Stan Jones and EP contaminating the silencer:

[david1819]

You are in error.  The moderator is perfectly sound in the eyes of the law. It was actually wrapped in a toilet paper type tube (the cardboard thing that toilet paper/paper towels are wrapped around). Their handling would at worst eliminate some evidence like fingerprints not add the blood that ended up being the crucial evidence.

There is no way to accidentally spray blood inside so it lands on the first 8 baffles.  The only way for it to have gotten there is by firing the weapon against someone's body or to deliberately spray it inside using some device.  So the only viable argument is to argue intentional planting but that woudl require a number of things:

1) knowing the fatal shot was a contact wound
2) knowing the fatal wound would result in drawback
3) knowing a method to mimick drawback
4) knowing her blood type and finding a source of such blood or finding a source of her won wet blood
5) using a device to pray the blood inside so it lands on the first 8 baffles
6) having access to the rifle and removing blood from inside the rifle. 

The family lacked the above and even the police lacked many of the above.  Realistically only the lab would have the knowhow to plant the blood.  The lab would have to have planted it right away though because records show that on 9/14/85 (one day after it was turned over to the lab) they notified police that it had human blood and paint. Furthermore they would have had to have engaged the family and certain police to lie and say they saw blood before the lab planted it.   

If the lab had engaged in such then it would have typoe tested the blood right away (all they did in August was a test to detemrine whether the blood was human or not in September is when they type tested it) not waited another month for police to fingerprint it and superglue fume it. Furthermore the lab on 8/14/85 had no clue that Sheila had died from a contact shot that came later after Vanezis submitted his report (in September).  So th elab would not have had a way to know that planting blood would be good let alone had some motive to do so. 

The moderator was not destroyed it was tested for DNA and still is held as evidence though there is no blood evidence inside it anymore at this point so new testing would be of no value.

The Silencer can't be used as a forensic exhibit due how it was handled. Not by todays standards

It would be invaluable to learn more about this evidence, using scientific techniques available today.

But this is impossible because Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits, including all the blood-based samples, in February 1996.

Those responsible insisted they had not realised that the exhibits might be needed - yet ever since the conviction, this case had been a hot topic.

In February 1996, it was still under consideration by the Home Office and was one of the first to be transferred to the new Criminal Cases Review Commission, which said the destruction of scientific exhibits was "in breach of the force's own guidelines

http://murderpedia.org/male.B/b/bamber-jeremy.htm

[scipio_usmc]

The Silencer can't be used as a forensic exhibit due how it was handled. Not by todays standards


http://murderpedia.org/male.B/b/bamber-jeremy.htm

The blood exhibits that are being referred to as destroyed were blood samples. The moderator was not destroyed and is not a blood exhibit. Blood was removed from it and that blood was destroyed by the testing.

The handling of the moderator doesn't preclude the use of the blood evidence.  It precludes the LCN DNA evidence that was found meaning anything.  If the crime happened today then they would have done a DNA test on the blood that was removed instead of just type testing it.  That would be useful because the blood that was deposite don the 8 baffles could not have been deposited by contamination. I contrast the LCN DNA could have come from contamination and in fact did come from contamination because it was found in areas that there was no blood originally and the moderator tested negative for blood before the swabbing for DNA.  LN DNA was developed to sort out who remains belonged to.  It at best shows someone's DNA was transferred to a location.  When there is no natural innocent way for DNA to have been transferred that is when it is most useful for example when a stranger's DNA is found on or near a body.  LCN DNA is so small there is no way to tell whether it is blood based, saliva based or semen based.  But if you didn't know someone who was raped and your DNA is found on her thigh or crotch you are in trouble because you have no way to explain you DNA naturally contaminating the area. If you did know the person but were not very close ot them so had no reason to be near their thigh recently you still have problems...

The same principles hold true for fingerprints.  Do you have a valid reason for your prints being somewhere that amounts to them getting there innocently?

People keep misrepresenting that the moderator evidence could not be used today and that is patently false.



