Lack of ammunition-handling evidence on Sheila's hands

[guest154]

Which is sufficient to render the results obtained as doubtful, or unreliable, in the absence of any other supporting evidence...

Not IMO.
Because experts know about wax on bullets etc...so I doubt they would have run tests if they were going to be that severely flawed.

[Roch]

Which is sufficient to render the results obtained as doubtful, or unreliable, in the absence of any other supporting evidence...

If there is even the slightest hint of a non certainty in defence arguments, it is seized upon as a reason to dismiss them.   

[Roch]

Well put, Rocky!

Thank you.  ILLEGITIMI NON CARBORUNDUM

[mike tesko]

Without seeing Elliot's report in full you cannot know that the tests they did did not establish a standard. n fact, in the appeal decision it is implied that that is exactly what they did, but the details of how they did are scant.

No, you are wrong, it was a different batch of .22 ammunition used by the lab's volunteers, to the batch supposedly used was already used up in the test firings by the police and the ballistics expert. So, here we have evidence that a batch of different bullets were used by lab' assistants who picked them up and loaded them into the magazine of a gun (not even the same gun) and then their hands were swabbed and results noted...

These results were then compared against the results obtained from examination of hand swabs taken from Sheila who handled different bullets from a separate batch, you can't make such a comparison, I am sorry but what you are suggesting is just not acceptable by anybodies standards...

What has happened here is that so called standards obtained from a completely different batch of .22 ammunition have been used to make comparison against the results obtained from hand swabs taken from Sheila from the original batch of Eley .22 LR subsonic hollow point ammunition. What I am saying is that such a standard as was supposedly used in this case, was / is worthless and should not have been allowed in, as admissible evidence, since it was misleading and contradictory, and extremely unreliable, in my view...

[mike tesko]

Not IMO.
Because experts know about wax on bullets etc...so I doubt they would have run tests if they were going to be that severely flawed.

Experts?

Experts who had previously rejected the very same hand swabs (under a lab' item reference number of 17) which had been submitted on 9th August 1985 because it was feared or believed that they might have been contaminated through contact with firearms that they arrived at the lab with, which were resubmitted under a differtent lab' item reference number of 75, and these very same experts would have done all the necessary work and checks to make sure that the hand swabs in question were uncontaminated and wax free? Give me a break, stop trying to portray these prosecution experts as godly, and all knowing - basically they were incompetent (to say the least), oh, and when you say that they would have known about these things, what exhibit reference would they have carried out these tests and checks? DRH/33 and or DRH/44?

These experts were a joke in my opinion, and extremely bias in favour of the prosecutions case...

They allowed these exhibits to have their identities changed and altered even without their knowledge, and a man has been convicted and sentenced to a life term of imprisonment based upon the quality of this evidence - which is an absolute disgrace...

The levels of wax on batches of ammunition may vary from batch to batch and there is no way that any expert can guess this. Test would have to be carried out and the results from these test published before you can start throwing around imaginary standards...

[maggie]

Experts?

Experts who had previously rejected the very same hand swabs (under a lab' item reference number of 17) which had been submitted on 9th August 1985 because it was feared or believed that they might have been contaminated through contact with firearms that they arrived at the lab with, which were resubmitted under a differtent lab' item reference number of 75, and these very same experts would have done all the necessary work and checks to make sure that the hand swabs in question were uncontaminated and wax free? Give me a break, stop trying to portray these prosecution experts as godly, and all knowing - basically they were incompetent (to say the least), oh, and when you say that they would have known about these things, what exhibit reference would they have carried out these tests and checks? DRH/33 and or DRH/44?

These experts were a joke in my opinion, and extremely bias in favour of the prosecutions case...

They allowed these exhibits to have their identities changed and altered even without their knowledge, and a man has been convicted and sentenced to a life term of imprisonment based upon the quality of this evidence - which is an absolute disgrace...

The levels of wax on batches of ammunition may vary from batch to batch and there is no way that any expert can guess this. Test would have to be carried out and the results from these test published before you can start throwing around imaginary standards...

Brilliant post Mike.

[mike tesko]

What an expert may or may not know is not evidence, what is required are standards against which results obtained from tests can be compared, and in this case there were no such standards against which to make the necessary comparisons, it was / is all guess work...

Absolutely worthless...

