Mystery surrounds why hand swabs produced negative results for lead deposit/FDR

[mike tesko]

Mystery surrounds why hand swabs produced negative results for lead deposit/FDR

In the crime scene photographs you can clearly see that Sheila's right hand is resting directly over three vent holes on the side of the rifle, and upon a groove on the upper face of the ammunition magazine, yet when hand swabs were taken they were found not to be contaminated with lead deposit and FDR...

[ngb1066]

Mystery surrounds why hand swabs produced negative results for lead deposit/FDR

In the crime scene photographs you can clearly see that Sheila's right hand is resting directly over three vent holes on the side of the rifle, and upon a groove on the upper face of the ammunition magazine, yet when hand swabs were taken they were found not to be contaminated with led deposit and FDR...

Very good point Mike. 

[mike tesko]

Very good point Mike.

You would expect to get a considerable amount of discharge residue after some twenty five bullets had supposedly been fired via this weapon, and twenty five corresponding cartridge cases detonated and ejected, yet none of this residue from any of the bullets and bullet cases was picked up on the hand swabs which I find astonishing, and which makes a complete mockery of the hand swab evidence in general - it makes you wonder what the odds were/are of the hand swabs being able to achieve that which it purports to  do?

[ngb1066]

You would expect to get a considerable amount of discharge residue after some twenty five bullets had supposedly been fired via this weapon, and twenty five corresponding cartridge cases detonated and ejected, yet none of this residue from any of the bullets and bullet cases was picked up on the hand swabs which I find astonishing, and which makes a complete mockery of the hand swab evidence in general - it makes you wonder what the odds were/are of the hand swabs being able to achieve that which it purports to  do?

Again I agree with you Mike.  The hand swab evidence in my view is generally suspect.  I am still not satisfied that we know the full truth about the original rejection of the swabs by the FSS and subsequent resubmission under a different reference.  Obviously I appreciate what the Court of Appeal said about this in 2002, but I remain unconvinced.

[mike tesko]

Again I agree with you Mike.  The hand swab evidence in my view is generally suspect.  I am still not satisfied that we know the full truth about the original rejection of the swabs by the FSS and subsequent resubmission under a different reference.  Obviously I appreciate what the Court of Appeal said about this in 2002, but I remain unconvinced.

It makes you wonder if they simply submitted a blank version of the swabbing kit the second time, not the actual one which was originally submitted and rejected because of possible cross contamination? I mention this because how could the original hand swabs have been so obviously at risk of becoming contaminated because they arrived at the lab' on 9th August 1985 in the same packaging as firearms connected with a different investigation, yet later when they were re-submitted under a different identifying mark they were found to be lead deposit residue free?

[ngb1066]

It makes you wonder if they simply submitted a blank version of the swabbing kit the second time, not the actual one which was originally submitted and rejected because of possible cross contamination? I mention this because how could the original hand swabs have been so obviously at risk of becoming contaminated because they arrived at the lab' on 9th August 1985 in the same packaging as firearms connected with a different investigation, yet later when they were re-submitted under a different identifying mark they were found to be lead deposit residue free?

That is an interesting theory Mike.  You could be right.  Something about this does not stack up.  There is a smell, a stench even, surrounding this.

[mike tesko]

That is an interesting theory Mike.  You could be right.  Something about this does not stack up.  There is a smell, a stench even, surrounding this.

It is very odd also that the exhibit references for the hand swabs appear to have become interchangeable with the bible, where on one occasion the hand swabs are DRH/33, and the bible DRH/44, and in the next breath the hand swabs are DRH/44 and the bible is DRH/33...

Originally, on 9th August 1985, when the original hand swabs got rejected because of possible cross contamination, they had a lab' item number of 17, yet later when they were reintroduced they were given a different lab' item number of 75?

[Roch]

Totally agree.  This is one of the cornerstone arguments of the guilty camp 'far right' lot.  There's a rat away somewhere with these swabs.

[ajross]

I have seen another photo with the rifle positioned differently and it was suggested that the police had reset the crime scene. I saw it on the net so I am not sure if it was authentic but I read that her hands were wiped before the swabs were taken.

[tyler]

If original hand swabs were rejected due to contamination,then what would be the point of re-swabbing?, as by then the body would have been cleaned which is done along with the weighing and measuring before the internal examination begins.
As for Sheilas nightdress,I believe that was only given a "visual" inspection wasnt it?

[mike tesko]

If original hand swabs were rejected due to contamination,then what would be the point of re-swabbing?, as by then the body would have been cleaned which is done along with the weighing and measuring before the internal examination begins.
As for Sheilas nightdress,I believe that was only given a "visual" inspection wasnt it?

The other very interesting thing is that police documentation exists mentioning that the crucial hand swabs were taken on three separate occasions on 7th August 1985, namely:-

(a) -  11:30am

(b) -  2:30pm

(c) -   3:15pm

Perhaps also of interest to this matter, was the fact that this was the first time DC Hammersley had taken hand swabs, from a person, or corpse?

These three different timed references seem to me to be highly significant in view of the fact that there were three adult victims of the whf tragedy, and this could be an indication that rather than all three examples being a reference to hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell, were in fact one set of handswabs from Sheila, June and Ralph - which all became merged into hand swabs taken from the same person (Sheila)?

[mike tesko]

The other very interesting thing is that police documentation exists mentioning that the crucial hand swabs were taken on three separate occasions on 7th August 1985, namely:-

(a) -  11:30am

(b) -  2:30pm

(c) -   3:15pm

Perhaps also of interest to this matter, was the fact that this was the first time DC Hammersley had taken hand swabs, from a person, or corpse?

These three different timed references seem to me to be highly significant in view of the fact that there were three adult victims of the whf tragedy, and this could be an indication that rather than all three examples being a reference to hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell, were in fact one set of handswabs from Sheila, June and Ralph - which all became merged into hand swabs taken from the same person (Sheila)?

The practice of merging of exhibits into the same one, appears to be a trademark of those responsible for putting together this case so that Jeremy could be successfully prosecuted and convicted - where previously it has been mentioned by me (and others) that two silencers were / have been merged together as though there was only one...

If exhibits are not merged together, they also appear to have been given interchangeable exhibit references and lab' item numbers?

[mike tesko]

The practice of merging of exhibits into the same one, appears to be a trademark of those responsible for putting together this case so that Jeremy could be successfully prosecuted and convicted - where previously it has been mentioned by me (and others) that two silencers were / have been merged together as though there was only one...

If exhibits are not merged together, they also appear to have been given interchangeable exhibit references and lab' item numbers?

Exhibits which fall into this category include:-

(1) - silencers
(2) - hand swabs
(3) - bibles
(4) - crime scene ammunition

[mike tesko]

Exhibits which fall into this category include:-

(1) - silencers
(2) - hand swabs
(3) - bibles
(4) - crime scene ammunition

(5) - Pocketbook entries of DS 'Stan' Jones

No mention of DS 'Stan' Jones taking control of exhibits, SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4 from the scene on 7th August 1985 (this is because he has re-written this account and tampered with his pocketbook entries, and why there are three different start dates on the front cover of the pocketbook he tampered with and forged...

This is very interesting because DS 'Stan' Jones was / is one of the principle police officers involved in the introduction of the silencer evidence ( where two different identical looking silencers were merged into the same, inside which was attributed blood from Sheila, and paint from the aga surround in the kitchen, upon it)...

[mike tesko]

DS Jones had to use the original cover of the pocketbook issued to him on 5th November 1984, to rewrite his notes relating to his involvement in the case of Jeremy Bamber, and the whf murders:-