0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ask yourself why the swabs were rejected and you will have your answer Bridget. The fact that they were rejected was that they had arrived with weapons and, there was a risk of contamination. Yet we have Sheila who had two shots fired into her body and no one scarp of residue found on her......Why? Over to you
Thankyou Patti and Bridget for your knowledgeable, and interesting interaction on this GSR topic. IMHO you are jointly awarded the Kay Scarpetta title, for forensic analysis!!
They were rejected because that was standard practice, because of the risk of contamination as you say. But it doesn't follow that a person who just touches that part of the gun would be similarly contaminated. Clearly swabs submitted with other firearms could come into contact with any part of them, including the muzzle.There was residue found on her, around her wounds. The fact these were contact or close contact shots would prevent the residue from spreading far.
Campion my money's on Patti a more honest genuine person you couldn't find just looking for the truthWhy people should be on this forum
Of course it does Bridget...Particles can be transferred from one place to another....You can't tell me she was so clean not to have 1 particle upon her; having endured two shots and her touching the weapon......It's strikes me as being impossible. There can only be two answers.........
I'm not telling you that. There was GSR on her, around her wounds but not on her hands. There were also very low levels of lead deposits on her hands.
I have emailed a scientist in Newcastle...I need to know these things... I don't know if you are aware, but her nightdress was only visually inspected and the none expert that looked at the bottom of her nightdress said there was no residue. The levels on her hands were of someone who does day to day things around the house....If this scientist does not reply, then I will email Cameron....Lol...
I love delving Jackie....
What are you asking him? I think you're right that they only did a visual inspection, but I wonder if that's because they didn't have the capability to do the tests they can do now? I keep stumbling over that SEM test they now use, which is so discriminating that they can actually match up GSR from one source with GSR from another (for example GSR on a body with GSR obtained from a suspect weapon). I guess that must mean that different types of ammunition must produce different levels of the components in GSR.
That is absolutely correct Bridget....it's like DNA it has a finger print. To be honest with you I am unsure what test they used in 1986....I feel sure test have somewhat improved since then, but all the evidence has been destroyed, even though an application was submitted for it not to be.....I have asked him two questions....If the answers are too my liking then, they will not be posted
No fair!You may find this interesting, it's a study into how GSR gets deposited on the shooter's hands. It was written in the early 80's so would be consistant with the knowledge as it was then:http://library-resources.cqu.edu.au/JFS/PDF/vol_42/iss_4/JFS424970571.pdf
The date on it is 1997 by the way. Also they were firing a shotgun. A .22 rifle is nowhere hear what they were testing. In fact I should think you would get the deposit roughly the same as a cap gun? I doubt very much if Sheila's hands would be contaminated enough from a .22 rifle, where the deposit is directed away anyway from the shooters hands and would certainly not travel back onto them? I personally believe that far too much is made of this non contaminated hands stuff.Perhaps ngb would like to try this out with his .22 rifle just to see how much contaminant is found on his hands?
thank you. I've a feeling we haven't finished yet!
Quote from: campion on Today at 05:41 PM You do realise the irony in this don't you?
I'm guessing Kay Scarpetta is rubbish?
