1. According to FSS and Dr Lincoln's (for the defence) examination, evidence of blood was found as far down as far as the 8th baffle. How would blood enter such a small aperture and present the way in which it did as far down as the 8th baffle from accidental contamination by Sheila? Why would Sheila use the silencer and then replace it in a box/bag at the back of the cupboard?
2. As far as I know the TFG did not carry out any test fires and even if they did how would dry blood end up presenting as claimed and as far down as the 8th baffle?
3. There is absolutely no evidence that any shot was fired from any other firearm other than the Anshutz 525 rifle. Why/how would the lab conspire?
4. I'm not really sure what you mean in 4? Malcolm Fletcher claims he carried out a pull-through on the rifle and found no trace of blood. Glynnis Howard found traces of blood and the paint on the outside of the silencer, and just inside the opening, on 13th Aug which was long before Malcolm Fletcher was involved.
I do not believe it would be impossible for any wet blood to go as far as the 8th baffle. In the Sion Jenkins case a mere expulsion of the dead Billy J’s breath managed to spray the whole of the front of his fleece and his shoe with miniscule droplets. If there was a small amount of wet blood in or around the muzzle area the gasses forced through the barrel would be sufficient to cause a similar spray/mist effect over a distance of say 6 inches.
The TFG had to perform at least one test fire to obtain a replacement cartridge case for the round they fired at June. This was why when there were 30 rounds loose on the kitchen top MF only received 29. They held back the lone round that was still in its tray.
This casing DRH43 was missed and is said to have been found on 08/07/85 lodged at the base of the wardrobe on June’s side of the bed.
Of course there is no evidence that any other rifle being fired, it is under wraps. There is however some pretty strong evidence that PV20 was swapped for this very reason. MF did the swap IMO because the original had rifling marks consistent with the Brno. He could have incorrectly calibrated the scales or entered a wrong figure on the paperwork. I believe this was a deliberate act, not human error. If you read his paperwork the exact document escapes me and in it he says he could not say whether PV20 was fired from the rifle18 (The Anschutz). Was he covering himself?
Found it
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4019.0;attach=29505;imageSheila did not replace the SM in the cupboard it was collected by David Bird at the crime scene on the day.
Sheila could have handled the SM and by some means contaminated the screw end. This would mean the muzzle was clean but the blood she transferred to the SM could have been blasted into the SM.
I believe though I cannot say with full confidence that small amounts of dried blood on the muzzle or just inside the barrel or indeed the screw thread, could also be blasted into the silencer as tiny fragments of dust.
This being the case if a test fire was performed using the silencer before the pull through. MF would have accidently contaminated the silencer. Since the blood was invisible to the naked eye he may not have regarded or anticipated that this was a potential problem. He could have claimed to have done the pull through to cover up this mistake.
Holly Goodhead often posted about his lack of expertise which was to have owned an air rifle when younger. He was said to be too incompetent to be dealing with the complicated ballistics element which was a major part of the case.
WARNING CONSPIRACY ALERT.At the time of JB’s trial the Home secretary was Douglas Hurd. It was he who had ultimate responsibility for the issuing of PII certificates linked to this case. This same man imposed a whole life tariff on JB without consultation and without notifying JB.
At this time the FSS Huntingdon was run by the Home Office under the Home Secretary Douglas Hurd. Politicians tend to steer clear of involvement in legal matters as far as possible because Judges tend to give them short shrift for interfering with the judiciary but it cannot be ruled out that the Home Office was involved in other aspects of this case than those quoted above.
One of the problems of arguing for guilt is that things have changed since most of the documents you use as evidence, (I accept that they are) is that we have moved on. Although full disclosure is still to be made, more documents have trickled out or have been disclosed. Photography is unrecognisable from the Hasselblad and celluloid of the 1980’s. We no longer need the strength of a Tarzan to carry a large plastic brick on our shoulders to take videos.
It is possible from documentation released and technology as well as new forensics that a new and possibly (not probably) different set of evidence has emerged that is worthy of a submission to the CCRC. We await the outcome.
The original narrative which exists to this day was gifted to the police by the physical elements of the case in that they had complete control over what happened when the TFG went in and the detail of what they found. Any mistakes they may (not probably) have made could be hidden.
In most criminal cases and public events, the narrative is held by the police but only initially. Other witnesses to events can tell a different story about what they say happened and heard and their take on proceedings. The most important chunk in this case, is and always has been held by the police.
That is why access to the original four murders and suicide case file is so important.
I do not say my narrative must be believed but right or wrong I do believe it is possible (not probable) that something akin to this happened. I can live in a dream world if that is what you think it is. I will remain the fantasist and conspiritard. you believe me to be.
