The Fragmented Bullet Controversy

[Erik Narramore]

In the absence of stronger evidence, I must dismiss this theory.

I believe the key factor is the frangibility of the bullet.  The bullets are very small and, as a general rule of thumb and all things being equal, a hollow point is less frangible; and, while it may still deform and expand under impact with bone, actual fragmentation could be missed.

What could have happened is:

Dr. Vanezis correctly notes the retrieved projectile is part of a bullet, thus PV20 is 'fragmented'.

Fletcher records the same exhibit as a 'whole' bullet, either because he is less precise in his observations than Dr. Vanezis and does not notice that he has a fragmented piece of a bullet, or due to clerical error.

Thus, we have an apparent paradox in which a fragmented bullet becomes whole, but the explanation is merely a mundane inconsistency in the recording of the same exhibit.

[Erik Narramore]

Fletcher recorded PV20 as a whole bullet.  That was incorrect, but the error may be simply because he mistakenly thought he was looking at a whole bullet.  An inexperienced or pressured person could easily make that mistake because the bullets are very small indeed and hollow points aren't particularly frangible and tend to just deform or expand/splay on hard impact, meaning that fragmentation could be missed.

It would be a serious error for a court expert to make, but I'm not exactly lavishing him with praise.

[Erik Narramore]

I can't think of a reason why Fletcher would intentionally tamper with the bullet.  He wasn't a police officer.  He was a civil servant.  Wouldn't he have just blown the whistle, if asked to do something improper?  And why would the police cover up killing Sheila?  Surely they would report it and say she had a gun, and that's that.  If the police accidentally shot Sheila while she was prone, that must have been with the Anschutz rifle, so again, what is the issue for the police with the bullet?

I don't mind conspiracy theories so much, but they do have to make some sense.

[Erik Narramore]

The FSS were formally independent of the police.  Individual FSS scientists assisted both the prosecution and defence.  Malcolm Fletcher was a civil servant, not a police officer.  These are all facts.

Please explain what possible motive Malcolm Fletcher had to knowingly frame an innocent man.

I can accept that Mr Fletcher made mistakes, and he may also have lied or misled the court about his work in order to cover up errors and mistakes.  I accept that is plausible.  That sort of behaviour seems to be a recurring feature of miscarriages of justice, and it seems to me that his evidence is one of three major weak points in the prosecution case.

But the defence are going one step further.  I think for him to lie in order to frame somebody as part of a massive cover-up really is a bit of stretch.  Surely the line of least resistance for Mr Fletcher would have been to run to his superiors and blow the whistle on it all?

[Erik Narramore]

For those on the innocent side who point to the multiplicity of 'convenient mistakes' in this case, my response is:

Explanation 1: Jeremy is guilty and the evidence broadly reflects it.

Explanation 2: As you say, Fletcher's innocent or negligent mistakes and errors just happened to dovetail neatly with the prosecution case (if you want to interpret it as favouring the prosecution case - as I explain below, you don't have to).

The reason for Explanation 2 would be that Fletcher, being human as well as an expert, will be guided in his work by the dominant narrative given to him by the police.  It's rare that a scientist will think against it unless he finds something that incontrovertibly goes against what the police hypothesise.

The police may say: "We think the culprit is this person and we think this is what happened and he did it this way.  Let us know what you find."

It's no surprise that he then finds something that happens to dovetail with the police narrative.  It's what you'd expect, as long as there is something to find.

But what he found is open to interpretation.  As I've explained, the pull-through test was never reliable, but if you accept the result at face value, you could interpret it in Jeremy's favour (subject to further expert evidence from somebody who knows about fluid dynamics/tension dynamics as it applies to blood and ballistics).

One way to prevent dominant biases is to ensure that there are two different scientists/experts examining the same evidence, so that there is somebody available to challenge whatever is the dominant assumption.

[Erik Narramore]

I think there is some uncertainty about exactly what bullets were used where, and it is possible that different bullets were used.  What we can say is that the bullets are very small and, as a general rule of thumb and all things being equal, a hollow point is less frangible than a regular bullet; and, while it may still deform and expand under impact with bone, actual fragmentation of a hollow point could be missed, ignored or overlooked by an expert who is not examining the bullets closely or simply isn't bothering to consider it.

This may account for some of the discrepancies between the observations of different experts.  A forensic pathologist could retrieve fragments and note they are part of bullets, and thus, by a process of deduction, conclude and note that certain bullets are 'fragmented'.  A ballistic expert, on the other hand, may be less careful and precise in his observations, as it may seem a less important question to him and he may not notice that a particular bullet is fragmented.  On possible reason for this is that a ballistic expert may simply assume that all bullets fragment to some degree on impact.

We have an apparent paradox in which a fragmented bullet becomes whole, but the explanation could be merely a mundane inconsistency in the recording of the same exhibit.

When I mentioned this before, Roch on the Blue Forum challenged me by saying that this is a startling mistake for Fletcher to make, implying that there must be some intent involved.  Indeed, it is a serious mistake for a court expert to make, and I am not lavishing Malcolm Fletcher with praise.  Nevertheless, it could just be a mistake and nothing else.  That said, one point that slightly goes against what I am saying is that Malcolm Fletcher seems to have had not much personal experience with guns.  It would be interesting to know in how many other other firearms cases he was called as a ballistic expert, whether for the prosecution or the defence.

As an aside, I believe Major Mead did put bullets under close examination and/or photographed them.