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: adam on January 19, 2015, 07:41:16 PM
-
Previous threads have shown that it was impossible for the relatives to expertly contaminate the silencer in three days. Although Bamber has claimed this is what the relatives did. The relatives denying it saying there was enough evidence without the silencer.
The Lab Technicians may have been able to expertly contaminate the silencer. If they had Sheila's blood or body available. But the police would be taking a risk, asking them to engage in criminal activities.
One suggestion on another forum was that Stan Jones contaminated the silencer.
This is a serious accusation on a policeman that I believe had no record of improper conduct. The police are used to losing in court. So quite why SJ felt the urge to risk criminal proceedings against himself, lose his reputation and job, I do not know.
This would mean the relatives handed in a silencer with nothing on. Quite why they would do this is not clear. Unless they had already persuaded SJ to contaminate it. If that was the case why did RB ring Peter Simpson requesting the case is reopened ?
SJ would need access to Sheila's body, and a rifle that fitted the silencer. He would then need to shoot into Sheila's body. To create the correct blood splatter effect of Sheila's blood. But that would mean three bullets in Sheila.
Was Sheila's body available, or had Bamber's request that they be cremated been completed ?
SJ was not heading the investigation, and did not agree with Taff Jones. In this case he could have contacted someone like Peter Simpson, rather than engage in criminal activity.
SJ risked the chance of being caught. He would have to contact different people in order to get access to Sheila's body. That is if the body was still available. Other policemen may have got suspicious of his actions. Unless he also involved them.
Do other people believe Stan Jones contaminated the silencer ?
20
-
Previous threads have shown that it was impossible for the relatives to expertly contaminate the silencer in three days. Although Bamber has claimed this is what the relatives did. The relatives denying it saying there was enough evidence without the silencer.
The Lab Technicians may have been able to expertly contaminate the silencer. If they had Sheila's blood or body available. But the police would be taking a risk, asking them to engage in criminal activities.
One suggestion on another forum was that Stan Jones contaminated the silencer.
This is a serious accusation on a policeman that I believe had no record of improper conduct. The police are used to losing in court. So quite why SJ felt the urge to risk criminal proceedings against himself, lose his reputation and job, I do not know.
This would mean the relatives handed in a silencer with nothing on. Quite why they would do this is not clear. Unless they had already persuaded SJ to contaminate it. If that was the case why did RB ring Peter Simpson requesting the case is reopened ?
SJ would need access to Sheila's body, and a rifle that fitted the silencer. He would then need to shoot into Sheila's body. To create the correct blood splatter effect of Sheila's blood. But that would mean three bullets in Sheila.
Was Sheila's body available, or had Bamber's request that they be cremated been completed ?
SJ was not heading the investigation, and did not agree with Taff Jones. In this case he could have contacted someone like Peter Simpson, rather than engage in criminal activity.
SJ risked the chance of being caught. He would have to contact different people in order to get access to Sheila's body. That is if the body was still available. Other policemen may have got suspicious of his actions. Unless he also involved them.
Do other people believe Stan Jones contaminated the silencer ?
FSS/Mr Fletcher never said the blood found in and on the silencer was distributed in such a way that made it exclusive to blow back/backspatter. But the judge in his summing up certainly led the jury to believe the flake of blood was as a result of blow back/backspatter:
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 pathologist took three blood samples from SC and handed them to EP. The samples were then retained by EP in its storage facilities. As far as I can see there's no clear audit trail as to how the samples handled thereafter.
-
FSS/Mr Fletcher never said the blood found in and on the silencer was distributed in such a way that made it exclusive to blow back/backspatter. But the judge in his summing up certainly led the jury to believe the flake of blood was as a result of blow back/backspatter:
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 pathologist took three blood samples from SC and handed them to EP. The samples were then retained by EP in its storage facilities. As far as I can see there's no clear audit trail as to how the samples handled thereafter.
Fletcher said the blood was consistent with backspatter. Your attempt to say there are other ways for it to naturally get there is a joke. There isn't. It was either planted or backspatter.
The defense had no basis to suggest it was planted because of all the various difficulties involved and thus the prosecution had no need to refute a claim of planting.
-
Fletcher said the blood was consistent with backspatter. Your attempt to say there are other ways for it to naturally get there is a joke. There isn't. It was either planted or backspatter.
The defense had no basis to suggest it was planted because of all the various difficulties involved and thus the prosecution had no need to refute a claim of planting.
Malcolm Fletcher said it was consistent with backspatter. I doubt very much that the thought of a.n other(s) deliberately contaminating the silencer entered his head.
I agree it was either planted or backspatter.
The defense had grounds to put before the jury the possibility of contamination but Geoffrey Rivlin chose an alternative strategy and the rest as they say is history. We will never know whether the jury would have reached the same verdict had GR presented to the jury the possibility of contamination.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5861.msg209325#msg209325
You will need to log in to Blue to read the posts contained within the link - if you're interested of course.
-
Malcolm Fletcher said it was consistent with backspatter. I doubt very much that the thought of a.n other(s) deliberately contaminating the silencer entered his head.
I agree it was either planted or backspatter.
