Trudie Benjamin - 'Why I believe Jeremy Bamber is innocent'.

[Caroline]

But the smears on the rifle were tiny and incapable of blood typing they were so small so how would we know whether tiny transfer stains were a) on SC's nightdress and b) if they were present it wouldn't be possible to blood type the stains anyway.

 

There were smears and splashes all over the rifle - tiny or not, they were visible. How did such splashes and smears get on the rifle while missing Sheila altogether? Someone clobbered Nevil with a force big enough to break a piece off the rifle stock. Venezis described wounds to Nevil's head and face (lacerations and brusing) to be consistent with having reeceived blunt force trauma. Someone beat the crap out of him Holly - if it were Sheila  there is no way she could escape having some on Nevil on her person.

[adam]

There were smears and splashes all over the rifle - tiny or not, they were visible. How did such splashes and smears get on the rifle while missing Sheila altogether? Someone clobbered Nevil with a force big enough to break a piece off the rifle stock. Venezis described wounds to Nevil's head and face (lacerations and brusing) to be consistent with having reeceived blunt force trauma. Someone beat the crap out of him Holly - if it were Sheila  there is no way she could escape having some on Nevil on her person.

As Nigel & Mike have said, it was Sheila's accomplice.

[Holly Goodhead]

There were smears and splashes all over the rifle - tiny or not, they were visible. How did such splashes and smears get on the rifle while missing Sheila altogether? Someone clobbered Nevil with a force big enough to break a piece off the rifle stock. Venezis described wounds to Nevil's head and face (lacerations and brusing) to be consistent with having reeceived blunt force trauma. Someone beat the crap out of him Holly - if it were Sheila  there is no way she could escape having some on Nevil on her person.

According to GH's TT blood staining = thickness and blood smearing = a light surface.  GH refers to five areas.  The illustration attached refers to 6 areas (is there a 7th?  I can't make it out?).  Anyway the 6 I can read are tiny:

3/8 x 3/8
1/8 x 1/16
5/8 x 3/8
1 1/4 x <1/4
1/4 x 1/16
1/4 x 1/16 

The above stains/smears were too small to group:

71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding.On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful.

The rifle sans silencer is 48" long.  If the perp held the rifle by the barrel and wielded blows on NB, which seems likely hence the broken stock, that's some distance between NB and perp.

If any bloodstains transferred to perp (SC imo) during the beating or whilst she was holding the rifle thereafter or when it was resting across her body, these would be smaller than those found on rifle.  And if those on rifle were too small to be typed how do we know what clues the nightdress might have yielded using DNA testing had it not been destroyed against police protocol?  Only 2 areas of blood staining to the the nightdress were tested: under the arm and one of the marks which gives the appearance of finger.  The tests were consistent with SC's blood group but what about all the other smaller stains on her nightdress?

There's no evidence where the blood on the rifle came from.  It seems a racing cert NB was beaten with the rifle but he sustained 7 gsw's and lacerations from the beating.  Did the blood on the rifle transfer from his gsw's during the beating?

[Caroline]

According to GH's TT blood staining = thickness and blood smearing = a light surface.  GH refers to five areas.  The illustration attached refers to 6 areas (is there a 7th?  I can't make it out?).  Anyway the 6 I can read are tiny:

3/8 x 3/8
1/8 x 1/16
5/8 x 3/8
1 1/4 x <1/4
1/4 x 1/16
1/4 x 1/16 

The above stains/smears were too small to group:

71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding.On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful.

The rifle sans silencer is 48" long.  If the perp held the rifle by the barrel and wielded blows on NB, which seems likely hence the broken stock, that's some distance between NB and perp.

If any bloodstains transferred to perp (SC imo) during the beating or whilst she was holding the rifle thereafter or when it was resting across her body, these would be smaller than those found on rifle.  And if those on rifle were too small to be typed how do we know what clues the nightdress might have yielded using DNA testing had it not been destroyed against police protocol?  Only 2 areas of blood staining to the the nightdress were tested: under the arm and one of the marks which gives the appearance of finger.  The tests were consistent with SC's blood group but what about all the other smaller stains on her nightdress?

There's no evidence where the blood on the rifle came from.  It seems a racing cert NB was beaten with the rifle but he sustained 7 gsw's and lacerations from the beating.  Did the blood on the rifle transfer from his gsw's during the beating?

I know they were too small to group, but they weren't too small to see and the smears had to be caused by the rifle touching against something - that's what 'smears' are. Sheila's hand were supposedly clean, so what caused the smears and how did Sheila manage to escape staining her nightdress when both the floor and kitchen units did not? Wielding such a blow would cause blood to spray - even if Nevil were dead at the time, surface blood would spray due to just being hit by the rifle, like jumping in a puddle.

