UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: Holly Goodhead on April 10, 2014, 06:51:46 PM
-
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?
-
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.
-
^^ 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.
-
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.
-
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? 8**8:/:
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.
-
Will a geologist do ? I hear OP's got one going cheep (well... it is Easter).
-
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'.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
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?
There would be a noticable amount missing if the amount of blood in the suppressor had all been diverted from said samples. Moreover the amount taken is normally recorded.
In any event blood was observed in the suppressor before police left with it so it would have to have been a conspiracy of the police and family together.
It also requires figuring out a way to spray the blook in, in a manner that would be consistent with back spatter and thus leave microscopic drops. I don't know if a spray tool of some sort would be able ot be found that could project blood in microscopic drops or not. If not then the planting theory goes out the window as even being possible. As it stands now in theory maybe something could replicate the blodd evidence found but you would need an expert to stestify for sure whether it is possible and then to get some sort of evidence of blood missing from the viles to try to suggest that it did happen. If you can't establish any was missing then that is a dead end.
Another issue is when were the police made aware of the findings that the fatal shot was a contact wound? There would be no ability to set up a back spatter scenario at all if this was not the case. You would eed to demonstrate they were aware of the contact wound and likelihood of back spatter.
Another problem is that back spatter would have been in the rifle so they would have to have cleaned it out before the lab examined it for blood evidence inside.
Last they also would have to have planted the paint on it which again woudl require a conspiracy of police and family together. Why would they bother planting paint in addition to the blood? The paint doesn't prove it was attached when Sheila was shot it could have been removed prior the blood does so there would have been no need for the paint at all.
It takes a whole lot of far fetched things to happen for the suppressor to have doctored and that is why it doesn't amount to reasonable doubt. You need to establish there was a reasonably likelihood the evidence was planted not a far fetched scenario that in theory it could have been.
If they did get together to
-
There would be a noticable amount missing if the amount of blood in the suppressor had all been diverted from said samples. Moreover the amount taken is normally recorded.
In any event blood was observed in the suppressor before police left with it so it would have to have been a conspiracy of the police and family together.
It also requires figuring out a way to spray the blook in, in a manner that would be consistent with back spatter and thus leave microscopic drops. I don't know if a spray tool of some sort would be able ot be found that could project blood in microscopic drops or not. If not then the planting theory goes out the window as even being possible. As it stands now in theory maybe something could replicate the blodd evidence found but you would need an expert to stestify for sure whether it is possible and then to get some sort of evidence of blood missing from the viles to try to suggest that it did happen. If you can't establish any was missing then that is a dead end.
Another issue is when were the police made aware of the findings that the fatal shot was a contact wound? There would be no ability to set up a back spatter scenario at all if this was not the case. You would eed to demonstrate they were aware of the contact wound and likelihood of back spatter.
Another problem is that back spatter would have been in the rifle so they would have to have cleaned it out before the lab examined it for blood evidence inside.
Last they also would have to have planted the paint on it which again woudl require a conspiracy of police and family together. Why would they bother planting paint in addition to the blood? The paint doesn't prove it was attached when Sheila was shot it could have been removed prior the blood does so there would have been no need for the paint at all.
It takes a whole lot of far fetched things to happen for the suppressor to have doctored and that is why it doesn't amount to reasonable doubt. You need to establish there was a reasonably likelihood the evidence was planted not a far fetched scenario that in theory it could have been.
If they did get together to
Scipio are you able to provide any documentary evidence about the distribution of blood in the silencer ie microscopic droplets? I always thought the blood found in the silencer was described as a "flake", "smears" and a "blob" by lay people and professionals alike.
The silencer was found by JB's extended adoptive family. Instead of phoning the police to collect it they took it back to Oak Farm and sat around the kitchen table inspecting it and tampering with it. It was then collected by DS Jones a day or so later. Instead of taking an exhibit bag to protect it from any further contamination he improvised by using the inner of a kitchen roll holder and sellotape at each end. He did not return swiftly to the station but spent some considerable time drinking whisky with PE. Whether he then went home or returned with it to the station that evening I have no idea. Once the papers get hold of this (and they will eventually) they will have a field day and our judicial system will be the laughing stock of the world. No one in their right state of mind could surely think that such an exhibit should ever have been allowed in a court of law?
I place no importance on the order of the baffles at all. The baffles are interchangeable and as the relatives tampered with it they could quite easily have dissembled and reassembled the silencer and the baffles end up in different positions.
There is contradictory expert evidence as to whether SC's wounds were contact or near contact. It makes little difference in terms of the point we are debating as back spatter can occur with contact and near contact wounds. The point I am endeavouring to make is that other victims also received contact or near contact wounds and yet back spatter only supposedly occurred with SC. Back spatter is a very rare occurrence anyway even when all the factors are right ie contact or close contact, calibre of weapon, anatomical location. In this case only one of those factors featured.
You claim there would be a noticeable amount missing from the vial had SC's blood been used to deliberately contaminate the silencer. Are you able to provide evidence of a complete audit trail from pathologist to EP to FSS?
CoA doc below shows that the smears on the outside were of an insufficient quantity to permit grouping analysis. BY COMPARISON a considerable amount had pooled inside to form a flake. The definition of the word 'flake' as per Oxford dictionary:
flake
noun
‘flakes of pastry’ ‘soap flakes’
sliver, wafer, shaving, paring, peeling; chip, shard, scale, crumb, grain, speck, spillikin; fragment, scrap, shred, bit, particle;
75. Traces of blood in the form of smears were found in three places on the outside of the moderator: on the flat surface at the muzzle end, in the knurled end and in the ridge at the gun end of the device. The blood on the outside of the moderator was confirmed to be of human origin but there were insufficient quantities to permit grouping analysis.
76. Inside the moderator, on the four or five baffles nearest to the end from which the bullet would exit, there was a considerable amount of blood. At one point blood had pooled to form a flake when it dried, and this flake was subjected to group testing
-
Scipio are you able to provide any documentary evidence about the distribution of blood in the silencer ie microscopic droplets? I always thought the blood found in the silencer was described as a "flake", "smears" and a "blob" by lay people and professionals alike.
There were flakes plural inside the largest of which was tested. The quotes you posted note there was a flake inside before the baffles started and also vlood on several of the initial baffles. Each baffle had dried blood which was scraped off. All visible blood had been removed hence the defense expert who examined it found no visible blood.
"The defence had instructed Dr Patrick Lincoln, whose expertise in such matters was well known. On 29 April 1986, he visited the forensic science laboratory and examined the relevant material. He carried out tests on all seventeen baffles. The first eight plates all gave weak or very weak positive reactions for blood. There was no blood clearly visible to the naked eye and Dr Lincoln concluded that "such findings could be consistent with an item having been previously swabbed by a forensic scientist to remove blood stains for testing". The other nine plates "did not produce any evidence for the presence of blood". He agreed with Mr Hayward's conclusion that the combination of blood groups revealed in his testing of the inside of the moderator could have come solely from Sheila Caffell but did not come from any one of the other individuals."
So after all visible blood was scraped off the baffles, there still were microscopic traces of blood on the first 8 baffles. Despite being microscopic this blood was able to be tested by the defense expert and it was type A.
Not being an expert in back spatter and firearms he didn't realize that high velocity spatter results in microscopic drops. Thus what he found is really consistent with back spatter. He simply attributed it to remnants. Remnants wouldn't be expected to be sufficient for typing so this sort of answers why he was able to type it.
What both experts observed were flakes/drops dried to the suppressor not floating around. That means dried flakes did not find their way inside (which is what is alleged by Tesko) but rather the blood dried there.
Water with diluted blood is not going to be able to produce flakes that dry on the baffles and other parts of the inside and outside let alone result in microscopic drops drying all the 8 initial baffles.
How do you get microscopic drops like the defense found on the first 8 baffles? Blood has to spray inside at different angles to be able to land on each because again each baffle blocks the one behind. Blood has to spray in
sufficient quantity/size/angle to be able to replicate what was found.
I have found zero cases where someone managed to plant evidence inside that matched such. Nor would most peopel even understand that they would need to do that. At most they would take some blood and drip it in the hole thinking that was enough. That though would not account for the blood on the baffles because it needs to be sprayed to get past the intial baffle and each subsequent one.
