Author Topic: Why wasn't crispy shot?  (Read 40266 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44411
Re: Why wasn't crispy shot?
« Reply #330 on: October 21, 2017, 10:33:AM »
228. The reason why the judge approached the matter in this way becomes apparent when the evidence of Mr Fletcher, the prosecution's firearms expert is considered.

Mr Fletcher gave the jury a demonstration of loading the magazine with the bullets. He commented that in his experience loading a full magazine would leave marks on the hands adding "in this case you get a black discolouration". (Transcript PMS/10 page 18B).

When he was cross-examined by Mr Lawson, junior counsel for the appellant at trial, he was asked about this part of his evidence and said (Transcript PMS/10 page 47H):

"Well they are my own observations, and I think the observations of the court yesterday when the demonstration was made, that by loading cartridges into the magazine you get residues on your hands from the bullets and cartridges."



'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13787
Re: Why wasn't crispy shot?
« Reply #331 on: October 21, 2017, 10:34:AM »

Saying 'wasn't there', 'if', 'didn't this', 'could have' does not help Bamber.


Clearly if this evidence was right it cast doubt upon Sheila Caffell having loaded the cartridges into the gun and thus to her having killed the others and then herself.


 ::)


Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: Why wasn't crispy shot?
« Reply #332 on: October 21, 2017, 10:35:AM »
You may think so.

I do think so. It should be more specific than that because her hands were clearly not "clean" - you can see that there's blood on one of them.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44411
Re: Why wasn't crispy shot?
« Reply #333 on: October 21, 2017, 10:39:AM »
This dismisses Roch's theory & Bill's unseen photos.

445. The starting point for such consideration is the fact that at no point during the trial was any evidence led from any witness, nor any witness cross-examined, to establish or suggest that the appellant had at any material time had any scars or scratches on his hands.

'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13787
Re: Why wasn't crispy shot?
« Reply #334 on: October 21, 2017, 10:41:AM »
GSR particles typically range in size between 1 and 10 ?m diameter (a micrometer is one-millionth part of a meter) (Figure 9.41). Their persistence on the hands of an individual during even normal activities is very limited; most will be cast off within 2 hours and generally speaking a realistic time limit for their detection would be 4 hours.

Firearms, the Law,and Forensic Ballistics Third Edition.

 8)

guest2181

  • Guest
Re: Why wasn't crispy shot?
« Reply #335 on: October 21, 2017, 10:45:AM »
GSR particles typically range in size between 1 and 10 ?m diameter (a micrometer is one-millionth part of a meter) (Figure 9.41). Their persistence on the hands of an individual during even normal activities is very limited; most will be cast off within 2 hours and generally speaking a realistic time limit for their detection would be 4 hours.

Firearms, the Law,and Forensic Ballistics Third Edition.

 8)

That is misleading. It refers to a person going about their normal business.

It does not refer to a corpse, which is not likely to participate in any activities where particles could be removed.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44411
Re: Why wasn't crispy shot?
« Reply #336 on: October 21, 2017, 10:47:AM »
517.

Mr Ismail was capable of attack by reference to other evidence in the case. The most clear cut of which was that Mr Ismail had referred to a bloodstain on the upper right thigh of Sheila Caffell's nightdress that was clearly caused by a bloody hand print.

He said that he understood that Dr Vanezis, the pathologist, had given evidence that there was no blood on the palm side of Sheila Caffell's hands.

Therefore, he concluded, this staining must have been deposited by another individual.

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

There is no record that this was a bloody paw print. So not Crispy's paw after as suggested by Bamber, Crispy had fired the second shot.

« Last Edit: October 21, 2017, 10:48:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13787
Re: Why wasn't crispy shot?
« Reply #337 on: October 21, 2017, 10:49:AM »
That is misleading. It refers to a person going about their normal business.

It does not refer to a corpse, which is not likely to participate in any activities where particles could be removed.

Who said Sheila was a corpse shortly after the first four deaths?  ???

guest2181

  • Guest
Re: Why wasn't crispy shot?
« Reply #338 on: October 21, 2017, 10:49:AM »
228. The reason why the judge approached the matter in this way becomes apparent when the evidence of Mr Fletcher, the prosecution's firearms expert is considered.

Mr Fletcher gave the jury a demonstration of loading the magazine with the bullets. He commented that in his experience loading a full magazine would leave marks on the hands adding "in this case you get a black discolouration". (Transcript PMS/10 page 18B).

When he was cross-examined by Mr Lawson, junior counsel for the appellant at trial, he was asked about this part of his evidence and said (Transcript PMS/10 page 47H):

"Well they are my own observations, and I think the observations of the court yesterday when the demonstration was made, that by loading cartridges into the magazine you get residues on your hands from the bullets and cartridges."

Elliot also carried out tests which showed that loading a magazine left significantly greater levels of lead on the hands of the person loading the bullets, than were identified on Sheila.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44411
Re: Why wasn't crispy shot?
« Reply #339 on: October 21, 2017, 10:51:AM »
Obviously the evidence that Sheila didn't re load twice, fight or fire 25 bullets, is as strong as the silencer evidence.

But appreciate the CT just focus on the silencer in the media. Or bring up new evidence such as Nevill's phone call, 999 calls & alleged withheld evidence. Supporters on forums will do the same.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2017, 11:02:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

guest2181

  • Guest
Re: Why wasn't crispy shot?
« Reply #340 on: October 21, 2017, 10:52:AM »
Who said Sheila was a corpse shortly after the first four deaths?  ???

You may want to place four hours between their deaths, but you have no realistic cause to do so.

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: Why wasn't crispy shot?
« Reply #341 on: October 21, 2017, 10:53:AM »
Adam, you said before that you believe Julie's statement. In that statement she said that Jeremy told her Sheila had been told to shoot herself. Are you now saying that you don't believe that statement?

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44411
Re: Why wasn't crispy shot?
« Reply #342 on: October 21, 2017, 10:53:AM »
Elliot also carried out tests which showed that loading a magazine left significantly greater levels of lead on the hands of the person loading the bullets, than were identified on Sheila.

That's in reply 321.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

guest2181

  • Guest
Re: Why wasn't crispy shot?
« Reply #343 on: October 21, 2017, 10:54:AM »
That's in reply 321.

Aah okay, I only started reading from 322.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: Why wasn't crispy shot?
« Reply #344 on: October 21, 2017, 10:56:AM »
I do think so. It should be more specific than that because her hands were clearly not "clean" - you can see that there's blood on one of them.

Hi Kaldin
I was reading (with difficulty) the hand written notes of the Pathologist and he clearly said Sheila's right hand was blood stained and the palm print was transferred to her nightdress although his typed version shown at the trial stated her hands were clean think lookout is getting the soot mark mixed up with the palm print as I remember posting to her about this.