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 December 31, 2014, 02:41:39 PM
-
When DNA evidence is used in a criminal trial it is expressed using statistics along the lines of 99.7% of the population will not share the defendant's DNA found at soc.
DNA evidence was not even envisaged at the time of JB's trial. Blood type/group was used instead which is not highly exclusive to individuals in the same way that DNA is. Blood type/groups are shared between many members of the population. For example SC and RB share the same blood type/group. This was discovered by FSS when they analysed the relatives blood as requested by JB's defence to rule out contamination given that they found the silencer. I am not suggesting necessarily that RB's blood was deliberately planted in the silencer as it is unlikely anyone other than specialists ie FSS would have this knowledge? By the time it became common knowledge that SC and RB shared the same blood type/group the silencer was already in the possession of FSS? However it illustrates the fact that blood type/groups are shared by many individuals. As far as I am aware from the judge's summing up, jury's deliberations/questions for judge and all the other info I have read in the public domain no statistical probability was ever given for the following scenarios:
- 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 ie not a victim as a result of contamination either accidental or deliberate
- The blood sample found in the silencer belonging to SC as a result of contamination either accidental or deliberate as opposed to blow back/back spatter
Why not?
If it was not possible to provide a statistical probability for the above scenarios surely the jury should have been made aware of the possible scenarios?
36
-
The blood type/group used to at JB's trial was as follows:
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 per post #1 and the table above the blood type/group results are by no means exclusive to individuals. All JB's living adoptive relatives were asked to provide a blood sample which they did. I do not know how many provided a sample but I would be surprised if it extended beyond more than 20 or 30 people. As can be seen from this relatively small sample of people, the blood sample found in the silencer matched SC's and RB's blood type/group. Contrast this with the following evidence re DNA:
"The chances that two unrelated people have identical profiles is less than one on one billion"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/0/20205874
-
And yet the jury were led to believe:
- The blood in the silencer came from SC
- It was there as a result of back spatter/blow back
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".
-
Hahaha I'm doing a Tubby Tesco and replying to my own posts 8)><( @)(++(*
It is clear the jury misunderstood. They ask if the blood found and subsequently tested in the silencer represented a "perfect match" to SC's. The type of testing carried out was only capable of providing type/group results shared by many and as already mentioned shared by RB.
Page 1, 2nd para of summing up/questions from jury
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=273.0;attach=879;image
"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 fact that the jury were led to believe only two possibilities existed ie SC's blood or an intimate mix of NB's and June's is a very worrying feature of the case.
I understand the reason Geoffrey Rivlin QC did not explore accidental or deliberate contamination was a strategic decision he made in that he did not want to put the jury in the position of having to decide whether they believed JB over the relatives and Essex police.
A year or two after JB's trial Geoffrey Rivlin QC became a judge. Do we have any idea how competent he was as a barrister? Or are we expected to believe he was competent in all cases and the system is infallible?
-
NGB1066 on Blue, a non-practising barrister, confirms deliberate and accidental contamination were legitimate possibilities to put before the jury for consideration and given the way in which the silencer was found and handled prior to arriving at FSS surely should have been?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4121.msg171113.html#msg171113
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4121.msg171124.html#msg171124
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4121.msg171132.html#msg171132
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4121.msg171143.html#msg171143
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4121.msg171145.html#msg171145
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4121.msg171157.html#msg171157
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4121.msg171285.html#msg171285
-
Dr Michael Naughton, a reader in sociology and law at Bristol University, specialises in miscarriages of justice. He is the founder and director of the Innocence Network UK (INUK), an organisation he established to facilitate casework and communications in the area of wrongful convictions. In the following presentation he covers many of the features that seem to cover JB's case (if of course you believe JB is the victim of a MoJ as I do).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8EVLJNUGQM
-
The blood type/group used to at JB's trial was as follows:
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 per post #1 and the table above the blood type/group results are by no means exclusive to individuals. All JB's living adoptive relatives were asked to provide a blood sample which they did. I do not know how many provided a sample but I would be surprised if it extended beyond more than 20 or 30 people. As can be seen from this relatively small sample of people, the blood sample found in the silencer matched SC's and RB's blood type/group. Contrast this with the following evidence re DNA:
"The chances that two unrelated people have identical profiles is less than one on one billion"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/0/20205874
Do you know there is a document on another forum showing HP2 further down in the silencer and animal blood on the outside?
-
Do you know there is a document on another forum showing HP2 further down in the silencer and animal blood on the outside?
In answer to your question, no I have not seen any authentic documents showing the presence of protein HP2 further down in the silencer and/or animal blood on the outside. I would certainly be interested in seeing anything remotely authentic that supports this.
-
Dr Michael Naughton, a reader in sociology and law at Bristol University, specialises in miscarriages of justice. He is the founder and director of the Innocence Network UK (INUK), an organisation he established to facilitate casework and communications in the area of wrongful convictions. In the following presentation he covers many of the features that seem to cover JB's case (if of course you believe JB is the victim of a MoJ as I do).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8EVLJNUGQM
The only statistic one needs to remember in this case is that the probability of the DNA material found deep in the silencer of the murder weapon not belonging to Sheila is at least a million to one and there is only one way that DNA could have got there ie blood back spatter resulting from the silencer being on the rifle when Sheila was shot twice in the neck at very close proximity.
-
The only statistic one needs to remember in this case is that the probability of the DNA material found deep in the silencer of the murder weapon not belonging to Sheila is at least a million to one and there is only one way that DNA could have got there ie blood back spatter resulting from the silencer being on the rifle when Sheila was shot twice in the neck at very close proximity.