The silencer was found by JB's extended adoptive family. Instead of phoning the police to collect it they took it back to Oak Farm and sat around the kitchen table inspecting it and tampering with it. It was then collected by DS Jones a day or so later. Instead of taking an exhibit bag to protect it from any further contamination he improvised by using the inner of a kitchen roll holder and sellotape at each end. He did not return swiftly to the station but spent some considerable time drinking whisky with PE. Whether he then went home or returned with it to the station that evening I have no idea. Once the papers get hold of this (and they will eventually) they will have a field day and our judicial system will be the laughing stock of the world. No one in their right state of mind could surely think that such an exhibit should ever have been allowed in a court of law?
I am in my right mind and have no problem with it being admitted. Nothing they supposedly did to it would result in blood going inside let alone would result result in blood being distributed in the pattern found by both the defense and prosecution.
Once again to try to rebut the evidence you need to prove that the pattern of blood found could reasonably have resulted from contamination. There is no way for unintentional contamination to acoc..t for what was found.
I place no importance on the order of the baffles at all. The baffles are interchangeable and as the relatives tampered with it they could quite easily have dissembled and reassembled the silencer and the baffles end up in different positions.
They insist they didn't do so. You have no evidence to say otherwise. The fact that the blood was found on the initial baffles is evidence they didn't take it apart and rearrange the baffles anyway.
There is contradictory expert evidence as to whether SC's wounds were contact or near contact. It makes little difference in terms of the point we are debating as back spatter can occur with contact and near contact wounds.
There was no contradictory evidence given. The evidence is that the fatal wound was either a contact wound or
within 2mm. The testimony was that it was unable to tell where there was a gap under 2mm or not. The only way you can tell for sure is if the gun leaves an imprint on the skin but that only occurs on occasion.
But you are right that back spatter will be deposited in the barrel whether it was contact or near contact WHEN the wound is of a nature to result in such. When the barrel its further away than 2mm (up to several feet away) back spatter still results BUT it will not go up the barrel EXCEPT maybe one lucky tiny drop but even tha tis rare. It will go on the weapon on the shooter, on things next to the shooter. The lack of spatter on the rifle itself is another indication that a suppressor was attached when some of the shots were fired. The blood ended up on the outside of the suppressor instead. Jeremy's clothes certainly had spatter.
This usually is what trips up murderers. The further high velocity spatter travels the finer it is. If you shoot from very close range you are going to see the spatter on your clothes and know you need to change. If you shoot from intermediate range you probably won't realize you have spatter on you because it is so small. That is why you should always change your clothes if you shoot someone even if you don't see any blood. Since GSR will also be on your clothes that is another reason to change them. The GSR will mostly be on your upper clothing though so peopel are often lazy and don't change their pants. That is where spatter is often found. Spatter is an indication of being at a murder scene not necessarily being the shooter. You had to be close to the victim and shooter to get spatter on you.
All of these principles come into play in assessing the evidence in this case.
The point I am endeavouring to make is that other victims also received contact or near contact wounds and yet back spatter only supposedly occurred with SC.
Wounds on other victims were characterized as close range and a few of them POSSIBLY even contact. Most wounds though were declared close range without any possibility of being a contact wound. Nicholas' wounds were to the head and such wounds are NOT likely to result in back spatter because there is not much blood and there is space for that blood to go anyway. Only high caliber head shots often result in back spatter. Time and time again you ignore the variables at play. NONE of the other wounds were likely to produce drawback. Drawback is not simply spater it is to have spatter drawn into the weapon. The location of the shot to her throat was virtually CERTAIN to result in back spatter and the range meant such spatter would go into the barrel instead of on the weapon and towards the shooter. That is what the testimony was. If it didn't end up in the weapon it should have ende dup on Sheila but she had no spatter. She only had blood drip on her from her neck.
Back spatter is a very rare occurrence anyway even when all the factors are right ie contact or close contact, calibre of weapon, anatomical location. In this case only one of those factors featured.
How many times are you going to make this bogus claim? Back spatter is not rare. Back spatter is common from gun shots. The exact location on the body will ultimately determine though whether there will be spatter. There are awhole variety of locations where it is virtually certaint to occur the location of the fatal shot being one such location. The range at which the shot is fired will detemrine WHERE this spatter lands. If it is a contact shot or only a couple of milimeters from the body it is certain to go inside the barrel. Itf further way some can get into the barrel but mostly it will land on objects near the wound. A voice in a spatter pattern tells us an object or person stood where the void was at the time of the shot but was removed prior to police being on the scene. Within several feet a shooter can get spatter on them but it won't travel more than a few feet. So a shooter can either stay far away when shooting or the gun in contact with the victim and he will not get spatter on his body.
You WISH that spatter was rare but it isn't and the only wound where spatter was virtually certian to occur was sheila's fatal wound. That was the trial testimony and is a big problem for your position.
You claim there would be a noticeable amount missing from the vial had SC's blood been used to deliberately contaminate the silencer. Are you able to provide evidence of a complete audit trail from pathologist to EP to FSS?
I don't need to. You are the one trying to establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that such blood was used to plant evidence it is your burden to prove there is misisng blood etc not my job to disprove your assertions. You bear the burden of prrof. The defesne attorneys on appeal had no ability to establish such so I won't expect you to be able to. But a defense attorney thinks like me and would be TRYING to find evidence of missing blood and so forth to try to make out a claim that there was a reasonable probability of the blood being planted. Again though the findings of the defense's own expert seriously hampers those efforts.
CoA doc below shows that the smears on the outside were of an insufficient quantity to permit grouping analysis. BY COMPARISON a considerable amount had pooled inside to form a flake. The definition of the word 'flake' as per Oxford dictionary:
flake
noun
‘flakes of pastry’ ‘soap flakes’
sliver, wafer, shaving, paring, peeling; chip, shard, scale, crumb, grain, speck, spillikin; fragment, scrap, shred, bit, particle;
75. Traces of blood in the form of smears were found in three places on the outside of the moderator: on the flat surface at the muzzle end, in the knurled end and in the ridge at the gun end of the device. The blood on the outside of the moderator was confirmed to be of human origin but there were insufficient quantities to permit grouping analysis.
76. Inside the moderator, on the four or five baffles nearest to the end from which the bullet would exit, there was a considerable amount of blood. At one point blood had pooled to form a flake when it dried, and this flake was subjected to group testing
Yes a considerable amount of blood pooled at the inside before the baffles started. Also there was dried blood on the initial baffles.
He did not document how many of the initial baffles he remembers at least 4-5 and perhaps as many as 7. He removed all visible blood. There was blood on each of these baffles which would be a flake or flakes depending on if he managed to scrape it all off in 1 piece or not. So at minimum each baffle had 1 flake and possibly more and the largest flake inside the opening is what he tested.
The defense then inspected it and found no visible blood because he removed it all. He did a blood test anyway finding microscopic drops of blood on each of the first 8 baffles but none beyond. This blood he was able to successfully test and got the same results that the prosecution expert got for the big flake.
That means each of the 8 initial baffles had miscroscopic traces of group A blood.
Once again how could that get there? It got there by being sprayed there and then drying. High velocity spatter sprays in small droplets like that and sprays in a little different directions thus able to skirt a baffle and hit the one behind. But it will only be able to do that for a certain limited distance.
So in order for the blood to be planted it hasd to be sprayed in there by something that could reasonably mimick the kind of spray resulting from back spatter.
In addition, the weapon would have to have been cleaned out because without the suppressor attached it would have had her spatter inside.
The planting of evidence would have needed to be quite a conspiracy with a number of participants and they would have needed to KNOW from the outset about all the little steps needed to accomplish it without leaving any evidence at all.
Why would they also plant paint if they set out to do this with the blood? There was no need to also plan paint evidence as well.
In the meantime no expert has come forward with a tool that could be used to replicate back spatter distribution in a suppressor.
You need a whole lot of different evidence to come together to establish a reasonable probability the blood was planted.
-
There were flakes plural inside the largest of which was tested. The quotes you posted note there was a flake inside before the baffles started and also vlood on several of the initial baffles. Each baffle had dried blood which was scraped off. All visible blood had been removed hence the defense expert who examined it found no visible blood.
"The defence had instructed Dr Patrick Lincoln, whose expertise in such matters was well known. On 29 April 1986, he visited the forensic science laboratory and examined the relevant material. He carried out tests on all seventeen baffles. The first eight plates all gave weak or very weak positive reactions for blood. There was no blood clearly visible to the naked eye and Dr Lincoln concluded that "such findings could be consistent with an item having been previously swabbed by a forensic scientist to remove blood stains for testing". The other nine plates "did not produce any evidence for the presence of blood". He agreed with Mr Hayward's conclusion that the combination of blood groups revealed in his testing of the inside of the moderator could have come solely from Sheila Caffell but did not come from any one of the other individuals."
