Author Topic: Fletcher's testimony  (Read 4953 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Fletcher's testimony
« Reply #15 on: February 22, 2015, 02:56:PM »
But Fletcher states it was a possibility, not most unlikely.

He doesn't state that the  suggestion made by lebaleb is possible - I doubt he would EVER take that particular theory seriously!. I guess you don't remember what he/she suggested in respect to the blood in the silencer but I'm not going there! 

Not sure why you think I'm arguing in favour of the silencer evidence when I have made it crystal that I think the silencer was faked?
Few people have the imagination for reality

Mr. Gee

  • Guest
Re: Fletcher's testimony
« Reply #16 on: February 22, 2015, 03:33:PM »
He doesn't state that the  suggestion made by lebaleb is possible - I doubt he would EVER take that particular theory seriously!. I guess you don't remember what he/she suggested in respect to the blood in the silencer but I'm not going there! 

Not sure why you think I'm arguing in favour of the silencer evidence when I have made it crystal that I think the silencer was faked?
I haven't seen lebaleb's suggestion, I thought we were talking about the possibilty of faking the silencer which I made quite clear in my former post.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Fletcher's testimony
« Reply #17 on: February 22, 2015, 04:03:PM »
I'm glad you posted it - bottom line is, he said it was certainly possible. If it was so unlikely so as not to be worth considering, I think he would have said that. However, he included it as an option.

You are intentionally reading what you want to read into it.  He was saying there is no way it could have accidentally have gotten there or gotten there naturally by any means except drawback.  He didn't say there is a reasonable probability someone could have planted the blood.

planting it would require knowing there was a fatal wound that would result in drawback, having a supply of blood to use, knowing that the blood needed to be sprayed inside and finding something to spray it will that would work...

The point of this is that the jury was told in no uncertain terms there was no other way for the blood to get inside other than drawback or being planted and the defense made no attempt to refute this and to contend there was some other natural way for it to get there.  Nor did the defense contend let alone try to produce evidence to  establish it was planted.  They had no evidentiary basis to make the suggestion.  Rather they contended blood got inside as a result of drawback but that it was June and Nevill's blood.  The only evidence they offered in such regard was to get the prosecution's own expert to say it was extremely unlikely for that to be the case for a host of reasons that he went into.

If people want to try establishing it was planted they need evidence not saying well we think it is theoretically possible. When people say they choose to believe the blood was planted even though they have no evidence to suggest it happened that demonstrates they are succumbing to bias not rational thought.
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Fletcher's testimony
« Reply #18 on: February 22, 2015, 04:19:PM »

Ta for that, Scipio. There's one question there it would have been interesting to have heard the answer to.

You mention "her doctor said Sheila was doing quite well mentally.............." but what it ACTUALLY says is "A doctor said she  appeared "quite well" " which has a somewhat different connotation.

I think it is referring to the one who gave her the injection not her regular doctor.  But if she appeared mentally unbalanced or complained about some mental issues she would have noted such not say she appeared quite well.  This though is another area where it would be nice if the full testimony were available to read.

Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: Fletcher's testimony
« Reply #19 on: February 22, 2015, 04:22:PM »
I think it is referring to the one who gave her the injection not her regular doctor.  But if she appeared mentally unbalanced or complained about some mental issues she would have noted such not say she appeared quite well.  This though is another area where it would be nice if the full testimony were available to read.






This though is another area where it would be nice if the full testimony were available to read.

Just be patient,you might get to hear about it in due course..

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33773
Re: Fletcher's testimony
« Reply #20 on: February 22, 2015, 04:25:PM »
I think it is referring to the one who gave her the injection not her regular doctor.  But if she appeared mentally unbalanced or complained about some mental issues she would have noted such not say she appeared quite well.  This though is another area where it would be nice if the full testimony were available to read.


Scipio, that Dr was a she, not a he and "less than a month....." doesn't put her in the time frame of being at WHF. It WOULD have been good to have that testimony expanded.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Fletcher's testimony
« Reply #21 on: February 22, 2015, 04:37:PM »
if you go to the search button you can enter fletcher - and sort by relevance. Mike says he has his working notes. On thing I don't understand is why if they swabbed the baffles and there was considerable blood did they only test one flake - and how was the flake there when fletcher had already taken the silencer apart.

They initially did multiple tests to determine whether the blood on and in was human.  Subsequently when they did the blood grouping test they didn't test only 1 flake.  They did 2 blood grouping tests.  They tested blood from the upper baffles and then the flake.  The test of the upper baffles was group A but had no enzymes.  The flake was group A and also had the AK1 enzyme.  In THEORY the blood on the upper baffle could have belonged to either June or Sheila because they both had group A blood. Of course for it to be June's that requires June to have suffered from a contact shot that resulted in drawback which the experts said they didn't think happened.  June has a different enzyme than was found in the flake while Sheila has such enzyme.  So while in theory the blood from the upper baffles could be from either June or Sheila the flake could only be from Sheila.  That is why the flake was concentrated on and so much more significant than the blood on the upper baffles.  That is why the blood on the upper baffles is not mentioned much.

