The Official Jeremy Bamber and White House Farm Podcast Series - Season 1

[guest29835]

A whole fragment, as opposed to a part fragment? 

I think what David is getting at is the frangibility of the bullet.  The bullets are very small and, as a general rule of thumb and all things being equal, a hollow point is less frangible; and, while it may still deform and expand under impact with bone, actual fragmentation could be missed.

What could have happened is:

Dr. Vanezis correctly notes the retrieved projectile is part of a bullet, thus PV20 is 'fragmented'.

Fletcher records the same exhibit as a 'whole' bullet, either because he is less precise in his observations than Dr. Vanezis and does not notice that he has a fragmented piece of a bullet, or due to clerical error.

Thus, we have an apparent paradox in which a fragmented bullet becomes whole, but the explanation is merely a mundane inconsistency in the recording of the same exhibit.

[Roch]

What could have happened is:

Dr. Vanezis correctly notes the retrieved projectile is part of a bullet, thus PV20 is 'fragmented'.

Fletcher records the same exhibit as a 'whole' bullet, either because he is less precise in his observations than Dr. Vanezis and does not notice that he has a fragmented piece of a bullet, or due to clerical error..

Less precise? That's putting it mildly. Fletcher is supposed to be the FSS expert isn't he?   There were x-rays available. Sheila only received two shots. The whole case pivots upon whether she died by her own hand or by the hand of some killer. Surely Fletcher would have some grasp of there being only two bullets in question, with regard to Sheila.

[guest29835]

Less precise? That's putting it mildly. Fletcher is supposed to be the FSS expert isn't he?   There were x-rays available. Sheila only received two shots. The whole case pivots upon whether she died by her own hand or by the hand of some killer. Surely Fletcher would have some grasp of there being only two bullets in question, with regard to Sheila.

I don't follow you, I'm afraid. 

Fletcher recorded PV20 as a whole bullet.  That was incorrect, but the error may be simply because he mistakenly thought he was looking at a whole bullet.  An inexperienced or pressured person could easily make that mistake because the bullets are very small indeed and hollow points aren't particularly frangible and tend to just deform or expand/splay on hard impact, meaning that fragmentation could be missed.

I agree that it would be a serious error for a court expert to make, but I wasn't exactly lavishing him with praise in my post.

[guest29835]

New trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYfXoTcAUtw

I would say the podcasts are an excellent idea but most of them need to be re-done with a natural-voice narrator.  It's not hard to find a competent voice actor/actress at small expense or just engage somebody from the CT.

They also need to get a grammar pedant on board.  It's 1980s, not 1980's.  There's no apostrophe.  Sorry, I know it's petty, but it's not petty really.  It's professionalism.

I could even do it, if Adam would get over his jealousy about my Crispy theory and put me forward.

[David1819]

I think what David is getting at is the frangibility of the bullet.  The bullets are very small and, as a general rule of thumb and all things being equal, a hollow point is less frangible; and, while it may still deform and expand under impact with bone, actual fragmentation could be missed.

What could have happened is:

Dr. Vanezis correctly notes the retrieved projectile is part of a bullet, thus PV20 is 'fragmented'.

Fletcher records the same exhibit as a 'whole' bullet, either because he is less precise in his observations than Dr. Vanezis and does not notice that he has a fragmented piece of a bullet, or due to clerical error.

Thus, we have an apparent paradox in which a fragmented bullet becomes whole, but the explanation is merely a mundane inconsistency in the recording of the same exhibit.

Trying to talk sense into someone who thinks photos of blood stains running down Sheila's arm are actually wounds because some conspiracy theorist who should have gone to specksavers told him so? Why bother.

[guest29835]

Trying to talk sense into someone who thinks photos of blood stains running down Sheila's arm are actually wounds because some conspiracy theorist who should have gone to specksavers told him so? Why bother.

I can't think of a reason why Fletcher would intentionally tamper with the bullet.  He wasn't a police officer.  He was a civil servant.  Wouldn't he have just blown the whistle, if asked to do something improper?  And why would the police cover up killing Sheila?  Surely they would report it and say she had a gun, and that's that.  If the police accidentally shot Sheila while she was prone, that must have been with the Anschutz rifle, so again, what is the issue for the police with the bullet? 

I don't mind conspiracy theories so much, but they do have to make some sense.

[Roch]

Trying to talk sense into someone who thinks photos of blood stains running down Sheila's arm are actually wounds because some conspiracy theorist who should have gone to specksavers told him so? Why bother.

The images you have do not have sufficient definition.  Constantly having digs at another case-knowledgeable poster just because you disagree with them, is detrimental to the forum. It just means we don't get that person's input on the forum.

[Roch]

I can't think of a reason why Fletcher would intentionally tamper with the bullet.  He wasn't a police officer.  He was a civil servant.  Wouldn't he have just blown the whistle, if asked to do something improper?  And why would the police cover up killing Sheila?  Surely they would report it and say she had a gun, and that's that.  If the police accidentally shot Sheila while she was prone, that must have been with the Anschutz rifle, so again, what is the issue for the police with the bullet? 

I don't mind conspiracy theories so much, but they do have to make some sense.