So after all visible blood was scraped off the baffles, there still were microscopic traces of blood on the first 8 baffles. Despite being microscopic this blood was able to be tested by the defense expert and it was type A.
Not being an expert in back spatter and firearms he didn't realize that high velocity spatter results in microscopic drops. Thus what he found is really consistent with back spatter. He simply attributed it to remnants. Remnants wouldn't be expected to be sufficient for typing so this sort of answers why he was able to type it.
What both experts observed were flakes/drops dried to the suppressor not floating around. That means dried flakes did not find their way inside (which is what is alleged by Tesko) but rather the blood dried there.
Water with diluted blood is not going to be able to produce flakes that dry on the baffles and other parts of the inside and outside let alone result in microscopic drops drying all the 8 initial baffles.
How do you get microscopic drops like the defense found on the first 8 baffles? Blood has to spray inside at different angles to be able to land on each because again each baffle blocks the one behind. Blood has to spray in
sufficient quantity/size/angle to be able to replicate what was found.
I have found zero cases where someone managed to plant evidence inside that matched such. Nor would most peopel even understand that they would need to do that. At most they would take some blood and drip it in the hole thinking that was enough. That though would not account for the blood on the baffles because it needs to be sprayed to get past the intial baffle and each subsequent one.
I am in my right mind and have no problem with it being admitted. Nothing they supposedly did to it would result in blood going inside let alone would result result in blood being distributed in the pattern found by both the defense and prosecution.
Once again to try to rebut the evidence you need to prove that the pattern of blood found could reasonably have resulted from contamination. There is no way for unintentional contamination to acoc..t for what was found.
They insist they didn't do so. You have no evidence to say otherwise. The fact that the blood was found on the initial baffles is evidence they didn't take it apart and rearrange the baffles anyway.
There was no contradictory evidence given. The evidence is that the fatal wound was either a contact wound or
within 2mm. The testimony was that it was unable to tell where there was a gap under 2mm or not. The only way you can tell for sure is if the gun leaves an imprint on the skin but that only occurs on occasion.
But you are right that back spatter will be deposited in the barrel whether it was contact or near contact WHEN the wound is of a nature to result in such. When the barrel its further away than 2mm (up to several feet away) back spatter still results BUT it will not go up the barrel EXCEPT maybe one lucky tiny drop but even tha tis rare. It will go on the weapon on the shooter, on things next to the shooter. The lack of spatter on the rifle itself is another indication that a suppressor was attached when some of the shots were fired. The blood ended up on the outside of the suppressor instead. Jeremy's clothes certainly had spatter.
This usually is what trips up murderers. The further high velocity spatter travels the finer it is. If you shoot from very close range you are going to see the spatter on your clothes and know you need to change. If you shoot from intermediate range you probably won't realize you have spatter on you because it is so small. That is why you should always change your clothes if you shoot someone even if you don't see any blood. Since GSR will also be on your clothes that is another reason to change them. The GSR will mostly be on your upper clothing though so peopel are often lazy and don't change their pants. That is where spatter is often found. Spatter is an indication of being at a murder scene not necessarily being the shooter. You had to be close to the victim and shooter to get spatter on you.
All of these principles come into play in assessing the evidence in this case.
Wounds on other victims were characterized as close range and a few of them POSSIBLY even contact. Most wounds though were declared close range without any possibility of being a contact wound. Nicholas' wounds were to the head and such wounds are NOT likely to result in back spatter because there is not much blood and there is space for that blood to go anyway. Only high caliber head shots often result in back spatter. Time and time again you ignore the variables at play. NONE of the other wounds were likely to produce drawback. Drawback is not simply spater it is to have spatter drawn into the weapon. The location of the shot to her throat was virtually CERTAIN to result in back spatter and the range meant such spatter would go into the barrel instead of on the weapon and towards the shooter. That is what the testimony was. If it didn't end up in the weapon it should have ende dup on Sheila but she had no spatter. She only had blood drip on her from her neck.
How many times are you going to make this bogus claim? Back spatter is not rare. Back spatter is common from gun shots. The exact location on the body will ultimately determine though whether there will be spatter. There are awhole variety of locations where it is virtually certaint to occur the location of the fatal shot being one such location. The range at which the shot is fired will detemrine WHERE this spatter lands. If it is a contact shot or only a couple of milimeters from the body it is certain to go inside the barrel. Itf further way some can get into the barrel but mostly it will land on objects near the wound. A voice in a spatter pattern tells us an object or person stood where the void was at the time of the shot but was removed prior to police being on the scene. Within several feet a shooter can get spatter on them but it won't travel more than a few feet. So a shooter can either stay far away when shooting or the gun in contact with the victim and he will not get spatter on his body.
You WISH that spatter was rare but it isn't and the only wound where spatter was virtually certian to occur was sheila's fatal wound. That was the trial testimony and is a big problem for your position.
I don't need to. You are the one trying to establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that such blood was used to plant evidence it is your burden to prove there is misisng blood etc not my job to disprove your assertions. You bear the burden of prrof. The defesne attorneys on appeal had no ability to establish such so I won't expect you to be able to. But a defense attorney thinks like me and would be TRYING to find evidence of missing blood and so forth to try to make out a claim that there was a reasonable probability of the blood being planted. Again though the findings of the defense's own expert seriously hampers those efforts.
Yes a considerable amount of blood pooled at the inside before the baffles started. Also there was dried blood on the initial baffles.
He did not document how many of the initial baffles he remembers at least 4-5 and perhaps as many as 7. He removed all visible blood. There was blood on each of these baffles which would be a flake or flakes depending on if he managed to scrape it all off in 1 piece or not. So at minimum each baffle had 1 flake and possibly more and the largest flake inside the opening is what he tested.
The defense then inspected it and found no visible blood because he removed it all. He did a blood test anyway finding microscopic drops of blood on each of the first 8 baffles but none beyond. This blood he was able to successfully test and got the same results that the prosecution expert got for the big flake.
That means each of the 8 initial baffles had miscroscopic traces of group A blood.
Once again how could that get there? It got there by being sprayed there and then drying. High velocity spatter sprays in small droplets like that and sprays in a little different directions thus able to skirt a baffle and hit the one behind. But it will only be able to do that for a certain limited distance.
So in order for the blood to be planted it hasd to be sprayed in there by something that could reasonably mimick the kind of spray resulting from back spatter.
In addition, the weapon would have to have been cleaned out because without the suppressor attached it would have had her spatter inside.
The planting of evidence would have needed to be quite a conspiracy with a number of participants and they would have needed to KNOW from the outset about all the little steps needed to accomplish it without leaving any evidence at all.
Why would they also plant paint if they set out to do this with the blood? There was no need to also plan paint evidence as well.
In the meantime no expert has come forward with a tool that could be used to replicate back spatter distribution in a suppressor.
You need a whole lot of different evidence to come together to establish a reasonable probability the blood was planted.
Thank you for the detailed post Scipio. We are never going to agree and it is pointless debating whether documents are using singular or plural in terms of "flake(s)". It is largely irrelevant.
To talk about the feasibility of back spatter or blow back one needs to also consider kinetic energy ie the weight of bullet, velocity and gravitational acceleration. I understand this is to form part of JB's new application to the CCRC so I guess we will have to wait and see 8(0(* I can say no more, indeed I know no more 8(0(*
-
Thank you for the detailed post Scipio. We are never going to agree and it is pointless debating whether documents are using singular or plural in terms of "flake(s)". It is largely irrelevant.
To talk about the feasibility of back spatter or blow back one needs to also consider kinetic energy ie the weight of bullet, velocity and gravitational acceleration. I understand this is to form part of JB's new application to the CCRC so I guess we will have to wait and see 8(0(* I can say no more, indeed I know no more 8(0(*
We are never going to agree because you are not interested in facts or the truth.
In black and white in the appeal decision it notes the expert's testomony presented at trial was that there was:
1) a blood inside the opening
2) blood on each of the initial baffles at minimum the first 4-5 but as many as the first 7
3) that the blood inside the opening was removed into a single flak and that this flake was tested and was group A
Given this testimony how can you claim there was only 1 flake? By definition there was the flak tested and at minimum 1 for each of the first 4-7 baffles. How could the blood on each of the first several baffles be part of a single flake found inside the opening?
This is not dofficult to understnad. You simply don't want to accept it because your desire to pretend that it is possible the blood was accidentally transferred or even intentionally transferred goes out the window.
You present a false set of facts to keep alive a bogus theory because you can't stand it that Jeremy is guilty. WHy who knows.