The defense had grounds to put before the jury the possibility of contamination but Geoffrey Rivlin chose an alternative strategy and the rest as they say is history. We will never know whether the jury would have reached the same verdict had GR presented to the jury the possibility of contamination.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5861.msg209325#msg209325
You will need to log in to Blue to read the posts contained within the link - if you're interested of course.
They had no basis to argue contamination. NGB doesn't identify any basis to argue it either. NGB gave his opinion they coudl have tried to cross examine witnesses to try to find a way to eat away at the evidence but doesn't identify anyway they coudl have done so successfully let alone present any evidence to support a claim of planting of evidence.
"There was opportunity and there were also admissions about the attempt to unscrew the silencer and the use of a razor blade to scrape blood. There was evidence of blood stained clothing removed from the house. There was sufficient to permit cross examination about this and if the possibilities had been explored in cross examination it would have been possible to present this to the jury as a possibility to be considered.'
Cross examination would have been worthless because there is no way to accidentally transfer wet blood to the first 8 baffles. There is nothing that could have been asked of any of the witnesses that would have made such possible. Asking Fletcher if it was possible would have resulted in him saying no. If it were possible they would have foudn their pown expert to assert it.
The blood could only have been deposited by drawback or by being planted. To suggest it was planted requires coming up with evidence it was planted. The family would have needed:
1) to know the fatal wound was a contact shot
2) to know all about drawback
3) to obtain Sheila's wet blood or to know her blood type and to obtain some
4) to appreciate that they needed to spray the blood so as to mimick backspatter
5) to figure out a way to spray the blood so it landed on the first 8 baffles
6) to find a way to wash away the blood that would have been inside the rifle barrel because if the moderator had not been attached then the blood form her fatal wound would have been inside the rifle.
Police would have needed the same for them to plant it. Realistically only police agents with such knowledge would be the lab. But the blood was found right away and was seen by the family so was there before it was turned over to the lab. It was not until Vanezis provided his report that police knew about the wound being a contact shot and her blood type. But police would have had to plant the blood right away and convinced the family to lie. They also woudl have to have known abou drawback and to have removed blood from the rifle. But if police planted the blood they would have had the lab test the blood right away instead of wasting so much time fingerprinting it which is what delayed the lab analyzing the blood type. Why woudl they bother planting paint as well if they had planted the blood?
Lawyers get evidence in by testimony of witnesses. What witnesses could they have used to get in the suggestion in that the blood was planted? There are no questions they coudl have asked that would have helped them establish it.
The best they coudl do is what they did which is to try to pretend that Sheila shot June and Nevill then removed the moderator and put it away even though that akes no sense and is not credible. They had the choice of that nonconvincing argument or none.
-
They had no basis to argue contamination. NGB doesn't identify any basis to argue it either. NGB gave his opinion they coudl have tried to cross examine witnesses to try to find a way to eat away at the evidence but doesn't identify anyway they coudl have done so successfully let alone present any evidence to support a claim of planting of evidence.
"There was opportunity and there were also admissions about the attempt to unscrew the silencer and the use of a razor blade to scrape blood. There was evidence of blood stained clothing removed from the house. There was sufficient to permit cross examination about this and if the possibilities had been explored in cross examination it would have been possible to present this to the jury as a possibility to be considered.'
Cross examination would have been worthless because there is no way to accidentally transfer wet blood to the first 8 baffles. There is nothing that could have been asked of any of the witnesses that would have made such possible. Asking Fletcher if it was possible would have resulted in him saying no. If it were possible they would have foudn their pown expert to assert it.
The blood could only have been deposited by drawback or by being planted. To suggest it was planted requires coming up with evidence it was planted. The family would have needed:
1) to know the fatal wound was a contact shot
2) to know all about drawback
3) to obtain Sheila's wet blood or to know her blood type and to obtain some
4) to appreciate that they needed to spray the blood so as to mimick backspatter
5) to figure out a way to spray the blood so it landed on the first 8 baffles
6) to find a way to wash away the blood that would have been inside the rifle barrel because if the moderator had not been attached then the blood form her fatal wound would have been inside the rifle.
Police would have needed the same for them to plant it. Realistically only police agents with such knowledge would be the lab. But the blood was found right away and was seen by the family so was there before it was turned over to the lab. It was not until Vanezis provided his report that police knew about the wound being a contact shot and her blood type. But police would have had to plant the blood right away and convinced the family to lie. They also woudl have to have known abou drawback and to have removed blood from the rifle. But if police planted the blood they would have had the lab test the blood right away instead of wasting so much time fingerprinting it which is what delayed the lab analyzing the blood type. Why woudl they bother planting paint as well if they had planted the blood?
Lawyers get evidence in by testimony of witnesses. What witnesses could they have used to get in the suggestion in that the blood was planted? There are no questions they coudl have asked that would have helped them establish it.
The best they coudl do is what they did which is to try to pretend that Sheila shot June and Nevill then removed the moderator and put it away even though that akes no sense and is not credible. They had the choice of that nonconvincing argument or none.
