Malcolm Fletcher's 'expert' testimony

[David1819]

This is actually said by Dickinson also. In a post conviction press conference... if i can find it.

[Roch]

This is actually said by Dickinson also. In a post conviction press conference... if i can find it.

Your stance, is that the sound moderator was a fabricated exhibit instigated by the relatives, yet this fact was unbeknown to the police.  I'm not sure I agree. 

[David1819]

Your stance, is that the sound moderator was a fabricated exhibit instigated by the relatives, yet this fact was unbeknown to the police.  I'm not sure I agree.

The police did suspect the relatives contaminated the silencer with their own blood, hence they took blood samples to check. How could the police know it for a fact unless the relatives or relative divulged in what they did to the police?

[Roch]

The police did suspect the relatives contaminated the silencer with their own blood, hence they took blood samples to check. How could the police know it for a fact unless the relatives or relative divulged in what they did to the police?

During the second investigation? I favour some type of cooperation being likely.

[David1819]

During the second investigation? I favour some type of cooperation being likely.

During the second investigation what?

Blood on and inside silencer, mantle scratches and paint on silencer was reported in the 1st investigation.

Only difference in the second investigation the silencer was unscrewed and the blood flake found and tested.

[David1819]

During the second investigation? I favour some type of cooperation being likely.

And yes they suspected it in the second investigation. The tests on the relatives blood was assigned on the 19/9/85.

I doubt they suspected anything in the 1st investigation because the police and lab didn't find it incriminating at that stage.

[David1819]

And yes they suspected it in the second investigation. The tests on the relatives blood was assigned on the 19/9/85.

I doubt they suspected anything in the 1st investigation because the police and lab didn't find it incriminating at that stage.

During the second investigation what?

Blood on and inside silencer, mantle scratches and paint on silencer was reported in the 1st investigation.

Only difference in the second investigation the silencer was unscrewed and the blood flake found and tested.

Any comment Roch? 

[Jan]

What I would really like to see are the original notes about the way the silencer was reported to the police and from the evening it was collected . So the pocket book of jones .

And the reason no statements about the find were taken until September.

[David1819]

What I would really like to see are the original notes about the way the silencer was reported to the police and from the evening it was collected . So the pocket book of jones .

And the reason no statements about the find were taken until September.

We have that. Jones said the blood on the moderator looked recent rather than old.

[Jan]

We have that. Jones said the blood on the moderator looked recent rather than old.

Thanks for that David I had been searching for that . And we are sure that was a contemporary note ?

[David1819]

Thanks for that David I had been searching for that . And we are sure that was a contemporary note ?

IIUC It was written in 1991 while going over his notebook and events of 1985.

[lookout]

Meaning it was written on the 7th of August ??

[Jan]

IIUC It was written in 1991 while going over his notebook and events of 1985.

Ok understood .

[Jan]

So I still wonder why he did not take statements straight away about how they found it . But he does not say they thought it was human blood so perhaps he did just assume it was animal blood.

[David1819]

So I still wonder why he did not take statements straight away about how they found it . But he does not say they thought it was human blood so perhaps he did just assume it was animal blood.

Beside the point really.