No, I'm afraid it's not good enough for me, nor the CCRC nor the CoA, heck the majority of these leap of faith theories aren't even entertained by the the official defence team, past or present.
I beg your pardon - contact Ewen Smith who is now a CCRC Commissioner and ask him what interest he took in all these ballistical irregularities and inconsistencies? Ask him how excited he was back at the beginning of 2004 before Jeremy sacked him, about the discovery of these anomalies relating to the batch of crime scene ammunition? He was over the moon and was about to submit arguments relating to this, but he got cut short because as I say Jeremy ceremoniously sacked him, and employed GDS as his legal advisor. You are therefore wrong when you say that none of his legal team were or are interested in such anomalies, because that was and is not the case. What you should also bear in mind is that at the last (2002) appeal, the judges indicated that because police had destroyed all the crime scene ammunition without consulting the defences or anybody, that if Bambers legal team wished to submit any ground of appeal which involved anything at all to do with the ballistics side of the case, that the court would look favourably upon such submissions - but because of such short notice, and the fact that by that stage nobody had looked into the possibility of all these inconsistencies amounting to anything, no such ground was submitted or rejected. This does not mean, however that such grounds cannot be revisited at a later date, such as now, especially because much of the work which was required to be undertaken and completed has now been done and researched. If such research had been carried out before the court of appeal sat in judgement (2002) and gave permission for the defence to forward any such argument, the court would have been hard pressed to reject such grounds by virtue of the indication that the court would look favourably upon any such ground submitted on Bambers behalf at that time / stage...
The position has not altered even though that sanction was given in 2002, and it is a decade down the road - because until now or when ever, no such ground has ever been submitted, but that does not mean that such a ground could not be submitted in the future, and it does not mean that the same concession as was offered then, will still not be relevant now, or whenever...
I should think the current legal team who are dealing with the silencer issue not being used when Sheila was shot twice in the neck, would be very interested in how the original fragmented bullet (PV/20) became transformed into a whole bullet so that the ballistic expert (Fletcher) could link it to rifle "Y", since the question of whether or not it was fired through a silencer fitted to the end of the rifles barrel, is an integral part of their arguments?