Paul NGB has set out his stall clearly and concisely he has a law degree from Kings, was a pupil under Stephen Sedley and many years of experience at the bar (hic). I'm happy to accept what he has stated ie that Geoffrey Rivlin could have presented the jury with the realistic possibility of contamination.
-
Paul NGB has set out his stall clearly and concisely he has a law degree from Kings, was a pupil under Stephen Sedley and many years of experience at the bar (hic). I'm happy to accept what he has stated ie that Geoffrey Rivlin could have presented the jury with the realistic possibility of contamination.
NGB hasn't presented anything to suggest planting of evidence occurred. All he said is that he felt they shoudl have tried exploring more on cross examination. I actually do trial work unlike NGB. With that said you, Grahame and others freuently misrepresent what he has stated to suit your ends. You were challenged to produce evidence to support a claim a planting but were unable to do so instead you say well NGB says it could have been expored.
I'm discussing the specific evidence that would have to be explored to estbalish planting but you know you have no case os refuse to discuss same. You spend your life ignoring evidence and procedures to try to support your pretense of Jeremy being innocent so you cna use that to make your silly arguments about people who are adopted because you have whatever problems from your own adoption.
-
NGB hasn't presented anything to suggest planting of evidence occurred. All he said is that he felt they shoudl have tried exploring more on cross examination. I actually do trial work unlike NGB. With that said you, Grahame and others freuently misrepresent what he has stated to suit your ends. You were challenged to produce evidence to support a claim a planting but were unable to do so instead you say well NGB says it could have been expored.
I'm discussing the specific evidence that would have to be explored to estbalish planting but you know you have no case os refuse to discuss same. You spend your life ignoring evidence and procedures to try to support your pretense of Jeremy being innocent so you cna use that to make your silly arguments about people who are adopted because you have whatever problems from your own adoption.
Paul NGB's links provide the complete case for presenting contamination to the jury. It was not necessary for GR to come up with scenarios as to how it was done. The mere fact the relatives found it, tampered with it etc was enough to present to the jury contamination.
If I wanted to beat the adoption drum then surely I would say JB is guilty and JB and SC were both adversely affected by adoption? I don't know how many times I have to say it is not adoption per se but June's mental illness as a result of adopting SC:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4513.msg163034#msg163034
-
The silencer has no significance in the eyes of the laws (in theory)
If Bamber was to get a retrial today the silencer could not be used a forensic exhibit. It was not collected by a supervised forensic team. It was handled by the family then an officer wrapped it in his handkerchief.
The actual silencer was destroyed by police in 1996 so I have been told
-
Paul NGB's links provide the complete case for presenting contamination to the jury. It was not necessary for GR to come up with scenarios as to how it was done. The mere fact the relatives found it, tampered with it etc was enough to present to the jury contamination.
If I wanted to beat the adoption drum then surely I would say JB is guilty and JB and SC were both adversely affected by adoption? I don't know how many times I have to say it is not adoption per se but June's mental illness as a result of adopting SC:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4513.msg163034#msg163034
You have no idea what you are talking about. You got you ass handed to you the last time you raised this BS. You quoted NGB's post about someone arguing fingerprints were planted. He explained how an expert witness was presented who testified it is theoretically possible to plant prints and how it coudl be accomplished. The lawyer coudl nto produce any evidence to establish the prints int he case had actually been planted though in the manner described and thus his unsupported allegationt hat the prints wer eplanted FASILED, his client was convicted.
I challenged you to explain what witness coudl have been called by the defense to establish it was possible for the blood to have been planted and how. A witness comparable to the expert about how to plant prints. You failed to come up with one. Saying that the defense doesn't have the burden of proving evidence wa splanted is false. They bear the burden of producing evidence to estbalish it making an unsupported allegation is not enough.
The fact is that there are no experts the defens ehad availabel to operate like the fingerprint expert and even if they had foudn such an expert it would be as worthless as the fingerprint expert's testimony without some evidence to estbalish the process described by the expert was used to plant it.
Just having a gun in my possession would not enable me to plant your blood in it or to know what blood type you have let alone access to the same blood type to use to plant. Furthermore, I would have to know there would be a way for your blood to get on or in something, how to it should be distributed and a method to plant blood in a way that mimick's how it would be distributed. It is not enough to say I had access to the gun and that alone means evidence found should be ignored.
You ignore it because of your bias not a rational reason. You prove that time and again when you demonstrate your total inability to come up with a way for the blood to have been planted by them and instead just keep up with your simplistic they touched it and that is enough argument.
The OJ Simpson trial shows how defense attorneys allege evidence was planted.
The defense showed through testimony of police officers that they walked around with a blood sample from Simpson in contravention to police policy They argued that documentary evidence established the blood arrived at the lab it had less blood than was taken by the technician. Furthermore they had an expert testify that the blood (that they argued was planted) had a preservative agent in it. The preservative agent was not found in blood when in the body but rather is added after taking a sample to preserve it. They further argued that there was blood on both sides of the sock which means the blood had to have been deposited when it was not being worn the blood had to have been dripped onto the sock while unworn and it penetrated to the other side of the sock. They said this proved someone poured a drop of blood onto the sock. The prosecution challenged these assessments but that is how an actual allegation of planting is made and supported.