We have discussed the LCN DNA testing many times John. Even if SC's DNA was found in the silencer detected by LCN DNA testing (the testing was inconclusive) the three appeal court judges found it "utterly meaningless" due to the potential for contamination. How did June's DNA find its way into the silencer (conclusive)? Imo it was due to contamination.
I don't think the CoA document could be clearer on the LCN DNA testing, contamination and the results deemed "utterly meaningless". For those who choose to believe otherwise that it obviously their prerogative.
-
We have discussed the LCN DNA testing many times John. Even if SC's DNA was found in the silencer detected by LCN DNA testing (the testing was inconclusive) the three appeal court judges found it "utterly meaningless" due to the potential for contamination. How did June's DNA find its way into the silencer (conclusive)? Imo it was due to contamination.
I don't think the CoA document could be clearer on the LCN DNA testing, contamination and the results deemed "utterly meaningless". For those who choose to believe otherwise that it obviously their prerogative.
The judges are governed by the law Holly. Unless there are 10 pairs of matching markers a judge in the UK cannot hold that the DNA is a match. From memory I think it was just a tad less than that in the Bamber case but with the chances of it not being a match still being something like 1 in a million, I know where I would put my money.
A point which has been made previously is that there is no possibility that the DNA belonged to Jeremy, June or Nevill since Sheila was not biologically connected to any of them. Thus the blood mixture argument has no basis whatsoever.
-
The judges are governed by the law Holly. Unless there are 10 pairs of matching markers a judge in the UK cannot hold that the DNA is a match. From memory I think it was just a tad less than that in the Bamber case but with the chances of it not being a match still being something like 1 in a million, I know where I would put my money.
A point which has been made previously is that there is no possibility that the DNA belonged to Jeremy, June or Nevill since Sheila was not biologically connected to any of them. Thus the blood mixture argument has no basis whatsoever.
It's not just a case of whether SC's DNA was in the silecer but how it came to be there?
The CoA ruled that SC's DNA may have been in the silencer.
If I agree for arguments sake that SC's DNA was detected in the silencer by LCN DNA testing it doesn't explain how it got there.
The CoA concluded that June's DNA was detected in the silencer by LCN DNA. How do you think it came to be there?
497. We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:
i) June Bamber's DNA was in the sound moderator at the time of the DNA examination;
ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other whether it was; and
iii) there was evidence of DNA from at least one male.
-
It's not just a case of whether SC's DNA was in the silecer but how it came to be there?
The CoA ruled that SC's DNA may have been in the silencer.
If I agree for arguments sake that SC's DNA was detected in the silencer by LCN DNA testing it doesn't explain how it got there.
Backspatter Holly.
Gunshot spatter - includes both forward spatter from the exit wound and back spatter from the entrance wound. Gunshot spatter will vary depending on the caliber of the gun, where the victim is struck, whether the bullet exits the body, distance between the victim and the gun and location of the victim relative to walls, floors and objects. Typically, forward spatter is a fine mist and back spatter is larger and fewer drops.
www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/blood/principles.html
John Hayward, the crown’s bloodstain expert, showed the jury Sheila’s bloodied nightdress. Hayward said it indicated that she had been shot in a reclining position and not while lying down. (Such testimony could only apply to the first, non-fatal wound. It’s extremely unlikely Sheila was standing, sitting, or reclining when she was fatally shot.) Hayward’s key testimony related to the blood found between the baffle plates inside the silencer, caused by the phenomenon of backspatter. Backspatter occurs when the expansion of gases created by a bullet being discharged creates back pressure which in turn propels blood from the wound back towards the weapon. This effect is only seen when the muzzle of the weapon is in contact with, or very close contact to, the victim. Hayward said: ‘Since the blood from inside the sound moderator belonged to the same group as Sheila Caffell, and since there was no blood inside the barrel of the rifle, I was led to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell had been shot whilst the sound moderator was fitted to the rifle.’ The blood expert conceded that there was ‘a very remote possibility’ that the blood inside the silencer could have been a mixture of that of June and Nevill Bamber.
-
Backspatter Holly.
Gunshot spatter - includes both forward spatter from the exit wound and back spatter from the entrance wound. Gunshot spatter will vary depending on the caliber of the gun, where the victim is struck, whether the bullet exits the body, distance between the victim and the gun and location of the victim relative to walls, floors and objects. Typically, forward spatter is a fine mist and back spatter is larger and fewer drops.
www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/blood/principles.html
John Hayward, the crown’s bloodstain expert, showed the jury Sheila’s bloodied nightdress. Hayward said it indicated that she had been shot in a reclining position and not while lying down. (Such testimony could only apply to the first, non-fatal wound. It’s extremely unlikely Sheila was standing, sitting, or reclining when she was fatally shot.) Hayward’s key testimony related to the blood found between the baffle plates inside the silencer, caused by the phenomenon of backspatter. Backspatter occurs when the expansion of gases created by a bullet being discharged creates back pressure which in turn propels blood from the wound back towards the weapon. This effect is only seen when the muzzle of the weapon is in contact with, or very close contact to, the victim. Hayward said: ‘Since the blood from inside the sound moderator belonged to the same group as Sheila Caffell, and since there was no blood inside the barrel of the rifle, I was led to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell had been shot whilst the sound moderator was fitted to the rifle.’ The blood expert conceded that there was ‘a very remote possibility’ that the blood inside the silencer could have been a mixture of that of June and Nevill Bamber.
