Lack of ammunition-handling evidence on Sheila's hands

[Patti]

In any event, DC Hammersley lied about when he supposedly took the all important hand swabs from Sheila's hands, this becomes apparent by the interchangeable exhibit references of DRH/33 and DRH/44, which were given to the hand swabs at one time or another, and also to the bible...

According to DC Hammersley, he took the hand swabs from Sheila's hands at the scene at about 11am, yet interestingly enough he did not take other related exhibits from the autopsy bearing lower exhibit references on the afternoon of 7th August 1985:-

Hi Mike, the DRH/44 was never brought up as being the bible in the 2002 appeal.  Any idea why? 

[Patti]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObroUJsTzEE

[Bridget]

I would like to propose that when the ballistic expert carried out his test firing using this batch of control ammunition, the reason he did not test his own hands for traces of lead deposit from handling those bullets was / is because this batch of ammunition was coated in wax - and he knew this would not produce any evidence if his hands had been swabbed to test for lead deposit through handling this batch iof ammunition? I do not think it is fair to produce results from handling a different batch of .22 ammunition, when all along the original batch that all 25 bullets are supposed to have come from was under the control and in possession of the police and then at the lab after 20th September 1985?

Something dodgy has been going on here - evidence has been manipulated to Jeremy's disadvantage...

So if the ammunition used by the lab workers was not comparable to the ammunition used at WHF, wnhy didn't the defence expert highlight that fact?

[Bridget]

Bridget I would like to know at what time would it be likely for the residue to start to disappear.

I don't know, but I doubt it's very soon or the lab, or the defence expert would have said so.

Her right arm was moved, we know that the pictures tell us so.

So did the police

What time did V perform the PM I can't remember off hand.

3pm on the 7th

What time did 1470 take the swabs?

3.15

Despite all the mix ups, rejections, labelling etc,  the swabs were not tested till the 17th September.

In my opinion, swabs should have been taken at the crime scene.

Nearly a month passes by......what happened to them?  Did the GSR fade with time from the swabs...

That's your opinion, but does it have any basis in fact?

[bloggs and son]

Where is that statement that was posted the other day where a certain officer was concerned that Sheila's body was not in the same position to when he first saw her? I think he said that not only had her arm been moved, bit also the gun, the bible and her head?

[mike tesko]

Where is that statement that was posted the other day where a certain officer was concerned that Sheila's body was not in the same position to when he first saw her? I think he said that not only had her arm been moved, bit also the gun, the bible and her head?

PS Adams...

[Patti]

I don't know, but I doubt it's very soon or the lab, or the defence expert would have said so.



So did the police


3pm on the 7th




3.15

That's your opinion, but does it have any basis in fact?

I doubt the lab was informed that is was the same swab they had reject over month earlier, it had a different number, I also doubt if they could tell the residue had diminished, they were not asked to check that.

Hammersley arrived at the lab at 2:20 so yes, it is possible he took the swabs before the PM.

You can hardly say it is my opinion about all the mix ups, it is documented. Many questions are still outstanding regards the swabs...which need answers.

It does not alter the fact that the jury was not given this information during the trail in 1986.

Have a good day......

[Patti]

Where is that statement that was posted the other day where a certain officer was concerned that Sheila's body was not in the same position to when he first saw her? I think he said that not only had her arm been moved, bit also the gun, the bible and her head?

Do you mean this Grahame? 

[bloggs and son]

Do you mean this Grahame? 

That's the one Patti. You're better than I am at finding things.

[Bridget]

I doubt the lab was informed that is was the same swab they had reject over month earlier, it had a different number, I also doubt if they could tell the residue had diminished, they were not asked to check that.

But they knew that the murders had taken place more than a month earlier.

You can hardly say it is my opinion about all the mix ups, it is documented. Many questions are still outstanding regards the swabs...which need answers.

I meant about GSR fading from swabs.

[Patti]

But they knew that the murders had taken place more than a month earlier.

I meant about GSR fading from swabs.

It was a different FS officer that did the swabs, so might not have known anything about the previous ones.

If you search on google, there is quite a lot of stuff about reside disappearing, one has to bare this mind and not state categorically that this could not happen...

[Patti]

That's the one Patti. You're better than I am at finding things.

Hi Grahame

I doubt it my love...I could only find it because I had posted it the other day...I think me memory is starting to come back...lol 

[Bridget]

It was a different FS officer that did the swabs, so might not have known anything about the previous ones.

It doesn't matter whether he knew about them or not, they knew what case they were from and they knew it had occurred a month earlier.

If you search on google, there is quite a lot of stuff about reside disappearing, one has to bare this mind and not state categorically that this could not happen...

Link to what you are reading?

[Patti]

It doesn't matter whether he knew about them or not, they knew what case they were from and they knew it had occurred a month earlier.

Link to what you are reading?

Stop making excuses Bridget, it is Monday morning...lol  The FS just tested the swabs...

There are many links Bridget. I posted a video link further up...But, I don't like going on USA sites....I's rather go on .org sites....

I will post you some links when I get back from work...must dash already late....

[mike tesko]

In any event I think the results of the handswab tests were / are incomplete and should not have been admissible because there was no control sample from any of the 25 crime scene bullet cases, or the batch of 29 control bullets found  on the kitchen worktop? Additionally, police did not fingerprint the trigger of the rifle, or take a control swab from the trigger itself, and for this reason alone the handswab results should have been excluded on the basis that they were incomplete and unreliable...