Just saying someone had custody of an item is not enough it has to be possible for them to have planted the evidence and there has to be some evidence that supports it happened.
-
You have no idea what you are talking about. You got you ass handed to you the last time you raised this BS. You quoted NGB's post about someone arguing fingerprints were planted. He explained how an expert witness was presented who testified it is theoretically possible to plant prints and how it coudl be accomplished. The lawyer coudl nto produce any evidence to establish the prints int he case had actually been planted though in the manner described and thus his unsupported allegationt hat the prints wer eplanted FASILED, his client was convicted.
I challenged you to explain what witness coudl have been called by the defense to establish it was possible for the blood to have been planted and how. A witness comparable to the expert about how to plant prints. You failed to come up with one. Saying that the defense doesn't have the burden of proving evidence wa splanted is false. They bear the burden of producing evidence to estbalish it making an unsupported allegation is not enough.
The fact is that there are no experts the defens ehad availabel to operate like the fingerprint expert and even if they had foudn such an expert it would be as worthless as the fingerprint expert's testimony without some evidence to estbalish the process described by the expert was used to plant it.
Just having a gun in my possession would not enable me to plant your blood in it or to know what blood type you have let alone access to the same blood type to use to plant. Furthermore, I would have to know there would be a way for your blood to get on or in something, how to it should be distributed and a method to plant blood in a way that mimick's how it would be distributed. It is not enough to say I had access to the gun and that alone means evidence found should be ignored.
You ignore it because of your bias not a rational reason. You prove that time and again when you demonstrate your total inability to come up with a way for the blood to have been planted by them and instead just keep up with your simplistic they touched it and that is enough argument.
The OJ Simpson trial shows how defense attorneys allege evidence was planted.
The defense showed through testimony of police officers that they walked around with a blood sample from Simpson in contravention to police policy They argued that documentary evidence established the blood arrived at the lab it had less blood than was taken by the technician. Furthermore they had an expert testify that the blood (that they argued was planted) had a preservative agent in it. The preservative agent was not found in blood when in the body but rather is added after taking a sample to preserve it. They further argued that there was blood on both sides of the sock which means the blood had to have been deposited when it was not being worn the blood had to have been dripped onto the sock while unworn and it penetrated to the other side of the sock. They said this proved someone poured a drop of blood onto the sock. The prosecution challenged these assessments but that is how an actual allegation of planting is made and supported.
Just saying someone had custody of an item is not enough it has to be possible for them to have planted the evidence and there has to be some evidence that supports it happened.
Paul it was nothing to do with fingerprints per se. NGB was merely explaining that the defendant in the case in question (a suspected IRA terrorist) insisted his fingerprints had been planted on a timer found at the soc. His qc demonstrated it was possible using sellotape to lift prints from one item/location to another. On this basis the QC presented to the jury contamination. The jury evidently rejected this as the verdict was guilty.
The fact the silencer was found by the relatives where blood stained items were present (and no I am not saying SC's underwear/clothing was used to contaminate the silencer) belonging to SC and the silencer was removed from WHF in the back of AE's car and tampered with at Oak Farm was enough to present the jury with potential contamination. Coupled with the fact that SC's blood type/group matched RB's who had a hand in finding and tampering with the silencer prior to its arrival at FSS. The blood sample found in the silencer may have been there as a result of blow back backspatter - I don't know - unlike you I wasn't there. But why not let the jury decide? If all the other evidence was as strong as you suggest then I am sure the jury would have returned the same verdict.
-
The silencer has no significance in the eyes of the laws (in theory)
If Bamber was to get a retrial today the silencer could not be used a forensic exhibit. It was not collected by a supervised forensic team. It was handled by the family then an officer wrapped it in his handkerchief.
The actual silencer was destroyed by police in 1996 so I have been told
You are in error. The moderator is perfectly sound in the eyes of the law. It was actually wrapped in a toilet paper type tube (the cardboard thing that toilet paper/paper towels are wrapped around). Their handling would at worst eliminate some evidence like fingerprints not add the blood that ended up being the crucial evidence.
There is no way to accidentally spray blood inside so it lands on the first 8 baffles. The only way for it to have gotten there is by firing the weapon against someone's body or to deliberately spray it inside using some device. So the only viable argument is to argue intentional planting but that woudl require a number of things:
1) knowing the fatal shot was a contact wound
2) knowing the fatal wound would result in drawback
3) knowing a method to mimick drawback
4) knowing her blood type and finding a source of such blood or finding a source of her won wet blood
5) using a device to pray the blood inside so it lands on the first 8 baffles
6) having access to the rifle and removing blood from inside the rifle.
The family lacked the above and even the police lacked many of the above. Realistically only the lab would have the knowhow to plant the blood. The lab would have to have planted it right away though because records show that on 9/14/85 (one day after it was turned over to the lab) they notified police that it had human blood and paint. Furthermore they would have had to have engaged the family and certain police to lie and say they saw blood before the lab planted it.