Yes I understand how blowback/back spatter from gunshot works. However it doesn't explain the fact that LCN DNA testing detected DNA throughout the silencer ie it wasn't restricted to the distribution of blood found within the silencer when it was tested in 1985:
"72. Even given these limitations of LCN profiling, I do consider that the tests were worth attempting. The results obtained would have been of value if the distribution of DNA within the sound moderator detected by the LCN DNA profiling test reflected the distribution of blood within the sound moderator when it was originally tested. Unfortunately they do not."
74. Ms Grombridge reports that DNA has been detected throughout the sound moderator and states that some of the DNA within the sound moderator could have originated from Sheila Caffell."
"75. Plainly, the distribution of DNA detected does not reflect the distribution of blood originally present within the sound moderator. For example, DNA has been detected on baffles 13-17 where no blood had previously been detected."
The report doesn't seem to take into account that the jury may have tipped out the baffles and if they did they may not have put them back in the same order. However as can be seen above in 74. Ms Grombridge detected DNA evidence throughout the silencer.
The appeal court judges concluded that the DNA found in the silencer detected by LCN DNA testing was not from the flake of blood used for blood group analysis
"501. Thus we think that the CCRC's conclusion that the DNA was likely to have come from "the blood found in the silencer at the time" which was said to be justified "because it was found deep within the silencer" cannot be sustained. The DNA was certainly not from the flake of blood removed for blood grouping purposes and whilst some or all of the DNA that was found within the moderator may have originated from blood, a conclusion that it all did is not one that can be properly drawn."
John are you able to explain the presence of June's DNA in the silencer?
497. We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:
i) June Bamber's DNA was in the sound moderator at the time of the DNA examination;
ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other whether it was; and
iii) there was evidence of DNA from at least one male.
John we could debate if for forever and a day, and I'm happy to do so, but would prefer to accept the findings of the appeal court judges ie "completely meaningless"?
506. We have no doubt at all that if this evidence had been placed before a jury, they would have concluded, as we do, that in accordance with the emphasised part of Mr Webster's report quoted above, the DNA testing results were rendered completely "completely meaningless".
Mr Webster was a defence expert 8(0(*
-
I would have thought the very imprecise act of removing the limited blood residues from the baffles would have contaminated all the baffles in such a manner that said contamination would have been invisible to the human eye and to the extent that when the silencer was tested for DNA several years later that human blood was undetectable.
-
I would have thought the very imprecise act of removing the limited blood residues from the baffles would have contaminated all the baffles in such a manner that said contamination would have been invisible to the human eye and to the extent that when the silencer was tested for DNA several years later that human blood was undetectable.
Possibly but it doesn't seem to feature as a possible explanation for DNA being found throughout the silencer and not restricted to the distribution of blood with the scientists. It doesn't explain how the strongest component of DNA was from June to the extent that the scientists concluded her DNA was in the silencer.
I'm inclined to see the jury contaminating the silencer with blood stained exhibits during deliberations. They were told they could dissemble the silencer and empty the baffles. They were also told to wear gloves when they handled exhibits containing blood eg June's nightdress but this was to protect jurors not exhibits. It could be that jurors, with or without gloves, handled the silencer, baffles and victims' blood stained nightwear. As LCN DNA testing is capable of detecting DNA as small as one millionth the size of a grain of salt that blood stained cotton (or other fabrics) fibres from victims' nightwear was present throughout the silencer thus contaminating it.
Talk of DNA markers and legal threshold have no relevance to the CoA hearing.
-
I would have thought the very imprecise act of removing the limited blood residues from the baffles would have contaminated all the baffles in such a manner that said contamination would have been invisible to the human eye and to the extent that when the silencer was tested for DNA several years later that human blood was undetectable.
From point 487 of CoA document:
"LCN DNA profiling tests do not provide any information about the type of body fluid tested or when it was deposited on the item"
I think its important to understand the limitations of LCN DNA:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/judge-tosses-types-dna-testing-article-1.2065795
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/assets/uploads/files/lawyers'%20DNA%20guide%20KSWilliams%20190208%20(i).pdf
-
The jury handling the silencer cannot account for the 13 markers attributed to Sheila, a statistical improbability.
-
The jury handling the silencer cannot account for the 13 markers attributed to Sheila, a statistical improbability.
The CCRC referred JB's case to the CoA on the basis that they concluded SC's DNA was not in the silencer.
479. The Commission concluded:
"10.10 Whilst it might be arguable that the recent DNA tests do not establish that the source of the female DNA was blood, the Commission believes, as a matter of probability, that it is from blood because it was found deep within the silencer. Given the record of handling of the silencer by the scientists, the Commission does not believe that any possible contamination from them is likely to have been found that far down inside. Also, given that it is an accepted fact that blood was in the silencer in 1985, the Commission considers that it is much more likely that the DNA is from the blood found in the silencer at the time. Considering the length of time that has past and the fact that much of the blood was swabbed out for blood grouping, the Commission does not consider that the negative KM result strengthens the possibility that the DNA does not originate from blood. In any event, the Commission considers that the absence of Sheila Caffell's DNA is significant.[/b]
The CoA concluded that SC's DNA may have been in the silencer but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other:
497. We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:
i) June Bamber's DNA was in the sound moderator at the time of the DNA examination;
ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other whether it was; and
iii) there was evidence of DNA from at least one male.
