The ousting of Taff Jones:

[Holly Goodhead]

The silencer evidence showed the blood was specific to Sheila. The rifle therefore too long for her to shoot herself. At the time no one disputed the blood evidence.

It was therefore impossible for Jeremy to be innocent. But Taff still believed this. Was this guy for real ?

The "silencer evidence" didn't show the blood was specific to Sheila.  It was not possible to prove in 85/86 that blood found at the soc belonged to a specific individual.  It was limited to showing that any blood found at a soc matched an individual's blood type/group only which will be shared by many members of the human population.

The following table shows the blood type/group, enzymes and a protein for all victims including the sample found in the silencer and RB's.  As you will see SC's and RB's both match the sample found in the silencer.  The reason for this is that the blood/type group, enzymes and protein are shared by many members of the human population and are not unique to individuals.

                         ABO                    PGM                    EAP                     AK                    Hp

Nevill Bamber           O                        PGM1+                EAP BA               AK1                   Hp2-1
June Bamber            A                         PGM1+                EAP BA               AK2-1                Hp2-1
Daniel Caffell            O                        PGM2+1+            EAP B                 AK1                   Hp2
Nicholas Caffell         O                        PGM2+1+           EAP B                 AK1                    Hp2
Sheila Caffell            A                        PGM1+                EAP BA               AK1                    Hp2-1

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blood In Silencer      A                        Nil                        EAP BA              AK1                    Hp2-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Boutflour       A                         PGM1+                EAP BA              AK1                     Hp2-1

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABO = Blood Group System

PGM = Phosphoglucomutase (Enzyme) Breaks down quickly outside the body hence blood in silencer was unable to produce a reading

EAP = Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase (Enzyme)

AK = Adenylate Kinase (Enzyme)

HP = Haptoglobin (Protein)

As the silencer was found by the relatives JB's defence asked all to provide a blood sample to rule out contamination.  The relatives obliged and a match was found between SC and RB. 

The jury were misled on this point by the judge in his summing up:

Page 12 of summing up

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=273.0;attach=899

"Now I think that does complete the evidence of those experts, so it all comes down to this, does it not?  Mr Hayward says, "Well to begin with, merely analysing the blood inside the moderator, it correponds with Sheila Caffell's.

Page 13 of summing up

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=273.0;attach=901

"then come to Mr Fletcher's evidence: "One of Sheila's wounds clearly was a contact wound", so that is entirely consistent with it being her blood in the end of the moderator".

The above statements imply that the evidence points to Sheila's blood being found in the moderator.  This is WRONG as it was impossible to conclude then that Sheila's blood was in the moderator.  It was only possible to state that the blood found in the silencer matched Sheila's blood type/group which is not exclusive to her and also matched RB's.

It appears that the possibility of contamination and the fact that it could never be proved that Sheila's blood was in the silencer was never presented to the jury? 

[Holly Goodhead]

Jury's deliberations and questions for judge:

Page 1, 2nd para of summing up/questions from jury

"We need to hear blood expert's evidence regarding the blood in the silencer, (a) a perfect match of Sheila's blood, (b) what was the chance of the blood group being June and Ralph's mixing together"

The Jury sound confused, very confused  "Perfect match". 

The jury were led to believe that the blood sample 'found' in the silencer was a "perfect match" to SC's.  There was no "perfect match" 

[Holly Goodhead]

.  So no source.

Yes there is a source:

The following thread, post #7 by NGB confirms that the above had been held under PII 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2158.msg66504.html#msg66504

Follow it through to twitter

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1916.msg59550.html#msg59550

[adam]

Yes there is a source:

The following thread, post #7 by NGB confirms that the above had been held under PII 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2158.msg66504.html#msg66504

Follow it through to twitter

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1916.msg59550.html#msg59550

That is another policeman. Not Simpson
 
An apparent Bambertweet is not a source. It is Bamber saying he is innocent.

[adam]

It is very conclusive that the blood was Sheila's. A remote possibility it included a mixture of Neville & June's.

Even Bamber didn't start contesting this until years later. After the 89 appeal. He made no in roads.

[Holly Goodhead]

That is another policeman. Not Simpson
 
An apparent Bambertweet is not a source. It is Bamber saying he is innocent.

