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 
Were the 2 propositions considered in 2007 appeal thing?
two propositions for Dr Ian Evett (expert witness):
  1. an event that formed part of the prosecution case occurred 
  2. the even did not occur
  1. the appellant was the man who shot Jill Dando
  2. the appellant was not the man who shot Jill Dando
  1. 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 
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
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?