If the lab had engaged in such then it would have typoe tested the blood right away (all they did in August was a test to detemrine whether the blood was human or not in September is when they type tested it) not waited another month for police to fingerprint it and superglue fume it. Furthermore the lab on 8/14/85 had no clue that Sheila had died from a contact shot that came later after Vanezis submitted his report (in September). So th elab would not have had a way to know that planting blood would be good let alone had some motive to do so.
The moderator was not destroyed it was tested for DNA and still is held as evidence though there is no blood evidence inside it anymore at this point so new testing would be of no value.
-
Paul it was nothing to do with fingerprints per se. NGB was merely explaining that the defendant in the case in question (a suspected IRA terrorist) insisted his fingerprints had been planted on a timer found at the soc. His qc demonstrated it was possible using sellotape to lift prints from one item/location to another. On this basis the QC presented to the jury contamination. The jury evidently rejected this as the verdict was guilty.
The fact the silencer was found by the relatives where blood stained items were present (and no I am not saying SC's underwear/clothing was used to contaminate the silencer) belonging to SC and the silencer was removed from WHF in the back of AE's car and tampered with at Oak Farm was enough to present the jury with potential contamination. Coupled with the fact that SC's blood type/group matched RB's who had a hand in finding and tampering with the silencer prior to its arrival at FSS. The blood sample found in the silencer may have been there as a result of blow back backspatter - I don't know - unlike you I wasn't there. But why not let the jury decide? If all the other evidence was as strong as you suggest then I am sure the jury would have returned the same verdict.
NGB raised the IRA case to say it is ethically ok to argue planting simply by having an expert testify to how planting evidence is possible. HOWEVER, that is not enough to legally undermine evidence you have to present evidence that evidence wa splanted not just say it theoretically is possible. It wa snot enough to have an expert testify it is possible in theory to plant a print to undermine prints one has to produce evidence they were planted using the described method.
In this case there wa snot even an expert to testify tha tplanting was possible let alone any evidence that planting occurred.
How can the family take panties with dried blood stains, liquify such blood and spray such blood into the moderator to land on the first 8 baffles? What expert would testify such is possibe? The defense didn't find any such expert.
The defense would have looked like morons asking AE if she took the dried blood stain, wet it and then sprayed it inside the moderator. It is not a physical possibility.
-
You are in error. The moderator is perfectly sound in the eyes of the law. It was actually wrapped in a toilet paper type tube (the cardboard thing that toilet paper/paper towels are wrapped around). Their handling would at worst eliminate some evidence like fingerprints not add the blood that ended up being the crucial evidence.
There is no way to accidentally spray blood inside so it lands on the first 8 baffles. The only way for it to have gotten there is by firing the weapon against someone's body or to deliberately spray it inside using some device. So the only viable argument is to argue intentional planting but that woudl require a number of things:
1) knowing the fatal shot was a contact wound
2) knowing the fatal wound would result in drawback
3) knowing a method to mimick drawback
4) knowing her blood type and finding a source of such blood or finding a source of her won wet blood
5) using a device to pray the blood inside so it lands on the first 8 baffles
6) having access to the rifle and removing blood from inside the rifle.
The family lacked the above and even the police lacked many of the above. Realistically only the lab would have the knowhow to plant the blood. The lab would have to have planted it right away though because records show that on 9/14/85 (one day after it was turned over to the lab) they notified police that it had human blood and paint. Furthermore they would have had to have engaged the family and certain police to lie and say they saw blood before the lab planted it.
If the lab had engaged in such then it would have typoe tested the blood right away (all they did in August was a test to detemrine whether the blood was human or not in September is when they type tested it) not waited another month for police to fingerprint it and superglue fume it. Furthermore the lab on 8/14/85 had no clue that Sheila had died from a contact shot that came later after Vanezis submitted his report (in September). So th elab would not have had a way to know that planting blood would be good let alone had some motive to do so.
The moderator was not destroyed it was tested for DNA and still is held as evidence though there is no blood evidence inside it anymore at this point so new testing would be of no value.
Paul, according to you.
I'm not repeating myself over and over. You have no qualifications and experience that makes you anymore competent than myself in this regard and certainly not as competent as NGB. So please stop bigging yourself up and expecting others to come up with ideas/research for your book that quite possibly will never be.
-
Paul, according to you.
I'm not repeating myself over and over. You have no qualifications and experience that makes you anymore competent than myself in this regard and certainly not as competent as NGB. So please stop bigging yourself up and expecting others to come up with ideas/research for your book that quite possibly will never be.
I am a trial lawyer unlike NGB. If you want to go by Expertise my credentials are supoerior to his. I don't make it an issue of credentials though I go by evidence.
Your opinion tha tit is possible to take a dried blood stian and transfer the blood to the first 8 baffles is a stupid one. Anyoen with half a brian will laiugh at you.
In the meantime to get in court you have to be an expert not just Holly the smoe off the street. You have to have scientific expertise which would allow you to explain a scientifically recognized process for the blood being transferred. The defense never found an expert to provide such testimony and you surely would no quality to provide it.
All you are doing is embarrassing yourself. Is Paul some generic name that is used to criticize someone because my name is John or Giovanni (though only my grandmother called me that) if you want to go by my birth certificate not Paul.
