Lack of ammunition-handling evidence on Sheila's hands

[mike tesko]

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

They have said nothing, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if there had been any such traces of residue from the relevant bullets from this batch of 29 bullets, the people concerned would almost certainly have mentioned it...

But none of them did...

[Bridget]

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)?

Ammunition is mass produced, why wouldn't tests on the same make and model suffice? In fact, tests done with new bullets would have favoured JB, because any coating is more likely to be intact.

[mike tesko]

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?

Knowing something is not evidence, it has to be proven, and there is no proof in this issue, so yes I believe I do know more than they do about what is or is not admissible evidence...

[Bridget]

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?

My argument is that the forensic scientists are not stupid. They will have used comparable ammunition and the lab assistants did indeed receive lead deposits from them. The alternative of course is that the defence expert was stupid for not pointing out this blindingly obvious hole in the prosecution evidence.

[mike tesko]

Ammunition is mass produced, why wouldn't tests on the same make and model suffice? In fact, tests done with new bullets would have favoured JB, because any coating is more likely to be intact.

You are only guessing, and guessing doesn't count, not for you, for me, or for any expert, I am afraid...

So, it all boils down to guess work, Bamber is convicted of these murders based on guesswork and how much lead deposit should have been found on Sheila's hands based on the presumption that she handled bullets from one batch, as a result of making comparison of hand swabs taken from volunteers who handled a different t batch of bullets?

Sounds very dodgy to me...

[Bridget]

You are only guessing, and guessing doesn't count, not for yiu, for me, or for any expert, I am afraid...

So, it all boils down to guess work, Bamber is convicted of these murders based on guesswork and how much lead deposit should have been found on Sheila's hands based on the presumption that she handled bullets from one batch, as a result of making comparison of hand swabs taken from volunteers who handled a different t batch of bullets?

Sounds very dodgy to me...

The only reason I have to guess is because I don't have access to Elliot's report / statement / trial evidence. I'm sure he wasn't guessing.

[mike tesko]

My argument is that the forensic scientists are not stupid. They will have used comparable ammunition and the lab assistants did indeed receive lead deposits from them. The alternative of course is that the defence expert was stupid for not pointing out this blindingly obvious hole in the prosecution evidence.

You are guessing that the prosecution experts were more alert and knowledgeable than any defence expert? Truth is, the results relied upon came from the handling of a different batch of ammunition by Sheila, as opposed to the lab' volunteers. It is simply not good enough to keep saying the prosecution experts would surely have known this or that, what is required is a standard of evidence against which these results from whatever source, were obtained so that a proper comparison and analysis between both, or all could be, can be made...

I do not think this happened in this case, it was all guess work...

[mike tesko]

The only reason I have to guess is because I don't have access to Elliot's report / statement / trial evidence. I'm sure he wasn't guessing.

I do not think his evidence meets the necessary standard to allow him to give the opinion he gave - it was all guess work...

[Bridget]

I do not think his evidence meets the necessary standard to allow him to give the opinion he gave - it was all guess work...

Do you have Elliot's report / statement / trial evidence? If not you're just guessing too.

[guest154]

I do not think his evidence meets the necessary standard to allow him to give the opinion he gave - it was all guess work...

I'm willing to be open minded, Mike. But you you have statements that we don't and we're not shown them we can only either take your word for it or just believe what we know from the evidence we have.

[bob]

I'm willing to be open minded, Mike. But you you have statements that we don't and we're not shown them we can only either take your word for it or just believe what we know from the evidence we have.

Come on Mat - surely you don't doubt Mike's word?

[guest154]

Come on Mat - surely you don't doubt Mike's word?

I'm not sure either way, he could be telling the truth, he could have interpreted the statements wrong or got them mixed up. Until you see something with your own two eyes I think its imporant to not fully jump into it.

[Bridget]

I'm not sure either way, he could be telling the truth, he could have interpreted the statements wrong or got them mixed up. Until you see something with your own two eyes I think its imporant to not fully jump into it.

Do you know who that is in the picture Mat? I have a feeling you may be too young 

[guest154]

No I've got no idea.

[Bridget]

No I've got no idea.

lol..