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

[susan]

Hi Patti  so pleased to see you back I was worried that you and Mat had disappeared at the same time cannot tell you what was going through my mind.  Bridget has been a little out of control as well knowing you had gone

[lookout]

All we can hope for is that past jury members are following this forum.

[mike tesko]

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?

If the bullet weight of the original PV/20 was 1.54 grams, the missing mass is greater than 40%, and again would not entitle the ballistic expert to conclude or to describe it as being a whole bullet...

[mike tesko]

If the bullet weight of the original PV/20 was 1.54 grams, the missing mass is greater than 40%, and again would not entitle the ballistic expert to conclude or to describe it as being a whole bullet...

So, why does he, and why did he?

[mike tesko]

One other matter which is perhaps of some importance, are the contents of a handwritten note, written uop by the ballistics expert who writes that he has now sorted his differences of opinion out with the pathologist, Peter Venezis?

What differences of opinion?

The only differences of opinion that I can see or make out relate to the size of the bullets, including in particular the size and nature of bullet PV/20, which Venezis describes as fragmented, whereas Fletcher concludes it was whole...

I cannot for the life of me understand how Fletcher can describe a bullet which has lost over 40% of its mass can be described as a whole bullet?

[susan]

Hi lookout  how are you.  Yes I wonder if jury members read this forum what would they think they would feel they had been betrayed and mislead and an innocent young man is serving a long prison sentence for a crime he did not commit.

[Patti]

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.

Hi Steve. It is significant, because the bullet was produced at the original trial as being a whole one. The xrays that we have now, were never presented so in all fairness it was not examined upon by the defence. As far as the jury were concerned, although this is not detrimental to the case, the jury could have persuaded by the defence that what the CPS was presenting was false. 

[Patti]

Hi Patti  so pleased to see you back I was worried that you and Mat had disappeared at the same time cannot tell you what was going through my mind.  Bridget has been a little out of control as well knowing you had gone

Hi Susan...nice to be back...but not seen mat since I hit him over the head with my dancing pole...hahahah 

[Patti]

All we can hope for is that past jury members are following this forum.

Hi Pat....we can hope..if only...

[Bridget]

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...

Some of those bits could be the missing bits from PV19, but anyway, do we really know how it was presented in court? The x-ray would have been available (even if not used), and Venezis' evidence - surely it is the damage done by the bullet that's important, not how many bits it ended up in.

[Patti]

So, why does he, and why did he?

Hi Mike, it is clear that he did and he went unchallenged...All these little things all add up at the end of the day...it shows how lax the defence was in 1986. 

[Patti]

Some of those bits could be the missing bits from PV19, but anyway, do we really know how it was presented in court? The x-ray would have been available (even if not used), and Venezis' evidence - surely it is the damage done by the bullet that's important, not how many bits it ended up in.

Bridget, what are you drinking lol

How can it be some of the bits from PV19 as that was classed as a whole bullet....tooooooooooo Plus in the opposite direction?

Yes, I agree the xray would have been available, the question is why didn't the defence use it in their cross-examination....sloppy! lol 

[mike tesko]

Hi Mike, it is clear that he did and he went unchallenged...All these little things all add up at the end of the day...it shows how lax the defence was in 1986. 

I agree, I do not think Jeremy was properly represented at his original trial, in fact I would go so far as to say they represented him in a somewhat negligent fashion - which in itself could be regarded as a ground of appeal...

[Bridget]

Bridget, what are you drinking lol

How can it be some of the bits from PV19 as that was classed as a whole bullet....tooooooooooo Plus in the opposite direction?

Yes, I agree the xray would have been available, the question is why didn't the defence use it in their cross-examination....sloppy! lol 

Lol, I don't have the xray in front of me so sorry if I'm a bit off! PV19 was 2.16 grams, other bullets were 2.4+, do all of these things weigh the same when intact or not? If there's bits missing from PV19, where are they? You'd expect them to break off as it hit the base of the skull.

[-Harters-]

Lol, I don't have the xray in front of me so sorry if I'm a bit off! PV19 was 2.16 grams, other bullets were 2.4+, do all of these things weigh the same when intact or not? If there's bits missing from PV19, where are they? You'd expect them to break off as it hit the base of the skull.

I never did understand why there would be heavier bullets at 2.4+g when Mike says the bullets weighed 2.29g to start with.