Could the silencer have been contaminated by bloodied water from the bucket?

[Holly Goodhead]

WARNING! The following involves an experiment which some may find upsetting and/or distasteful.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4048.msg167506.html#msg167506

Offline Naughty Nun
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2037

Re: Potential For The Silencer To Have Been Contaminated And The Judge's Summing Up

« Reply #28 on: March 22, 2013, 02:35:PM »

I carried out a mini experiment last year re the possibility of the silencer being contaminated from the bucket of water containing blood/stained clothing.  There appears to have been an assumption that as Sheila was menstruating that it was menstrual blood.  As per AE's wit stat when she was asked by (SJ) how she knew it was menstrual blood she said that it smelled differently.  I wanted to find out if this was true and if there were any other differences.  This is what I discovered (I would point out that it was Patti who talked me into doing the fuller experiment  ;D)

APPARATUS

3 brand new buckets
3 brand new dish cloths
Cold tap water
Sterilised sharpened kitchen knife
2 bottles Rochefort 10 beer @ 11.3% abv = 7.4 units alcohol
Iphone/music/headphones

METHOD

Used 1 x dish cloth instead of normal tampon to absorb menstrual blood throughout day (a day spent at home).  Around 8 pm (Wed) placed heavily soiled dish cloth in bucket filled with water to about a 1cm depth.

Bolted down two bottles of Rochfort 10 to numb the pain  ;D.  Headphones/music on to drown out the sound of tearing skin  ;D.  Made incision under knee to draw blood sufficient to cover dish cloth as 1 above.  Around 8 pm (Wed) placed heavily soiled dish cloth in bucket filled with water to about a 1cm depth.

Control bowl with clean dish cloth as 1 and 2 above to eliminate any smells from bowl/cloth alone.

RESULTS

Checked for any changes morning and evening: Thu, Fri and Sat.  From Sat morn, but not before, changes took place as follows:

Odour

A barely detectable odour was present.  However the odour from both bowls was identical.  The odour reminded me of rust and was reminiscent of the water that collected in my Dad's water butt which was I believe made out of some sort of metal.  I observed the buckets over one week with water at 1 cm depth and a further week at 10 cm depth and the odour was identical for both buckets.

Colour

Both buckets of water started of a rose colour and from Sat morn turned a slightly darker shade by the end of two weeks the colour resembled deep burgundy/brown.

Consistency

As I lifted the buckets to smell the contents I noticed that a s..m/film began to form on top of the water and around the sides.  When the water level moved from my lifting of the buckets the s..m/film moved from the top and clung to the sides.  Very tiny particles also formed at the bottom.  Looked a little like dark sand  :-\

At the end of week one I topped up the water level to about 10 cm by the end of week two the odour had disappeared (too diluted I assume) and the colour and consistency remained broadly the same just slightly weaker.

CONCLUSION

The contents of bowls 1 and 2 behaved exactly the same at the same time in terms of

- odour
- colour
- consistency

There were no changes in control bucket 3.

When Stan Jones (?) asked AE how she knew it was menstrual blood she said it smelled differently?  What was she comparing it with?  He said make sure you tell the court that.

What exactly was in the buckets and how did they come to be?

Did any of the contents eg s..m, film, or watery blood contaminate the silencer?





 

[goatboy]

WARNING! The following involves an experiment which some may find upsetting and/or distasteful.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4048.msg167506.html#msg167506

Offline Naughty Nun
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2037

Re: Potential For The Silencer To Have Been Contaminated And The Judge's Summing Up

« Reply #28 on: March 22, 2013, 02:35:PM »

I carried out a mini experiment last year re the possibility of the silencer being contaminated from the bucket of water containing blood/stained clothing.  There appears to have been an assumption that as Sheila was menstruating that it was menstrual blood.  As per AE's wit stat when she was asked by (SJ) how she knew it was menstrual blood she said that it smelled differently.  I wanted to find out if this was true and if there were any other differences.  This is what I discovered (I would point out that it was Patti who talked me into doing the fuller experiment  ;D)

APPARATUS

3 brand new buckets
3 brand new dish cloths
Cold tap water
Sterilised sharpened kitchen knife
2 bottles Rochefort 10 beer @ 11.3% abv = 7.4 units alcohol
Iphone/music/headphones

METHOD

Used 1 x dish cloth instead of normal tampon to absorb menstrual blood throughout day (a day spent at home).  Around 8 pm (Wed) placed heavily soiled dish cloth in bucket filled with water to about a 1cm depth.

Bolted down two bottles of Rochfort 10 to numb the pain  ;D.  Headphones/music on to drown out the sound of tearing skin  ;D.  Made incision under knee to draw blood sufficient to cover dish cloth as 1 above.  Around 8 pm (Wed) placed heavily soiled dish cloth in bucket filled with water to about a 1cm depth.

