingers, rendering the testimony of Fletcher and Hayward somewhat redundant.
Ballistic expertise: The so-called ballistic expert was Malcolm Fletcher, who actually was not expert in firearms or ballistics, as he demonstrated in his testimony at Jeremy’s trial.
Giving evidence at the Trial, he said that he had 13 years’ experience of work in the Firearms Department. He did not say how long he had actually been involved in forensic evaluation of the type he carried out in relation to the WHF murders; according to the defence expert, Major Freddy Mead, Fletcher was an ignoramus and gave scientifically misleading evidence.
In fact, Fletcher seems to have been a novice when it came to knowledge and experience of firearms. In relation to the two most important aspects of forensic evidence, the issues of ‘backspatter’ and firearms residue, he was grossly ignorant, despite giving evidence that suggested he was ‘expert’ in these areas. In relation to residue, he said that there should be “a very good chance” of there being residue on the person who fired the rifle. However, this is totally incorrect. Richard Saferstein, PH.D., author of many textbooks on forensic examination of crime scenes wrote, in relation to gunshot residue from .22 calibre rim-fire ammunition, “Unfortunately…there has been a low rate of positive findings. The major difficulty appears to be the short time that primer residues remain on the hands. These residues are readily removed by intentional or unintentional washing, rubbing or wiping of the hands. In fact, one study demonstrated that it is very difficult to detect primer residues on cotton hand swabs taken just two hours after firing a weapon.
Hand swabbing cannot be used to detect firing of most .22-calibre rim-fire ammunition. Such ammunition’s primer may contain only barium or neither barium nor antimony”The ammunition used at WHF was .22-calibre rim-fire. Thus, the absence of gunshot residue on Sheila Caffell was to be expected. Unfortunately, Mr Rivlin did not seek to secure any expert witness testimony on this issue. It appears that the defence accepted at face value the evidence of Fletcher as a supposed ‘expert witness’ when he was nothing of the sort.
Loading the Magazine:Fletcher was a hostile witness in relation to Jeremy’s defence, prepared to indulge in exaggeration and obfuscation in order to help secure a conviction. For example upon giving evidence about the loading of the magazine with bullets, the following exchange took place between Fletcher and Mr Arlidge (prosecutor):
Q) Is it easy to get all ten (bullets) in or not?
A) It gets progressively harder round about seven, eight, nine and ten.
Q) Dealing specifically, let us say, with nine and ten, how easy or difficult is it to get those two in?
A) Quite difficult.
In his witness statement of 13th November 1985 Fletcher said, “loading the tenth cartridge is exceptionally difficult”. Thus, although Fletcher had moderated his testimony from “exceptionally difficult” to “quite difficult”, it was still in an effort to suggest to the Jury that Sheila would have struggled, or been incapable of reloading the magazine. According to Jeremy it was not difficult to load ten bullets into the magazine. The expert opinion of Major Mead, ballistics expert for the Defence, who had considerably more experience of firearms than did Fletcher, said, “I didn’t think that loading the tenth round was “exceptionally difficult”. Cross-examined by Mr Lawson, Fletcher was forced reluctantly to concede that a female colleague, Miss Woodruff, (presumably with no previous experience of loading a .22 Anschutz magazine as she was a biologist) “Got the nine rounds in fairly well”. Of course there is no evidence to prove the full capacity of ten rounds was ever loaded into the magazine. It is possible Sheila loaded less than the full 10 rounds capacity.
Therefore, we can see that rather than volunteer the information that a female colleague experienced little difficulty in loading nine bullets into the magazine; Fletcher remained mute on the experiment while giving evidence for the prosecution and continued to claim that loading the magazine was “quite difficult”. Had he not been cross-examined, the Court would never have known that Fletcher’s colleague, Miss Woodruff, actually experienced no difficulty in loading nine bullets into the magazine. The truth had to be dragged out of Fletcher under cross-examination; so, we can perceive clear evidence that Fletcher was biased towards giving evidence that could be exploited by the prosecution.
Back-Spatter:For the defence, Mr Lawson was clearly most concerned in his cross-examination to expose Fletcher’s inexperience in relation to the phenomenon of ‘back-spatter’. In what progressed to become quite a bad-tempered exchange of words, Fletcher in effect admitted that he had no experience himself of the phenomena of ‘back-spatter’; he admitted under cross-examination that he had given evidence based on the very limited amount that he had read about the subject. Of particular note, Fletcher could offer no explanation as to why Sheila’s blood would be inside a sound moderator when blood from her son Daniel was completely absent anywhere on the rifle barrel or inside the sound moderator. Daniel had been shot from virtually point-blank range or contact with the skin, certainly as close as the two shots that Sheila had suffered. This is a very significant indication that the blood was introduced inside the sound moderator at a later stage. Fletcher agreed, with reluctance, that he had said in evidence that “the likelihood of getting the blood inside the moderator, from a contact shot, is certainly high.” This was not good enough for Lawson who reminded Fletcher that he had said that it was “a virtual certainty”. Fletcher reluctantly had to agree that it was “highly likely”.
Lawson then caused Fletcher to admit that back-spatter involving a .22 rifle was in any event highly unlikely. Fletcher admitted that his opinion regarding back spatter had not been gained through experience, in fact he lied when he informed the Court: “I have seen the effect of .22 back-spattering occasionally; I would say occasionally and not very often.” Asked when he had last seen the effects of back-spatter, Fletcher said: “I cannot remember” to which the question was put more specifically: “A .22 back-spattering with a moderator, when have you seen that?” Astoundingly, Fletcher replied:
“I can’t recall having seen one before today.” He was not admonished for his blatant lie.
So there we have it; Fletcher had waffled around the subject of back-spatter and presented himself to the Jury as knowledgeable when in fact he had never before seen a case of back-spatter involving a .22 rifle fitted with a sound moderator. Fletcher would later admit that the only knowledge he possessed about back-spatter, he had gleaned from an article he had read in a journal. In layman’s terms Fletcher had by that point in cross-examination admitted that to all intents and purposes he had no idea what he was talking about in relation to back-spatter and to make matters worse he had not conducted any experiments to see whether blood would back-spatter into a sound moderator fitted to a .22 calibre rifle. His evidence and his credibility was effectively destroyed.
Gunshot Residue:Fletcher then gave totally misleading testimony about the subject of gunshot residue. Lawson asked: “If someone had fired that weapon 25 times, would you in your experience, expect to find residue of the propellant or oil, or both, on their clothing or body?” to which Fletcher answered: “After 25 shots I would think there would be a good chance of some being on the person firing, a very good chance.” Fletcher admitted he had examined Sheila’s nightdress and stated that he found no traces of oil or residue on it. An honest witness with an interest in justice being done would have volunteered the information that he only
looked at the nightdress and the substances being referred to were invisible to the naked eye. Fletcher failed to do this, and by not clarifying what was implied by the word ‘examine’ he was being dishonest.