You may find that FSS were never actually fully 'independent' from the police.

[David1819]

The images you have do not have sufficient definition.  Constantly having digs at another case-knowledgeable poster just because you disagree with them, is detrimental to the forum. It just means we don't get that person's input on the forum.

There is nothing wrong with the images I have. The blood stains on Sheila's arm look very much like the blood running down Sheila's cheek and from the gun shots to her neck.

[Roch]

There is nothing wrong with the images I have. The blood stains on Sheila's arm look very much like the blood running down Sheila's cheek and from the gun shots to her neck.

We'll just go round in circles. You think blood shot out from Sheila's wound and landed on her inside wrist, where it meets the palm. It then separated in to approximately four streams while it travelled over on to the top of her wrist, where it stopped mid wrist and suddenly congealed. In order for the blood to congeal, it must have built up at those points, which suggests quite a flow of blood in these streams. Given the narrow circumference of her wrists, it is a mystery to me, as to why the streams didn't simply continue flowing over the top of her wrist. Anyone with a thin wrist should look at their own wrist and try to imagine it.

[guest29835]

You may find that FSS were never actually fully 'independent' from the police.

The FSS were formally independent of the police.  Individual FSS scientists assisted both the prosecution and defence.  Malcolm Fletcher was a civil servant, not a police officer.  These are all facts.

Please explain what possible motive Malcolm Fletcher had to knowingly frame an innocent man.

I can accept that Mr Fletcher made mistakes, and he may also have lied or misled the court about his work in order to cover up errors and mistakes.  I accept that is plausible.  That sort of behaviour seems to be a recurring feature of miscarriages of justice, and it seems to me that his evidence is one of three major weak points in the prosecution case.

But you are going one step further.  I think for him to lie in order to frame somebody as part of a massive cover-up really is a bit of stretch.  Surely the line of least resistance for Mr Fletcher would have been to run to his superiors and blow the whistle on it all? 

[Roch]

The FSS were formally independent of the police.  Individual FSS scientists assisted both the prosecution and defence.  Malcolm Fletcher was a civil servant, not a police officer.  These are all facts.

Please explain what possible motive Malcolm Fletcher had to knowingly frame an innocent man.

I can accept that Mr Fletcher made mistakes, and he may also have lied or misled the court about his work in order to cover up errors and mistakes.  I accept that is plausible.  That sort of behaviour seems to be a recurring feature of miscarriages of justice, and it seems to me that his evidence is one of three major weak points in the prosecution case.

But you are going one step further.  I think for him to lie in order to frame somebody as part of a massive cover-up really is a bit of stretch.  Surely the line of least resistance for Mr Fletcher would have been to run to his superiors and blow the whistle on it all?

So a stroke of luck then for Mick, Stan, Ann, David and Bobby, that Fletcher's innocent mistakes just happened to dovetail neatly with the prosecution case.

[David1819]

We'll just go round in circles. You think blood shot out from Sheila's wound and landed on her inside wrist, where it meets the palm. It then separated in to approximately four streams while it travelled over on to the top of her wrist, where it stopped mid wrist and suddenly congealed. In order for the blood to congeal, it must have built up at those points, which suggests quite a flow of blood in these streams. Given the narrow circumference of her wrists, it is a mystery to me, as to why the streams didn't simply continue flowing over the top of her wrist. Anyone with a thin wrist should look at their own wrist and try to imagine it.

Look at all the blood running down Sheilas nightdress (in multiple streams). The fabric has fallen back due to gravity after she fell back, but if you were to straighten the nightdress out, the blood streams would be in the same direction as her arm.

[guest29835]

So a stroke of luck then for Mick, Stan, Ann, David and Bobby, that Fletcher's innocent mistakes just happened to dovetail neatly with the prosecution case.

Well there are two explanations for that:

Explanation 1: Jeremy is guilty and the evidence broadly reflects it.

Explanation 2: As you say, Fletcher's innocent or negligent mistakes and errors just happened to dovetail neatly with the prosecution case (if you want to interpret it as favouring the prosecution case - as I explain below, you don't have to).

The reason for Explanation 2 would be that Fletcher, being human as well as an expert, will be guided in his work by the dominant narrative given to him by the police.  It's rare that a scientist will think against it unless he finds something that incontrovertibly goes against what the police hypothesise.

The police may say: "We think the culprit is this person and we think this is what happened and he did it this way.  Let us know what you find."

It's no surprise that he then finds something that happens to dovetail with the police narrative.  It's what you'd expect, as long as there is something to find.

But what he found is open to interpretation.  As I've explained, the pull-through test was never reliable, but if you accept the result at face value, you could interpret it in Jeremy's favour (subject to further expert evidence from somebody who knows about fluid dynamics/tension dynamics as it applies to blood and ballistics).

One way to prevent dominant biases is to ensure that there are two different scientists/experts examining the same evidence, so that there is somebody available to challenge whatever is the dominant assumption. 

[guest29835]

Look at all the blood running down Sheilas nightdress (in multiple streams). The fabric has fallen back due to gravity after she fell back, but if you were to straighten the nightdress out, the blood streams would be in the same direction as her arm.

What is the redness at the top of her forearm?