What the blood expert, and the ballistic expert, did not want us to know...

[mike tesko]

Well, what the blood expert (Hayward) and the ballistic expert (Fletcher) did not want the defence getting a whif of, was the fact that human blood was found on the end of the threaded guns barrel, and also that when the cloth pull through test was done and examined, that human blood was detected inside the barrels lining, but because there were two particular tests conducted on the cloth pull through (MDF/1) and the test proved positive on the second test but not thye first, thye blood expert chose to report his findings as inconclusive!

Now, these notes, and this diagram have a significant bearing on what the court was told during Jeremy Bambers 1986 trial - the court was told that 'NO BLOOD' had been found upon the cloth pull through of the guns barrel, but that was rather misleading, the correct interpretation was that the tests  had been deemed inconclusive, because human blood was detecteed in the second test, but not both...

[mike tesko]

Well, what the blood expert (Hayward) and the ballistic expert (Fletcher) did not want the defence getting a whif of, was the fact that human blood was found on the end of the threaded guns barrel, and also that when the cloth pull through test was done and examined, that human blood was detected inside the barrels lining, but because there were two particular tests conducted on the cloth pull through (MDF/1) and the test proved positive on the second test but not thye first, thye blood expert chose to report his findings as inconclusive!

Now, these notes, and this diagram have a significant bearing on what the court was told during Jeremy Bambers 1986 trial - the court was told that 'NO BLOOD' had been found upon the cloth pull through of the guns barrel, but that was rather misleading, the correct interpretation was that the tests  had been deemed inconclusive, because human blood was detecteed in the second test, but not both...

The discovery of this handwritten document and diagram of the rifle with blood found on the end of its threaded barrel, together with a trace of human blood inside the barrel of the rifle (despite it being deemed inconclusive, because it was only detected once during the two tests performed), is capable of suggesting in thee strongest terms imaginable that the silencer was not fitted to the end of the guns barrel at the time blood not only got onto the threaded end of the gund barrel, but arguably inside the barrel as well!!!

[mike tesko]

The hand writing appears to be in the hand of John Hayward (blood expert) - he states that there are small areas of human blood right on the end of the guns barrel! How could this be possible, if there was a silencer fitted to the guns barrel, and as we have heard that blood only went so far down inside the silencer andd did not pass right through it, or exit it into the guns barrel....

[mike tesko]

The hand writing appears to be in the hand of John Hayward (blood expert) - he states that there are small areas of human blood right on the end of the guns barrel! How could this be possible, if there was a silencer fitted to the guns barrel, and as we have heard that blood only went so far down inside the silencer andd did not pass right through it, or exit it into the guns barrel....

Here's the key diagram, it is regarded by me as a significant discovery, because until now (recently) the experts never said there had been any human blood on the end of the guns barrel (or inside it)...

[mike tesko]

A presence of human blood on the end of the guns barrel was important evidence which the blood exxpert concealed from the court trying the case!

It's digusting...

[mike tesko]

It never ceases to amaze me, how easily it becomes for an expert who has a vested interest in the prosecutions case, can miss off or fail to record such important detail in Lab' diagrams, details which are capable of changing the complexity and outcome of a trial, such as in this particular case...

For example, why is it, or why was it that in the officially disclosed diagrams of the anshuzt rifle, that there is no mention of any human blood being present on the end of the guns barrel? Why has this significant discovery been deliberately omitted from the diagram?

Perhaps the prosecution did not want the defence to be aware that human blood had been found on the end of the guns barrel, and if so it must be clear as to why?

[mike tesko]

The two differeent diagrams of the anshuzt rifle:-

One showing a presence of human blood on thee end of its barrel (the non disclosed version) and the other with no mention at all of human blood on the end of the guns barrel (the disclosed version)...

The small areas of smeared human blood on the end of the guns barrel (non disclosed version of diagram) quite possibly got there at the time a contact shot was fired via the rifle at a time when there was no ssilencer attached...

At least, this would have been what the defence could have argued during the trial had this key evidence not been suppressed by the blood and the ballistic expert!

[mike tesko]

And...

At least we all now know something which the jury which tried the matter obviously did not know about, and that is / was that there was human blood on the end of the guns barrel, and rather more astonishingly that human blood was detected inside the barrel of the rifle, albeit on only one of the two occasions the cloth pull through (test) was dragged through the entire length of the guns barrel, and therefore, the expert concluded that the results were 'inconclusive'!

[mike tesko]

And...

At least we all now know something which the jury which tried the matter obviously did not know about, and that is / was that there was human blood on the end of the guns barrel, and rather more astonishingly that human blood was detected inside the barrel of the rifle, albeit on only one of the two occasions the cloth pull through (test) was dragged through the entire length of the guns barrel, and therefore, the expert concluded that the results were 'inconclusive'!

Now, I would suggest that there is a massive difference between a blood expert saying that 'there was absolutely no blood whatsoever on the cloth pull through', as opposed to him saying, well 'on the first occasion there was human blood detected', but when 'I did the test a second time' there was 'no blood at all', so 'its inconclusive'!!

[Jan]

Does that note say something like not suprising ....

[Jan]

If blood in moderator ?

So when they did this test they are saying they knew blood in moderator so is the date on this document relevant ? When did they say they knew blood in moderator ? I would have thought these tests would have been done before the moderator was tested ?

[Jan]

So does anyone else find it surprising that they did the pull through only after finding blood on the moderator ?, are there dates on anything they did ?
 
It’s all very slapdash

[Jan]

Does that last document say 13th Aug . Can someone clarify who did the pull through  test and when ?

[Jan]

Can someone again explain the proceedure , I know the forensics in those days was connected to the police , so not independent .

But if the exhibits arrived at the lab on the 30th who did the pull through test.?