The CoA concluded that overall the LCN DNA testing results were "completely meaningless"
506. We have no doubt at all that if this evidence had been placed before a jury, they would have concluded, as we do, that in accordance with the emphasised part of Mr Webster's report quoted above, the DNA testing results were rendered completely "completely meaningless".
Your post above is based on the following:
Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided some support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator.
For arguments sake even if the twenty bands attributable to SC had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings it is unable to demonstrate:
- How SC's DNA came to be there
and
- Whether it was there as a result of direct contact or indirect contact by way of contamination
When I refer to contamination I am not referring to DNA from unrelated persons; I am referring to DNA from SC being deposited in the silencer from unrelated persons as a result of contamination eg FSS staff, court officials and jurors handling the silencer along with other exhibits eg SC's nightdress which contained blood and skin cells. Bearing in mind that LCN DNA is capable of detecting DNA as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt.
-
The CCRC referred JB's case to the CoA on the basis that they concluded SC's DNA was not in the silencer.
479. The Commission concluded:
"10.10 Whilst it might be arguable that the recent DNA tests do not establish that the source of the female DNA was blood, the Commission believes, as a matter of probability, that it is from blood because it was found deep within the silencer. Given the record of handling of the silencer by the scientists, the Commission does not believe that any possible contamination from them is likely to have been found that far down inside. Also, given that it is an accepted fact that blood was in the silencer in 1985, the Commission considers that it is much more likely that the DNA is from the blood found in the silencer at the time. Considering the length of time that has past and the fact that much of the blood was swabbed out for blood grouping, the Commission does not consider that the negative KM result strengthens the possibility that the DNA does not originate from blood. In any event, the Commission considers that the absence of Sheila Caffell's DNA is significant.[/b]
The CoA concluded that SC's DNA may have been in the silencer but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other:
497. We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:
i) June Bamber's DNA was in the sound moderator at the time of the DNA examination;
ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other whether it was; and
iii) there was evidence of DNA from at least one male.
The CoA concluded that overall the LCN DNA testing results were "completely meaningless"
506. We have no doubt at all that if this evidence had been placed before a jury, they would have concluded, as we do, that in accordance with the emphasised part of Mr Webster's report quoted above, the DNA testing results were rendered completely "completely meaningless".
Your post above is based on the following:
Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided some support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator.
For arguments sake even if the twenty bands attributable to SC had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings it is unable to demonstrate:
- How SC's DNA came to be there
and
- Whether it was there as a result of direct contact or indirect contact by way of contamination
When I refer to contamination I am not referring to DNA from unrelated persons; I am referring to DNA from SC being deposited in the silencer from unrelated persons as a result of contamination eg FSS staff, court officials and jurors handling the silencer along with other exhibits eg SC's nightdress which contained blood and skin cells. Bearing in mind that LCN DNA is capable of detecting DNA as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt.
The document stated that the absence of DNA was significant, it didn't state there wasn't any.
In any event under English Law, unless there are 20 markers in common, a Court cannot recognise a match. Regardless, the chances of the DNA not belonging to Sheila with 17 markers in common and taking into account the fact that she was not biologically connected to any of the other adults including Jeremy then those probabilities are millions to one and even you cannot argue that statistic.
As far as I can see, there are only two ways it could have got there.
1. It was blood back spatter sucked into the silencer when she was shot or...
2. It was a contamination from her blood which was swabbed from the outside of the silencer.
-
The document stated that the absence of DNA was significant, it didn't state there wasn't any.
In any event under English Law, unless there are 20 markers in common, a Court cannot recognise a match. Regardless, the chances of the DNA not belonging to Sheila with 17 markers in common and taking into account the fact that she was not biologically connected to any of the other adults including Jeremy then those probabilities are millions to one and even you cannot argue that statistic.
As far as I can see, there are only two ways it could have got there.
1. It was blood back spatter sucked into the silencer when she was shot or...
2. It was a contamination from her blood which was swabbed from the outside of the silencer.
Yes at the CoA hearing they concluded SC's DNA may have been in the silencer. They were not able to conclude one way or the other. Even if they were able to conclude SC's DNA was in the silencer it wouldn't mean that it was there as a result of backspatter/blowback. June's DNA was confirmed as being found in the silencer and yet when the blood group analysis was carried out in 1985 it did not identify her blood group?
You often make reference to:
"In any event under English Law, unless there are 20 markers in common, a Court cannot recognise a match".
I am not sure what you mean by this? Are you able to provide any documentary evidence re the "20 markers in common" by way of a link?
There's a plethora of info on the internet re DNA testing from reliable sources eg:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/assets/uploads/files/lawyers'%20DNA%20guide%20KSWilliams%20190208%20(i).pdf
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_testing.html#_01
and there's no reference to "20 markers". Please provide your source re "20 markers" or provide an outline explanation. Are you referring to alleles and loci?
When DNA evidence is used at a criminal trial it is expressed along the lines of 99.7% of the population do not share the defendant's DNA found at the soc. Nothing to do with "20 markers"?
The CoA concluded that the flake of blood tested and used at JB's trial as follows:
501. The DNA was certainly not from the flake of blood removed for blood grouping purposes and whilst some or all of the DNA that was found within the moderator may have originated from blood, a conclusion that it all did is not one that can be properly drawn.
It is not known whose blood was on the outside of the silencer:
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.