Wors eyet, the defense expert found microscopic blood on the first 8 baffles. That is even harder to try to find a way to say could have been planted. That blood mind you was also group A.
That blood can't have gotten there from bloody water that would to account for what the defense expert found. So this blows away your bloody water claims even more. If you were honest and objective you would admit such.
You are not so you simply say you disagree though you have no basis to do so. You try to pretend such blood wasn't found and that just a single flake was found. That just ruins any hope of you having credibility.
As for back spatter, it does require specifics and the specifics were taken into account by an expert in the field. He looked at the location and variables.
You ignored such specifica inquiry an dinsist that back sapper is rare, a whopper of a lie, and a number of other things tha tyou had no basis to claim. You have no scidentific basis to challenge the testimony of th eexpert and time and again demonstrate you know nothing at all about the subject as claimed time and again back spatter doesn't occur except with contact wounds and evne then only rarely. Both are wrong. Contact or near contac tis when the spatter goes inside the barrel as opposed to outside and back spatter can hit the shooter even if firing from several feet away. You simplfy it down to back spstter shouldn't occur without any evidence at all and choose to ignore a scientific analyssi by an expert because the result of the analysis is not to your liking. You have nothing to challenged the methodology you don't like the conclusion arrived at.
Just as you don't like the consequences had there been a struggle so you ignore the evidence of a struggle and baselessly insist there was no struggle in the kitchen. Just like you ignore Nevill could not have called Jeremy. There are so many things that prove his guilt and you refuse to accept any of them instead just making up things.
That just makes you look sad frankly.
-
There are so many things that prove his guilt and you refuse to accept any of them instead just making up things.
That's why Bamber can submit applications to the CCRC until the cows come home but it will make not one iota of a difference. If he would man up and admit his guilt he might some day be released when he is about 80 but failing that he is doomed.
-
That's why Bamber can submit applications to the CCRC until the cows come home but it will make not one iota of a difference. If he would man up and admit his guilt he might some day be released when he is about 80 but failing that he is doomed.
The applications won't mean squat becuase it is patently obvious that he is guilty.
For him to be innocent requires a whole series of what-ifs to be true that are so unlikely that there is no chance they would all be true:
1) Sheila had to use 17-20 bullets from the box of ammo in the kitchen and for some reason go to the closet and get 5-8 bullets more to use instead of using 25 bullets from the box in the kitchen
2) Nevill had to be able to speak despite the injuries he suffered making that pretty much impossible and worse to speak without even getting any blood on the phone
3) Instead of dialing 999 to speak to someone for sure, Nevill decided he had time to call Jeremy who might not wake up and answer at all since the phone was downstairs not in his bedroom which means even if he did wake up it would take time for him to get up, go downstairs and answer. What was Sheila doing that he had several minutes to make such call? Why would Nevill think he had so much time on his hands if it were an emergency? Similarly it would take Jeremy at least 10 minutes to dress and arrive. So Nevill would have to have decided that instead of disarming her himself it would be better to waste 5 minutes on a phone call and another 10 plus minutes waiting for Jeremy to arrive to disarm her.
4) Worse yet, he would have to have decided not to ask for medical help despite being shot and June already being shot. Who would fail to mention having been shot and to ask for medical help after being shot?
5) Jeremy would have to have decided he didn't care and wouldn't help and hoped they died in his wasting time and refusing to go over to assist or even to call police right away.
6) Julie Mugford had to be lying about him saying he wanted to kill them saying tonight was the night and about him telling her he arranged their deaths.
7) The extended relatives and the police all had to conspire together to plant type A blood in the suppressor and to plant it by spraying it inside with some sort of tool that was able to replicate what back spatter distrubution would look like. Moreover there would have been back spatter in the rifle barrel so either they had to clean it out before it reached the lab or the lab would have to have lied about not finding blood and doctored the results. Despite planting the blood they also would have to have conspired to plant the paint though planted blood would make it unnecessary.
8) Sheila would have to have beaten the crap out of Nevill without getting so much as a hair out of place and without getting any of his blood on her. Despite physically beaing him no marks of any kids to her hands not even where the broken rifle stock would have done something to her. No foot injuries from the broken crockery on the floor and no trace of any other substaces that were on the floor. She had to have fired 23 shots without any back spatter touching her and no GSR being left on her hands and clothing. Then to fire 2 more shots to herself hugging the weapon and yet no GSR on her hands or clothing still.
9) Jeremy would have to have told the police many unnecessary lies
10) Sheila's medicine suddenly stopped working in the middle of the night and she became all agitated on her own while everyone else was asleep
11) Sheila hid the kitchen phone and replaced it with the bedroom phone in advance in case her medicine stopped working and she wanted to kill her family.
To a rational person there is no way all of these things are true and thus there is no hope for Jeremy to prove all of these things occurred. Those who believe the above should see me about buying a nice big bridge.
-
I must agree Scipio, the evidence is somewhat overwhelming. I don't think even Mr Reasonable Doubt McKay will be making anything out of this case any time soon.
-
The applications won't mean squat becuase it is patently obvious that he is guilty.
For him to be innocent requires a whole series of what-ifs to be true that are so unlikely that there is no chance they would all be true:
1) Sheila had to 17-20 bullets from the box of ammo in the kitchen and for some reason go to the closet and get 5-8 bullets more to use instead of only using bullets from the box in the kitchen
2) Nevill had to be able to speak despite the injuries he suffered making that pretty much impossible and yet to speak without getting any blood on the phone even
3) Instead of dialing 999 to speak to someone for sure, Nevill decided he had time to call Jeremy who might not wake up and answer at all since the phone was downstairs not in his bedroom which means even if he did wake up it would take time for him to get up, go downstairs and answer. Why would Nevill think he had so much time on his hands if it were an emergency? Similarly it would take Jeremy at least 10 minutes to dress and arrive. So Nevill would have to have decided that instead of disarming her himself it would be better to waste 5 minutes on a call and another 10 plus minutes waiting for Jeremy to arrive to disarm her.
4) Worse yet, he would have to have decided not to ask for medical help despite being shot and June already being shot. Who would not ask for medical help after being shot?
5) Jeremy would have to have decided he didn't care and wouldn't help and hoped they died in his wasting time and refusing to go over.
6) Julie Mugford had to be lying about him saying he wanted to kill them saying tonight was the night and about him telling her he arranged their deaths.
7) The extended relatives and the police alld had to conspire together to plant type A blood in the suppressor and to plant it by spraying it inside with some sort of tool that was able to replicate what back spatter would look like. Moreover there would have been back spatter in the rifle barrel so either they had to clean it out before it reached the lab or the lab would have to have lied about not finding blood and doctored the results. Despite planting the blood they also would have to have conspired to plant the paint.
8) Sheila would have to have beaten the crap out of Nevill without getting so much as a hair out of place and without getting any of his blood on her. Despite physically beaing him no marks of any kids to her hands not even where the broken stck would have done something to her. She had to have fired 23 shots without any back spatter touching her and no GSR being left on her hands and clothing. Then to fire 2 more shots to herself hugging the weapon and yet no GSR on her hands or clothing stil.
9) Jeremy would have to have told the police many unnecessary lies
10) Sheila's medicine suddenly stopped working in the middle of the night and she became all agitated on her own while everyone else was asleep
11) Sheila hid the kitchen phone and replaced it with the bedroom phone in advance in case her medicide stopped working and she wanted to kill her family.
To a rational person there is no way all of these things are true and thus there is no hope for Jeremy to prove all of these things occurred. Those who believe the above should see me about buying a nice big bridge.
This is it in a nutshell. It is theoretically possible that one or some of these statements could be true. But it simply beggars belief that all of them are. Only if every single one of these unlikely scenarios were true could it be convincingly argued that Jeremy is innocent.
-
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?
Wow, I know you carried out this experiment years ago, Holly , and not sure if you did it years prior to your findings when you were posting as Naughty Nun? Whatever, I have to admire more your zeal and determination to try and prove the impossible!
Not many women (or men) would knock back two bottles of strong Ale ( Tennants Special Brew is where it’s at to numb your senses for future reference — tramps number one tipple 👍) Anyway, well done you for ripping your skin and slicing beneath your knee for this master experiment. I hope your Pete held your hand throughout
I bet Jeremy Bamber was so proud of you putting yourself through this, and to think he sent you a card with butterflies on is beastly of him when you’re terrified of moths 🤢 Then sent one again! He obviously forgot. Psychopaths, eh? What would we do without them? ^*&&
-
Wow, I know you carried out this experiment years ago, Holly , and not sure if you did it years prior to your findings when you were posting as Naughty Nun? Whatever, I have to admire more your zeal and determination to try and prove the impossible!