 

[david1819]

The blood exhibits that are being referred to as destroyed were blood samples. The moderator was not destroyed and is not a blood exhibit. Blood was removed from it and that blood was destroyed by the testing.

The handling of the moderator doesn't preclude the use of the blood evidence.  It precludes the LCN DNA evidence that was found meaning anything.  If the crime happened today then they would have done a DNA test on the blood that was removed instead of just type testing it.  That would be useful because the blood that was deposite don the 8 baffles could not have been deposited by contamination. I contrast the LCN DNA could have come from contamination and in fact did come from contamination because it was found in areas that there was no blood originally and the moderator tested negative for blood before the swabbing for DNA.  LN DNA was developed to sort out who remains belonged to.  It at best shows someone's DNA was transferred to a location.  When there is no natural innocent way for DNA to have been transferred that is when it is most useful for example when a stranger's DNA is found on or near a body.  LCN DNA is so small there is no way to tell whether it is blood based, saliva based or semen based.  But if you didn't know someone who was raped and your DNA is found on her thigh or crotch you are in trouble because you have no way to explain you DNA naturally contaminating the area. If you did know the person but were not very close ot them so had no reason to be near their thigh recently you still have problems...

The same principles hold true for fingerprints.  Do you have a valid reason for your prints being somewhere that amounts to them getting there innocently?

People keep misrepresenting that the moderator evidence could not be used today and that is patently false.

I don't think anyone on this forum including myself can really make a sound argument about LCN DNA. Do we even know what we are talking about?

It has been used in more than 21,000 serious crime cases in the UK and internationally, particularly in "cold" cases. A FSS spokesman said: "LCN DNA analysis is only carried out by the most-experienced DNA scientists, who have undergone special additional training and testing in this area of casework."[5] However, the technique came under attack from the Judge during the trial of Sean Hoey - who was eventually cleared of involvement in the Omagh Bombing. One of the criticisms the judge leveled at LCN was that although the FSS had internally validated and published scientific papers on the technique, there was an alleged lack of external validation by the wider scientific community.[6] Following the Judge's ruling, the use of the technique was suspended in the UK, pending a review by the Crown Prosecution Service. This review was completed and the suspension lifted on the January 14, 2008 with the CPS stating that it had not seen anything to suggest that any current problems exist with LCN".[1]

The increased sensitivity of LCN also increases the risks posed by contamination of samples in the laboratory. Since LCN aims to amplify levels of DNA as low as 100 picograms, even breathing on a sample may contaminate it substantially enough to render the final profile unusable[citation needed]. Contamination is particularly problematic before the sample has undergone amplification because both the suspect's and the contaminator's DNA will be amplified, resulting in a mixed profile. Moreover, the small amounts of DNA that LCN aims to amplify also increase the probability of PCR artifacts appearing on profiles such as stochastic effects.
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number

In other words save it for those that are experience and qualified. 

I have read in many instances that the silencer along with all other blood samples was destroyed 1996. If they still existed today why have they not been under modern examination? The prosecution argued that AK1 adenylate kinase was in the silencer and attributed it to Shelia a poor argument. From what I understand the silencer was put under allot of scrutiny by the defence thus became irrelevant at the trial, it was all down to Jeremy's word against Julie's that would seal the verdict.

[scipio_usmc]

I don't think anyone on this forum including myself can really make a sound argument about LCN DNA. Do we even know what we are talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number

In other words save it for those that are experience and qualified. 

I have read in many instances that the silencer along with all other blood samples was destroyed 1996. If they still existed today why have they not been under modern examination? The prosecution argued that AK1 adenylate kinase was in the silencer and attributed it to Shelia a poor argument. From what I understand the silencer was put under allot of scrutiny by the defence thus became irrelevant at the trial, it was all down to Jeremy's word against Julie's that would seal the verdict.

Listening to what people claim but offer no evidence to support is your first mistake.

LCN DNA testing was not available in 1996 so the fact the moderator was tested using LCN testing proves it was not destroyed.  The blood samples of the victims were destoryed and for that reason they had to obtain DNA profiles of other relatives to use to compare to the DNA found in the moderator.