As DNA testing was not envisaged in 1985/86 the potential for contamination from a number of sources existed:
504. Mr Webster then reviewed in detail the history of the handling of the moderator and the various opportunities for contamination. He considered the fact that Dr Lincoln had taken out all the baffles and tested them all. He referred to the fact that both Mr Hayward and Mr Fletcher had handled the moderator in the witness box, a place where other exhibits were produced without any precautions being taken to avoid contact. He pointed to the fact that the judge specifically told the jury that they could "empty the baffles out later" and that it could not be established what use had been made of the moderator by the jury during their deliberations or what other exhibits may have been in their possession. He observed that the judge had told the jury that if they handled any of the clothing, they should put on plastic gloves for their own protection, thus giving rise to the possibility that blood stained items were examined by the jury with no precautions being taken to ensure that if they then went to handle the baffles there was not contamination.
-
To answer your question Holly, can I direct you to the following government website and in particular its references to the 20 markers which the poliice have to match under UK Law.
http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/252885/NDNAD_Annual_Report_2012-13.pdf
1.1 About
the National DNA Database
The National DNA Database holds electronic DNA records (DNA profiles) taken from individuals and
crime scenes and provides the police with matches linking an individual to a crime scene. Since it
was set up in 1995 the NDNAD has
produced more than 446,000 matches to crimes.
DNA profiles
The NDNAD holds 2 types of DNA profile:
1. Individuals
The police take a DNA sample from every arrested individual, using a swab on the inside of the
cheek. The DNA sample is then sent to an accredited laboratory, which analyses the sample to
produce a DNA profile
–
a string of 20 numbers representing only a tiny fraction of that individual’s
DNA, but which allows that individual to be identified (the chance of two unrelated individuals
having the same DNA profile is more than a billion to one).
NDNAD matches
The database searches the DNA profiles from crimes against the DNA profiles from individuals. A
match occurs when the 20 numbers (and gender marker) representing an individual’s DNA are an
exact match to the 20 numbers representing the DNA left at the crime scene.
http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/252885/NDNAD_Annual_Report_2012-13.pdf
-
To answer your question Holly, can I direct you to the following government website and in particular its references to the 20 markers which the poliice have to match under UK Law.
http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/252885/NDNAD_Annual_Report_2012-13.pdf
1.1 About
the National DNA Database
The National DNA Database holds electronic DNA records (DNA profiles) taken from individuals and
crime scenes and provides the police with matches linking an individual to a crime scene. Since it
was set up in 1995 the NDNAD has
produced more than 446,000 matches to crimes.
DNA profiles
The NDNAD holds 2 types of DNA profile:
1. Individuals
The police take a DNA sample from every arrested individual, using a swab on the inside of the
cheek. The DNA sample is then sent to an accredited laboratory, which analyses the sample to
produce a DNA profile
–
a string of 20 numbers representing only a tiny fraction of that individual’s
DNA, but which allows that individual to be identified (the chance of two unrelated individuals
having the same DNA profile is more than a billion to one).
NDNAD matches
The database searches the DNA profiles from crimes against the DNA profiles from individuals. A
match occurs when the 20 numbers (and gender marker) representing an individual’s DNA are an
exact match to the 20 numbersrepresenting the DNA left at the crime scene.
http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/252885/NDNAD_Annual_Report_2012-13.pdf
*&(+(+ John
I see where you are coming from now but the "20 markers" you refer to are in fact "20 numbers (and gender marker)" and have nothing to do with the analysis of an individual's DNA. It is a numbering system used for storing, retrieving and matching DNA held within the DNA database with DNA gathered from a soc etc.
I think there is perhaps some confusion with the CoA document where it refers to "20 bands" as follows but "20 bands" and "20 numbers (and gender marker)" are entirely unconnected:
496. In the interpretation of the results, Dr Clayton called on behalf of the appellant and Miss Groombridge, called on behalf of the prosecution disagreed to a limited extent. Both agreed that Sheila Caffell could have contributed to this mixture of DNA but Miss Groombridge was prepared to go further and say that the findings provided support for the proposition that she had contributed to the mixture. She was, however, unable to determine the level of support provided. In her evidence to the court she explained her reasoning. Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided some support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator. However, Miss Groombridge was unable to perform any sort of statistical evaluation of the likelihood of this happening and hence unable to assess the strength of the support. Dr Clayton, whilst acknowledging the respect that he had for Miss Groombridge's views and whilst recognising the possible validity of the point that she made, felt that it was unsafe to draw any such conclusion. Whilst we recognise that there may very well be merit in Miss Groombridge's evidence in this regard, we doubt very much whether a jury would have been prepared to place any significant reliance upon it so that it might have altered any view which they otherwise would have reached.
-
*&(+(+ John
I see where you are coming from now but the "20 markers" you refer to are in fact "20 numbers (and gender marker)" and have nothing to do with the analysis of an individual's DNA. It is a numbering system used for storing, retrieving and matching DNA held within the DNA database with DNA gathered from a soc etc.
I think there is perhaps some confusion with the CoA document where it refers to "20 bands" as follows but "20 bands" and "20 numbers (and gender marker)" are entirely unconnected:
496. In the interpretation of the results, Dr Clayton called on behalf of the appellant and Miss Groombridge, called on behalf of the prosecution disagreed to a limited extent. Both agreed that Sheila Caffell could have contributed to this mixture of DNA but Miss Groombridge was prepared to go further and say that the findings provided support for the proposition that she had contributed to the mixture. She was, however, unable to determine the level of support provided. In her evidence to the court she explained her reasoning. Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided some support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator. However, Miss Groombridge was unable to perform any sort of statistical evaluation of the likelihood of this happening and hence unable to assess the strength of the support. Dr Clayton, whilst acknowledging the respect that he had for Miss Groombridge's views and whilst recognising the possible validity of the point that she made, felt that it was unsafe to draw any such conclusion. Whilst we recognise that there may very well be merit in Miss Groombridge's evidence in this regard, we doubt very much whether a jury would have been prepared to place any significant reliance upon it so that it might have altered any view which they otherwise would have reached.