ACC Simpson instructed the review and that review concluded SC was responsible.

The tweet provides documentary evidence. 

[Holly Goodhead]

It is very conclusive that the blood was Sheila's. A remote possibility it included a mixture of Neville & June's.

Even Bamber didn't start contesting this until years later. After the 89 appeal. He made no in roads.

No it isn't.  If you think otherwise please provide a statistical probability?

The remote possibility of the blood representing an intimate mix of June's and NB's is just that a remote possibility.  Without any statistical probability given it is meaningless.  Surely the idea that SC would use the silencer to shoot her children and parents, remove it and return it to the gun cupboard and then return to the bedroom to shoot herself is in itself a remote possibility without the need for another remote possibility?  This was just an absurd notion dreamt up by Geoffrey Rivlin QC as he lacked the balls to go for contamination and take on the relatives in the witness box. 

A jury needs to be in a position to evaluate the information they are presented with in a meaningful way.  They were not presented with any meaningful data by way of statistical probability for:

- The blood sample found in the silencer belonging to SC as a result of blow back/back spatter

- The blood sample found in the silencer being an intimate mix of NB's and June's blood as a result of blow back/back spatter

- The blood sample found in the silencer belonging to a third party as a result of contamination either accidental or deliberate

- The blood sample found in the silencer belonging to SC but there as a result of contamination either accidental or deliberate as opposed to blow back/back spatter

I don't think JB is in a position to contest very much at all.  He is largely without access to the outside world.  No books or internet.  All services pro bono.  And reliant on others who may not always have his best interests at heart ie emotionally unstable women and cranks like Tesco.

[Holly Goodhead]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6316.msg278522.html#msg278522

I rest my case...FFS...no the bodies of Daniel and Nicholas do not need to be exhumed. 

The unidentified male DNA in the silencer could belong to one of the many males who have handled the silencer during its lifetime to date (I believe it still exists) Eg manufacturers, retailers, NB, JB,  relatives, police officers, staff at FSS, court officials, jurors and absolutely any male who ever handled the silencer.  It could even belong to the twins and be there as a result of contamination.  Even if it was shown to belong to the twins it would prove absolutely nothing. 

In any event I think you will find that the unidentified male DNA referred to means that the DNA was insufficient to put together a complete DNA profile rather than a complete profile available but unable to identify the individual it belonged to. Either way it is irrelevant as nothing can be proved or disproved using LCN DNA due to the potential for contamination. 

Understand how LCN DNA works and the potential for contamination:

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

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_testing.html

Dr Michael Haughton @ 9.15 in explains the high potential for contamination with LCN DNA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8EVLJNUGQM

[guinness]

It is very conclusive that the blood was Sheila's. A remote possibility it included a mixture of Neville & June's.

Even Bamber didn't start contesting this until years later. After the 89 appeal. He made no in roads.

If there is even a remote possibility of it being a mixture of blood then it is not CONCLUSIVE that the blood was Sheilas. Your post does not make sense.

The DNA that was found was not from blood as there was none left in the silencer - so how did Junes Dna get inside the silencer?

[Holly Goodhead]

If there is even a remote possibility of it being a mixture of blood then it is not CONCLUSIVE that the blood was Sheilas. Your post does not make sense.

The DNA that was found was not from blood as there was none left in the silencer - so how did Junes Dna get inside the silencer?

Yes I believe the blood was all swabbed away from the initial testing.  However there are different types of DNA testing.  The ones I am aware of are LCN, SGM and SGM plus.  LCN testing was used in the COA 2002 appeal as this is capable of providing a result from a DNA sample as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt, and amount to just a few cells of skin or sweat left from a fingerprint.  LCN testing is unable to identify the source of DNA eg blood, sweat etc.  I think it might have been possible that traces of blood not visible to the naked eye remained but personally I think the idea that June's blood was ever in the silencer as a result of blow back/back spatter from the rifle/silencer is a non-starter.  This would mean SC would have needed to have recovered the silencer from the back of the cupboard (in a box in a bag) attach it to the rifle (not in itself difficult) shoot her parents and children and then replace it before shooting herself.  To mind this does not seem credible.  It seems to involve two remote possibilities: the aforementioned and  NB's and June's blood being in the silencer as a result of back spatter/blow back from the rifle/silencer and then creating an intimate mix to match the reading produced by the blood sample found in the silencer  &%&£(+

