Lack of ammunition-handling evidence on Sheila's hands

[guest154]

lol..

Please explain? 

[Bridget]

Please explain? 

It's the real Ali Bongo.

If you don't recall the Ali Bongo threads on here then someone else will explain, I'm sure!

[guest154]

It's the real Ali Bongo.

If you don't recall the Ali Bongo threads on here then someone else will explain, I'm sure!

Yeah, still got no idea!

Anyone who can help out.....feel free!

[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.

I disagree...

You really need to be doing tests on the actual bullets fired, or at least upon bullets from the same batch and cardboard ammunition box? The police and the varios prosecution experts had access to all of thdse exhibits yet they chose not to carry out such work. Instead,  they chose to use substitute ammunition?

[bloggs and son]

I disagree...

You really need to be doing tests on the actual bullets fired, or at least upon bullets from the same batch and cardboard ammunition box? The police and the varios prosecution experts had access to all of thdse exhibits yet they chose not to carry out such work. Instead,  they chose to use substitute ammunition?

I agree. That was the crucial fault with the ammunition tests. They used "similar" but not "the original" batch of bullets. The different could spell success or failure of the tests. If the tests were not carried out on the original batch of ammunition they should have been deemed null and void as regards evidence. Simple as. Why did not the defence counsel challenge this?

[mike tesko]

I agree. That was the crucial fault with the ammunition tests. They used "similar" but not "the original" batch of bullets. The different could spell success or failure of the tests. If the tests were not carried out on the original batch of ammunition they should have been deemed null and void as regards evidence. Simple as. Why did not the defence counsel challenge this?

I really don't know...

The other thing which is worth mentioning is that it is not known how contaminated the ammunition magazines into which these lab' volunteers loaded bullets into was / had been - how much lead deposit was already on these five individual ammunition magazines from previous use? I mention this because what should have happened is that the ammunition magazines should have been sterilized before use in the tests, but they were not...

[Bridget]

I really don't know...

The other thing which is worth mentioning is that it is not known how contaminated the ammunition magazines into which these lab' volunteers loaded bullets into was / had been - how much lead deposit was already on these five individual ammunition magazines from previous use? I mention this because what should have happened is that the ammunition magazines should have been sterilized before use in the tests, but they were not...

How do you know they were not?

[bloggs and son]

I really don't know...

The other thing which is worth mentioning is that it is not known how contaminated the ammunition magazines into which these lab' volunteers loaded bullets into was / had been - how much lead deposit was already on these five individual ammunition magazines from previous use? I mention this because what should have happened is that the ammunition magazines should have been sterilized before use in the tests, but they were not...

That is another good point Mike. This evidence should even now be thrown out and discounted.

[bloggs and son]

How do you know they were not?

Because they did not say they were thats how. The fact that they used "similar" cartridges goes a long way in demonstrating that they were not thorough in their testing. I would even go as far as to say that their tests were corrupted by themselves and therefore should have been discounted by the court and possibly would have been if they were challenged by the defence?

[Bridget]

I really don't know...

The other thing which is worth mentioning is that it is not known how contaminated the ammunition magazines into which these lab' volunteers loaded bullets into was / had been - how much lead deposit was already on these five individual ammunition magazines from previous use? I mention this because what should have happened is that the ammunition magazines should have been sterilized before use in the tests, but they were not...

And what "five individual magaziness"? This is what Elliot is reported to have said:

He further reported that tests had been carried out on two members of the laboratory staff who had loaded eighteen cartridges, similar to those used to shoot those who died at White House Farm, into the magazine of the rifle, and "significantly higher levels of lead" had been detected.

[Bridget]

Because they did not say they were thats how. The fact that they used "similar" cartridges goes a long way in demonstrating that they were not thorough in their testing. I would even go as far as to say that their tests were corrupted by themselves and therefore should have been discounted by the court and possibly would have been if they were challenged by the defence?

How would you know what they didn't say if you haven't seen the report?

[bloggs and son]

How would you know what they didn't say if you haven't seen the report?

I was commenting on what you yourself said Bridget.

[Bridget]

I was commenting on what you yourself said Bridget.

No you weren't, you were answering the question I asked Mike. How do either of you know any of the details of how the tests were conducted if you haven't seen the reports?

[bloggs and son]

No you weren't, you were answering the question I asked Mike. How do either of you know any of the details of how the tests were conducted if you haven't seen the reports?

Yes I was. You just conveniently discounted the rest of my post to highlight the that first sentence which I went on to explain in the rest of my post which as you can see was an answer to your original contention that they used "similar" ammunition and not the original ammunition.

[Bridget]

Yes I was. You just conveniently discounted the rest of my post to highlight the that first sentence which I went on to explain in the rest of my post which as you can see was an answer to your original contention that they used "similar" ammunition and not the original ammunition.

It's clear we are not going to agree on the similar ammunition issue which is why I highlighted only the first sentance of your post and just addressed that. You have not explained how either you or Mike would know the details of how the tests were conducted without seeing the reports. If you don't want to that's fine, I won't push you.