It is often said had SC been the perp then she would have looked different. I assume what is meant by this is lack of any obvious marks to her body and bloodstaining to her nightdress and person.
I would have no idea how the perp would look as I don't have any direct comparisons available.No injuries
The autopsy notes SC had a small graze to the left lumbar region covered by a dressing. It seems this is as much as we know. No idea whether the graze and dressing were new or old or any possible causes. Nightdress
According to the lab SC's nightdress contained two small holes and some blackening indicative of a burn. No idea about the possible causes.Lack of bloodstaining on SC's person and nightdress
The type of blood testing used in this case, blood serology testing, requires samples of a certain size.
A .22 calibre rifle with or without a silencer attached and sub-sonic ammo are amongst the least likely of firearms and ammo to result in high impact back spatter. Impact spatter determined by velocity. High impact back spatter from gsw's presents as a fine mist spray so even if present would those at the lab observe and recognise and even if they did how would they test it? Numerous porous bloodstained items were tested and found to be inconclusive.
Only two areas of SC's nightdress were tested.
Afaik blood from SC's person wasn't tested.
It seems clear the perp beat NB using the rifle however bloodstaining on the rifle was of such small quantity it wasn't possible to type it so why would it follow that SC would sustain blood on her person/nightdress from such a beating? And even if she did, if it wasn't possible to type the blood on the rifle how would it have been possible to type it on SC's nightdress/person? Lack of GSR on SC's person and nightdress
As I understand GSR covers all discharge material from firearms but mainly primer and propellant. The rifle was discharged at least 13 times in the main bedroom - and landing/stairs for those who believe NB sustained his gsw's there - so surely whether SC's gsw's were self-inflicted or JB shot her she was in an environment where GSR was present.
SC's person/nightdress wasn't swabbed at soc. In fact afaik SC's nightdress wasn't swabbed for the presence of GSR at any stage. SC's hands were swabbed at PM but by this stage any GSR present may have been lost during transfer from WHF to path lab. Also SC's hands were placed in plastic bags and the bags were not forensically analysed.
Whether JB murdered SC or SC took her own life then clearly the rifle was discharged twice over her body with the rifle lying over her body and on her nightdress with ejection port facing down. Therefore if any GSR was present and/or gun oil then surely it would be found on her nightdress/person regardless?
Solicitor and CCRC commissioner Ewan Smith calls it a "disgrace" that all trial exhibits, including SC's nightdress, were destroyed. http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/2001/03/12/BSP120301024/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1
The CoA took an equally dim view:165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.
Had EP not destroyed exhibits it is almost certain modern forensic science would either seal JB's fate or be capable of overturning his conviction.
Why did EP take it upon themselves to destroy all exhibits in JB's case against their own procedures? Was it a genuine oversight or something sinister?