Holly, I agree, it has become the norm to casually use various terminology when considering DNA matches. However, this is how the criminal justice system works, you need 20 numbers or 10 pairs of markers, if you like, for a 'legal' match, I cannot put it any clearer. In the Bamber case I believe there was a 17/20 match to Sheila from samples taken from the innermost silencer baffles which in most countries represents a positive match since the chances of coincidence are many millions to one against. UK law does not consider a 17/20 result to be a match thus why we have the Court of Appeal ruling.
In the world of probabilities however, a match was an almost dead cert!
-
Holly, this is how the criminal justice system works, you need 20 numbers or 10 pairs of markers if you like for a 'legal' match. In the Bamber case I believe there were 17/20 which in anyone's terminology represents a match.
The 20 numbers are simply an identification code used with the DNA database.
The terminology is very important. The words "numbers" "markers" and "bands" in the context of what we are discussing are not interchangeable. They all have very different meanings. The law and science are very precise, accurate and measurable. "20 numbers" relates exclusively to a unique identifying code to an individual's DNA analysis/profile held on the DNA database. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the underlying DNA biological material per se. The 17/20 bands referred to in the CoA doc have absolutely nothing to do with the 20 numbers used within a DNA database. When DNA evidence is used in a criminal trial it is expressed along the lines of 99.7% of the population (world) do not share the defendant's DNA found at soc etc. It is not expressed along the lines of 17/20 bands attributable to SC (the victim) were found within the silencer 13 of which would be expected by random chance.
Eg anyone who has a bank account will have a unique account number that will enable all manner of transactions from all over the world to be connected to that account. It is exactly the same with the 20 numbers used within the DNA database. When a DNA sample is taken it is given a unique set of 20 numbers to identify it by. If DNA is then at some point in the future gathered from a scene of crime and sent to a forensic laboratory for analysis the result is given a unique set of twenty numbers based on the DNA profile. This will then potentially enable a match with the database.
The vast majority of people are not on the DNA database as they have not been subjected by the police to providing a DNA sample.
If you choose to believe otherwise that's your prerogative and posters will have to interpret the information and form their own opinions. As far as I am concerned you are wrong and the science speaks for itself.
496. In the interpretation of the results, Dr Clayton called on behalf of the appellant and Miss Groombridge, called on behalf of the prosecution disagreed to a limited extent. Both agreed that Sheila Caffell could have contributed to this mixture of DNA but Miss Groombridge was prepared to go further and say that the findings provided support for the proposition that she had contributed to the mixture. She was, however, unable to determine the level of support provided. In her evidence to the court she explained her reasoning. Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided some support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator. However, Miss Groombridge was unable to perform any sort of statistical evaluation of the likelihood of this happening and hence unable to assess the strength of the support. Dr Clayton, whilst acknowledging the respect that he had for Miss Groombridge's views and whilst recognising the possible validity of the point that she made, felt that it was unsafe to draw any such conclusion. Whilst we recognise that there may very well be merit in Miss Groombridge's evidence in this regard, we doubt very much whether a jury would have been prepared to place any significant reliance upon it so that it might have altered any view which they otherwise would have reached.
-
This has been discussed at length on another thread so I do not intend to repeat it except to refer you to the COA decision, thus...
Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided some support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator.
Question to you Holly. How many bands in common are accepted as a match under UK law?
-
This has been discussed at length on another thread so I do not intend to repeat it except to refer you to the COA decision, thus...
Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided some support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator.
Question to you Holly. How many bands in common are accepted as a match under UK law?
Its not the number of bands but the size - see first diagram - A, B and C match and D doesn't. The DNA from the individual needs to match the sample as follows:
- Inclusions -- If the suspect's DNA profile matches the profile of DNA taken from the crime scene, then the results are considered an inclusion or nonexclusion. In other words, the suspect is included (cannot be excluded) as a possible source of the DNA found in the sample.
- Exclusions -- If the suspect's DNA profile doesn't match the profile of DNA taken from the crime scene, then the results are considered an exclusion or noninclusion. Exclusions almost always eliminate the suspect as a source of the DNA found in the sample.
- Inconclusive results -- Results may be inconclusive for several reasons. For example, contaminated samples often yield inconclusive results. So do very small or degraded samples, which may not have enough DNA to produce a full profile
The bands are created by a process called Agarose Gel Electrophoresis. The gel matrix acts as a sieve: smaller DNA molecules migrate faster than larger ones, so DNA molecules of different sizes separate into distinct bands during electrophoresis - see second diagram.
Example calculation used for bands:
DNA concentration was determined by electrophoresis in 8% agarose gel. 1µl, 0.5µl and 0.25µl of ?phage/Bst EIIDNA were loaded in the gel to assist the quantification.