Control bowl with clean dish cloth as 1 and 2 above to eliminate any smells from bowl/cloth alone.

RESULTS

Checked for any changes morning and evening: Thu, Fri and Sat.  From Sat morn, but not before, changes took place as follows:

Odour

A barely detectable odour was present.  However the odour from both bowls was identical.  The odour reminded me of rust and was reminiscent of the water that collected in my Dad's water butt which was I believe made out of some sort of metal.  I observed the buckets over one week with water at 1 cm depth and a further week at 10 cm depth and the odour was identical for both buckets.

Colour

Both buckets of water started of a rose colour and from Sat morn turned a slightly darker shade by the end of two weeks the colour resembled deep burgundy/brown.

Consistency

As I lifted the buckets to smell the contents I noticed that a s..m/film began to form on top of the water and around the sides.  When the water level moved from my lifting of the buckets the s..m/film moved from the top and clung to the sides.  Very tiny particles also formed at the bottom.  Looked a little like dark sand  :-\

At the end of week one I topped up the water level to about 10 cm by the end of week two the odour had disappeared (too diluted I assume) and the colour and consistency remained broadly the same just slightly weaker.

CONCLUSION

The contents of bowls 1 and 2 behaved exactly the same at the same time in terms of

- odour
- colour
- consistency

There were no changes in control bucket 3.

When Stan Jones (?) asked AE how she knew it was menstrual blood she said it smelled differently?  What was she comparing it with?  He said make sure you tell the court that.

What exactly was in the buckets and how did they come to be?

Did any of the contents eg s..m, film, or watery blood contaminate the silencer?

I thought that was you. Oh dear.

[Lindyhop]

^^ I didn't even bother reading.

Poor Sheila. It's not enough that she was murdered in cold blood by her own brother for pennies; her memory continues to be sullied year after year by delusional Bamber apologists.

[scipio_usmc]

WARNING! The following involves an experiment which some may find upsetting and/or distasteful.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4048.msg167506.html#msg167506

Offline Naughty Nun
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2037

Re: Potential For The Silencer To Have Been Contaminated And The Judge's Summing Up

« Reply #28 on: March 22, 2013, 02:35:PM »

I carried out a mini experiment last year re the possibility of the silencer being contaminated from the bucket of water containing blood/stained clothing.  There appears to have been an assumption that as Sheila was menstruating that it was menstrual blood.  As per AE's wit stat when she was asked by (SJ) how she knew it was menstrual blood she said that it smelled differently.  I wanted to find out if this was true and if there were any other differences.  This is what I discovered (I would point out that it was Patti who talked me into doing the fuller experiment  ;D)

APPARATUS

3 brand new buckets
3 brand new dish cloths
Cold tap water
Sterilised sharpened kitchen knife
2 bottles Rochefort 10 beer @ 11.3% abv = 7.4 units alcohol
Iphone/music/headphones

METHOD

Used 1 x dish cloth instead of normal tampon to absorb menstrual blood throughout day (a day spent at home).  Around 8 pm (Wed) placed heavily soiled dish cloth in bucket filled with water to about a 1cm depth.

Bolted down two bottles of Rochfort 10 to numb the pain  ;D.  Headphones/music on to drown out the sound of tearing skin  ;D.  Made incision under knee to draw blood sufficient to cover dish cloth as 1 above.  Around 8 pm (Wed) placed heavily soiled dish cloth in bucket filled with water to about a 1cm depth.

Control bowl with clean dish cloth as 1 and 2 above to eliminate any smells from bowl/cloth alone.

RESULTS

Checked for any changes morning and evening: Thu, Fri and Sat.  From Sat morn, but not before, changes took place as follows:

Odour

A barely detectable odour was present.  However the odour from both bowls was identical.  The odour reminded me of rust and was reminiscent of the water that collected in my Dad's water butt which was I believe made out of some sort of metal.  I observed the buckets over one week with water at 1 cm depth and a further week at 10 cm depth and the odour was identical for both buckets.

Colour

Both buckets of water started of a rose colour and from Sat morn turned a slightly darker shade by the end of two weeks the colour resembled deep burgundy/brown.

Consistency

As I lifted the buckets to smell the contents I noticed that a s..m/film began to form on top of the water and around the sides.  When the water level moved from my lifting of the buckets the s..m/film moved from the top and clung to the sides.  Very tiny particles also formed at the bottom.  Looked a little like dark sand  :-\

At the end of week one I topped up the water level to about 10 cm by the end of week two the odour had disappeared (too diluted I assume) and the colour and consistency remained broadly the same just slightly weaker.

CONCLUSION

The contents of bowls 1 and 2 behaved exactly the same at the same time in terms of

- odour
- colour
- consistency

There were no changes in control bucket 3.

