Ballistics could not tell if bullets fired through Silencer?

[mike tesko]

The way I see it, there is a perfectly simple explanation for how the blood got into the silencer, and how the DNA from one or more of the victims could have got ion there as well. The judgement from the 2002 appeal makes it clear that it accepts that the silencer was contaminated by DNA because of mishandling, well my point is this, if you can contaminate the silencer with DNA because of mishandling of the silencer, then of course, the silencer can be contaminated with blood through mishandling. I have already given a few examples of how this occurred, and because it was possible for these things to have happened, the silencer / blood based evidence should really not have been allowed in as legitimate evidence...

Silencer evidence is dodgy...

I agree that it's dodgy - not least because they were testing for DNA on an object that had been handled many times by many people. The sticking point is that the flake of blood which showed Sheila's blood group was no longer available for DNA testing.

I asked this before but I don't think you replied. Do you know why they had details of Robert Boutflour's blood group?

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

Yes, of course, DCI "Taff" Jones thought the relative were trying to stitch Jeremy up for the murders and that they might have used their own blood in the silencer...

DCI Jones, knew this, because he was aware that DS "Stan" Jones, had already found a silencer (SBJ/1) at the scene (7th August 1985)and that had some blood on it, and then when the relatives were producing one silencer after the other with blood and paint on them, you would n't need to be a sherlock Holmes to fathom out what the relatives were up to?

But for his untimely death, DCI Jones would have been the defenses's star witness...

in my opinion...

[Kaldin]

The way I see it, there is a perfectly simple explanation for how the blood got into the silencer, and how the DNA from one or more of the victims could have got ion there as well. The judgement from the 2002 appeal makes it clear that it accepts that the silencer was contaminated by DNA because of mishandling, well my point is this, if you can contaminate the silencer with DNA because of mishandling of the silencer, then of course, the silencer can be contaminated with blood through mishandling. I have already given a few examples of how this occurred, and because it was possible for these things to have happened, the silencer / blood based evidence should really not have been allowed in as legitimate evidence...

Silencer evidence is dodgy...

I agree that it's dodgy - not least because they were testing for DNA on an object that had been handled many times by many people. The sticking point is that the flake of blood which showed Sheila's blood group was no longer available for DNA testing.

I asked this before but I don't think you replied. Do you know why they had details of Robert Boutflour's blood group?

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

Yes, of course, DCI "Taff" Jones thought the relative were trying to stitch Jeremy up for the murders and that they might have used their own blood in the silencer...

DCI Jones, knew this, because he was aware that DS "Stan" Jones, had already found a silencer (SBJ/1) at the scene (7th August 1985)and that had some blood on it, and then when the relatives were producing one silencer after the other with blood and paint on them, you would n't need to be a sherlock Holmes to fathom out what the relatives were up to?

But for his untimely death, DCI Jones would have been the defenses's star witness...

in my opinion...

Are you saying that DCI Jones thought that the blood could have been Robert Boutflour's, and that he asked for a blood sample so that it could be tested against the blood in the silencer?

[mike tesko]

There was a possibility that there was a contact shot to June, and the shots to Nicholas were contact shots or close.


So would you not expect to find blood from Sheila, Nicholas and possibly June either in/on the barrel or in/on the moderator?

I think there was a metal end cap on the barrel of the rifle during the shootings and any blood or dna would have got onto that...

[mike tesko]

The ballistics expert made a statement confirming that he was unable to make an association between any of the bullets and part bullets fired via the Anshulz rifle, which is a very significant piece of evidence capable of supporting the recent findings obtained in Arizona (which concludes that Sheila was not shot by a rifle with a silencer attached to the end of its barrel):-

[-Harters-]

I think there was a metal end cap on the barrel of the rifle during the shootings and any blood or dna would have got onto that...

In future can you reply a bit quicker? I consider waiting 17 month for a reply a bit too long. 

[mike tesko]

In future can you reply a bit quicker? I consider waiting 17 month for a reply a bit too long. 

Imagine how frustrating it must be for Jeremy having to wait over 27 years for the truth to come out?

[lookout]

Whoever used that rifle,was NOT familiar with its workings.!
Just as AE pointed out,,,that Sheila didn't know one end of a rifle from the other.There's your answer.

[mike tesko]

I think its a bit contradictory, inconsistent, and ambiguous for the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, to conclude that he can find no association between any of the 25 crime scene bullets and the fact that any of them were or had been fired through a silencer, and then in the next breath produce a theory to explain how Sheila's blood got into the silencer by claiming it was fitted to the guns barrel at the time Sheila was shot under the chin and killed...

This is a prime example of how the evidence can be manipulated/misinterpreted to help convict an innocent man of crimes he did not, and could not have committed...

[mike tesko]

I think its a bit contradictory, inconsistent, and ambiguous for the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, to conclude that he can find no association between any of the 25 crime scene bullets and the fact that any of them were or had been fired through a silencer, and then in the next breath produce a theory to explain how Sheila's blood got into the silencer by claiming it was fitted to the guns barrel at the time Sheila was shot under the chin and killed...

This is a prime example of how the evidence can be manipulated/misinterpreted to help convict an innocent man of crimes he did not, and could not have committed...

When Flcther concluded that he could not associate any of the 25 crime scene bullets with having been fired through a silencer, this came about after he had test fired the rifle, with contyrol ammunition and the silencer, which allegedly took place after the flake of Sheila's blood had already been found inside the silencer, tested and results obtained to confirm it was Sheila's blood - under such circumstances, why does Fletcher conclude that he cannot find any evidence to associate any of the 25 bullets he examined as having been fired through the silencer, if the bullets in question had blood and debris on them from the victims. In particular, that two of the bullets 9PV/20 and PV/19) related to Sheila, and which had blood on them from Sheila, which could have been matched to the blood found in the silencer, and led to such an association being avaialble to Fletcher at the time he concluded in the negative...

It just doesn't add up what Fletcher said, or is saying...

It's all bonkers...