The same principles that apply to LCN DNA apply to all evidence.  There are limits to what evidence can prove. The value of evidence depends on the circumstances of the case. 

The difference between standard DNA testing and LCN testing is that with rare exception regular DNA testing involves DNA sources of such a large size it had to have come directly from the person.  In contrast LCN testing samples can be so small that they were transferred by a third party.  The theoretical contamination possibility means that there are limits to what it proves but that is true of all evidence.

If my fingerprints are found on a glass at a house where a crime happened and it turns out that I visited the house the day before the crimes occurred and drank during such visit that is an innocent explanation for the prints being there and the prints prove nothing.  If the print are in blood of the victims, the innocent explanation still will not acoc..t for such.  So use of evidence is very fact specific.

I don't knoe what testing you think should be done ot the moderator. It already underwent the most sensitive testing available- LCN DNA testing. Such testing was a waste of time though because it had no ability to prove anything. The key issue is whose blood was removed from the moderator. DNA testing oof the blod that was removed is what was key.  But such blood was destroyed by the blood type tests. There thus was no way to test such for DNA.  In 1985-86 the lab and also a defense expert removed all blood fromt he moderator.  Subsequent tests to the moderator found no blood.  That means if a DNA test were done there is no way to establish any of the DNA found was blood based.  DNA not blood based is worthless in assessing whose blood was inside. Thus there was no reason to do a DNA test but the defense did it anyway and the appeal court ended up predicatbly saying the results were meaningless.

There are no tests to the moderator which would not be meaningless. The only menaingful tests that could be done were if there ended up being some blood removed in 1985-86 that were available for DNA testing.  Chances are the DNA would have degraded too much to get a result but it would be worth a try if such blood remained.  Short of that there is no plausible test that could impact the blood evidence used at trial.

If the crime happened today they would not have bothered doing a type test on the blood found inside they would have done a DNA test on such blood.  The defense would hope that such blood turned out to belong to a victim other than Sheila. The prosecution would hope it belongs to Sheila or Sheila and others.  The reaosn why is simple, if the blood was Sheila's then someone else shot her with the moderator attached then put it away after her death.  If it was a victim other than Sheila it permits the defense to argue Sheila used the moderator to kill the others then removed the moderator and put it away before she killed herself.

The argument is still not a great one because Sheila would not have bothered to go fetch the moderator, attach it and then go put it away. Victim blood inside was bad period for the defense because it implicates Jeremy.  Furthermore if she was killed without the moderator attached her blood should have been in the rifle itself but it wasn't.  So things are still not rosy for the defense but it is even worse when the evidence is that the moderator was used to kill Sheila because it was impossible for her to remove it and put it away after she died.  So in a DNA test the defense would be hoping for the lesser of two evils essentially.

   
 

 

[david1819]

Listening to what people claim but offer no evidence to support is your first mistake.

LCN DNA testing was not available in 1996 so the fact the moderator was tested using LCN testing proves it was not destroyed.  The blood samples of the victims were destoryed and for that reason they had to obtain DNA profiles of other relatives to use to compare to the DNA found in the moderator.

The same principles that apply to LCN DNA apply to all evidence.  There are limits to what evidence can prove. The value of evidence depends on the circumstances of the case. 

The difference between standard DNA testing and LCN testing is that with rare exception regular DNA testing involves DNA sources of such a large size it had to have come directly from the person.  In contrast LCN testing samples can be so small that they were transferred by a third party.  The theoretical contamination possibility means that there are limits to what it proves but that is true of all evidence.

If my fingerprints are found on a glass at a house where a crime happened and it turns out that I visited the house the day before the crimes occurred and drank during such visit that is an innocent explanation for the prints being there and the prints prove nothing.  If the print are in blood of the victims, the innocent explanation still will not acoc..t for such.  So use of evidence is very fact specific.