1. Add up the sizes of all ? DNA bands to calculate total size of ?phage genome
? genome= 48161 bp
2. Choose a band with a similar size to the plasmid DNA
3.675bp
3. Calculate the percentage of ? DNA genome represented by that ?band.
%= 3.675*100/48161= 7,63%
4. Calculate relative concentration of the selected band:
Stock solution of ? phage DNA contains 500 ng genomic DNA/µl
500 ng genomic DNA/µl* 7.63/100= 38,15ng of 3675 bp band/µl
See third diagram for above calculation
-
You didnt answer my question.
To go back to the original point, under UK law there has to be a match to 10 markers.
Standard DNA profiling examines 10 markers in the DNA. Each marker has two sequences - one inherited from the mother, and one from the father.
On average, two people would probably have six or seven DNA markers in common out of 20, simply by chance, but the probability of someone matching more than 16 are millions to one.
The samples from inside the silencer matched Sheila by 17 out of 20, a remarkable result but still not good enough to establish a legal match under UK law.
-
You didnt answer my question.
To go back to the original point, under UK law there has to be a match to 10 markers.
Standard DNA profiling examines 10 markers in the DNA. Each marker has two sequences - one inherited from the mother, and one from the father.
On average, two people would probably have six or seven DNA markers in common out of 20, simply by chance, but the probability of someone matching more than 16 are millions to one.
The samples from inside the silencer matched Sheila by 17 out of 20, a remarkable result but still not good enough to establish a legal match under UK law.
I thought I had answered your question? Perhaps the answer wasn't what you wanted to hear!
Your question in post #26 "How many bands in common are accepted as a match under UK law?
My answer in post #27 provides a full explanation and points out it is not the number of bands but the size of the bands. I have gone on to explain how the bands are created and conclusions drawn. I have also confirmed that every band from the suspect/victim needs to match the sample. Its way too simplistic to think 17/20 matches is pretty damn close so the chances are its a match. Its nothing like 85%. Its like saying Sydney is closer to London than the moon is when both are miles apart. A match would require London and London.
The COA doc states that Ms Groombridge (prosecution) was unable to perform any sort of statistical evaluation to assess the strength of support that SC's DNA was in the silencer. Even if SC's DNA was in the silencer the fact contamination cannot be ruled out wound render any result meaningless anyway.
Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided some support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator. However, Miss Groombridge was unable to perform any sort of statistical evaluation of the likelihood of this happening and hence unable to assess the strength of the support. Dr Clayton, whilst acknowledging the respect that he had for Miss Groombridge's views and whilst recognising the possible validity of the point that she made, felt that it was unsafe to draw any such conclusion. Whilst we recognise that there may very well be merit in Miss Groombridge's evidence in this regard, we doubt very much whether a jury would have been prepared to place any significant reliance upon it so that it might have altered any view which they otherwise would have reached.
Your post makes no sense. You refer to markers when you need to be referring to bands. You state "standard DNA profiling". There's no such thing as "standard DNA profiling" used in criminal trials In any event the test used at the COA was Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA testing. You then attempt to apply your own crude methods of probability when the scientists used at the CoA have stated that it was not possible to perform any sort of statistical evaluation. You make reference to "under UK law there has to be a match to ten markers". This is completely wrong. It is the size of bands and a sample can produce various numbers of bands but the bands produced by the gel electrophoresis need to match the suspects/victims bands exactly: see diagrams below.
I have no idea why you doggedly persist in trying to read something into this when the scientists and appeal court judges all found it "completely meaningless".
-
Arguing over the technicalities relating to DNA profiling is unnecessary and I don't intend doing so.
The COA accepted that seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell were detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided some support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator.
They also agreed with the evidence of the two scientists and concluded that the major component of the DNA on the baffles did originate from June Bamber.
497. We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:
i) June Bamber's DNA was in the sound moderator at the time of the DNA examination;
ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to
conclude one way or the other whether it was; and
iii) there was evidence of DNA from at least one male.
It also accepted that there was every possibility that the silencer was contaminated at some stage after the killings.
505. Mr Webster concluded at paragraph 102:
"The CCRC, in their statement of reasons, more or less excluded the possibility of contamination.
In my opinion, the Commission was wrong to do so."
506. We have no doubt at all that if this evidence had been placed before a jury, they would have concluded,
as we do, that in accordance with the emphasised part of Mr Webster's report quoted above, the DNA
testing results were rendered completely "completely meaningless".
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
-
John are you able to explain the presence of June's DNA in the silencer?
497. We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:
i) June Bamber's DNA was in the sound moderator at the time of the DNA examination;
ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other whether it was; and
iii) there was evidence of DNA from at least one male.
Sorry for not answering this before. I have had an opportunity to go back over this thread today and review the background facts pertaining to the blood analyses and the DNA LCN profiling which was carried out some years after the trial.
Fact: A full DNA profile matching June Bamber was extracted from inside the silencer. The logical reason for this had to be back spatter.
June was shot seven times some of which would have been in quick succession and according to the distribution of the empty cartridges found on her bed and on the floor beside her, some at least must have been fired at point blank range.
Given those circumstances therefore the air would have been thick with blood molecules so it would not be unreasonable to suggest some made their way into the silencer due to back spatter.
Do you agree?
-
Arguing over the technicalities relating to DNA profiling is unnecessary and I don't intend doing so.
The COA accepted that seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell were detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided some support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator.
They also agreed with the evidence of the two scientists and concluded that the major component of the DNA on the baffles did originate from June Bamber.
497. We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:
i) June Bamber's DNA was in the sound moderator at the time of the DNA examination;
ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to
conclude one way or the other whether it was; and
iii) there was evidence of DNA from at least one male.