-
You are in error. The moderator is perfectly sound in the eyes of the law. It was actually wrapped in a toilet paper type tube (the cardboard thing that toilet paper/paper towels are wrapped around). Their handling would at worst eliminate some evidence like fingerprints not add the blood that ended up being the crucial evidence.
There is no way to accidentally spray blood inside so it lands on the first 8 baffles. The only way for it to have gotten there is by firing the weapon against someone's body or to deliberately spray it inside using some device. So the only viable argument is to argue intentional planting but that woudl require a number of things:
1) knowing the fatal shot was a contact wound
2) knowing the fatal wound would result in drawback
3) knowing a method to mimick drawback
4) knowing her blood type and finding a source of such blood or finding a source of her won wet blood
5) using a device to pray the blood inside so it lands on the first 8 baffles
6) having access to the rifle and removing blood from inside the rifle.
The family lacked the above and even the police lacked many of the above. Realistically only the lab would have the knowhow to plant the blood. The lab would have to have planted it right away though because records show that on 9/14/85 (one day after it was turned over to the lab) they notified police that it had human blood and paint. Furthermore they would have had to have engaged the family and certain police to lie and say they saw blood before the lab planted it.
If the lab had engaged in such then it would have typoe tested the blood right away (all they did in August was a test to detemrine whether the blood was human or not in September is when they type tested it) not waited another month for police to fingerprint it and superglue fume it. Furthermore the lab on 8/14/85 had no clue that Sheila had died from a contact shot that came later after Vanezis submitted his report (in September). So th elab would not have had a way to know that planting blood would be good let alone had some motive to do so.
The moderator was not destroyed it was tested for DNA and still is held as evidence though there is no blood evidence inside it anymore at this point so new testing would be of no value.
The Silencer can't be used as a forensic exhibit due how it was handled. Not by todays standards
It would be invaluable to learn more about this evidence, using scientific techniques available today.
But this is impossible because Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits, including all the blood-based samples, in February 1996.
Those responsible insisted they had not realised that the exhibits might be needed - yet ever since the conviction, this case had been a hot topic.
In February 1996, it was still under consideration by the Home Office and was one of the first to be transferred to the new Criminal Cases Review Commission, which said the destruction of scientific exhibits was "in breach of the force's own guidelines
http://murderpedia.org/male.B/b/bamber-jeremy.htm (http://murderpedia.org/male.B/b/bamber-jeremy.htm)
-
The Silencer can't be used as a forensic exhibit due how it was handled. Not by todays standards
http://murderpedia.org/male.B/b/bamber-jeremy.htm (http://murderpedia.org/male.B/b/bamber-jeremy.htm)
The blood exhibits that are being referred to as destroyed were blood samples. The moderator was not destroyed and is not a blood exhibit. Blood was removed from it and that blood was destroyed by the testing.
The handling of the moderator doesn't preclude the use of the blood evidence. It precludes the LCN DNA evidence that was found meaning anything. If the crime happened today then they would have done a DNA test on the blood that was removed instead of just type testing it. That would be useful because the blood that was deposite don the 8 baffles could not have been deposited by contamination. I contrast the LCN DNA could have come from contamination and in fact did come from contamination because it was found in areas that there was no blood originally and the moderator tested negative for blood before the swabbing for DNA. LN DNA was developed to sort out who remains belonged to. It at best shows someone's DNA was transferred to a location. When there is no natural innocent way for DNA to have been transferred that is when it is most useful for example when a stranger's DNA is found on or near a body. LCN DNA is so small there is no way to tell whether it is blood based, saliva based or semen based. But if you didn't know someone who was raped and your DNA is found on her thigh or crotch you are in trouble because you have no way to explain you DNA naturally contaminating the area. If you did know the person but were not very close ot them so had no reason to be near their thigh recently you still have problems...
The same principles hold true for fingerprints. Do you have a valid reason for your prints being somewhere that amounts to them getting there innocently?
People keep misrepresenting that the moderator evidence could not be used today and that is patently false.
-
The blood exhibits that are being referred to as destroyed were blood samples. The moderator was not destroyed and is not a blood exhibit. Blood was removed from it and that blood was destroyed by the testing.
The handling of the moderator doesn't preclude the use of the blood evidence. It precludes the LCN DNA evidence that was found meaning anything. If the crime happened today then they would have done a DNA test on the blood that was removed instead of just type testing it. That would be useful because the blood that was deposite don the 8 baffles could not have been deposited by contamination. I contrast the LCN DNA could have come from contamination and in fact did come from contamination because it was found in areas that there was no blood originally and the moderator tested negative for blood before the swabbing for DNA. LN DNA was developed to sort out who remains belonged to. It at best shows someone's DNA was transferred to a location. When there is no natural innocent way for DNA to have been transferred that is when it is most useful for example when a stranger's DNA is found on or near a body. LCN DNA is so small there is no way to tell whether it is blood based, saliva based or semen based. But if you didn't know someone who was raped and your DNA is found on her thigh or crotch you are in trouble because you have no way to explain you DNA naturally contaminating the area. If you did know the person but were not very close ot them so had no reason to be near their thigh recently you still have problems...
