Theoretical conclusions over burn marks to Nevill

[Hartley]

You've hit it there Hartley, its Fletcher and his credibility as an " Expert " regarding death by gunshot. These are so rare in this Country, what "hands on experience" would he have under his belt!!!

Don't get too carried away Campion, he had been a forensic scientist since the mid sixties, specialising in firearms and gunshot wounds.

It would be a very tall order to dismiss his position as an expert, the same would go for Dr. Vanezis.

[ngb1066]

Are there doubts about Malcolm Fletcher and Dr Vanezis' qualifications?

Why should there be?

[Roch]

Don't get too carried away Campion, he had been a forensic scientist since the mid sixties, specialising in firearms and gunshot wounds.

It would be a very tall order to dismiss his position as an expert, the same would go for Dr. Vanezis.

Venezis didn't support the idea of Jeremy being the killer (according to COLP notes).

[Hartley]

Why should there be?

Not that I'm aware of, but their expert opinions are also something which the 'new' defence experts must surely overcome?

What happens when two highly respected experts have a direct difference of opinion?

[ngb1066]

No, that's not what I mean, I fully appreciate that they would, if required, look at the contamination of the silencer again, but what I am saying, is, that if nothing has changed, then a fresh look would (should) come to the same conclusion, should it not?

Not necessarily.  The Court of Appeal in 2002 was not presented with any evidence to suggest that the silencer had not been fitted.  They therefore assessed the evidence before them and reached certain conclusions.  If they are now presented with evidence that satisfies them that the silencer was not fitted they will have to reassess the other evidence in the light of that.  In addition there is evidence now available to the defence, not available in 2002, which raises questions about the handling of the silencer(s).
 

[campion]

 I am not dismissing them as people, its the quality of training they were provided with. I will never understand that when the CPS was being dreamt up they never went through the "what if" phase....

[Hartley]

Not necessarily.  The Court of Appeal in 2002 was not presented with any evidence to suggest that the silencer had not been fitted.  They therefore assessed the evidence before them and reached certain conclusions.  If they are now presented with evidence that satisfies them that the silencer was not fitted they will have to reassess the other evidence in the light of that.  In addition there is evidence now available to the defence, not available in 2002, which raises questions about the handling of the silencer(s).

Yes but the 'new' evidence doesn't relate to the contamination of the sound moderator, therefore, the same considerations as to whether contamination did, or did not occur, will be visited, logic would dictate that they would (should) come to the same conclusion, wouldn't it?

[ngb1066]

Not that I'm aware of, but their expert opinions is also something which the 'new' defence experts must surely overcome?

What happens when two highly respected experts have a direct difference of opinion?

Where two experts have a difference of opinion the recognised practice is for them to meet and discuss the evidence in order for the reasons for the difference of opinion to be fully understood.  Further reports are usually prepared following such a meeting.  If the experts still disagree their evidence is presented to the court and the court makes its own assessment.  In the case of the Court of Appeal they should not substitute their view for that of the jury.  If they take the view that both experts are credible and there is a genuine difference of opinion they should give the defence the benefit of the doubt, either by ordering a retrial so that a jury can consider the evidence (highly unlikely in this case) or by allowing the appeal.

 

[ngb1066]

Yes but the 'new' evidence doesn't relate to the contamination of the sound moderator, therefore, the same considerations as to whether contamination did, or did not occur, will be visited, logic would dictate that they would (should) come to the same conclusion, wouldn't it?

No, not necessarily.  If they accept the evidence that a sound moderator was not fitted they would have to reconsider the question of contamination in the light of that.  In addition there is as I have pointed out other evidence relating to the silencer, not available in 2002, which has a bearing on the opportunity for contamination.

 

[campion]

 I know your point was to Hartley, NGB, but in America, the space programme run by NASA operates with an approach known as a Skunk Works. It does not have any hierarchy structure. They stick there brightest people in one place and basically let them test ideas to destruction.

[Hartley]

Where two experts have a difference of opinion the recognised practice is for them to meet and discuss the evidence in order for the reasons for the difference of opinion to be fully understood.  Further reports are usually prepared following such a meeting.  If the experts still disagree their evidence is presented to the court and the court makes its own assessment.  In the case of the Court of Appeal they should not substitute their view for that of the jury.  If they take the view that both experts are credible and there is a genuine difference of opinion they should give the defence the benefit of the doubt, either by ordering a retrial so that a jury can consider the evidence (highly unlikely in this case) or by allowing the appeal.

 

Okay, that sort of makes sense, I guess with regards to Websters evidence in 2002, the court took his opinion on board conceding the points he made, but then gave reasons why his points didn't matter anyway.

What about the CCRC though, are they governed by what you say above, or are they a law unto themselves?

Apologies if I'm asking too many questions. 

[ngb1066]

Okay, that sort of makes sense, I guess with regards to Websters evidence in 2002, the court took his opinion on board conceding the points he made, but then gave reasons why his points didn't matter anyway.

What about the CCRC though, are they governed by what you say above, or are they a law unto themselves?

Apologies if I'm asking too many questions. 

No problem with the questions.  The CCRC should approach the case in the way I have set out above.  If they consider that new evidence is credible and that upon the basis of that new evidence there are realistic prospects that the Court of Appeal will allow an appeal based upon that evidence they have a duty to refer the case.

[Hartley]

So what happened with Suthersts evidence?

I know why it was dismissed, but following what you've said above, a disagreement between two credible experts should have sided with the defence, yet it didn't, the CCRC appointed expert won by a nose.

[smiffy]

The proposition of which rifle barrel was heated is of importance...I suggest it was Pargetter's rifle that was used.

Due to the nature of Sheila's mental illness , it is likely the reason for burning/branding Ralph was ritualistic...very likely after his death...in my opinion.
this religious mania and white witch type stuff figuring in her thinking when carrying out the killings.

[mike tesko]

The proposition of which raffle barrel was heated is of importance...I suggest it was Pargetter's rifle that was used.

Due to the nature of Sheila's mental illness , it is likely the reason for burning/branding Ralph was ritualistic...very likely after his death...in my opinion.
this religious mania and white witch type stuff figuring in her thinking when carrying out the killings.

I think the marks being referred to could have been either the barrel of Pargeters .22 Bruno bolt action rifle, or the Bamber owned .22 semi-automatic Anshulz rifle?