When the first set of swabs including the hands, the head and a control sample (DRH/33 - Lab' item no.17) was taken to the Lab' at Huntingdon on the 9th August 1985 and rejected because of contamination possibilities, what happened to each hand swab (a) right, (b) left hand, (c) head, and (d) the control samples? Moreover, which swabs were sent back to the Lab' disguised as a different set of hand swabs bearing the exhibit reference DRH/44 - Lab' item no.75? Did all the previous four swabs (a, b, c and d) get sent back to the Lab', or was it a case of (c) the head swab, and (d) the control swab, being sent back to the Lab' disguised as the two (a, and b) hand swabs? Was this why there were low amounts of lead deposit detected upon the second lot of swabs , because the swabs had been substituted after they had been returned to Essex police, and that the low deposit of lead related to (c) the head, and (d) the control swabs?
I can't understand and it has never yet been explained properly as to how swabs that were sent to the Lab' as early as the 9th August 1985, bearing the exhibit reference of DRH/33 - Lab' item no.17 , were rejected for specific reasons, yet many weeks later once the nature of the investigation changed direction, the Lab' suddenly accepts them albeit disguised as exhibit DRH/44 - Lab' item no. 75, and proceeds to test them? Why didn't anyone who received them at the lab' on the second occasion, realise that these 'swabs' had already been rejected previously, since although the police tampered with the exhibit references of one of the two submissions, the same officer, DC Hammersley had supposedly taken these swabs at the scene prior to the plastic hand and head bags had been placed upon those parts of Sheila's body?
The first exhibit label (DRH/33 - Lab' item no.17, must have contained DC Hammersleys signature, and identifying mark attached to the first swab kit, and also to the second swab kit sent later disguised as exhibit DRH/44 - Lab' item no.75? The signature on the second label had to be the original signature on the first label, otherwise DC Hammersley has implicated himself in the criminal act of forgery, and perverting the course of justice! The real problem lies with the manner with which Essex police and the Lab' support staff who receive exxhibits from the police that get examined, ought really to have been aware that the hand swabs could not be examined legitimately on or after the second submission of them if these were the very same swabs that had all been rejecteed earlier or previously...
And, then there is the little matter of the two bibles that were found in the main bedroom, exhibits DRH/33 and DRH/44...
Linked to this of course, is the other rather telling feature, that originally, the plastic bags which DC Hammersley had placed upon both hands of Sheila, and the plastic bag he placed upon Sheila's head, had also been given the exhibit references, DRH/31, DRH/32 and DRH/33...
Seems to me that Jeremy Bamber has been stitched up with the hand swab evidence which should never have been admitted into the trial, particularly in view of all these inconsistencies, and contradictions involving the exhibit references DRH/33 and DRH/44, Lab' item no.17 and Lab' item no.75, a left hand swab, a right hand swab, a head swab, and a control sample swab, one bible, another bible, a plastic bag placed upon Sheila's left hand, another plastic bag placed upon Sheila Caffells right hand, and yet another plastic bag placed upon Sheila Caffells head!
How can this concoction of fabricated evidence have been relied upon in any court of law to help prove in favour of the prosecutions case that Sheila could not have handled bullets or fired any gun?
It's absurd and outrageous!
This particular feature of evidence which formed part and parcel of the prosecutions case is evidence (like the silencer evidence, where it has so many different exhibit references against its existence - SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and eventually DRB/1) which was clearly fabricated and introduced dishonestly, all the ingredients are there for anybody who cares to look or investigate this matter!
These inconsistencies alone should render the convictions unsafe, because the silencer evidence and the hand swab evidence were vital parts of the prosecutions story - Sheila couldn't have removed the silencer from the guns barrel after she had supposedly killed herself on the main bedroom floor, oh and with the silencer attached to the end of the guns barrel the overall length of the weapon thus configured would have rendered it impossible for Sgheila to have shot and killed herself, even if she had wanted to! Then the dodgy hand swab evidence which indicated in the strongest terms possible that not only could Sheila not have handled any of the bullets which needed to have been loaded into the magazine of the rifle, but it also supported the case for her not to have fired the gun at all!