The same principles hold true for fingerprints. Do you have a valid reason for your prints being somewhere that amounts to them getting there innocently?
People keep misrepresenting that the moderator evidence could not be used today and that is patently false.
I don't think anyone on this forum including myself can really make a sound argument about LCN DNA. Do we even know what we are talking about?
It has been used in more than 21,000 serious crime cases in the UK and internationally, particularly in "cold" cases. A FSS spokesman said: "LCN DNA analysis is only carried out by the most-experienced DNA scientists, who have undergone special additional training and testing in this area of casework."[5] However, the technique came under attack from the Judge during the trial of Sean Hoey - who was eventually cleared of involvement in the Omagh Bombing. One of the criticisms the judge leveled at LCN was that although the FSS had internally validated and published scientific papers on the technique, there was an alleged lack of external validation by the wider scientific community.[6] Following the Judge's ruling, the use of the technique was suspended in the UK, pending a review by the Crown Prosecution Service. This review was completed and the suspension lifted on the January 14, 2008 with the CPS stating that it had not seen anything to suggest that any current problems exist with LCN".[1]
The increased sensitivity of LCN also increases the risks posed by contamination of samples in the laboratory. Since LCN aims to amplify levels of DNA as low as 100 picograms, even breathing on a sample may contaminate it substantially enough to render the final profile unusable[citation needed]. Contamination is particularly problematic before the sample has undergone amplification because both the suspect's and the contaminator's DNA will be amplified, resulting in a mixed profile. Moreover, the small amounts of DNA that LCN aims to amplify also increase the probability of PCR artifacts appearing on profiles such as stochastic effects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number)
In other words save it for those that are experience and qualified.
I have read in many instances that the silencer along with all other blood samples was destroyed 1996. If they still existed today why have they not been under modern examination? The prosecution argued that AK1 adenylate kinase was in the silencer and attributed it to Shelia a poor argument. From what I understand the silencer was put under allot of scrutiny by the defence thus became irrelevant at the trial, it was all down to Jeremy's word against Julie's that would seal the verdict.
-
I don't think anyone on this forum including myself can really make a sound argument about LCN DNA. Do we even know what we are talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number)
In other words save it for those that are experience and qualified.
I have read in many instances that the silencer along with all other blood samples was destroyed 1996. If they still existed today why have they not been under modern examination? The prosecution argued that AK1 adenylate kinase was in the silencer and attributed it to Shelia a poor argument. From what I understand the silencer was put under allot of scrutiny by the defence thus became irrelevant at the trial, it was all down to Jeremy's word against Julie's that would seal the verdict.
Listening to what people claim but offer no evidence to support is your first mistake.
LCN DNA testing was not available in 1996 so the fact the moderator was tested using LCN testing proves it was not destroyed. The blood samples of the victims were destoryed and for that reason they had to obtain DNA profiles of other relatives to use to compare to the DNA found in the moderator.
The same principles that apply to LCN DNA apply to all evidence. There are limits to what evidence can prove. The value of evidence depends on the circumstances of the case.
The difference between standard DNA testing and LCN testing is that with rare exception regular DNA testing involves DNA sources of such a large size it had to have come directly from the person. In contrast LCN testing samples can be so small that they were transferred by a third party. The theoretical contamination possibility means that there are limits to what it proves but that is true of all evidence.
If my fingerprints are found on a glass at a house where a crime happened and it turns out that I visited the house the day before the crimes occurred and drank during such visit that is an innocent explanation for the prints being there and the prints prove nothing. If the print are in blood of the victims, the innocent explanation still will not acoc..t for such. So use of evidence is very fact specific.
I don't knoe what testing you think should be done ot the moderator. It already underwent the most sensitive testing available- LCN DNA testing. Such testing was a waste of time though because it had no ability to prove anything. The key issue is whose blood was removed from the moderator. DNA testing oof the blod that was removed is what was key. But such blood was destroyed by the blood type tests. There thus was no way to test such for DNA. In 1985-86 the lab and also a defense expert removed all blood fromt he moderator. Subsequent tests to the moderator found no blood. That means if a DNA test were done there is no way to establish any of the DNA found was blood based. DNA not blood based is worthless in assessing whose blood was inside. Thus there was no reason to do a DNA test but the defense did it anyway and the appeal court ended up predicatbly saying the results were meaningless.
There are no tests to the moderator which would not be meaningless. The only menaingful tests that could be done were if there ended up being some blood removed in 1985-86 that were available for DNA testing. Chances are the DNA would have degraded too much to get a result but it would be worth a try if such blood remained. Short of that there is no plausible test that could impact the blood evidence used at trial.
If the crime happened today they would not have bothered doing a type test on the blood found inside they would have done a DNA test on such blood. The defense would hope that such blood turned out to belong to a victim other than Sheila. The prosecution would hope it belongs to Sheila or Sheila and others. The reaosn why is simple, if the blood was Sheila's then someone else shot her with the moderator attached then put it away after her death. If it was a victim other than Sheila it permits the defense to argue Sheila used the moderator to kill the others then removed the moderator and put it away before she killed herself.