[Holly Goodhead]

I know they were too small to group, but they weren't too small to see and the smears had to be caused by the rifle touching against something - that's what 'smears' are. Sheila's hand were supposedly clean, so what caused the smears and how did Sheila manage to escape staining her nightdress when both the floor and kitchen units did not? Wielding such a blow would cause blood to spray - even if Nevil were dead at the time, surface blood would spray due to just being hit by the rifle, like jumping in a puddle.

There are numerous visible stains on SC's nightdress isolated from one another.  Only 2 large stains were tested: under her arm and one of the marks resembling a finger. 

The smears on the rifle could well have been caused during the blows NB sustained.  If the rifle was used in this way the chances are the movements involved an element of swiping.

Afaik the blood stains on the kitchen worktop and floor were not tested or if they were the results are unknown.  This begs the question why they were not tested or if they were why are the results unknown?  DC Hammersley describes the blood stains to the kitchen floor as a "light distribution" and this seems to be an extension of the blood trail from the landing and stairs originating from NB's upstairs gsw's.  Based on the pathological evidence ie NB's hands blood stained and SC's free of blood stains it would seem the stains on the kitchen worktop originate from NB.  I don't see how any of this would transfer to SC/nightdress?

The blows NB sustained from a "blunt instrument", in all probability the rifle, resulted in lacerations.  I don't believe type of wound has the potential to cause blood spatter.  There was no evidence of skin tissue adhering to the rifle.  The blood on the rifle probably originated from NB's gsw's ie the rifle used to wield blows and coming into contact with surfaces already blood stained. 

 

[Caroline]

There are numerous visible stains on SC's nightdress isolated from one another.  Only 2 large stains were tested: under her arm and one of the marks resembling a finger. 

The smears on the rifle could well have been caused during the blows NB sustained.  If the rifle was used in this way the chances are the movements involved an element of swiping.

Afaik the blood stains on the kitchen worktop and floor were not tested or if they were the results are unknown.  This begs the question why they were not tested or if they were why are the results unknown?  DC Hammersley describes the blood stains to the kitchen floor as a "light distribution" and this seems to be an extension of the blood trail from the landing and stairs originating from NB's upstairs gsw's.  Based on the pathological evidence ie NB's hands blood stained and SC's free of blood stains it would seem the stains on the kitchen worktop originate from NB.  I don't see how any of this would transfer to SC/nightdress?

The blows NB sustained from a "blunt instrument", in all probability the rifle, resulted in lacerations.  I don't believe type of wound has the potential to cause blood spatter.  There was no evidence of skin tissue adhering to the rifle.  The blood on the rifle probably originated from NB's gsw's ie the rifle used to wield blows and coming into contact with surfaces already blood stained. 

 

He didn't say worktops Holly and whether there is  alight distribution or not, you would expect to find blood on a perp who have bludgeoned someone in such a manner.

[Holly Goodhead]

He didn't say worktops Holly and whether there is  alight distribution or not, you would expect to find blood on a perp who have bludgeoned someone in such a manner.

But we don't know that there wasn't blood on SC's person/nightdress from victims.  And if there wasn't and she was the perp there might be reasons  for this that a pathologist and blood stain analyst could provide.

Had the perp taken a kitchen knife to NB then yes that would be different.  The perp would be covered in blood.  But there was some distance between NB and perp due to the length of the rifle and the pathologist describes the injuries being caused by a "blunt instrument" which wouldn't necessarily cause blood to spatter or transfer to perp.  The injuries in terms of cuts to the skin resulting in the production of blood were superficial ie abrasions not deep penetrating cuts. 

[Caroline]

But we don't know that there wasn't blood on SC's person/nightdress from victims.  And if there wasn't and she was the perp there might be reasons  for this that a pathologist and blood stain analyst could provide.

Had the perp taken a kitchen knife to NB then yes that would be different.  The perp would be covered in blood.  But there was some distance between NB and perp due to the length of the rifle and the pathologist describes the injuries being caused by a "blunt instrument" which wouldn't necessarily cause blood to spatter or transfer to perp.  The injuries in terms of cuts to the skin resulting in the production of blood were superficial ie abrasions not deep penetrating cuts.

