Hand Swab, Exhibit Label, altered

[mike tesko]

Hand Swab, Exhibit Label, altered

The reader will note, that by the time the hand swabs were being submitted to the Lab', as per the attached documentation, that it was now being referred to, by a Lab' item number of 75, and by the exhibit reference of DRH/33. This is very interesting, because on 9th August 1985, the hand swabs had a Lab' item number of 17, and an exhibit reference of DRH/44...

By reference to the attached documentation, one will see that these hand swabs, DRH/33 were being submitted at the same time as a blood sample from the suspect, Mathew MacDonald, who was not arrested until the beginning of September 1985, suspected of being the person who shot and killed everyone, under the pay of Jeremy (according to one of Julie Mugfords accounts)...

I would like to comment on the significance of the changing Lab' item numbers and the exhibit references for this piece of evidence, since, when the hand swabs were submitted to the Lab' to be examined on 9th August 1985, the Lab' rejected them, because they arrived at the Lab' in the same packaging as firearms in connection with another matter that Essex police were dealing with. The Lab' considered that there was a very strong risk that some form of cross contamination, could have taken place, voiding the hand swabs, which were duly returned to Essex police, that same date...

A month later...

The hand swabs were re-submitted to the Lab' under a different Lab' reference number (75) and a different exhibit reference (DRH/33), rather than the original ones, (17) and DRH/44...

By adopting this technique, Essex police allowed the hand swabs to be examined and results produced which greatly assisted the prosecutions case, which otherwise, ought not to have been obtained, or allowed...

[mike tesko]

Alternative Exhibit Reference for hand Swab, DRH/44

Hand Swabs are referred to by Lab' item number, 17, and exhibit reference, DRH/44...

How can the hand swabs, have been Lab' item number 17 and 75, and exhibit reference, DRH/44 and DRH/33?

[mike tesko]

Bible - exhibit DRH/44

According to Essex police documentation, the Bible, was found on the floor next to Sheila Caffells body, and it was given the exhibit reference of DRH/44...

Now, what needs an answer to, is how could the bible that was supposedly found on the bedroom floor next to Sheila's body, be exhibit DRH/44, and the hand swabs which were taken from Sheila, also be referred to by the same exhibit reference?

[mike tesko]

Discrepancies in the time Hand Swabs were taken?

According to different sources of Essex police documentation, the hand swabs were taken at three different times, and occasions:-


(1) At the scene (whf) by DC Hammersley, before he placed plastic bags over Sheila's hands

(2) At Chelmsford Hospital Mortuary, at 2:30pm

(3) At Chelmsford Hospital Mortuary, at 3:15pm

Only a selected number of exhibits were seized or found at the scene on 7th August 1985, before the police left to attend Chelmsford hospital Mortuary, in time for the Pathologist, peter Venezis, to perform autopsies upon the corpses of Ralph Bamber, and Sheila Caffell, which started at about 3pm, that date...

Police records exist which show that by the time police left whf to go to the mortuary that date, that they had only took possession of 43 items from the scene, bearing the DRH identification marks, DRH/1 to DRH/43, consecutively...

Under these terms, any hand swabs that were taken from Sheila Caffell at the scene, would have had to bear the exhibit reference of DRH/33, rather than DRH/44, because DRH/44 could not have come into existence, until after the arrival of Sheila, at Chelmsford Hospital Mortuary, from about 2:30pm, onward...

If you look at the time when the hand swabs, DRH/33, were taken by reference to the first attachment in this post, you will see that they were supposedly taken from Sheila's hands, at 11am - which was whilst Sheila's body was still in situ at the scene (bodies did not get removed to hospital mortuary until 1:15pm, that same date)...

If you look at the second post, where the exhibit reference for the hand swabs has been altered, to Lab' item number 75, exhibit reference, DRH/44, the time still is shown as having been taken at 11am, on 7th August 1985...

This is problematic, because exhibit DRH/44, could not have come into existence by that (11am) stage, and Lab' item number, 75, could not have come into existence, until much later...

Somebody - falsified the details contained on these General Examination records, to enable the hand swab evidence to be utilized, as part of the prosecutions case. At this stage, it is worth considering what significance, if any, the examination of these hand swabs, (be they referred to as DRH/44 or DRH/33)?

In a nutshell, it was found that there were no lead deposit found on the hand swabs, which was inconsistent with the suggestion that Sheila could have handled bullets, and loaded them into the gun...

There exists an abundance of documentary evidence to show that this part of the case, was fabricated, to allow for the introduction of evidence that favored Sheila not having loaded the gun, with the additional bullets (15) in order for her to have been the person who was responsible for these shootings...

Why did the police, go to such lengths, to introduce this evidence, if the truth of the matter is, that Sheila did not shoot anyone that night?

[mike tesko]

Exhibit, DRH/33

As can be seen by reference to this document, Exhibit DRH/33, was (a) the left hand swab, (b) the right hand swab, and (c)  the control swab, taken from the hands of Sheila Caffell, which were all sent to the Lab' on 9th August 1985, and subsequently rejected, for the reasons given, previously...

Crucial Plastic bags, not examined for presence of Lead deposit

Exhibits, DRH/31 and DRH/32, were not examined for the presence or otherwise, of lead deposit, despite them being placed directly over Sheila Caffells hands at the scene...

Crucial Fingerprint forms taken from Sheila's hands, were also not examined for the presence, or otherwise of Lead deposit from handling bullets

In all the confusion, it is not fully understood at which stage the fingerprints were taken from the hands of Sheila Caffell, for example, before the hand swabs were taken, or afterwards? It may be possible, that significant amounts of Lead deposit might exist in the ink used to record Sheila's fingerprints, which could contradict the results obtained from the doctored hand swab evidence?

[mike tesko]

Items submitted to lab' by Essex police, on 9th August 1985 - item number 17, was rejected because of the possibility of innocent cross contamination

Please note, that according to information contained on this document, the hand swabs, DRH/33, were taken at Chelmsford Hospital Mortuary at 3:15pm, but this would have been impossible because other exhibits bearing consecutively numbered exhibit references, DRH/1 to DRH/43, had already been taken or found or seized at the scene before the police left to go to the Mortuary......

[mike tesko]

Cops gave the hand swabs two different exhibit references, one DRH/33, two DRH/44...

[mike tesko]

To say the hand swab evidence (DRH/44, DRH/33, lab' item 17, lab' item 75) was 'overly dodgy' would be an understatement. At the heart of this contentious piece of scientific evidence was expert, Elliot. He it was who eventually performed the lead deposit tests of the resubmitted hand swab kit (75). He it was who got volunteers to handle and load 18 cartridges into the magazine of a gun, he swabbed the hands of these volunteers and compared the results obtained for lead deposit found on the hands of these volunteers, against the levels of lead deposit found on the hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell. He it was who concluded that theatre was a more significant level of lead deposit found on the hands of volunteers, than detected on Sheila's hands, leading him to conclude that Sheila could not have loaded the additional rounds necessary for her to be the shooter...

But...

The tests performed on the volunteers were fundamentally flawed, because of the ratio in the bullets handled by the volunteers, as opposed to a maximum of 15 rounds potentially handled by Sheila. This difference in the number of bullets handled by the volunteers, as opposed to the maximum number of bullets loaded by Sheila, was not factored into the readings from the test results of the volunteers. That ratio 15 /18 was ignored...

This amounted to a potential increase of up to 20% in lead deposit being present upon the hand of volunteers. Had this been known, and factored in the results obtained from hand swab kit (75) would have provided support for the contention that Sheila could have handled the additional rounds required for her to have been the shooter...