From the 2002 COA decision:

"No questions were asked at trial of Mr Hayward to establish what part of the blood he had tested. The position was, however, known to the defence through their own expert Dr Lincoln. Dr Lincoln had seen the evidential material upon which the group testing results were based and agreed with the conclusions. He recorded that evidence in the course of his report of 19 September 1986. He said that Mr Hayward had "found a flake of blood trapped under the first or second baffle plate" and that it was this flake that was tested and produced the groupings A, EAP BA, AK1, Hp2.1 upon which reliance was placed by the prosecution. Dr Lincoln further recorded:

"Mr Hayward states that he could detect visible staining on the "upper baffle plates" and that he swabbed these plates so that the blood was taken onto cotton material which could subsequently be used in grouping tests. On this material Mr Hayward successfully determined the ABO and EAP groups and showed the blood to be groups A, EAP BA."
This finding from the swabbing of the upper baffle plates was thus consistent with blood from either June Bamber or Sheila Caffell or even a combination of blood from the two of them but not in any way from blood from Nevill Bamber or Nicholas Caffell."

As for the flake it was not a loose flake that was floating around the blood dried into a flake and was stuck to the metal till removed.
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: Fletcher's testimony
« Reply #22 on: February 22, 2015, 04:44:PM »
There's a new video about the silencer which was made last week on the OS forum. It's worth a watch.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Fletcher's testimony
« Reply #23 on: February 22, 2015, 04:44:PM »

Scipio, that Dr was a she, not a he and "less than a month....." doesn't put her in the time frame of being at WHF. It WOULD have been good to have that testimony expanded.

I know, I wrote "she", read it again. Naturally for the 3 weeks after she saw Sheila you would look to other people to see if they noted anything changing and her being mentally unbalanced but there wasn't any such testimony.  The only thing that could be found was that she screamed at a stranger who surprised her by using a key to enter the house when she was in it alone.  That had nothing to do with having a mental episode though it is an understandable reaction to thinking someone broke in to your house.   
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33773
Re: Fletcher's testimony
« Reply #24 on: February 22, 2015, 04:58:PM »
I know, I wrote "she", read it again. Naturally for the 3 weeks after she saw Sheila you would look to other people to see if they noted anything changing and her being mentally unbalanced but there wasn't any such testimony.  The only thing that could be found was that she screamed at a stranger who surprised her by using a key to enter the house when she was in it alone.  That had nothing to do with having a mental episode though it is an understandable reaction to thinking someone broke in to your house.

Are we becoming confused here. The short, last paragraph simply states that "A doctor who saw her three months after she left hospital and less than  three weeks prior to the murders................" -or words to that effect.

 The locum who gave her the reduced injection -I believe- moved on soon afterwards but even if she hadn't, to WHOM would she look to check up on Sheila because it seems that no one did any checks AFTER the last reduced injection,which is part of my gripe.

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Fletcher's testimony
« Reply #25 on: February 22, 2015, 05:02:PM »
here is websters summary


Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: Fletcher's testimony
« Reply #26 on: February 22, 2015, 05:10:PM »
Well that's telling them. :-[

Offline Patti

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13193
Re: Fletcher's testimony
« Reply #27 on: February 22, 2015, 05:42:PM »
Well that's telling them. :-[

If the experts have it wrong then what chance have we got in understanding it all. Its the same with the jury, they did not understand it all either.  If there is arguments within the scientists that did the tests and how they did the tests, then we still in my opinion do not have a clear enough answer.

Was Sheila's blood found in the silencer? It might be or could be or its likely is not an answer...I'd like a yes or no...the other answers are unsafe.   :-\ ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Mr. Gee

  • Guest
Re: Fletcher's testimony
« Reply #28 on: February 22, 2015, 05:59:PM »
If the experts have it wrong then what chance have we got in understanding it all. Its the same with the jury, they did not understand it all either.  If there is arguments within the scientists that did the tests and how they did the tests, then we still in my opinion do not have a clear enough answer.

Was Sheila's blood found in the silencer? It might be or could be or its likely is not an answer...I'd like a yes or no...the other answers are unsafe.   :-\ ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
There was no great knowledge as to whether there was drawback or not. As far as I am concerned it was a gamble that paid off for those who wanted JB convicted. I repeat what I have believed from the very beginning. The silencer was faked evidence by those to whom it would benefit the most. They needed no great knowledge whatsoever. As a well known magician once said, "Scientists are the easiest people to fool".

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: Fletcher's testimony
« Reply #29 on: February 22, 2015, 06:05:PM »
I'm sure all the jury will have realised by now. I wonder how they feel,as I know how I would if I'd helped put a man behind bars all these years. :( It would have taken me all my time not to have said something before now I can tell you.