Not many women (or men) would knock back two bottles of strong Ale ( Tennants Special Brew is where it’s at to numb your senses for future reference — tramps number one tipple 👍) Anyway, well done you for ripping your skin and slicing beneath your knee for this master experiment. I hope your Pete held your hand throughout
I bet Jeremy Bamber was so proud of you putting yourself through this, and to think he sent you a card with butterflies on is beastly of him when you’re terrified of moths 🤢 Then sent one again! He obviously forgot. Psychopaths, eh? What would we do without them? ^*&&
The irony of that experiment is that about a week afterwards I was out running and slipped on some wet leaves resulting in bad gashes on my hand, elbow and knee producing an abundance of blood.
-
The irony of that experiment is that about a week afterwards I was out running and slipped on some wet leaves resulting in bad gashes on my hand, elbow and knee producing an abundance of blood.
I've got to be honest, Holly, that experiment shows a level of dedication to the case, and Bamber's cause, that I can't relate to.
-
Wow, I know you carried out this experiment years ago, Holly , and not sure if you did it years prior to your findings when you were posting as Naughty Nun? Whatever, I have to admire more your zeal and determination to try and prove the impossible!
Not many women (or men) would knock back two bottles of strong Ale ( Tennants Special Brew is where it’s at to numb your senses for future reference — tramps number one tipple 👍) Anyway, well done you for ripping your skin and slicing beneath your knee for this master experiment. I hope your Pete held your hand throughout
I bet Jeremy Bamber was so proud of you putting yourself through this, and to think he sent you a card with butterflies on is beastly of him when you’re terrified of moths 🤢 Then sent one again! He obviously forgot. Psychopaths, eh? What would we do without them? ^*&&
Wow, frankly this is just weird and a pretty painless exercise. I'm sure you will remind me of the experiment I did to find if a blob of blood would stay on the end of the silencer. All I did for that, was prick my finger - so take heed before you go down that route.
-
Wow, frankly this is just weird and a pretty painless exercise. I'm sure you will remind me of the experiment I did to find if a blob of blood would stay on the end of the silencer. All I did for that, was prick my finger - so take heed before you go down that route.
Nah, I don’t browse through your previous posts, Caroline — and if you’re not sure if that’s a compliment or insult it’s a definite compliment.
I’ve only had a quick browse at a few members posts (mainly their first ones) because I snoop and am nosy. Maybe sad. I dunno.
I just find Holly unusual; maybe that’s why.
She actually, despite sending me warnings and slapped wrists, and despite some of her rigid views is quite likeable and pleasant. Not like me, I’m rude.
She’s also intelligent, which also confuses me.
I’m wondering if JB has put some kind of spell on her? 8**8:/:
-
Nah, I don’t browse through your previous posts, Caroline — and if you’re not sure if that’s a compliment or insult it’s a definite compliment.
I’ve only had a quick browse at a few members posts (mainly their first ones) because I snoop and am nosy. Maybe sad. I dunno.
I just find Holly unusual; maybe that’s why.
She actually, despite sending me warnings and slapped wrists, and despite some of her rigid views is quite likeable and pleasant. Not like me, I’m rude.
She’s also intelligent, which also confuses me.
I’m wondering if JB has put some kind of spell on her? 8**8:/:
Ooh I Spy! You're not saying you cultivate that rudeness deliberately for the forum, are you???
-
Nah, I don’t browse through your previous posts, Caroline — and if you’re not sure if that’s a compliment or insult it’s a definite compliment.
I’ve only had a quick browse at a few members posts (mainly their first ones) because I snoop and am nosy. Maybe sad. I dunno.
I just find Holly unusual; maybe that’s why.
She actually, despite sending me warnings and slapped wrists, and despite some of her rigid views is quite likeable and pleasant. Not like me, I’m rude.
She’s also intelligent, which also confuses me.
I’m wondering if JB has put some kind of spell on her? 8**8:/:
I don't believe I have "rigid" views. I have few strongly held beliefs, JB's innocence being one of them, but I'm not remotely intolerant of others who don't share my beliefs/views.
-
I can only say I am astounded and somewhat nauseated at the thought of the 'experiment'. I took an easy option to differentiate between bloods ... I didn't bother with the smell.
I did discover that ...
"Period blood isn’t rejected body fluids or the body’s way of flushing out toxins. Think of it as evolved vaginal secretion — there’s a little bit of blood, uterine tissue, mucus lining, and bacteria.
Period blood is very different from blood that moves continuously through the veins. In fact, it’s less concentrated blood. It has fewer blood cells than ordinary blood."
https://www.healthline.com/health/womens-health/period-myths#1
Based on that I would imagine that any competent lab would be able to differentiate between a vaginal secretion and all its components and someone's life blood which should rightly have been pumping round a body not back splatting out of one.
-
Ooh I Spy! You're not saying you cultivate that rudeness deliberately for the forum, are you???
Possible...😌
-
I don't believe I have "rigid" views. I have few strongly held beliefs, JB's innocence being one of them, but I'm not remotely intolerant of others who don't share my beliefs/views.
IN YOUR OPINION Jeremy Bamber is innocent.
And your opinion — based on what you WANT to believe – doesn’t meet the criteria of the experts who’ve incarcerated him for the rest of his life.
-
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?
Oh my effing God.
-
Nah, I don’t browse through your previous posts, Caroline — and if you’re not sure if that’s a compliment or insult it’s a definite compliment.
I’ve only had a quick browse at a few members posts (mainly their first ones) because I snoop and am nosy. Maybe sad. I dunno.
I just find Holly unusual; maybe that’s why.
She actually, despite sending me warnings and slapped wrists, and despite some of her rigid views is quite likeable and pleasant. Not like me, I’m rude.
She’s also intelligent, which also confuses me.
I’m wondering if JB has put some kind of spell on her? 8**8:/:
That comment wasn't aimed at you Spy, it was aimed at Holly 8((()*/
-
I can only say I am astounded and somewhat nauseated at the thought of the 'experiment'. I took an easy option to differentiate between bloods ... I didn't bother with the smell.
I did discover that ...
"Period blood isn’t rejected body fluids or the body’s way of flushing out toxins. Think of it as evolved vaginal secretion — there’s a little bit of blood, uterine tissue, mucus lining, and bacteria.
Period blood is very different from blood that moves continuously through the veins. In fact, it’s less concentrated blood. It has fewer blood cells than ordinary blood."
https://www.healthline.com/health/womens-health/period-myths#1
Based on that I would imagine that any competent lab would be able to differentiate between a vaginal secretion and all its components and someone's life blood which should rightly have been pumping round a body not back splatting out of one.
Not to worry Brie you didn't have to take part in the experiment. It was in part undertaken re AE's wit stats:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3598
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3600
-
That comment wasn't aimed at you Spy, it was aimed at Holly 8((()*/
What have I done/not done now? %#&%4%
-
Not to worry Brie you didn't have to take part in the experiment. It was in part undertaken re AE's wit stats:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3598
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3600
In my wildest moments I would never have contemplated doing so ... particularly as I would have had the nous to foresee that it would have achieved nothing.
Then I don't have a history of suspecting innocent witnesses of committing crimes.
-
What have I done/not done now? %#&%4%
I was talking about the experiment - what in the world possessed you to do that?
-
I was talking about the experiment - what in the world possessed you to do that?
Jumping in I know...but I’m wondering if Holly sent off her results to the court?
I’m sure they’d be impressed 😤
Not withstanding the fact that menstrual blood is completely different to normal blood, which the original forensic scientists would have spotted immediately (vaginal tissue, endometrial lining, vaginal fluids etc), was the knee the right place to slit open with a sharp blade?🧐
Personally, I wouldn’t risk a scar under my kneecap during such an experiment: you should have chosen an unseen area such as beneath your bottom. You wouldn’t see the scar then, even when you’re wearing your thong.
Out of curiosity, did you have any guests round that week when you had these buckets of blood in the kitchen? I’m sure you tried to recreate the experiment as closely as possible to the bloodied buckets in the kitchen at WHF😳
-
Jumping in I know...but I’m wondering if Holly sent off her results to the court?
I’m sure they’d be impressed 😤
Not withstanding the fact that menstrual blood is completely different to normal blood, which the original forensic scientists would have spotted immediately (vaginal tissue, endometrial lining, vaginal fluids etc), was the knee the right place to slit open with a sharp blade?🧐
Personally, I wouldn’t risk a scar under my kneecap during such an experiment: you should have chosen an unseen area such as beneath your bottom. You wouldn’t see the scar then, even when you’re wearing your thong.
