What makes Bamber innocent?

[mike tesko]

(16), The notes state that the swabs were an acrylic wool moistened with petroleum ether. Each swab was extracted with 10 ml (10 millimetres) of dilute nitric acid, of unstated concentration, which was subsequently evaporated down to a fiftieth of its original volume. The residue was applied to a disc of filter paper for presentation to an x-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometer, which analysed the chemical elements present on the filter paper...

Oh, the key ingredient in false positive results obtained when analysing the hand swab kit (75), was 'petroleum ether' and its concentration, in both examples (testees' and Sheila Caffell), and the disparity in the dates the Caffell swabs, and the testees' swabs were taken, before they were tested. A longer delay in the case of Sheila Caffells hand swabs, than the testees' handswabs, attracting a more significant rate of evaporation of the petroleum ether, hence why there was a difference in the results of both sets of results...

[mike tesko]

You can never change the fact that Sheila's hands and fingers were clean.  No GSR, no blood!  I go with Fletcher and Elliott any day, they examined the evidence from day one.

You are an idiot, Fletcher and Elliott did not conduct the tests in 'accordance with the  Scientific procedure required' to entitle them to give the 'dishonest opinions' they gave, which by the way was introduced dishonestly for the 'specific purpose of trying to suggest that Sheila had not handled bullets', when 'she had'.  Not only did these two crooked witnesses 'deceive the court' by a reliance on 'dodgy lead deposit' evidence, or 'a lack of it', which by the way 'originated almost certainly from the petroleum ether' (Lloyd 2002) used in the process, but these two dodgy so called experts, can't have checked the labels of the hand swab kit (75) otherwise they would have noticed that these 'very same hand swabs had been brought to the lab' on the 9th August 1985', and 'rejected', because of the possibility that they 'had been contaminated'. But, it appears as part of the conspiracy to introduce the hand swab evidence, that either (a) Fletcher and Elliott 'ignored this factor', or (b) bad apple cops 'changed the labelling' so that 'the information' and 'signatures' that accompanied the 'refused' submission of the 9th August 1985, debackle, at 'that' stage. There was no information at all on the labelling when the swabs were dishonestly 'resubmitted' by the '13th September, 1985', as to 'when the hand swabs had even been taken', which in itself should have been sufficient for them to 'have been rejected for a second time'. But, bad apple cops being 'bad apple cops', knew how to 'manipulate the system', and 'the scientists'. Once a bad apple cop, always a bad apple cop. You carry on believing 'the nonsense that you want to believe', you have to keep believing it because to have 'to accept the truth', the 'inevitable consequences will suddenly dawn in that corrupted mind of yours'...

[mike tesko]

(16), The notes state that the swabs were an acrylic wool moistened with petroleum ether. Each swab was extracted with 10 ml (10 millimetres) of dilute nitric acid, of unstated concentration, which was subsequently evaporated down to a fiftieth of its original volume. The residue was applied to a disc of filter paper for presentation to an x-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometer, which analysed the chemical elements present on the filter paper...

The swabs themselves were an acrylic wool moistened in 'petroleum ether', and it was 'not recorded' the concentration' used to moisten the swabs, in either the hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffells hands, or the testees' hands in Elliott's experiment, paving the way for the explanation to account for the disparity between the levels of lead deposit found upon Sheila Caffells handswabs, and the testees handswabs.  In a nutshell, if a stronger concentration of petroleum spirit had been used during the taking of the testees' handswabs, than the strength of concentration on the hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffells hands, this would account for the disparity in the levels of lead detected in one group of hand swabs (testees) as opposed to the other (Sheila Caffell). ..

[mike tesko]

(17),  The condition e.g. the degree of soiling, of the Sheila Caffell swabs or of the testees' swabs, when they were examined, should have been recorded in the notes. The notes are silent in this respect: no such trecord was made...

I wonder why?

[mike tesko]

(18),  Although the Sheila Caffell swabs are described as 'moistened' (with petroleum ether) in the notes, it is likely that they would have become dry before they were extracted. Otherwise the petroleum ether was probably deliberately removed by evaporation. Petroleum ether does not mix with dilute nitric acid...

If the hand swabs that were 'eventually, tested on the 24th October 1985, had been taken at either of the three different times (11 am, 2.30pm, or 3.15pm) on the 7th August 1985, the hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell would have dried during the delay, or the petroleum ether would have evaporated to a far greater extent than the hand swabs taken from the testees which had been moistened with petroleum spirit on the same day they were tested. This may account for the differences in detected lead levels in the Caffell swabs, as opposed to the testees' swabs...

