Vic... you've got to be kidding about Sheila's right hand being clean. Please zoom in. And that's not even a very clear photograph. Plus it's also a photograph of a photograph.
I've said this before, but the only suggestion that Sheila's hand was not clean is a blown up scan of a photograph of a photograph etc. It's also since been suggested that the defences copies of photographs were of inferior quality in comparison to the prosecutions copies, this blown up image is likely to originate from the defences copies.
Not that it isn't interesting of course, but the reality is that without access to the original or without scientific examination of the negatives, then the discovery of grey/brown smudges on this blown up third hand image is somewhat unreliable and misleading and certainly shouldn't be quoted as evidence of bruising or oil and dirt on Sheila's hands.
It could be oil or dirt or bruising, but I would suggest that it's far more likely that from the quality of the image and the manipulation the resized image has been subjected to, that the variation in colour and tone is due to pixel distortion and/or blooming.
Examination of the negatives which JB's legal team are now in possession of, should be able to clear this matter up. If bruises/oil/dirt were found then it would be quite a breakthrough for the defences argument, as nothing has yet been released/mentioned by the defence then I'm sceptical that the photograph shows what is being suggested.
In addition to the above, we do also have the hand swabs which indicated that Sheila's hands did not contain oil, lead or residue consistent with the handling and use of a firearm.
However to add to the confusion, the hand swabs were originally refused by the lab as they were packaged up with firearms evidence from another case and therefore exposed to a risk of contamination. It was then considered that if the swabs were resubmitted and tested, and they did not show up firearms residue then any risk of contamination would have been removed.
If positive test results were obtained then it would indicate that the sample was contaminated
or that Sheila had used and handled the weapon. If negative test results were obtained then it would indicate that Sheila had not handled and used the weapon.
So the swabs were resubmitted and tested, the results were negative.
To cover all bases, Mike T has a theory (which you can find on these forums with a bit of digging around) that the hand swabs were dismissed and that the newly submitted swabs were not the same ones as those previously submitted, possibly control swabs. His theory basically suggests that the hand swab evidence was manufactured and falsified.
Anyway, I think I've rambled on enough, I only intended to pop back in to check out the latest.
