Summary of Dr Murray’s Evidence;

Dr Murray had ruled out any innocent explanation for an alleged trace of explosive residue being present on my left hand. It was unknown at trial that Dr Murray had left many variables unexplored that could have determined that innocent contamination had not occured (Pages 12 & 15 Dr Lloyd’s Report). His evidence would have wrongly influenced the Trial Judge and the Appeal Court. The court determined that it could not account for how or from where I may have picked it up and for that reason it was left out of account. This is not a neutral matter as suggested because if such a trace had existed and there could be no innocent explanation for it as alleged by Dr Murray then I would have been in illegal possession of explosives regardless of when and where. That has influenced the Trial Judge and subsequent Appeal Courts ever since. The Court could also be forgiven for presuming Dr Murray, as a scientist, to conduct all forensic analysis in an ethically accountable and professional manner and as such be reasonably persuaded by his evidence.

It is now known that there is no basis to this alleged claim by Dr Murray other than his say so (Page 15 Dr Lloyd’s Report worked on the presumption that it was true). The proper and professional method required to determine the presence of such traces involves the careful collection of data. This data in itself is meaningless until it is then processed mathematically using a method known in statistic computation as standard deviation. Dr Murray kept no chemical samples for independent analysis or any calculations for independent examination (Page 15 Dr Lloyd’s Report).

Statistical standard deviation calculations require that all accumulated data be laid out in an orderly fashion in a series of rows and columns. A series of complex calculations are then performed before arriving at the results which can only then be entered into the following penultimate equation;

The result from the above equation is then entered into the final equation;

Clearly, this is not a simple process that can be calculated in a persons head. There is absolutely no evidence to demonstrate that Dr Murray ever performed this process (Page 15 Dr Lloyd’s Report). This is a very serious matter and the Trial Judge was greatly disadvantaged in not knowing this. The trial judge in declaring the forensics as being “neutral” denied me proper recourse to exonerating evidence because the judge had been persuaded to balance it against the fictitious nature of Dr Murray’s evidence (The General Medical Council and Sir Roy Meadow with Her Majesty’s Attorney General [2006] EWCA Civ 1390).