Book Reviews - Murders/Suicide at WHF

[Nuala]

Night all x

Night, Bridget x

[mertol22]

You know what I mean, we work in the same world.
The photo would have to DIRECTLY go against something that the police claim as truth. Like Bridget said - a photo with one wound would do it.
A photo of Sheila on the bed would not.

Nonesense every murder victim i have removed were always at the location of death be that on the floor or hanging from the opening of a false roof.

[mertol22]

My brain was bouncing with that dratted avatar playing over and over. It's unreasonable to expect rationality or civility from mods when you torment them with mobile avatars like that.

seen this tripe avatar somewhere its not all it makes out to be .

[Bridget]

Nonesense every murder victim i have removed were always at the location of death be that on the floor or hanging from the opening of a false roof.

That may be true but it doesn't mean it's always true. How many murder victims have you had to remove Mertol?

[mertol22]

That may be true but it doesn't mean it's always true. How many murder victims have you had to remove Mertol?

i would say 20 perhaps from children to adults.

[Patti]

In what way is it corrupt to resubmit the swabs? The worst that could have happened is that they could have been contaminated by the firearms they were originally submitted with, but in fact they were clean. All of this is in the appeal court decision.

Because the lab would have rejected them again and, if this was know at the trail, the lab would have told the court, that swabs were meaningless, in other words inadmissible evidence. 

If they resubmitted them, then the police were fooling the science lab. 

[Bridget]

i would say 20 perhaps from children to adults.

Wow - over quite a period of time I hope! Do individual police forces tend to use a particular firm all the time?

[Bridget]

Because the lab would have rejected them again and, if this was know at the trail, the lab would have told the court, that swabs were meaningless, in other words inadmissible evidence. 

If they resubmitted them, then the police were fooling the science lab. 

I don't see why a lab wouldn't just test whatever the police want tested. If the swabs showed gun shot residue on the second submission then that would have implicated Sheila not Jeremy, but in any case would have been inadmissable because of the potential for contamination. But they were clean, so clearly that wasn't an issue. To start with the assumption that the lab would have automatically rejected a second submission, and use that to support a theory that therefore the police must have gone and taken a second set of swabs after she was washed just doesn't work.

[Patti]

I don't see why a lab wouldn't just test whatever the police want tested. If the swabs showed gun shot residue on the second submission then that would have implicated Sheila not Jeremy, but in any case would have been inadmissable because of the potential for contamination. But they were clean, so clearly that wasn't an issue. To start with the assumption that the lab would have automatically rejected a second submission, and use that to support a theory that therefore the police must have gone and taken a second set of swabs after she was washed just doesn't work.

It's not how a lab works Bridget. The fact is they were rejected on the 1st submission, so even if the same swabs were tested again, that evidence would have still been rejected by the lab. If the lab knew this they would have rejected them.

The fact the police made another submission not a resubmission DRH44 serial number 75 The lab had been fooled into thinking this was new evidence. Had they known that it could have been a resubmission they would have rejected it.  It doesn't matter what the outcome was. They rejected that evidence in the first place, therefore the resubmission of the same swabs still applied. Therefore the swabs would have been inadmissible in court.

Had the jury known this? No...Standard procedure was not followed and the lab rejected the swabs making those swabs invalid upon resubmission. 

[Patti]

The other thing to consider is that the appeal judges in 2002 claimed that this alone would not have had any impact on the jury.  I'm sorry to say, but it would have had an impact, this was crucial evidence based on the fact that Shelia had not fired a gun. 

Yet, her hand was on the gun and her body was close to gun when it was fired, even if it had been fired by someone else,  therefore some amount of residue must have been present.  The Jury was never given any information regarding this...it was never argued in court. Yet the appeal judges said the outcome would have been the same...and therefore it would not have had any impact on the Jury....I say it would have. In fact I would go further and say the judge would have rejected the swabs as being evidence in chambers...simply because the lab had rejected them...

[Bridget]

It's not how a lab works Bridget. The fact is they were rejected on the 1st submission, so even if the same swabs were tested again, that evidence would have still been rejected by the lab. If the lab knew this they would have rejected them. The fact the police made another submission not a resubmission DRH44 serial number 75 The lab had been fooled into thinking this was new evidence. Had they known that it could have been a resubmission they would have rejected it.  It doesn't matter what the outcome was. They rejected that evidence in the first place, therefore the resubmission of the same swabs still applied. Therefore the swabs would have been inadmissible in court.

Had the jury known this? No...Standard procedure was not followed and the lab rejected the swabs making those swabs invalid upon resubmission. 

No they wouldn't have. Peter Wingard's (senior scientific officer at the lab) evidence at the appeal was this:

Mr Wingard explained that the rejection of the item would be made by the police liaison officer acting upon standing instructions that where swabs were submitted having been in the vicinity of firearms they should be rejected. The liaison officer would not necessarily consult a scientist before making such a decision. He rejected the suggestion that once rejected in this way, there would be no way in which the laboratory would examine such items thereafter if it was aware that they had been resubmitted. He explained that there was a significant difference between an examination of the swabs required to provide evidence that a person had discharged a firearm where the testing could as a result of the contamination produce a false result suggesting that the person had had contact with guns, and a test the purpose of which was to provide evidence that a person had not been in contact with a gun. In the latter case the issue of contamination ceased to be a factor since it could never decrease any findings only add to them.

[Patti]

Mr Wingard explained that the rejection of the item would be made by the police liaison officer acting upon standing instructions that where swabs were submitted having been in the vicinity of firearms they should be rejected. The liaison officer would not necessarily consult a scientist before making such a decision. He rejected the suggestion that once rejected in this way, there would be no way in which the laboratory would examine such items thereafter if it was aware that they had been resubmitted. He explained that there was a significant difference between an examination of the swabs required to provide evidence that a person had discharged a firearm where the testing could as a result of the contamination produce a false result suggesting that the person had had contact with guns, and a test the purpose of which was to provide evidence that a person had not been in contact with a gun. In the latter case the issue of contamination ceased to be a factor since it could never decrease any findings only add to them.

Is that not confirming what I have been saying?   

[Bridget]

Mr Wingard explained that the rejection of the item would be made by the police liaison officer acting upon standing instructions that where swabs were submitted having been in the vicinity of firearms they should be rejected. The liaison officer would not necessarily consult a scientist before making such a decision. He rejected the suggestion that once rejected in this way, there would be no way in which the laboratory would examine such items thereafter if it was aware that they had been resubmitted. He explained that there was a significant difference between an examination of the swabs required to provide evidence that a person had discharged a firearm where the testing could as a result of the contamination produce a false result suggesting that the person had had contact with guns, and a test the purpose of which was to provide evidence that a person had not been in contact with a gun. In the latter case the issue of contamination ceased to be a factor since it could never decrease any findings only add to them.

Is that not confirming what I have been saying?   

No, it confirms what I've been saying.

[Bridget]

No, it confirms what I've been saying.

You have to read the whole sentance, not just the bit that suits!

[JackiePreece]

Patti
I agree with you but as I say when the appeal happens lot more will be challenged