Lack of ammunition-handling evidence on Sheila's hands

[mike tesko]

I don't know where you get the 2.30 timing from.

One set of swabs was taken. They were submitted to the lab as DRH/33, rejected and the later resubmitted as DRH/44. The date of collection on the form for the resubmission was correct but the time had been recorded incorrectly, hence your 11am theory.

You cannot make such a mistake about the time hand swabs were taken from Sheila, it is unacceptable to suggest that the timing of 11am was recorded incorrectly, as opposed to 3:15am, nobody can make such a significant blunder regarding the time the hand swabs had been taken, not a difference of four and a quarter hours difference, I am sorry but you must be joking when you suggest that? So, you take the view that when any prosecution witnesses falsifies evidence it is explained away as a mistake? Enough said, but I do not buy into that explanation, police don't make such huge errors do they? How can police get the timing when the hand swabs were taken by over four hours? If it was just a mistake, why then alter the exhibit reference and the lab' identifying mark, from DRH/33 (9th August 1985) and 17,  to DRH/44 (in September 1985) lab' item number 75?

They went to those lengths because it had been intended to deceive the experts at the lab' i9nto examining them, when they had already previously rejected them...

[mike tesko]

They were hardly likely to take the fingerprints before the swabs were they...

Why not?

Who says so?

Of course they could have fingerprinted Sheila before they took the hand swabs, how do you know they didn't? Do you know something I don't about this matter? Lets look at it from a different perspective, why oh why is there no checkable exhibit reference for the fingermarks which DC Hammersley took from Sheila? What if the fingerprints were taken before the hand swabs?

[mike tesko]

Answer me this (anyone)...

What was the identifying mark attributed to the hand swabs which produced the results relied upon as part of the prosecutions case at trial?

[Patti]

You cannot make such a mistake about the time hand swabs were taken from Sheila, it is unacceptable to suggest that the timing of 11am was recorded incorrectly, as opposed to 3:15am, nobody can make such a significant blunder regarding the time the hand swabs had been taken, not a difference of four and a quarter hours difference, I am sorry but you must be joking when you suggest that? So, you take the view that when any prosecution witnesses falsifies evidence it is explained away as a mistake? Enough said, but I do not buy into that explanation, police don't make such huge errors do they? How can police get the timing when the hand swabs were taken by over four hours? If it was just a mistake, why then alter the exhibit reference and the lab' identifying mark, from DRH/33 (9th August 1985) and 17,  to DRH/44 (in September 1985) lab' item number 75?

They went to those lengths because it had been intended to deceive the experts at the lab' i9nto examining them, when they had already previously rejected them...

This is documented perhaps there swabs were taken twice, it is possible....therefore the swabs would be meaningless...because the residue would have worn off with taking the first swabs....Mistake or not, the point is the jury were not aware of it....

[mike tesko]

This is documented perhaps there swabs were taken twice, it is possible....therefore the swabs would be meaningless...because the residue would have worn off with taking the first swabs....Mistake or not, the point is the jury were not aware of it.... :) :)

You have hit the nail on the head - the swabs sent to the lab' on 9th August 1985, were not the same swabs examined on the following month, hence why it is now possible to determine that different swabs were examined which produced the negative results relied upon by the prosecutions case...

I can prove that the results were taken from a control (DRH/33) hand swab, not the actual hand swabs taken from Sheila's hands - I know the deception they pulled off to get the results admissible so that it cast a shadow over defence claim's that Sheila handled bullets, and loaded the gun twice more, and shot everybody, including herself...

[mike tesko]

Tests carried out at the lab' in September 1985, were made on the control / head swabs (DRH/33) from the kit, not from the actual hand swabs taken from Sheila's hands...

I would invite everyone who is remotely interested to the identifying marks, DRH/33, DRH/34 and DRH/35 in the attached document whilst bearing in mind that Sheila was right handed, not left handed. Her right hand was photographed resting on the gun, and if she handled bullets and loaded them up into the magazine of the gun chances are that she used the fingers of her right hand rather than her left hand to carry out this / that exercise. This is important to understand since the original hand swab bearing the identifying mark of DRH/33 was taken from Sheila's left hand, not her right han which originally had the identifying mark of DRH/35. If swab DRH/33 (left hand) had been examined it would have produced the results which were obtained when tests were carried out in September 1985. The same could be same, once the original control /head swabs were altered and made into DRH/33...

I would say to each and everyone of you that the hand swabs which originally bore the identifying mark of DRH/34 (right hand) was never examined at all, only the left hand (DRH/33)and the control swabs (originally DRH/35) DRH/33...

[mike tesko]

DRH/33 - left hand swab
DRH/34 - right hand swab
DRH/35 - control swab, and head swab

--------------------------------------------------

Based on the original information before it was altered so that all these swabs were DRH/33, only the original left hand swab bore the all important identifying mark of DRH/33...

[Bridget]

You cannot make such a mistake about the time hand swabs were taken from Sheila, it is unacceptable to suggest that the timing of 11am was recorded incorrectly, as opposed to 3:15am, nobody can make such a significant blunder regarding the time the hand swabs had been taken, not a difference of four and a quarter hours difference, I am sorry but you must be joking when you suggest that? So, you take the view that when any prosecution witnesses falsifies evidence it is explained away as a mistake? Enough said, but I do not buy into that explanation, police don't make such huge errors do they? How can police get the timing when the hand swabs were taken by over four hours? If it was just a mistake, why then alter the exhibit reference and the lab' identifying mark, from DRH/33 (9th August 1985) and 17,  to DRH/44 (in September 1985) lab' item number 75?

They went to those lengths because it had been intended to deceive the experts at the lab' i9nto examining them, when they had already previously rejected them...

This is like groundhog day. There was no need to try to deceive the lab, they would have examined them anyway.

[Bridget]

Why not?

Who says so?

Of course they could have fingerprinted Sheila before they took the hand swabs, how do you know they didn't? Do you know something I don't about this matter? Lets look at it from a different perspective, why oh why is there no checkable exhibit reference for the fingermarks which DC Hammersley took from Sheila? What if the fingerprints were taken before the hand swabs?

Why oh why would you go to the trouble of putting the bags on to preserve the evidence only to trash it by taking fingerprints before swabbing?

[Roch]

Sorry to butt in on this debate but could somebody please refresh me regarding the dates of the submissions for the swabs?

[ngb1066]

If you mean the type, Eley subsonic .22lr.

To be completely accurate, Eley subsonic hollowpoint .22 lr (lr means long rifle).  There was other .22lr ammunition at WHF belonging to Anthony Pargeter.  This was high velocity jacketed ammunition, i.e. copper clad over a lead core. This ammunition did not have any lead exposed and used a different lubrication method.  It is possible (although I accept there is no direct evidence of this) that some of the ammunition fired was from Pargeter's batch.  It is conceivable (although again I accept there is no direct evidence) that one of both of Pargeter's ammunition magazines was used.

[Bridget]

Sorry to butt in on this debate but could somebody please refresh me regarding the dates of the submissions for the swabs?

9th August then 13th September.

[Roch]

9th August then 13th September.

Thank you.  Well there's your answer in the main, regarding these swabs.  What happened in between these two dates, in relation to the direction of the case? 

[JackiePreece]

 

[Roch]

That last question wasn't a proper question.  It was a statement.