When Stan Jones (?) asked AE how she knew it was menstrual blood she said it smelled differently?  What was she comparing it with?  He said make sure you tell the court that.

What exactly was in the buckets and how did they come to be?

Did any of the contents eg s..m, film, or watery blood contaminate the silencer?

I thought the experiment was going to feature sticking a suppressor in a bucket of water filled with bloody panties.  That is the experiement necessary to test your claim that the suppressor could have been contaminated by being placed in a bucket of bloody water.

Bloody water is not going to leave traces of blood on the 8 first badffles an donly these baffles let alone going to result in blood flakes so little doubt why the experiement was not carried out.

The actual experiment carried out is worthless. Why you even mentioned it is beyond me. 

[Holly Goodhead]

I thought the experiment was going to feature sticking a suppressor in a bucket of water filled with bloody panties.  That is the experiement necessary to test your claim that the suppressor could have been contaminated by being placed in a bucket of bloody water.

Bloody water is not going to leave traces of blood on the 8 first badffles an donly these baffles let alone going to result in blood flakes so little doubt why the experiement was not carried out.

The actual experiment carried out is worthless. Why you even mentioned it is beyond me.

Hello Scipio.
 
I have missed you sooooooo much and hope you have missed me too? 
 
I introduced the experiment post on another thread in context of Ann Eaton's assertion over the smell.  The objective of the experiment was to prove or disprove the smell.

 However you will note the experiment produced a film on top of the water and s..m at the side of the buckets.  I don't feel qualified to say whether this material and/or the bloody water would be capable of producing the four readings that the sample found in the silencer produced: ABO, EAP, AK, Hp and attaching to the silencer in the manner in which it was found and subsequently tested.  As you know the sample was not capable of producing a reading for PGM.  Blood samples taken from the victims were capable of producing all five readings.
 
Scipio before you tell me its rubbish I would prefer to hear from someone qualified in such matters.  You have already stated that you are a lawyer and therefore I think it unlikely that you are a biologist too.

[Myster]

Will a geologist do ?    I hear OP's got one going cheep (well... it is Easter).

[Holly Goodhead]

Will a geologist do ?    I hear OP's got one going cheep (well... it is Easter).

Yes probably. They have a good grounding in biology.  Beggars cant be choosers and as JB has no legal aid it will have to be 'all hands to the deck'.

[scipio_usmc]

Jeremy's defense attorneys are all well awar eof the buckets of water.

They were unable to find any experts to say that blood from the buckets could have been used to taint the suppressor because it is a nonsense claim.

you not only ignore that the water with diluted blood would not be likely to result in a blood type reading, worse yet you again ignore the nature of the blood found.

How could bloody water produce blood chips?

How could a suppresser be submerged in bloody water and not only produce blood chips that are dried to the inside not merely floating around but to also get blood on the first 8 baffles and only these first 8 baffles.  Better yet how could it get blood on these baffles that left microscopic amounts dried to th ebaffles even afte rall visible blood was scraped away?

It's nonsese which is why the defense attorneys didn't waste their time with such BS. 

His defense attorneys actually ar elooking for usable evidence not just making nonsense claims to try fooling gullible members of the public into thinking Jeremy is innocent. That is the bottom line.

[Holly Goodhead]

Jeremy's defense attorneys are all well awar eof the buckets of water.

They were unable to find any experts to say that blood from the buckets could have been used to taint the suppressor because it is a nonsense claim.

you not only ignore that the water with diluted blood would not be likely to result in a blood type reading, worse yet you again ignore the nature of the blood found.

How could bloody water produce blood chips?

How could a suppresser be submerged in bloody water and not only produce blood chips that are dried to the inside not merely floating around but to also get blood on the first 8 baffles and only these first 8 baffles.  Better yet how could it get blood on these baffles that left microscopic amounts dried to th ebaffles even afte rall visible blood was scraped away?

It's nonsese which is why the defense attorneys didn't waste their time with such BS. 

His defense attorneys actually ar elooking for usable evidence not just making nonsense claims to try fooling gullible members of the public into thinking Jeremy is innocent. That is the bottom line.

I have already stated that a biologist is needed to confirm one way or the other.

[Holly Goodhead]

Perhaps I should set up a separate thread for ways in which the silencer may have been contaminated.

I have previously posted that the pathologist did not send the samples, including blood, taken from the victims direct to FSS but handed them to DI Cook and DS Davidson. 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=204.0;attach=704;image

I am aware of police wrongdoing in relation to MoJ's, Stephen Lawrence, Hillsborough, plebgate etc. I would hope that the samples were in tamper proof vials and that a clear audit trail existed as to who exactly had access to them from the pathologist to arriving at FSS to eliminate any police wrongdoing?

