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.
If it wasn't an issue for the defence expert why should they be asked? In any case, any expert witness has a duty to the court, withholding information such as 'residue diminishes therefore the swab test a month later is irrelevant' would seriously undermine the prosecution case (because the witness would be seen to be unreliable) and probably end a career.
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...
Well no, there is a 3rd possibility, and that is that the swabs were taken on the 7th, sent to the lab on the 9th, resubmitted on the 17th of September and found to contain only very low levels of lead - just like the police and scientists say.
And date Bridget....it is careless police work....and you yourself have said yes it is a mess....
No, there is still no discrepancy as to the date. You are looking at two forms on one of which is recorded the date the swabs were taken, and on the other the date they were sent to the lab the first time. On another form which you haven't posted will be the date it was resubmitted.
