The "5 experts who say the silencer wasn't on the gun"

[BarefootDanC]

The Campaign Team have submitted to the CCRC opinions by 4 who experts who say in their opinions, the silencer wasn't on the gun. The CCRC have rejected these, but since then, the Guardian have obtained a fifth expert opinion and submitted it to the CCRC.

But did these experts take into account all the evidence considered at the trial? Including inter alia:

* human blood in the silencer, in a spatter pattern
* the paint on the end of the silencer
* the lack of Sheila blood in the barrel of the rifle, which Malcolm Fletcher said he would expert there to be if Sheila was shot without the silencer on

[Adam]

The only thing 2026 experts can go by is the photos.

They can say it looks like Sheila did not receive close range/contact shots. This refutes the pathologist who saw her body.

Or today's experts can agree they were contact/close range shots.  But with rifle minus silencer. They would then have to explain why there was no blood in the rifle barrel.

Experts in 1985 & 2026 will agree it would be wise to use a silencer in a silent massacre attempt & Jeremy had to take a silencer off prior to leaving the rifle on Sheila.

[Cambridgecutie]

The Campaign Team have submitted to the CCRC opinions by 4 who experts who say in their opinions, the silencer wasn't on the gun. The CCRC have rejected these, but since then, the Guardian have obtained a fifth expert opinion and submitted it to the CCRC.

But did these experts take into account all the evidence considered at the trial? Including inter alia:

* human blood in the silencer, in a spatter pattern
* the paint on the end of the silencer
* the lack of Sheila blood in the barrel of the rifle, which Malcolm Fletcher said he would expert there to be if Sheila was shot without the silencer on

Unlikely by virtue of the fact you have referred to experts and your asterixed points cover multiple disciplines.  It requires a multi-disciplinary approach and all the dots connected 

I am not aware that the blood we are told by FSS was found inside the silencer was analysed by way of blood spatter analysis (BSA)?  The CoA in 2002 confirmed BSA was very much in its infancy during the 80's:

Mr Turner's first objection was that this was not evidence that could not have been called by the prosecution at trial. He submitted that evidence of blood staining interpretation was available in the 1980s and the fact that the prosecution had not sought to look at this dimension of the case at that time should not mean that they can now introduce the evidence to support their case, if it was viewed by the court as unsafe to rely on the convictions in other respects. Mr Temple contended that whilst the study of and drawing inferences from blood staining patterns may have been available in the 1980s, it was in its relative infancy and with the passage of time since that era, the skills have become more developed so that in consequence greater reliance can be placed on such evidence. He relied in this regard on a statement from Mr Ismail which accepts that there have been references to the interpretation of blood patterns going back to the story of Cain & Abel in the Bible and that the first scientific work was published in 1939 but contends that in the United Kingdom, the first practical courses on the subject were not run until 1988. He concludes:

"In 1985 forensic scientists in this country would have been trained to interpret blood patters at scenes and on objects such as clothing and weapons. However, in my opinion, scientists today are more aware of the potential of blood distribution and practitioners are more confident in its use due (to) greater support and background knowledge."

[Adam]

Rob says Jeremy would have left the silencer next to Sheila which would have left him 'home free'.

Don't believe Rob has met Jeremy, so not sure how he knows what he would do.

It would also be a risk leaving the silencer out.  The blood inside may have been tested.

The evidence is he put it away when returning downstairs