AE's wit stat states that when DS Jones collected the silencer from Oak Farm he then stayed for some considerable time drinking whisky with PE.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3580

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3582

Is the above cause for concern?  DS Jones might have had access to the material ie victims' samples and PE as a registered gun dealer might have had access to knowledge concerning the little known phenomenon of back spatter? 

I seem to recall JB said then when DS Jones took his wit stat he drank to the extent that JB made some comment about drink driving.  I guess drinking on duty was par for the course in that era?  I would think now it is a disciplinary offence?

[scipio_usmc]

I have already stated that a biologist is needed to confirm one way or the other.

No ther eis no need for a biologist to disprove it.  You have to produce a biologist who can support the claim using sound science. 

Good lucky finding someone who says that immersing a suppressor in bloody water will result in blood chips adhereng to the inside at all let alone to the first 8 baffles and no others and that microscopic amounts will remain even after the visible chips are removed.

As a practical matter those microscopic traces are precisely what is deposted from drawback that goes inside which depending on various factors can travel several inches.  High velocity spatter contains many such microscopic drops. So what the defense expert found is fully consistent with high velocity back spatter now usually referred to as "drawback".

I already helped you out by explaining what would be required to deposit such blood. Also the flakes.  Wet blood that dried on the surfaces. Sticking a metal object in bloody water is not going to result in the distributions let alone be likely to be able to be throughly tested for type.

If I wanted to advocate for Jeremy I would not waste my time on nonsense like the suppressor being dipped in the water which would not be able to cause the results found.

I would suggest that someone sprayed group A blood inside the suppressor.  Obviously that can't happen by accident it had to be intentional.  To prove the claim I would try to look for evidence of who would have access to knowledge of Sheila's blood type, then access to group A blood and evidence of having something that could be used to spray it inside. Of course there is no evidence to establish this happened and it is far fetched because it requires a conspiracy for it to be accomplished.  Since it is far fetched and there is no evidence it is not enough to establish reasonable doubt.

However, at least it theoretically would be possible.  An unsupported claim that is theoreticalcally possible is better than an unsupported claim that isn't.  The latter makes someone look downright foolish.

If I were going to be making conspiracy allegations I would at least try picking ones theoretically possible instead of looking downright desperate with gibberish.



   

[John]

A contaminated silencer is merely a distraction from the primary evidence in the Bamber case and in the final analysis adds little to what we already know.  The primary evidence against Bamber is unassailable, the moment he introduced the fake telephone call from Nevill was the moment his credibility collapsed. 

He implicated Sheila from the very moment he telephoned the police control room.  When he arrived at the farmhouse shortly after PS Bews he fed him the same load of bull in order to set the scene for what was to follow. The fake telephone call from Nevill claiming that Sheila had the gun was intended to add credibility to his story but all it did was implicate him.  In the final analysis it came down to this, the killer had to be Sheila or Jeremy.  The forensics rule out Sheila for so many reasons.

Had Jeremy Bamber not attempted to implicate his sister he could very well have got away with murder.

[Holly Goodhead]

Perhaps I should set up a separate thread for ways in which the silencer may have been contaminated.

I have previously posted that the pathologist did not send the samples, including blood, taken from the victims direct to FSS but handed them to DI Cook and DS Davidson. 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=204.0;attach=704;image

I am aware of police wrongdoing in relation to MoJ's, Stephen Lawrence, Hillsborough, plebgate etc. I would hope that the samples were in tamper proof vials and that a clear audit trail existed as to who exactly had access to them from the pathologist to arriving at FSS to eliminate any police wrongdoing?

AE's wit stat states that when DS Jones collected the silencer from Oak Farm he then stayed for some considerable time drinking whisky with PE.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3580

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3582

Is the above cause for concern?  DS Jones might have had access to the material ie victims' samples and PE as a registered gun dealer might have had access to knowledge concerning the little known phenomenon of back spatter? 

I seem to recall JB said then when DS Jones took his wit stat he drank to the extent that JB made some comment about drink driving.  I guess drinking on duty was par for the course in that era?  I would think now it is a disciplinary offence?

I have just found the link re the late DS Jones having a drink at Goldhanger and JB making a joke about him drink/driving:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=672

[Myster]

Wrong link, you'll have to try again... although I don't see of what relevance it is. Probably a common practice anyway in police forces throughout the country in the '80's.

[Holly Goodhead]

Wrong link, you'll have to try again... although I don't see of what relevance it is. Probably a common practice anyway in police forces throughout the country in the '80's.

Ooops!  Apologies.  Its about 2/3 down.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1056.0;attach=2206

There's no real relevance and probably part of the culture then.  I just put it in coz it would give me an opportunity to bump it up in the event of Scipio not seeing/responding to the initial post.  I just luv it when he rants at me  You haven't noticed how he goes off on one and tells me I am a liar, have no credibility, have mental health issues, talk gibberish etc, etc?