Out of curiosity, did you have any guests round that week when you had these buckets of blood in the kitchen? I’m sure you tried to recreate the experiment as closely as possible to the bloodied buckets in the kitchen at WHF😳
Something which puzzles me. I noticed that the 'menstrual rag/dishcloth' was placed in water 1cm deep? When I've experienced menstrual 'accidents' the garment involved has been placed in as much water as a large receptacle will hold which has ever been the reasoning behind my belief that any blood would be too watered down to be pipetted into the silencer. However, if the garments had only JUST been covered in water...........But would it have been part of Sheila's thinking that someone might want to.................... *%87 *&^^&
-
Something which puzzles me. I noticed that the 'menstrual rag/dishcloth' was placed in water 1cm deep? When I've experienced menstrual 'accidents' the garment involved has been placed in as much water as a large receptacle will hold which has ever been the reasoning behind my belief that any blood would be too watered down to be pipetted into the silencer. However, if the garments had only JUST been covered in water...........But would it have been part of Sheila's thinking that someone might want to.................... *%87 *&^^&
I've never heard of stain removal by steeping anything in only one centimetre of water. Still ... I suppose there is a first time for anything.
-
Something which puzzles me. I noticed that the 'menstrual rag/dishcloth' was placed in water 1cm deep? When I've experienced menstrual 'accidents' the garment involved has been placed in as much water as a large receptacle will hold which has ever been the reasoning behind my belief that any blood would be too watered down to be pipetted into the silencer. However, if the garments had only JUST been covered in water...........But would it have been part of Sheila's thinking that someone might want to.................... *%87 *&^^&
It's called 'trying to fix the experiment in your favour'.
-
It's called 'trying to fix the experiment in your favour'.
NEVER!!!! Surely not (^&& (^&&
-
NEVER!!!! Surely not (^&& (^&&
You're right. Surely isn't. If she wanted to skew the results in her favour she could simply not bother at all and tell everyone anything.
-
You're right. Surely isn't. If she wanted to skew the results in her favour she could simply not bother at all and tell everyone anything.
But then she would have to completely lie - plus, I don't think April was disagreeing @)(++(*
-
You're right. Surely isn't. If she wanted to skew the results in her favour she could simply not bother at all and tell everyone anything.
Did Holly’s experiment not give you cause to raise an eyebrow, not even the slightest twitch?
-
Did Holly’s experiment not give you cause to raise an eyebrow, not even the slightest twitch?
Read back a few, I was suitably shocked.
-
Did Holly’s experiment not give you cause to raise an eyebrow, not even the slightest twitch?
And the reason behind it didn't cause you to twitch?
-
And the reason behind it didn't cause you to twitch?
???
-
And the reason behind it didn't cause you to twitch?
I don't think anyone is any the wiser for the reason behind it.
-
In my wildest moments I would never have contemplated doing so ... particularly as I would have had the nous to foresee that it would have achieved nothing.
Then I don't have a history of suspecting innocent witnesses of committing crimes.
Great to know you have some Brie 8((()*/
The experiment met the objective which was to determine whether or not there was any discernible odour between fabric containing menstrual blood and fabric containing arterial blood when left to soak in water.
Buckets found at soc containing blood stained clothes needed to be taken away for analysis. Instead they were left for relatives to do with as they saw fit; relatives that gained financially from JB:s conviction.
Even the officer in charge, DCI Ainsley, told AE the defence at trial might allege she put blood in the silencer from SC's underwear. He also asked her how she knew it was menstrual blood and she said it smelled differently but my experiment showed no discernible odour between the bowls
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3598
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3600
-
Great to know you have some Brie 8((()*/
The experiment met the objective which was to determine whether or not there was any discernible odour between fabric containing menstrual blood and fabric containing arterial blood when left to soak in water.
Buckets found at soc containing blood stained clothes needed to be taken away for analysis. Instead they were left for relatives to do with as they saw fit; relatives that gained financially from JB:s conviction.
Even the officer in charge, DCI Ainsley, told AE the defence at trial might allege she put blood in the silencer from SC's underwear. He also asked her how she knew it was menstrual blood and she said it smelled differently but my experiment showed no discernible odour between the bowls
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3598
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3600
The bucket contained Sheila’s blood-stained knickers which she’d put into soak: it was obviously menstrual blood. And menstrual blood is different to normal blood.
Menstrual blood, depending on the time of one’s period; their body chemistry etc will smell differently from person to person. I’ve never gone around leaving buckets of water with menstrual blood in it for a week, but I’d imagine even a sanitary pad or tampon would develop an odour after some time. You’re forgetting the kitchen was flooded with sunshine for a week...that too would make body fluids putrefy.
It doesn’t matter, either way.
It would be impossible to get diluted blood (whether menstrual or normal) and exactly replicate the pattern of back spatter inside a moderator. Impossible. Forensics have stated that.
Besides all that, what ever “new” theory you come up with in your desperate attempt not to blow your dream of seeing Bamber released into smithereens, 35 long years have past, and trying to suggest Ann Eaton poured blood into the moderator is as ridiculous as trying to prove she adopted Nevill’s deep manly voice and phoned JB at 3am!
You may as well try and suggest she used to dress up as Jeremy and take Julie on dates pretending to be him...
-
The bucket contained Sheila’s blood-stained knickers which she’d put into soak: it was obviously menstrual blood. And menstrual blood is different to normal blood.
Menstrual blood, depending on the time of one’s period; their body chemistry etc will smell differently from person to person. I’ve never gone around leaving buckets of water with menstrual blood in it for a week, but I’d imagine even a sanitary pad or tampon would develop an odour after some time. You’re forgetting the kitchen was flooded with sunshine for a week...that too would make body fluids putrefy.
It doesn’t matter, either way.
It would be impossible to get diluted blood (whether menstrual or normal) and exactly replicate the pattern of back spatter inside a moderator. Impossible. Forensics have stated that.
Besides all that, what ever “new” theory you come up with in your desperate attempt not to blow your dream of seeing Bamber released into smithereens, 35 long years have past, and trying to suggest Ann Eaton poured blood into the moderator is as ridiculous as trying to prove she adopted Nevill’s deep manly voice and phoned JB at 3am!
You may as well try and suggest she used to dress up as Jeremy and take Julie on dates pretending to be him...
I may have mooted the idea many moons ago about the buckets/soiled underwear contaminating the silencer but roll on 2020 and I know it's not even a remote possibility.
My experiment showed the bloody water from menstrual blood and normal blood does not smell differently.
-
I may have mooted the idea many moons ago about the buckets/soiled underwear contaminating the silencer but roll on 2020 and I know it's not even a remote possibility.
My experiment showed the bloody water from menstrual blood and normal blood does not smell differently.
I don’t agree.
Menstrual blood has body tissue, uterine lining, vaginal mucus — all of which contain a scent. When it’s first shed it has a more pungent smell than normal blood, depending on how much blood there is. When changing a pad after a full night’s sleep there’s a certain odour to it, which varies depending on several things.
It’s all irrelevant, anyway.
It’s obvious Sheila soaked her stained underwear — who else would have done that? For what reason?
There isn’t one.
-
I don’t agree.
Menstrual blood has body tissue, uterine lining, vaginal mucus — all of which contain a scent. When it’s first shed it has a more pungent smell than normal blood, depending on how much blood there is. When changing a pad after a full night’s sleep there’s a certain odour to it, which varies depending on several things.
It’s all irrelevant, anyway.
It’s obvious Sheila soaked her stained underwear — who else would have done that? For what reason?
There isn’t one.
But we're not talking uncontaminated menstrual blood. We're talking menstrual blood heavily diluted in water and whether or not it then smells differently to normal blood also heavily diluted in water. My experiment showed no discernible difference in odour.
-
I don’t agree.
Menstrual blood has body tissue, uterine lining, vaginal mucus — all of which contain a scent. When it’s first shed it has a more pungent smell than normal blood, depending on how much blood there is. When changing a pad after a full night’s sleep there’s a certain odour to it, which varies depending on several things.
It’s all irrelevant, anyway.
It’s obvious Sheila soaked her stained underwear — who else would have done that? For what reason?
There isn’t one.
I have to agree with you. I'd always believed the menstrual flow smelled differently from say, a cut knee. In fact, I believe it was I who put this forward, or maybe Ann said it and I agreed. However, as Holly went to such great -not to mention, PAINFUL lengths to disprove it, there's little more I can suggest....................other than perhaps some do and some don't?