I don't knoe what testing you think should be done ot the moderator. It already underwent the most sensitive testing available- LCN DNA testing. Such testing was a waste of time though because it had no ability to prove anything. The key issue is whose blood was removed from the moderator. DNA testing oof the blod that was removed is what was key.  But such blood was destroyed by the blood type tests. There thus was no way to test such for DNA.  In 1985-86 the lab and also a defense expert removed all blood fromt he moderator.  Subsequent tests to the moderator found no blood.  That means if a DNA test were done there is no way to establish any of the DNA found was blood based.  DNA not blood based is worthless in assessing whose blood was inside. Thus there was no reason to do a DNA test but the defense did it anyway and the appeal court ended up predicatbly saying the results were meaningless.

There are no tests to the moderator which would not be meaningless. The only menaingful tests that could be done were if there ended up being some blood removed in 1985-86 that were available for DNA testing.  Chances are the DNA would have degraded too much to get a result but it would be worth a try if such blood remained.  Short of that there is no plausible test that could impact the blood evidence used at trial.

If the crime happened today they would not have bothered doing a type test on the blood found inside they would have done a DNA test on such blood.  The defense would hope that such blood turned out to belong to a victim other than Sheila. The prosecution would hope it belongs to Sheila or Sheila and others.  The reaosn why is simple, if the blood was Sheila's then someone else shot her with the moderator attached then put it away after her death.  If it was a victim other than Sheila it permits the defense to argue Sheila used the moderator to kill the others then removed the moderator and put it away before she killed herself.

The argument is still not a great one because Sheila would not have bothered to go fetch the moderator, attach it and then go put it away. Victim blood inside was bad period for the defense because it implicates Jeremy.  Furthermore if she was killed without the moderator attached her blood should have been in the rifle itself but it wasn't.  So things are still not rosy for the defense but it is even worse when the evidence is that the moderator was used to kill Sheila because it was impossible for her to remove it and put it away after she died.  So in a DNA test the defense would be hoping for the lesser of two evils essentially.

   

Interesting. So what was destroyed by police in 1996? some but not all evidence?

Appeal Court Judges in 2002.  "The sound moderator retained by Essex Police was DNA tested by forensic experts working for the CCRC. In 2001 these tests revealed both male and female DNA to be present on the internal baffle plates. The female DNA was ruled not to have come from Sheila."

Its a double edged sword really. A defence could say the LCN DNA tests prove the DNA is not Shelia's but then again could not also state its contaminated by making the first claim.

Its very possible Shelia or Jeremy could have committed the act without the silencer. it could have played no role what so ever

[scipio_usmc]

Interesting. So what was destroyed by police in 1996? some but not all evidence?

Appeal Court Judges in 2002.  "The sound moderator retained by Essex Police was DNA tested by forensic experts working for the CCRC. In 2001 these tests revealed both male and female DNA to be present on the internal baffle plates. The female DNA was ruled not to have come from Sheila."

Its a double edged sword really. A defence could say the LCN DNA tests prove the DNA is not Shelia's but then again could not also state its contaminated by making the first claim.

Its very possible Shelia or Jeremy could have committed the act without the silencer. it could have played no role what so ever

If the moderator played no role there would not have been any blood in it.  The blood got inside by shooting a victim(s) with the moderator attached and it being 1mm or less from the skin of the victim.

The paint on the outside came from the moderator scraping the mantle when Nevill struggled with his killer and the ceiling lamp broke the same manner- the gun was so long with the moderator attached it broke the lamo which was over the table. Obviously the gun was at an angle at the time as they struggled.

You missed the part where the Court of Appeals said Sheila's DNA may or may not have been inside. A defense expert claimed there was not enough of a match to say for sure her blood was inside.  Others though say enough markers matched to statistically say her DNA was inside.  The problem though is that ther eis nothing to establish such DNA was blood based and that is what matters not DNA that got there through contamination while the moderator was being handle post murder. What matters is whose blood was removed and none of that was preserved for DNA testing. Neither the prosecution nor defense anticipated one day doing a DNA test so neither kept any. 

They saved blood samples from the victims until 1996 but in 1996 they were tossed by the police depository. I have repeatedly searched for information on anything else that the defense claims was destroyed post trial but have not seen any evidence except in relation to the blood samples- destruction of the samples is documented.