[mike tesko]

It is not acceptable to say that the experts did no such tests, this is a lousy excuse and no-one should even entertain such a proposition. Such tests needed to be done so that any results could be compared against such standards. If non were done, you cannot introduce the results from the examination of hand swabs taken from Sheila and say these results prove she did not handle any bullets at all...

But this is precisely what has happened in this case...

Now....

Enough is enough, when  is everybody going to agree that a stop should be made in this respect, and that the evidence of these so called experts was very very misleading and prejudicial towards the prospect of Jeremy Bamber ever receiving a fair trial?

What took place here was nothing far short of a kangaroo court...

[Bridget]

No, you are wrong, it was a different batch of .22 ammunition used by the lab's volunteers, to the batch supposedly used was already used up in the test firings by the police and the ballistics expert. So, here we have evidence that a batch of different bullets were used by lab' assistants who picked them up and loaded them into the magazine of a gun (not even the same gun) and then their hands were swabbed and results noted...

These results were then compared against the results obtained from examination of hand swabs taken from Sheila who handled different bullets from a separate batch, you can't make such a comparison, I am sorry but what you are suggesting is just not acceptable by anybodies standards...

What has happened here is that so called standards obtained from a completely different batch of .22 ammunition have been used to make comparison against the results obtained from hand swabs taken from Sheila from the original batch of Eley .22 LR subsonic hollow point ammunition. What I am saying is that such a standard as was supposedly used in this case, was / is worthless and should not have been allowed in, as admissible evidence, since it was misleading and contradictory, and extremely unreliable, in my view...

Again, what evidence do you have that they were using different ammunition? If you have Elliot's report, statement or trial evidence please post them.

[mike tesko]

Think of all the prosecution witnesses who actually handled and loaded bullets from the very same batch as those supposedly used in the shootings, and not one of them has come forward and made any comment or a statement saying that after handling such ammunition from this crucial batch of ammunition) did the fingers of their hands became contaminated with grease, or oil or lead deposit?

[Bridget]

Think of all the prosecution witnesses who actually handled and loaded bullets from the very same batch as those supposedly used in the shootings, and not one of them has come forward and made any comment or a statement saying that after handling such ammunition from this crucial batch of ammunition) did the fingers of their hands became contaminated with grease, or oil or lead deposit?

You can't see lead deposits.

[guest154]

Think of all the prosecution witnesses who actually handled and loaded bullets from the very same batch as those supposedly used in the shootings, and not one of them has come forward and made any comment or a statement saying that after handling such ammunition from this crucial batch of ammunition) did the fingers of their hands became contaminated with grease, or oil or lead deposit?

But have they come back and said that they didn't become contaminated with Grease, or oil?

[mike tesko]

Again, what evidence do you have that they were using different ammunition? If you have Elliot's report, statement or trial evidence please post them.

The lab' assistants did not carry out their experiments until long after the test firing of the rifle with the actual batch of 29 control bullets had been test fired. To be specific, unofficial test firings of the said ammunition and the rifle took place before 20th September 1985, and the official test firings of the same took place between 20th September 1985 and 2nd October 1985...

29 control bullets in total...

Yet these four lab' volunteers each loaded 25 bullets into the magazine of a different rifle, and then swabs were taken and the results recorded to show the levels of lead deposit found. These results were then compared against the results of the results taken from the second submission of the hand swabs taken from Sheila. Four times 25 equals 100 bullets, yet there were only 29 in the batch from which the 25 crime scene bullets had supposedly been extracted?

Simple maths enables everyone to see that these experts handled a different set of bullets than existed in the batch found on the kitchen worktop...

100 minus 29 = 71 (where did these additional 71 bullets come from to enable these volunteers to carry out such tests)?

[mike tesko]

You can't see lead deposits.

Especially if the bullets in question were are coated in wax...

So, you agree that even if the bullets these volunteers handled were not coated in wax you could not see lead deposit. The same can be said for bullets which are coated in wax. The only difference would be in the results where you might obtain a result of lead deposit presence where bullets which were handled had not been coated in wax, as opposed to no such results in cases where bullets had been coated in wax?

Is it your case that even if bullets are coated in wax, you would still get results of lead deposit levels on the fingers or hand?

[bob]

Which is sufficient to render the results obtained as doubtful, or unreliable, in the absence of any other supporting evidence...

This seems to presume that the people working in the forensics lab were idiots, and you know more than them about how to do their jobs.

Which is clearly not true, is it?