-
I have to agree with you. I'd always believed the menstrual flow smelled differently from say, a cut knee. In fact, I believe it was I who put this forward, or maybe Ann said it and I agreed. However, as Holly went to such great -not to mention, PAINFUL lengths to disprove it, there's little more I can suggest....................other than perhaps some do and some don't?
But we're not talking stand alone menstrual blood. We're talking menstrual blood diluted in water with the ratio hundreds to one. AE said it smells differently but it doesn't in such a diluted form.
-
But we're not talking stand alone menstrual blood. We're talking menstrual blood diluted in water with the ratio hundreds to one. AE said it smells differently but it doesn't in such a diluted form.
I think the only possible mitigating circumstance MIGHT be if very heavily stained items had been left soaking for several days before being rinsed, but I have to hold my hands up because I really don't know.
-
But we're not talking uncontaminated menstrual blood. We're talking menstrual blood heavily diluted in water and whether or not it then smells differently to normal blood also heavily diluted in water. My experiment showed no discernible difference in odour.
What do you know about the buckets at WHF? Like how much water? How soiled the garment was? You can't just do one experiment and claim that it disproves something. I keep telling you this, also, why did you have a bucket just filled with water? That was totally unnecessary - the control bucket was the one with ordinary blood. If you're going to spring Bamber with your daring do as a forensic specialist - you really must learn this stuff. 8((()*/
-
I'm not sticking my nose in this one.
-
read the first paragraph of this link post by Holly on another thread: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3600
-
What do you know about the buckets at WHF? Like how much water? How soiled the garment was? You can't just do one experiment and claim that it disproves something. I keep telling you this, also, why did you have a bucket just filled with water? That was totally unnecessary - the control bucket was the one with ordinary blood. If you're going to spring Bamber with your daring do as a forensic specialist - you really must learn this stuff. 8((()*/
The control bucket was necessary as all the kit was new and I needed to eliminate any odours coming from this.
It didn't matter anout the precise quantities of blood and water. The fact remains when it's diluted down with water it becomes odourless.
The experiment was carried out nearly 7 years ago at a time I was only getting into my stride ?>)()<
It has nothing to do with the new forensic tests.
-
The control bucket was necessary as all the kit was new and I needed to eliminate any odours coming from this.
It didn't matter anout the precise quantities of blood and water. The fact remains when it's diluted down with water it becomes odourless.
The experiment was carried out nearly 7 years ago at a time I was only getting into my stride ?>)()<
It has nothing to do with the new forensic tests.
You couldn't be used as a cadaver dog if you say blood and water mixed becomes odourless.
-
The control bucket was necessary as all the kit was new and I needed to eliminate any odours coming from this.
It didn't matter anout the precise quantities of blood and water. The fact remains when it's diluted down with water it becomes odourless.
The experiment was carried out nearly 7 years ago at a time I was only getting into my stride ?>)()<
It has nothing to do with the new forensic tests.
Of course it would matter how much water was used; look up how dilution works.
No the third bucket wasn't needed - it wasn't a test for the smell of plastic and you used new buckets for both the blood groups @)(++(* @)(++(* so they would either both smell of plastic or neither would . Also you didn't mention this new variable in your experiment?
Also, AE didn't mean the water smelled of menstrual blood, she mean the knickers.
-
I have to agree with you. I'd always believed the menstrual flow smelled differently from say, a cut knee. In fact, I believe it was I who put this forward, or maybe Ann said it and I agreed. However, as Holly went to such great -not to mention, PAINFUL lengths to disprove it, there's little more I can suggest....................other than perhaps some do and some don't?
Absolutely, April
We all have our own distinct body chemistry and smell. Even eating certain foods can change body odour. People who eat lots of spicy foods such as curry will have a scent of spices just when they sweat, and all those spices are in the blood too. Any pungent food: garlic, onions etc will cause one’s body odour to become more pungent.
I’ve smelt fresh blood from a dead body (not through choice I may add) and I know that too has a certain odour. It’s unmistakable.
And menstrual blood has its own distinct aroma too. Without going into embarrassing detail, I can categorically say that if you were unable to change a pad when menstruating if, say, driving for almost 24 hours in Australia outback before being able to shower and change, the aroma is on the pad is unpleasant. And that’s normal.
-
Great to know you have some Brie 8((()*/
The experiment met the objective which was to determine whether or not there was any discernible odour between fabric containing menstrual blood and fabric containing arterial blood when left to soak in water.
Buckets found at soc containing blood stained clothes needed to be taken away for analysis. Instead they were left for relatives to do with as they saw fit; relatives that gained financially from JB:s conviction.
Even the officer in charge, DCI Ainsley, told AE the defence at trial might allege she put blood in the silencer from SC's underwear. He also asked her how she knew it was menstrual blood and she said it smelled differently but my experiment showed no discernible odour between the bowls
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3598
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3600
Think you’ll find the clue that it was menstrual blood in the bucket was Sheila’s bloodstained knickers
That aside, to replicate a scientific experiment you need to produce it in IDENTICAL conditions
You didn’t do that
Secondly, you used your blood, and your blood would have a scent of its own. It also depends on if you’re taking the contraceptive pill, what your hormone balance is, if you’re on HRT and are just having a bleed rather than a proper period...a whole host of things.
But ultimately, whatever your own research shows (depending on how good your sense of smell is) the whole thing is futile. Just because you couldn’t detect any difference in smell doesn’t mean others wouldn’t. Just as we all have our own palate and taste things differently, we all smell things differently too. That’s why wine testers who work for major distributors are so strict on the conditions when the sample wine. They also make sure they don’t eat certain foods for a few days; they don’t wear perfume when testing; even surroundings can alter taste.
Out of interest, have you had your nose checked? Some people have a poor sense of smell, whilst others have a powerful sense of smell. I’m sure a dog would detect the difference in those buckets of blood you had laying in the kitchen.
-
But we're not talking stand alone menstrual blood. We're talking menstrual blood diluted in water with the ratio hundreds to one. AE said it smells differently but it doesn't in such a diluted form.
Soiled bloodied knickers soaking in water for a week would develop a smell.
You’re also forgetting there’s been five corpses in the house, and Nevill’s in the kitchen. Flies & bluebottles get in, and they lay maggots. It was hot weather too. Bluebottles would have swarmed around that bloodied bucket.
-
The control bucket was necessary as all the kit was new and I needed to eliminate any odours coming from this.
It didn't matter anout the precise quantities of blood and water. The fact remains when it's diluted down with water it becomes odourless.
The experiment was carried out nearly 7 years ago at a time I was only getting into my stride ?>)()<
It has nothing to do with the new forensic tests.
It certainly does matter how much water is added
Sheila’s bloodstained knickers were in a bucket of water: you only put yours in 1cm of water. I’m surprised it didn’t evaporate after a week...
-
Absolutely, April
We all have our own distinct body chemistry and smell. Even eating certain foods can change body odour. People who eat lots of spicy foods such as curry will have a scent of spices just when they sweat, and all those spices are in the blood too. Any pungent food: garlic, onions etc will cause one’s body odour to become more pungent.
I’ve smelt fresh blood from a dead body (not through choice I may add) and I know that too has a certain odour. It’s unmistakable.
And menstrual blood has its own distinct aroma too. Without going into embarrassing detail, I can categorically say that if you were unable to change a pad when menstruating if, say, driving for almost 24 hours in Australia outback before being able to shower and change, the aroma is on the pad is unpleasant. And that’s normal.
Spy, OUCH!!! I can imagine!!
I recall when I was in college, being asked to consider, and name, all those things which our bodies secrete. Whilst within the confines of our bodies, we never think about how offensive we, and indeed, others, may find these secretions when they hit the air. Menstrual blood, containing uterine and vaginal debris, is naturally going to have a smell other than that of blood from a wound.
-
Spy, OUCH!!! I can imagine!!
I recall when I was in college, being asked to consider, and name, all those things which our bodies secrete. Whilst within the confines of our bodies, we never think about how offensive we, and indeed, others, may find these secretions when they hit the air. Menstrual blood, containing uterine and vaginal debris, is naturally going to have a smell other than that of blood from a wound.
Absolutely.
It’s waste products of the human body. It’s organic and always has an odour.
The inside of a body has a distinct smell, which is why when an autopsy is carried out and police have to attend they often feel sick due to the odour emitting from the inside of the bodies.
In fact, a dead body will start to release unpleasant odour just hours after death. It’s awful, but natural.
-
Absolutely.
It’s waste products of the human body. It’s organic and always has an odour.