[mike tesko]

(19), As earlier noted, at the trial Fletcher gave evidence and demonstrated that when  cartridges were loaded into the magazine an oily black deposit was transferred to the hands. Because of the paucity of the Lab' notes, it is unknown whether any such material became transferred to the testees' in Elliot's experiments, or had  become transferred to the Sheila Caffell hand swabs.The effect should have been clearly evident from the condition of the swabs - a blackened oily soiling would have been present (petroleum ether is a good swabbing solvent for this kind of material). If  such an obvious effect had occurred, or if the Sheila Caffell and the testees' swabs had differed significantly in appearance, then the absence of a record in the Lab' notes would be surprising. There appears to be no reason to suppose that there was any important differences between the condition of the Sheila Caffell swabs and the testees' swabs...

Why weren't the hand swabs themselves photographed?

[mike tesko]

(21), The cartridges used in the Brooke's recent experiments, which were of the same type and date as the original cartridges, were coated with a black lubricant. However, the cartridges could be loaded into the magazine  of the rifle without their producing any obvious soiling of the hands.Inquiries may be made by Brooke's into the composition of the lubricant in order to determine whether some change in the consistency of the lubricant could have occurred as the lubricant aged...

Oh, yes, the 'ageing process' and the changing state of the lubricant - in the Elliott experiments it was not recorded whether or not the ammunition used by the testees' was of the same manufacturers type, from the same era, as the ammunition used in the actual shootings...

[mike tesko]

You can never change the fact that Sheila's hands and fingers were clean.  No GSR, no blood!  I go with Fletcher and Elliott any day, they examined the evidence from day one.

Facts, Sheila' hands were not clean, so stop kidding yourself on about that. Sheila's feet weren' clean so stop having yourself on about that. Two bodies, not one were found upon entry into the kitchen, a fact that was confirmed after the cops had got into the kitchen, not beforehand. Oh, and the 3.36am phone log purporting to be PC Wests record of his conversation with Jeremy which is being touted as he having recorded the wrong time on, wasn't even written up in PC Wests own hand writing. If all this isn't sufficient to send you scampering off holding your head in shame for trying to pull the wool over every bodies eyes, there are marks on the top part of Sheila Caffell right hand that are consistent with her having tried to strangle her mother...

[lookout]

Mike,some brilliant advice from a very good source : Today.
I quote,
" Never trust anybody,not a single soul. Namely,the smiling assassins ( the authorities ),unquote ".
 Said recently by someone who KNOWS ! To someone who will find out as time goes on.

[mike tesko]

Let's not forget a silencer which in its history, has been referred to, or mention by the following different 'Exhibit References', SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, started off life as Lab' item no.22, that got changed to no.23, and by the end of the day 'reverted' back to becoming Lab' item no.22...

A silencer which got handed over to cops twice, once on 12th August 1985, and secondly on the 11th September, 1985...

The evidence against this chap Bamber has clearly been fabricated. I should know because I have over 40 years experience of having been framed by cops, the south Yorkshire CPS, and the judiciary. I am an expert in the true sense of the word at spotting police corruption and CPS dishonesty. I currently live in the worst part of the country where bad apple cops, deceitful CP's and local authorities have been practising dishonesty for decades (South Yorkshire, a hotbed of corruption)...

[Caroline]

Facts, Sheila' hands were not clean, so stop kidding yourself on about that. Sheila's feet weren' clean so stop having yourself on about that. Two bodies, not one were found upon entry into the kitchen, a fact that was confirmed after the cops had got into the kitchen, not beforehand. Oh, and the 3.36am phone log purporting to be PC Wests record of his conversation with Jeremy which is being touted as he having recorded the wrong time on, wasn't even written up in PC Wests own hand writing. If all this isn't sufficient to send you scampering off holding your head in shame for trying to pull the wool over every bodies eyes, there are marks on the top part of Sheila Caffell right hand that are consistent with her having tried to strangle her mother...

I don't believe for one second that that is Sheila's foot. It's too old and too small.

[Caroline]

Mike,some brilliant advice from a very good source : Today.
I quote,
" Never trust anybody,not a single soul. Namely,the smiling assassins ( the authorities ),unquote ".
 Said recently by someone who KNOWS ! To someone who will find out as time goes on.

Assassins come in all shapes and sizes, they aren't always the authorities. The Bamber family found that out!

[maggie]

I don't believe for one second that that is Sheila's foot. It's too old and too small.

I agree with you, Sheila's hands and feet were long and very slim, that foot is a smaller wider foot and also does look like a foot belonging to an older woman.

[Jane]

I don't believe for one second that that is Sheila's foot. It's too old and too small.

Now that presents us with a conundrum, Caroline. WHO, knowing said foot was NOT Sheila's, would have presented it as being such?

[lookout]

Assassins come in all shapes and sizes, they aren't always the authorities. The Bamber family found that out!

As I said,a VERY good source,who I don't think you'd argue with at this juncture.