Rifle flush with body, gun barrel under chin, clue...

[Patti]

An argument for what though? Do you not get the impression that a discrepancy has been discovered and then a story has been concocted and twisted to fit?

A very simple and unarguable response could be that the bullet was fragmented however the recovered fragment appeared whole. Or there is the old chestnut that the CCRC could simply say that whilst the inconsistancy is interesting, it is of no evidential value.

Unless there is further evidence to support a bullet swapping theory, then I'm not sure that there is much of a ground to argue here, perhaps that's why it has never been officially put forward by the defence.

Hi Hartley. I'm not interested in stories that surrounds the bullet. All I am interested in is the truth. A fragmented bullet is not a whole one, I'm sure you will agree.

However, they do have to rebuild using the fragments to make a whole bullet..that is, or should be procedure. 

Whether it is a mistake by Fletcher or not, it wont alter the fact that is was documented as a whole bullet. It is documented and therefore can be considered to show there is a discrepancy. Let a court decide...we can't change what has been documented on here...facts are facts and I don't go with hearsay anymore...

[-Harters-]

That's not how I'm picking this up at all.  I have always said that in your stance on the case, every single anomaly (the ones you care to address as opposed to the ones you ignore) is a benign mistake by an honest bobby or upstanding member of the community relative.  Your game plan is like a negative war of attrition, grinding down defence theories or arguments by a process of often nothing more than outright refusal.  I take my hat off to you if you can dismiss disputed theories or arguments by genuinely winning them.  That is a different matter altogether.  By the way, you're also very good at twisting  disagreements to make it look as if you are some kind of victim. 

I will accept a rebuke from Mike or ngb, if I am overstepping the mark with you.

I'm sorry Rochy, but I completely disagree with you, especially when the discussion suddenly turns to your (misguided in my opinion) perception of me to somehow reinforce your point. All as very clearly explained in previous replies to you in this thread.

[Bridget]

Do you know of any other case where the police have destroyed material , when told not to by a
court ? Do you read anything into them doing so in this case ?

I don't think it was a deliberate attempt to cover anything up, if that's what you mean.

[-Harters-]

Doesn't this really hinge on what MDF means when he says 'whole'? Hartley has already pointed out the fact that there are numerous 'underweight' and damaged bullets listed as whole, and MDF actually uses the description 'virtually intact' for the one weighing 2.4g, which was also described as being whole. At what point of intactness does a bullet become not whole?

Isn't there a photo of the bullet somewhere?

[jon]

I don't think it was a deliberate attempt to cover anything up, if that's what you mean.

Other cases ?

[Bridget]

Isn't there a photo of the bullet somewhere?

Yes, here:



I notice the weight given there is not consistant with the one given on the MDF's report.

[-Harters-]

Yes, here:



I notice the weight given there is not consistant with the one given on the MDF's report.

Do we think 26.46 grains equals 1.54grams? And do we think this is a whole or fragmented bullet?

[Bridget]

Do we think 26.46 grains equals 1.54grams? And do we think this is a whole or fragmented bullet?

No, it equals 1.715 grams. It's whol-ish

[-Harters-]

No, it equals 1.715 grams. It's whol-ish

Also fragmented-ish?

[Bridget]

Also fragmented-ish?

I guess so, seeing as we know some of it is missing

[Patti]

It seems unfair that the bullet was presented at court as being whole, when it was fragmented. It hardly seems fair in all honesty. Had the jury had known this then, they would most likely be more aware that the first bullet was not a fatal one...It had fragments into 15 pieces....Why an expert would call it a whole one, is beyond belief and why this wasn't challenged by the defence is another matter to dwell on...

[Patti]

Here is what the papers said. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5DLsf0UggyWYzdiMmRiZmItZTNhZi00NjExLTg2MzUtNzk0MjRkMTBkMGEy/edit?pli=1

[mike tesko]

No, it equals 1.715 grams. It's whol-ish

Whole bullet weight is / was 2.26 gram...

If you calculate the value of 1.715 grams in percentage terms, there is a missing mass of over 40%, which you cannot say entitles the ballistic expert to conclude that this justifies bullet PV/20 to be whole in nature?

[Steve_uk]

It seems unfair that the bullet was presented at court as being whole, when it was fragmented. It hardly seems fair in all honesty. Had the jury had known this then, they would most likely be more aware that the first bullet was not a fatal one...It had fragments into 15 pieces....Why an expert would call it a whole one, is beyond belief and why this wasn't challenged by the defence is another matter to dwell on...

Could you spell out why this is materially significant? We know that the first shot was not fatal,and Andrew Hunter's book draft says there were marks from a silencer left on Sheila's neck from the first bullet.

[lookout]

 I fail to see how anyone could argue against that,Patti. No matter what this tragedy was about,,or who was supposedly involved. So why was the court shown the whole bullet at the trial.? Why.?