Hammersley quote in court.
"This is the first time I had used a kit similar to this."
This being the hand swabs supposedly taken from Sheila.
What is wrong with the man ...does he have a problem with language and common sense?
Was his answer such a mess and incorrectly tensed as it was a fabrication full stop...he was out of his depth and lied.
His incorrect use of present tense in his answer is a most powerful indicator that he was being deceptive.
How can the kit he was using be similar to the kit he was using...would it not be not merely similar but identical because it was one and the same?
Good points, Smiffy. This should be one short, simple sentence describing the procedure Hammersley used to take the swabs. Yet this sentence is riddled with jittery self defence and contradictions. Why is Hammersley so nervous and defensive? Why does he nonsensically mix the past and present tense? Why would an experienced police officer use such a clumsy and evasive expression in court? Why use the word 'similar' which makes nonsense of this statement? Hammersley seems to be so defensive and so afraid that he'll say the wrong thing - and be caught out doing so? - that he ends up spouting nonsense. I think you're right, in my opinion, he's covering something up.
If Hammersley had actually taken the swabs after reading the instructions he would have known all about the samples all going off together in one complete kit back to the lab. Again ..a person taking the swabs and having read all the instructions would also know when taking the swabs that all the samples taken would be sent as one package...thus leading to no errors on the paperwork in which DRH numbers started to be issued and then crossed out when the mistake was realised. It appears to me to be the case that Hammersley did not take the swabs at all.
I am also of the view from errors in his story that he was not present on the 7th as claimed.
His notebook entries about swabs at 11.00 am seem wrong....as going by his court evidence and that of others ...he did not bag up or take any sample until the scene had been photographed. We have 2 officers claiming to remove the rifle at 11.10 am so that would mean he could not even start bagging Sheila's hands or head etc until after this time.
In court Hammersley fails to mention Woodcock as being present or about when the rifle was examined and removed. Though Woodcock claims Hammersley was there. Clearly there is some deception of a very serious nature going on and it appears to be with both persons accouts.
It is feasible that the information mainly used by Hammersley in regards to the 7th august could have come from both Cook and Davidson with some lesser parts maybe from others.
The claims about being supervised by Cook very tightly on days other than the 7th could well betray Cook playing a key role in controlling and manipulating forensics and other SOC activities so as to cover up what really happened that Hammersley may not be fully aware of.
