Book Reviews - Murders/Suicide at WHF

[Patti]

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.

It makes a difference that the jury was not told.

Look at DC Hammersley report....He states clearly that he went to lab on the 9th August 1985 with swabs DRH 33.

Yet on this report of McDonalds it states DRH 44 sent to lab on the 7th August. 

[Bridget]

It makes a difference that the jury was not told.

Look at DC Hammersley report....He states clearly that he went to lab on the 9th August 1985 with swabs DRH 33.

Yet on this report of McDonalds it states DRH 44 sent to lab on the 7th August.

The title of that column on the form is the date the evidence was found, not the date it was sent to the lab.

[bloggs and son]

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.

That was probably where I saw it? It was posted by Hartley if that adds any weight to it?

[Patti]

The title of that column on the form is the date the evidence was found, not the date it was sent to the lab.

Well if you move the slide bar across it says to the lab on that date...

[Patti]

Also read this:

[Bridget]

Well if you move the slide bar across it says to the lab on that date...

I'm talking about the first document you posted, the one which says the 7th.

[Bridget]

Also read this:

They were given the opportunity to cross examine at the appeal, and literally gave up as the evidence given by the witnesses was entirely credible.

[Bridget]

That was probably where I saw it? It was posted by Hartley if that adds any weight to it?

I think he was just being helpful 

[Patti]

They were given the opportunity to cross examine at the appeal, and literally gave up as the evidence given by the witnesses was entirely credible.

The major methods for detection of primer residues are analytical and qualitative. Analytical methods include atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS) and inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS). Scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive analysis (SEM-EDA) and atomic force microscopy (AFM) are used to identify the primer residue qualitatively. For these methods, samples must be obtained from the skin surfaces of a victim at the scene. Delay in obtaining residues, movement, or washing of the body prior to autopsy will diminish or destroy gunshot residues.

[Bridget]

The major methods for detection of primer residues are analytical and qualitative. Analytical methods include atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS) and inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS). Scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive analysis (SEM-EDA) and atomic force microscopy (AFM) are used to identify the primer residue qualitatively. For these methods, samples must be obtained from the skin surfaces of a victim at the scene. Delay in obtaining residues, movement, or washing of the body prior to autopsy will diminish or destroy gunshot residues.

I'm not sure I'm seeing your point?

[susan]

Hi Patti  are you a Scientist by any chance can,t understand one word of your post but it sounds very impressive

[JackiePreece]

Patti is amaaaazing !!!! Jeremy is lucky to have her!!!!!

[Patti]

I'm not sure I'm seeing your point?

I just like arguing with you Bridget Ha!

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.

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

These swabs were rejected by the lab, because they arrived with guns.

The swabs then were resubmitted under a different DRH number....

We see documented evidence which is flawed and false.

We have DRH32 and DRH 31 becoming DRH 33 then changes to DRH44 which is the same DRH number for the bible...

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

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

[susan]

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

[Patti]

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

No way Susan...I am the most confused person in real life....don't make me blush