My questions
READ R V GEORGE 2007
Considered most likely outcome of GSR in the coat
It has been considered in the Court of Appeal (R v George, 2007) that the FDR evidence, that was found in the coat pocket of the prime suspect, is considered to
- The Court concluded that the FDR evidence was capable of supporting the Prosecution case; and that its weight was a matter for the jury.
Were the 2 propositions considered in 2007 appeal thing?
two propositions for Dr Ian Evett (expert witness):
- an event that formed part of the prosecution case occurred
- the even did not occur
- Dr Evett discussed the FDR evidence with a colleague in conversation - led to understand that the evidence give a neutral effect and gave no positive support to the the proposition that the appellant fired the gun.
- when Dr Evett and Mr Keeley met to discuss the confusion they drew 2 new appropriate conclusions relating to the examinations carried out on the appellant's coat.
- the 2 new propositions:
- the appellant was the man who shot Jill Dando
- the appellant was not the man who shot Jill Dando
- likelihood of no FDR particle - 99 in 100 on either proposition
- likelihood of one or fewer particles - 1 in 100 on either proposition
- likelihood of lots of particles - 1 in 100 on either proposition
- significance of this in Mr Keeley's opinion - findings made the single particle was neutral
- no more likely to have come from the gun than from some extraneous source
- Mr Keeley confirmed with Dr Evett that he considered the single particle is of neutral evidential value.
- Dr Evett reviewed the judge's summing up and said it was unbalanced in the way the FDR evidence was presented to the jury
- paid lots of attention to how unlikely the particle would have come from an extraneous source - paid little attention to the fact it was equally unlikely that the particle would have come from the gun
- due to the confusion in this case the FSS introduced guidelines on the assessment, interpretation and reporting of firearms chemistry cases - huge statement released
- any positive finding has to be declared - including a comparison of the composition/type. because its such a small amount there is a limit to the amount of interpretation that can be done - including lack of background info
- has been considered that the presence of residue in the environment is very rare - people involved in firearms may pick up the odd particle - lifestyle issue. this has become an increasing trend for investigators
- hard to say when or how a single FDR particle is deposited - cannot be determined if they are the last remains or from a contaminated source
- in recent years, increase in criminal use of firearms and firearms officers - no data on environmental occurrence of FDR to say how a single particle got there
- FSS say the LOW levels of residue may have some value - investigators must be aware that in most cases it is unlikely any evidential weight can be attached to the finding
- according to this report, the particle was re examined by Dr Moynehan and Miss Shaw and the conclusions drawn up were:
- the particle is indistinguishable from some by the round of ammunition from the gun - high proportion of this ammunition can produce these particles
- just as likely that particle of discharge would have been recovered from the coat pocket - whether or not they shot Dando
- consider the FDR findings as inconclusive
Conclusion
Significance of the findings can be put into context with 2 alternative propositions:
· Mr George is the man who shot Dando
· Mr George had nothing to do with the crime
· In their opinion – probability of finding a single particle of residue in the coat pocket would have been the same even with the two propositions
· The FDR evidence is inconclusive – gives no assistance to anyone
· Dr Moynehan – said that the particle evidence was inconclusive and had no evidential value
· Also said that Dr Evett and Mr Keeley’s discussion was a subjective matter
· Dr Evett – confirmed accuracy and said he is not an FDR expert and not possible to be precise
· Relevance – relative magnitude of figures
· Mr Keeley – confirmed accuracy and said he had the opinion that the FDR evidence was of neutral value.
· He also stated that he would have followed the FSS guidelines if they was given to him
· Necessary to balance the likelihood that the particle came from the gun and the likelihood it came from another source
· Both unlikely – both possible
· Couldn’t say one was more likely than the other – particle provided no support for the proposition that the wearer of the coat fired the gun
· Mr Keeley – no more likely that the single particle of FDR came from a fired gun at the time of the murder that it came from another source
· Dr Renshaw – unlikely that the particle had resulted from secondary contamination of the coat, equally unlikely that it was the result of him firing the gun a year ago
Can the GSR have no evidential weight?
If presented at pre-trial should the evidence be admitted?
Was the FDR evidence presented properly and fairly?
- Talk about Dr Evett and Mr Keeley