Book Reviews - Murders/Suicide at WHF

[Patti]

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

Hi Bdrget I know you don't like to lose an argument  But, you need to read the full document not just bits.

The fact remains the swabs were rejected and the police used malpractice to resubmit evidence that was originally rejected by relabelling the evidence and writing submission on the lab documents and not resubmission. This is bad practice.

If this was known in 1985 then this would not have been admissible in court...it would have been rejected....for initially the swabs were rejected, thus making the resubmission of the swabs invalid.  The 2002 judges should never have ruled this out, nor could they predict what the jury may have thought. I rest my case on this....you know I am right...you just wont say it lol

[Patti]

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

Hi Jackie

This was crucial evidence that was put before the jury in 1985....Yet, the whole scenario of Sheila having no residue on her hands was false...because those swabs had been rejected making them invalid. The outcome was that the jury believed the evidence, even though it was invalid.....They did not know that they had been rejected...had they known, then the outcome may have been different.....because it was malpractice by the police to what they did.....

[Bridget]

Hi Bdrget I know you don't like to lose an argument  But, you need to read the full document not just bits.

The fact remains the swabs were rejected and the police used malpractice to resubmit evidence that was originally rejected by relabelling the evidence and writing submission on the lab documents and not resubmission. This is bad practice.

If this was known in 1985 then this would not have been admissible in court...it would have been rejected....for initially the swabs were rejected, thus making the resubmission of the swabs invalid.  The 2002 judges should never have ruled this out, nor could they predict what the jury may have thought. I rest my case on this....you know I am right...you just wont say it lol

Hi Patti, I have read the whole document numerous times and it's crystal clear thet your assertion that the lab would have rejected the swabs had they have known they were being resubmitted is quite simply wrong. It's there in black and white. Sorry! If you are saying that someone from the lab contradicted Wingard's evidence and I've missed it please give me the paragraph number and I'll take another look.

[Roch]

For those currently crossing swords re the hand swabs, I found this thread from not too long back.  Happy battling  :D   ...

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2479.0.html

[JackiePreece]

Patti
I obviously don't know exactly what is going on with the case and I am not completely up to date as when I used to talk to Jeremy a few times a week but there will be so much more challenged when the case goes to an appeal court and you are thinking on the right lines about what might be happening.

Wouldn't it be great to watch what went on

[Patti]

Hi Patti, I have read the whole document numerous times and it's crystal clear thet your assertion that the lab would have rejected the swabs had they have known they were being resubmitted is quite simply wrong. It's there in black and white. Sorry! If you are saying that someone from the lab contradicted Wingard's evidence and I've missed it please give me the paragraph number and I'll take another look.

It doesn't alter the fact that the jury did not know about the swab submission and it was never argued upon in court in 1986. Neither me you or the court judges in 2002 can be 100% sure about how the jury would have interpreted this situation. 

[Bridget]

For those currently crossing swords re the hand swabs, I found this thread from not too long back.  Happy battling  :D   ...

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2479.0.html

You can't actually tell from that photo whether or not her hand is in contact with the relevant part of the gun, but anyway, although for ease I have been describing the swabs as clean, there were in fact very low levels of lead detected on the swabs, but nowhere near as much as the scientists would expect had she have loaded and fired the gun 25 times.

[Bridget]

It doesn't alter the fact that the jury did not know about the swab submission and it was never argued upon in court in 1986. Neither me you or the court judges in 2002 can be 100% sure about how the jury would have interpreted this situation. 

Even if they had known, I don't see how it would have made any difference at all to the jury since the tests were negative. If they were relying on a positive test I would agree with you.

[Patti]

Even if they had known, I don't see how it would have made any difference at all to the jury since the tests were negative. If they were relying on a positive test I would agree with you.

One can't assume that it would not have made any difference to the jury, just like I can't assume that it would.....The fact is they were not aware....and the other fact is that the outcome may have been different if they had known. 

[Bridget]

One can't assume that it would not have made any difference to the jury, just like I can't assume that it would.....The fact is they were not aware....and the other fact is that the outcome may have been different if they had known. 

So.. scenario 1:

We had hand swabs tested and they showed only very low levels of lead, far lower than would be expected if she had loaded and fired the gun.

Or scenario 2:

We submitted the hand swabs and they were at first rejected because they could have been contaminated by other weapons, so we submitted them again and they showed only very low levels of lead, far lower than would be expected if she had loaded and fired the gun.

What difference does it make?

In any case, the court of appeal will decide firstly whether or not the new evidence renders the verdict unsafe and only if they can't make a decision on that will they ask whether or not it would have affected the decision of the jury. In the absence of any evidence of a conspiracy to submit falsified swabs the answer to both of those questions must be no.

[bloggs and son]

I'm still looking for that photographic evidence that was turned down in favour of the police sworn statements. But in the meantime this makes interesting reading, especially from paragraph 51 on.

I can only find this connection to what I have stated so far. But cannot find the actual CCRC statement to that effect?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=2091.0

[Bridget]

I can only find this connection to what I have stated so far. But cannot find the actual CCRC statement to that effect?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=2091.0

If the CCRC said that then I think it's important to know the context. They may have been referring to a specific issue rather than making a generalised comment.

[bloggs and son]

If the CCRC said that then I think it's important to know the context. They may have been referring to a specific issue rather than making a generalised comment.

Yes it would be helpful. But I know I've seen their actual statement somewhere, but for the life of me I cannot find it for some reason?

[Bridget]

Yes it would be helpful. But I know I've seen their actual statement somewhere, but for the life of me I cannot find it for some reason?

Hmmm I don't recall ever seeing it, but I've often seen it spoken about. Maybe Mike knows?

[Bridget]

Try this thread:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=371.0

The link in that thread to the blog doesn't work for me though.