The inside of a body has a distinct smell, which is why when an autopsy is carried out and police have to attend they often feel sick due to the odour emitting from the inside of the bodies.
In fact, a dead body will start to release unpleasant odour just hours after death. It’s awful, but natural.
Those of you with delicate sensitivities LOOK AWAY NOW!!! The closest I can get is likening it to the smell of a pheasant's entrails when they're removed.
-
Those of you with delicate sensitivities LOOK AWAY NOW!!! The closest I can get is likening it to the smell of a pheasant's entrails when they're removed.
Gosh, I can imagine 🤢
Apparently, dogs find humans rather smelly, but they have powerful noses.
It isn’t pleasant thinking about body waste, but we all have it
Even our urine and faeces has an aroma...and that can change if we’re unwell or have eaten certain foods. Some people refuse to eat asparagus because it can cause their urine to smell unpleasant, but only certain people can detect that smell.
Faeces has an unpleasant aroma, unless you’re one of the lucky ones who claims theirs smells like roses. Maybe Jeremy Bamber’s does and that’s why he covered himself in it for days...
-
Think you’ll find the clue that it was menstrual blood in the bucket was Sheila’s bloodstained knickers
That aside, to replicate a scientific experiment you need to produce it in IDENTICAL conditions
You didn’t do that
Secondly, you used your blood, and your blood would have a scent of its own. It also depends on if you’re taking the contraceptive pill, what your hormone balance is, if you’re on HRT and are just having a bleed rather than a proper period...a whole host of things.
But ultimately, whatever your own research shows (depending on how good your sense of smell is) the whole thing is futile. Just because you couldn’t detect any difference in smell doesn’t mean others wouldn’t. Just as we all have our own palate and taste things differently, we all smell things differently too. That’s why wine testers who work for major distributors are so strict on the conditions when the sample wine. They also make sure they don’t eat certain foods for a few days; they don’t wear perfume when testing; even surroundings can alter taste.
Out of interest, have you had your nose checked? Some people have a poor sense of smell, whilst others have a powerful sense of smell. I’m sure a dog would detect the difference in those buckets of blood you had laying in the kitchen.
The buckets contained other items too. From memory SC's jogging bottoms and twin's tracksuit bottoms.
How many more times...my signature odour is irrelevant. The experiment was carried out in an attempt to determine any discernible difference in odour between two pieces of fabric left to soak in bowls: one stained with arterial blood the other stained with menstrual blood.
If you want to use wine tasters as an anology you would need to pour about 2 teaspoons of say Beaujolais into one bowl of water and 2 teaspoons of say Bordeaux into another bowl of water and then see if the tasters were able to discern the wine by smell.
Surely it's not difficult to understand that stained fabric left to soak in water eradicates the smell by way of dilution? May I suggest you carry out your own experiment.
AE isn't a dog!
-
The buckets contained other items too. From memory SC's jogging bottoms and twin's tracksuit bottoms.
How many more times...my signature odour is irrelevant. The experiment was carried out in an attempt to determine any discernible difference in odour between two pieces of fabric left to soak in bowls: one stained with arterial blood the other stained with menstrual blood.
If you want to use wine tasters as an anology you would need to pour about 2 teaspoons of say Beaujolais into one bowl of water and 2 teaspoons of say Bordeaux into another bowl of water and then see if the tasters were able to discern the wine by smell.
Surely it's not difficult to understand that stained fabric left to soak in water eradicates the smell by way of dilution? May I suggest you carry out your own experiment.
AE isn't a dog!
Ah, well that puts your experiment waaaay out now you’ve said the bucket also contained Sheila’s jogging pants; the twins’ tracksuit bottoms; including her stained knickers.
For a bucket to accommodate that amount of clothing, and just one pair of bloodstained knickers would mean that the blood inside the bucket would be diluted to the equivalent of, say, one tablespoon of blood to up to a gallon of water. Which means , aroma aside, the concentration of blood in that water would be so diluted it would not only be hard to see, it would be absolutely impossible to extract.
Therefore, all this nonsense that AE or anyone else took Sheila’s blood from that bucket and replicated a back spatter pattern inside a moderator, whereby it dried into a blood flake (which contained no water) is complete rubbish.
By the way, if you poured Beaujolais into a bucket of water, and the same Beaujolais into another one — they’d smell identical.
Back to AE — IMO any dirty clothes/bloodstained knickers left soaking in water for a week where the room gets flooded with sunshine, and where a corpse had lay days earlier and no cleaning/disinfecting had been carried out, would give off a putrid smell. It’s possible AE has a powerful sense of smell, or its equally possible she mistook the aroma left of a corpse, pools of blood that hadn’t been cleaned properly, including insects which hatch in such conditions as being a strong smell of menstrual blood.
Whatever, the fact is, it was impossible to extract Sheila’s blood when it was diluted by so much water.
-
Madonna?
-
Ah, well that puts your experiment waaaay out now you’ve said the bucket also contained Sheila’s jogging pants; the twins’ tracksuit bottoms; including her stained knickers.
For a bucket to accommodate that amount of clothing, and just one pair of bloodstained knickers would mean that the blood inside the bucket would be diluted to the equivalent of, say, one tablespoon of blood to up to a gallon of water. Which means , aroma aside, the concentration of blood in that water would be so diluted it would not only be hard to see, it would be absolutely impossible to extract.
Therefore, all this nonsense that AE or anyone else took Sheila’s blood from that bucket and replicated a back spatter pattern inside a moderator, whereby it dried into a blood flake (which contained no water) is complete rubbish.
By the way, if you poured Beaujolais into a bucket of water, and the same Beaujolais into another one — they’d smell identical.
Back to AE — IMO any dirty clothes/bloodstained knickers left soaking in water for a week where the room gets flooded with sunshine, and where a corpse had lay days earlier and no cleaning/disinfecting had been carried out, would give off a putrid smell. It’s possible AE has a powerful sense of smell, or its equally possible she mistook the aroma left of a corpse, pools of blood that hadn’t been cleaned properly, including insects which hatch in such conditions as being a strong smell of menstrual blood.
Whatever, the fact is, it was impossible to extract Sheila’s blood when it was diluted by so much water.
I can't even be bothered to read up on my experiment but from memory it did form a sort of s..m which gravitated to the side of the bowls. The type of testing carried out in 1985 ie blood serology tests require good quality samples to yield results so there's no way such diluted blood would yield the results claimed.
The objective of my experiment was to show AE was wrong re the smell.
Although an image of the buckets shows them in the kitchen I'm not sure they were found there on the morning of 7th Aug.
-
Madonna?
'Like a virgin'!?
-
'Like a virgin'!?
Yeah, one her tricks. I don't think I could say what I mean TBH. But a third party could, Sheila no knickers on yet menstruating, and knickers in a bucket of water, where was the bucket? The whole thing is a bit weird.
Go back to the title "Could the silencer have been contaminated by ...."
Yes by Madonna if she had been there.
The first thing David Boutflour noted was the silencer felt sticky.
-
Yeah, one her tricks. I don't think I could say what I mean TBH. But a third party could, Sheila no knickers on yet menstruating, and knickers in a bucket of water, where was the bucket? The whole thing is a bit weird.
Go back to the title "Could the silencer have been contaminated by ...."
Yes by Madonna if she had been there.
The first thing David Boutflour noted was the silencer felt sticky.
It had been “blued”
-
It had been “blued”
And are you saying that (“blued”) would make the silencer feel sticky?
Blued by the Bambers or in manufacture. The gun was practically new, wasn't it?
-
The buckets contained other items too. From memory SC's jogging bottoms and twin's tracksuit bottoms.
How many more times...my signature odour is irrelevant. The experiment was carried out in an attempt to determine any discernible difference in odour between two pieces of fabric left to soak in bowls: one stained with arterial blood the other stained with menstrual blood.
If you want to use wine tasters as an anology you would need to pour about 2 teaspoons of say Beaujolais into one bowl of water and 2 teaspoons of say Bordeaux into another bowl of water and then see if the tasters were able to discern the wine by smell.
Surely it's not difficult to understand that stained fabric left to soak in water eradicates the smell by way of dilution? May I suggest you carry out your own experiment.
AE isn't a dog!
There were no jogging pants belonging to Sheila. In one bucket were the stained knickers, in the other two pairs of track suit bottoms belonging to the boys.
Your comment about dilution - that would depend on how much water was in said bucket @)(++(*
Also, menstrual blood contains cervical mucus, vaginal secretions, and endometrial tissue so it's not actually the blood that smells different.