Lack of ammunition-handling evidence on Sheila's hands

[guest154]

Hi Caroline. The swabs were rejected and re-submitted about 4 weeks later.  The lab rejected them, because they had arrived with weapons and run the risk of contamination.

When the swabs were re-submitted they test was more or less negative for lead.

However, I contest this, because Sheila was holding the rifle in pictures taken at the crime scene. She also had two shots fires close to her body, so to say there were no trace residue at all, other than one could pick up during the course of the day, is ludicrous.  So the swabs in my opinion are questionable...

If you look at your wording. "Shots fired CLOSE to her body"..."More or less negative" Seems to explain itself, was there some traces there -hence more or less? Or was there no trace at all as you say later on in the post.

Confused as to your stance. 

[Patti]

Now this is strange! If they were rejected because of possible contamination - why were they allowed four weeks later? Clearly they weren't any less contaminated? It's also strange that they were allowed for testing 'after' Ann Eaton's accusations about Jeremy.

There is something very wrong!

Apparently the lab did not know they had been re-submitted, it did not have re-submitted on the label....had they known this they would have most likely had rejected them again.

It could be argued that the swabs had been re-taken, when Sheila was washed or they had been stored incorrectly...or that any residue that was on them had fallen off....

[Patti]

If you look at your wording. "Shots fired CLOSE to her body"..."More or less negative" Seems to explain itself, was there some traces there -hence more or less? Or was there no trace at all as you say later on in the post.

Confused as to your stance. 

Stop it mat lol

The traces that were found on Sheila was common to everyday use around use around the house, which most of us pick up on a daily basis.

You cannot escape the fact that she was shot at close range, therefore she would have had some residue on her nightdress. This was a visual inspection only and the viewer stated that there was no residue....which was not a proper test....

Regarding her hands mat...she was photographed with her right hand on the rifle. The swabs were rejected, because they were sent with weapons and therefore could have been contaminated...So, if this makes it more likely that she would have have had residue on her right hand, having touched the weapon....this is not BS mat, this is fact...would I lie to you?

Particles can fall off..they can also be wiped clean or washed off...

[guest154]

Stop it mat lol

The traces that were found on Sheila was common to everyday use around use around the house, which most of us pick up on a daily basis.

You cannot escape the fact that she was shot at close range, therefore she would have had some residue on her nightdress. This was a visual inspection only and the viewer stated that there was no residue....which was not a proper test....

Regarding her hands mat...she was photographed with her right hand on the rifle. The swabs were rejected, because they were sent with weapons and therefore could have been contaminated...So, if this makes it more likely that she would have have had residue on her right hand, having touched the weapon....this is not BS mat, this is fact...would I lie to you?

Particles can fall off..they can also be wiped clean or washed off...

Didn't think you were lying, Patti. Just wanted clarification. Of course I never think you'd lie.  x

[Patti]

Didn't think you were lying, Patti. Just wanted clarification. Of course I never think you'd lie.  x

Ah! I might twist a few things mat lol 

[guest154]

Ah! I might twist a few things mat lol 

Maybeeeee.
But not much!  :D

[Caroline R]

Apparently the lab did not know they had been re-submitted, it did not have re-submitted on the label....had they known this they would have most likely had rejected them again.

It could be argued that the swabs had been re-taken, when Sheila was washed or they had been stored incorrectly...or that any residue that was on them had fallen off....

Either way, the evidence is unreliable! AND if I were to be cynical - it's also rather convenient given the 'new line' of enquiry that transpired!

[petey]

Either way, the evidence is unreliable! AND if I were to be cynical - it's also rather convenient given the 'new line' of enquiry that transpired!

Surely it's been repeatedly said that by 21st century standards, large parts of the 'evidence' used at trial was unreliable and would not be acceptable in court by todays standards.

Sadly that does not help a case that was decided over 25 years ago. Retrospectively proving that evidence was 'unreliable' at the time of trial is not enough in my opinion.

[Bridget]

Apparently the lab did not know they had been re-submitted, it did not have re-submitted on the label....had they known this they would have most likely had rejected them again. It could be argued that the swabs had been re-taken, when Sheila was washed or they had been stored incorrectly...or that any residue that was on them had fallen off....

No they wouldn't...

Read the appeal decision paragraphs 47-51 and 175-213, and especially paragraph 196.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html&query=jeremy+and+bamber&method=boolean

[mike tesko]

Imagine, for one moment, the batch of crime scene bullets / bullet cases and control ammunition handled at the scene by the police, yet not one of them, or even the experts at the lab' got lead deposit on their fingers - with this in mind, why would Sheila necessarily have lead deposit on her hands / fingers, if none of the prosecutions experts who handled the same had none, or reported none on their fingers, or hands?

Did Sheila have special hands / fingers upon which lead deposit might be detectable?

[Bridget]

Imagine, for one moment, the batch of crime scene bullets / bullet cases and control ammunition handled at the scene by the police, yet not one of them, or even the experts at the lab' got lead deposit on their fingers - with this in mind, why would Sheila necessarily have lead deposit on her hands / fingers, if none of the prosecutions experts who handled the same had none, or reported none on their fingers, or hands?

Did Sheila have special hands / fingers upon which lead deposit might be detectable?

None of them stated whether they did or didn't get lead deposits on their fingers.

[mike tesko]

None of them stated whether they did or didn't get lead deposits on their fingers.

How convenient...

[mike tesko]

Not only this / that...

But if Sheila had handled the bullet cases, rather than the tip of the lead bullets she potentially loaded up into the gun, she would have been touching the copper / brass bullet cases, and therefore there would not be traces of lead transferred onto her hands / fingers  at that stage - surely?

[keepers]

Hi all, please correct me if I'm wrong. I think the autopsy on Sheila proved that unlike all the other victims she had indigested food in her stomach, meaning she ate after the others. This lends itself to the theory that Sheila could have committed the murders and decide to make herself something to eat sometime after. What do we all do before we eat or prepare food? Answer: wash our hands, this could explain the lack of gun residue on her hands

[susan]

Hi keepers  Very good point about the hand washing.  She did eat later than the rest of the family according to the PM.