Blood Spatter in Blunt Force Trauma
As in most crime scenes blood spatter pattern analysis can provide vital evidence in determining what actually happened during the commission of the crime. Blunt trauma to most of the body may not produce significant blood spatter since most of the blunt force damage will be to internal organs. Blunt trauma to the head and neck, on the other hand, almost always results in a series of characteristic blood spatter patterns. The blood spatter is characteristic of medium velocity blood spatter resulting from an external force of greater than five feet per second (fps) but less than twenty-five fps. Blunt force trauma also produces cast-off blood spatter as blood is thrown from the weapon as it is raised and then brought down on the victim each additional time. This spatter can occur on ceilings, walls and floor depending on the force and direction of the inflicted blows. In the process the victim’s blood is also transferred to the blunt object and can usually be recovery from the weapon once it is identified.

https://www.officer.com/investigations/article/10249149/death-by-blunt-force-trauma

[Holly Goodhead]

Blood Spatter in Blunt Force Trauma
As in most crime scenes blood spatter pattern analysis can provide vital evidence in determining what actually happened during the commission of the crime. Blunt trauma to most of the body may not produce significant blood spatter since most of the blunt force damage will be to internal organs. Blunt trauma to the head and neck, on the other hand, almost always results in a series of characteristic blood spatter patterns. The blood spatter is characteristic of medium velocity blood spatter resulting from an external force of greater than five feet per second (fps) but less than twenty-five fps. Blunt force trauma also produces cast-off blood spatter as blood is thrown from the weapon as it is raised and then brought down on the victim each additional time. This spatter can occur on ceilings, walls and floor depending on the force and direction of the inflicted blows. In the process the victim’s blood is also transferred to the blunt object and can usually be recovery from the weapon once it is identified.

https://www.officer.com/investigations/article/10249149/death-by-blunt-force-trauma

The above article states that such spatter results from an external force of > 5 ft/ps but < 25 ft/ps.  Dr Vanezis stated  that the force was difficult to estimate for all the non gsw injuries other than the parietal laceration which he describes as a "severe superficial skin injury" which was delivered with a "considerable degree of force". 

A superficial skin injury:

An abrasion is a wound caused by superficial damage to the skin, no deeper than the epidermis. It is less severe than a laceration, and bleeding, if present, is minimal.

So no I don't think it necessarily follows that the non gsw's NB sustained would result in blood spatter.  The blood on the rifle was of such small quantity it was only possible to perform the KM test to confirm it was blood and human in origin.  Only 2 large blood stains were tested on SC's nightdress and shown to originate from her.  I have a good quality hard copy soc image of SC, courtesy of David, it appears authentic and I can see what appear to be 2 small blood stains near the wood part of the rifle to SC's right.  However even if it is blood I don't see what it can prove in terms of how it came to be there.  Maybe a BSA could say it was there direct from victim to perp but I don't see how transfer from rifle to SC can be ruled out and then it's a case of how the rifle came to be on SC's person!?

*The burn mark to SC's nightdress and black particles appear to have fallen under the radar along with any small blood stains.  Lost forever since the nightdress was destroyed against police procedures.

* Looking at the image I mentioned this appears to be to SC's left and well away from the rifle.  David has suggested in the past it was caused by heat from the ejection port/vents.

[Caroline]

The above article states that such spatter results from an external force of > 5 ft/ps but < 25 ft/ps.  Dr Vanezis stated  that the force was difficult to estimate for all the non gsw injuries other than the parietal laceration which he describes as a "severe superficial skin injury" which was delivered with a "considerable degree of force". 

A superficial skin injury:

An abrasion is a wound caused by superficial damage to the skin, no deeper than the epidermis. It is less severe than a laceration, and bleeding, if present, is minimal.

So no I don't think it necessarily follows that the non gsw's NB sustained would result in blood spatter.  The blood on the rifle was of such small quantity it was only possible to perform the KM test to confirm it was blood and human in origin.  Only 2 large blood stains were tested on SC's nightdress and shown to originate from her.  I have a good quality hard copy soc image of SC, courtesy of David, it appears authentic and I can see what appear to be 2 small blood stains near the wood part of the rifle to SC's right.  However even if it is blood I don't see what it can prove in terms of how it came to be there.  Maybe a BSA could say it was there direct from victim to perp but I don't see how transfer from rifle to SC can be ruled out and then it's a case of how the rifle came to be on SC's person!?

*The burn mark to SC's nightdress and black particles appear to have fallen under the radar along with any small blood stains.  Lost forever since the nightdress was destroyed against police procedures.

* Looking at the image I mentioned this appears to be to SC's left and well away from the rifle.  David has suggested in the past it was caused by heat from the ejection port/vents.

What burn mark?

[Holly Goodhead]

What burn mark?

We discussed this previously because I recall you saying the cause might have been cigarette ash (you being a smoker or ex smoker).   

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=197.0;attach=653

I have another doc re above on my lappy but I'm out and about at mo on phone.