Book Reviews - Murders/Suicide at WHF

[Bridget]

I just like arguing with you Bridget Ha!

Likewise! 

My point is this. Swabs should have been taken at the crime scene, in order for them to be preserved  this was not done.

Her hands were bagged up, this could have caused the residue to diminish.

Ok, that's a fair point, but that would be from rubbing off onto the bags, and I think they were tested too, but can't be sure.

Initial swabs were taken on the 8th but were not taken to the lab till the 9th....again residue levels could have have diminished.

No, they were taken on the 7th, at the mortuary. The information you posted previously indicates that swab should be taken asap, but it doesn't state that they will diminish once taken. What I'm saying is that once taken they don't 'evaporate' - well they might, but that's not what your previous post says and I am not a scientist!

How can DRH 44 be sent to lab before DRH 33 ?

It wasn't, and there's no indication that it was. There was a discrepancy mentioned at court in as to the time the swabs were taken (DRH33 listed as 3.15 on the 7th and DRH44 at 11am on the 7th) but no discrepancy as to the dates. DRH44 was sent to the lab on the 17th of September.

It's a mess....a complete mess....hahahahah

Yep!

[mertol22]

wow Patti you certainly delve into things and deserve a medal for all your hard work keep up the good work I love reading your posts you are the best poster on the forum

A proper little Columbo is she not Susan ??

[susan]

mertoll has she got the mack and the cigar

[Patti]

Likewise! 

Ok, that's a fair point, but that would be from rubbing off onto the bags, and I think they were tested too, but can't be sure.

No, they were taken on the 7th, at the mortuary. The information you posted previously indicates that swab should be taken asap, but it doesn't state that they will diminish once taken. What I'm saying is that once taken they don't 'evaporate' - well they might, but that's not what your previous post says and I am not a scientist!

No they were not, think about it, those that were taken initially were rejected, therefore prolonging the examination of the swabs even further, which could mean the residue could have been diminished....Don't think residue evaporates does it? But you could be a juror and you are unsure...lolol

It wasn't, and there's no indication that it was. There was a discrepancy mentioned at court in as to the time the swabs were taken (DRH33 listed as 3.15 on the 7th and DRH44 at 11am on the 7th) but no discrepancy as to the dates. DRH44 was sent to the lab on the 17th of September.

Do you agree that the documentation differs. The DRH44 was sent to the lab on the 17th of September....Oh Dear! 

Yep!

[Bridget]

No they were not, think about it, those that were taken initially were rejected, therefore prolonging the examination of the swabs even further, which could mean the residue could have been diminished....Don't think residue evaporates does it? But you could be a juror and you are unsure...lolol

If it is the case that it 'evaporates' or whatever, the lab would have mentioned it, either in their report or in evidence, or perhaps even rejected it at the time based on the premise that it could have no evidential value. There was never any doubt about when the swabs were finally tested, and the defence had their own forensic experts too. Why wouldn't they have brought that up if it was an issue? Remember that the defence knew about the September test, they didn't know about the earlier rejection.

Do you agree that the documentation differs. The DRH44 was sent to the lab on the 17th of September....Oh Dear!

Only in that someone put the wrong time on the form.

[Patti]

A proper little Columbo is she not Susan ??

Mertol I need an ice cream.....from my 1% share. 

[mertol22]

mertoll has she got the mack and the cigar

just needs this now

[mertol22]

Mertol I need an ice cream.....from my 1% share. 

i will discount 1p off a 99 flake will cost ya £1.49p

[JackiePreece]

Patti
You should write to Jeremy he will love writing back and discussing the case with you.

He will be careful at first though because you could be the nasty evil rat that tried to make Simon walk away from the case

He will love your letters

[mertol22]

Patti
You should write to Jeremy he will love writing back and discussing the case with you.

He will be careful at first though because you could be the nasty evil rat that tried to make Simon walk away from the case

He will love your letters

Well said Jackie , Jeremy remembered me a year on from my 1st letter i wrote to him.

[Patti]

If it is the case that it 'evaporates' or whatever, the lab would have mentioned it, either in their report or in evidence, or perhaps even rejected it at the time based on the premise that it could have no evidential value. There was never any doubt about when the swabs were finally tested, and the defence had their own forensic experts too. Why wouldn't they have brought that up if it was an issue? Remember that the defence knew about the September test, they didn't know about the earlier rejection.

Maybe the experts that were never asked the question about the residue diminishing, or how long the swabs were kept, or where they had been kept or who handled them?  It certainly wasn't asked in the 2002 appeal. There can only be two possibilities regarding the swabs and that was, they was resubmitted, in which case the absence of residue is not significant because they had bee rejected at the onset. Secondly, the swabs were retaken after Sheila was washed, which would be after the 7th of August.  So, if the swabs were not submitted till the 17th....the residue could have diminished...

I think I have put my argument clearly Bridget and the fact remains this was held back in 1986....even you have to admit that...

Only in that someone put the wrong time on the form.

And date Bridget....it is careless police work....and you yourself have said yes it is a mess....

[mertol22]

The Letters i wrote to jeremy were both related to the 2 sets of ccrc verdicts they were simply wishing a positive outcome and not asking about the case i feel the forum is the place for this, i do know he recieves mail daily and not solely from the UK but around the world, his replies are in perfect English putting my writing skills to shame.

[guest154]

Patti, sent you a PM about writing to Jeremy.

Bridget - I think you're completely right about the hand swabs - I tried to get this point across re: negative result but the people at the time didn't care. Also posted the same testimony. I just dont think some people understood it.

[Patti]

Well said Jackie , Jeremy remembered me a year on from my 1st letter i wrote to him.

Mertol, I had no idea you had wrote to JB......£1.30 and it's a deal 

[ngb1066]

If anyone wishes to write to Jeremy the best way is to use the email a prisoner scheme.  It costs 30 pence per email.  He receives the printed email with his post the following morning.