It also accepted that there was every possibility that the silencer was contaminated at some stage after the killings.
505. Mr Webster concluded at paragraph 102:
"The CCRC, in their statement of reasons, more or less excluded the possibility of contamination.
In my opinion, the Commission was wrong to do so."
506. We have no doubt at all that if this evidence had been placed before a jury, they would have concluded,
as we do, that in accordance with the emphasised part of Mr Webster's report quoted above, the DNA
testing results were rendered completely "completely meaningless".
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
Apologies if my post sounded a bit rude I didn't intend it to. The subject matter is a bit on the heavy side to say the least and as I was a bit pushed for time I didn't word it as well as I could have done.
-
Sorry for not answering this before. I have had an opportunity to go back over this thread today and review the background facts pertaining to the blood analyses and the DNA LCN profiling which was carried out some years after the trial.
Fact: A full DNA profile matching June Bamber was extracted from inside the silencer. The logical reason for this had to be back spatter.
June was shot seven times some of which would have been in quick succession and according to the distribution of the empty cartridges found on her bed and on the floor beside her, some at least must have been fired at point blank range.
Given those circumstances therefore the air would have been thick with blood molecules so it would not be unreasonable to suggest some made their way into the silencer due to back spatter.
Do you agree?
No.
My understanding (despite Scipio trying to convince me otherwise) is that back spatter/blow back is a rare phenomenon. When it does occur it normally does so with a large calibre weapon and not only is blood sucked back into the weapon/silencer but also skin tissue. As we know the weapon involved with the WHF tragedy was a small calibre (.22) rifle and no skin tissue was detected with the blood.
As far as I know the defence expert used at trial, Major Mead, did not even establish if back spatter/blow back was possible with a .22.
As we know the blood evidence presented at trial was based on a flake of blood found in the silencer. When this was analysed it was shown to correspond with SC's blood type/group, and also RB's, as follows:
Blood flake/SC/RB = A, EAP BA, AK1, HP2-1
The blood expert at trial Mr Hayward said it was possible that the blood represented an intimate mix of more than one person's blood and there was a "remote possibility" that the blood may have come from a combination of June's and NB:
June = A, EAP BA, AK2-1, HP2-1
+
NB = O, BAP BA, AK1, HP2-1
= A, EAP BA, AK1, HP2-1 = blood flake found in silencer
This was the defence's case at trial ie that SC used the silencer to shoot her parents and sons and returned the silencer to the gun cupboard before shooting herself. And that the blood found in the silencer represented an intimate mix of NB's and June's. IMO this is just the stuff of la la land and requires too many "remote possibilities" for it to sound credible:
That back spatter occurred in the first place
That it occurred with a small calibre weapon
That there was no accompanying skin tissue
That June's blood blew back into the silencer - one contact wound possible although expert said "unlikely"
That NB's blood blew back into the silencer - no contact wounds or even close ie within 1mm or 2mm.
That June's and NB's blood not only blew back into the silencer but blew back into the silencer at exactly the same spot; it then became intimately mixed (although this may have happened when the flake was dissolved by FSS for testing)
That SC then returned the silencer to the gun cupboard and replaced it in a box in a bag behind a dart board.
The above doesn't sound credible to me and yet that's what Geoffrey Rivlin QC expected the jury to believe!
June's blood group was not detected as a stand-alone in the silencer. Mr Fletcher the ballistics expert thought it "unlikely" that the shot June received between the eyes was a contact shot making back spatter/blow back even less likely. None of the other shots were potentially contact shots.
If June's DNA was in the silencer then I think it was there as a result of contamination possibly from where the silencer was handled with her bloody nightdress by jurors, expert witnesses, court officials.
I'll explain why I said "if" later but have to go now! Hope I've whet your appetite and left you wanting to know more! 8)-)))
Btw you made a post yesterday but before I could respond it was gone/removed. Anyway it was about animal blood. The flake found in the silencer most certainly was not animal blood so at least we agree on that!
-
If...June's DNA was in the silencer...
As June's blood sample was destroyed it was not possible to do a direct comparison between her DNA and the major component of DNA found in the silencer. A sample was taken from June's closing living relative, Pamela Boutflour. Closely related relatives are statistically more likely to have shared DNA components than unrelated individuals and this enabled conclusions to be drawn. The evidence showed it was about 3,500 times more likely that the major source of DNA was from a sister of Pamela Boutflour's than an unrelated female. Both the DNA experts at the CoA hearing, Mr Clayton and Ms Tomlinson, assessed this as strong evidence that the major component was from June Bamber.
As June's blood sample was destroyed the appeal court judges concluded that the major component of DNA on the baffles originated from June.
-
"Samples obtained from Sheila Caffell's natural mother and from other sources enabled the scientists to say with confidence that the major component did not come from Sheila Caffell"
The above is from CoA doc. I've always been intrigued about the "other sources"!? I wonder if this was SC's birth father!? It surely must have been otherwise the court would need to apply some statistical evaluation as to the likelihood as they did with Pamela Boutflour and June? With SC the scientists and court appear to have been satisfied to rely on samples from SC's natural mother and other sources to say with confidence that the major component of DNA did not come from SC &%+((£
-
To get back to your opening post Holly, I don't believe statistical probability can help us with this case and indeed should not be used as a measure of guilt in any event. Fortunately, there is enough evidence for us to determine that Sheila was innocent of any crime and Jerry guilty.