I understand the main downside with LCN testing is the potential for contamination.  As DNA testing was not even envisaged at JB's trial no precautions were taken to eliminate this.  For example the jury were allowed to handle June's blood stained nightie along with the silencer which they may well have dissembled.  A skin cell or blood soaked cotton fibre invisible to the naked eye could be the source of June's DNA.  The judge advised the jury to wear protective gloves but this was to protect the jury as opposed to exhibits.

The best sources of material re the blood and dna are the CoA doc at point 452, section 12 and 13.  Oh and Wilkes' book.  I don't have it to hand but the relevant chapters are near the back.  You need to do a bit of your own research into LCN DNA.  You might find the black stuff helps as it can make for heavy reading.  Almost as heavy as 'Bear Snores On' 

[John]

Back on topic.  It will never be known why Taff Jones stubbornly stuck to the 'Sheila done it' belief but one thing's for sure and that is that it wasn't based on the evidence which he clearly was unable to properly process.  His namesake Stan Jones did the job in the end and Taff was reassigned.  That must have gone down like a lead balloon!

Question is, was Taff Jones really up to the job?

(Taff Jones later fell off a ladder while working at home sustaining fatal injuries)

[Holly Goodhead]

Back on topic.  It will never be known why Taff Jones stubbornly stuck to the 'Sheila done it' belief but one thing's for sure and that is that it wasn't based on the evidence which he clearly was unable to properly process.  His namesake Stan Jones did the job in the end and Taff was reassigned.  That must have gone down like a lead balloon!

Question is, was Taff Jones really up to the job?

(Taff Jones later fell off a ladder while working at home sustaining fatal injuries)

If DCI Jones wasn't up to the job it surely begs the question of how he reached the level of DCI in the first place? 

Following RB's concerns a review was instructed by Det Supt Ainsley.  The review was led by Det Supt Kenneally and concluded that SC was responsible.

[adam]

Back on topic.  It will never be known why Taff Jones stubbornly stuck to the 'Sheila done it' belief but one thing's for sure and that is that it wasn't based on the evidence which he clearly was unable to properly process.  His namesake Stan Jones did the job in the end and Taff was reassigned.  That must have gone down like a lead balloon!

Question is, was Taff Jones really up to the job?

(Taff Jones later fell off a ladder while working at home sustaining fatal injuries)

Taff had never had such a big case. There was little or no crime in that area, the CTSB video said.

He went to play golf the weekend after the massacre. The case was closed to him.

Refusing to change stance could be many reasons -

Embarrassed about being wrong in the first place.

More paperwork. Less golf.

Knowing the police will be criticised for getting it wrong at first.

Believing Bamber was guilty but not believing there was enough for a conviction.

Not liking the fact that people below him were right.

Not understanding the new evidence presented.

Refusing to read the new evidence. He dismissed AE and RB.

Being convinced by Bamber's acting.

A combination of all these.
 

[John]

If DCI Jones wasn't up to the job it surely begs the question of how he reached the level of DCI in the first place? 

Following RB's concerns a review was instructed by Det Supt Ainsley.  The review was led by Det Supt Kenneally and concluded that SC was responsible.

I agree but many promotions are based on factors regardless of ability unfortunately.  Nod nod... wink wink.

[John]

Taff had never had such a big case. There was little or no crime in that area, the CTSB video said.

He went to play golf the weekend after the massacre. The case was closed to him.

Refusing to change stance could be many reasons -

Embarrassed about being wrong in the first place.

More paperwork. Less golf.

Knowing the police will be criticised for getting it wrong at first.

Believing Bamber was guilty but not believing there was enough for a conviction.

Not liking the fact that people below him were right.

Not understanding the new evidence presented.

Refusing to read the new evidence. He dismissed AE and RB.

Being convinced by Bamber's acting.

A combination of all these.

Absolutely, the going off to play golf instead of properly investigating such dastardly deeds says it all!