The argument is still not a great one because Sheila would not have bothered to go fetch the moderator, attach it and then go put it away. Victim blood inside was bad period for the defense because it implicates Jeremy. Furthermore if she was killed without the moderator attached her blood should have been in the rifle itself but it wasn't. So things are still not rosy for the defense but it is even worse when the evidence is that the moderator was used to kill Sheila because it was impossible for her to remove it and put it away after she died. So in a DNA test the defense would be hoping for the lesser of two evils essentially.
-
Listening to what people claim but offer no evidence to support is your first mistake.
LCN DNA testing was not available in 1996 so the fact the moderator was tested using LCN testing proves it was not destroyed. The blood samples of the victims were destoryed and for that reason they had to obtain DNA profiles of other relatives to use to compare to the DNA found in the moderator.
The same principles that apply to LCN DNA apply to all evidence. There are limits to what evidence can prove. The value of evidence depends on the circumstances of the case.
The difference between standard DNA testing and LCN testing is that with rare exception regular DNA testing involves DNA sources of such a large size it had to have come directly from the person. In contrast LCN testing samples can be so small that they were transferred by a third party. The theoretical contamination possibility means that there are limits to what it proves but that is true of all evidence.
If my fingerprints are found on a glass at a house where a crime happened and it turns out that I visited the house the day before the crimes occurred and drank during such visit that is an innocent explanation for the prints being there and the prints prove nothing. If the print are in blood of the victims, the innocent explanation still will not acoc..t for such. So use of evidence is very fact specific.
I don't knoe what testing you think should be done ot the moderator. It already underwent the most sensitive testing available- LCN DNA testing. Such testing was a waste of time though because it had no ability to prove anything. The key issue is whose blood was removed from the moderator. DNA testing oof the blod that was removed is what was key. But such blood was destroyed by the blood type tests. There thus was no way to test such for DNA. In 1985-86 the lab and also a defense expert removed all blood fromt he moderator. Subsequent tests to the moderator found no blood. That means if a DNA test were done there is no way to establish any of the DNA found was blood based. DNA not blood based is worthless in assessing whose blood was inside. Thus there was no reason to do a DNA test but the defense did it anyway and the appeal court ended up predicatbly saying the results were meaningless.
There are no tests to the moderator which would not be meaningless. The only menaingful tests that could be done were if there ended up being some blood removed in 1985-86 that were available for DNA testing. Chances are the DNA would have degraded too much to get a result but it would be worth a try if such blood remained. Short of that there is no plausible test that could impact the blood evidence used at trial.
If the crime happened today they would not have bothered doing a type test on the blood found inside they would have done a DNA test on such blood. The defense would hope that such blood turned out to belong to a victim other than Sheila. The prosecution would hope it belongs to Sheila or Sheila and others. The reaosn why is simple, if the blood was Sheila's then someone else shot her with the moderator attached then put it away after her death. If it was a victim other than Sheila it permits the defense to argue Sheila used the moderator to kill the others then removed the moderator and put it away before she killed herself.
The argument is still not a great one because Sheila would not have bothered to go fetch the moderator, attach it and then go put it away. Victim blood inside was bad period for the defense because it implicates Jeremy. Furthermore if she was killed without the moderator attached her blood should have been in the rifle itself but it wasn't. So things are still not rosy for the defense but it is even worse when the evidence is that the moderator was used to kill Sheila because it was impossible for her to remove it and put it away after she died. So in a DNA test the defense would be hoping for the lesser of two evils essentially.
Interesting. So what was destroyed by police in 1996? some but not all evidence?
Appeal Court Judges in 2002. "The sound moderator retained by Essex Police was DNA tested by forensic experts working for the CCRC. In 2001 these tests revealed both male and female DNA to be present on the internal baffle plates. The female DNA was ruled not to have come from Sheila."
Its a double edged sword really. A defence could say the LCN DNA tests prove the DNA is not Shelia's but then again could not also state its contaminated by making the first claim.
Its very possible Shelia or Jeremy could have committed the act without the silencer. it could have played no role what so ever
-
Interesting. So what was destroyed by police in 1996? some but not all evidence?
Appeal Court Judges in 2002. "The sound moderator retained by Essex Police was DNA tested by forensic experts working for the CCRC. In 2001 these tests revealed both male and female DNA to be present on the internal baffle plates. The female DNA was ruled not to have come from Sheila."
Its a double edged sword really. A defence could say the LCN DNA tests prove the DNA is not Shelia's but then again could not also state its contaminated by making the first claim.
Its very possible Shelia or Jeremy could have committed the act without the silencer. it could have played no role what so ever
If the moderator played no role there would not have been any blood in it. The blood got inside by shooting a victim(s) with the moderator attached and it being 1mm or less from the skin of the victim.
The paint on the outside came from the moderator scraping the mantle when Nevill struggled with his killer and the ceiling lamp broke the same manner- the gun was so long with the moderator attached it broke the lamo which was over the table. Obviously the gun was at an angle at the time as they struggled.
You missed the part where the Court of Appeals said Sheila's DNA may or may not have been inside. A defense expert claimed there was not enough of a match to say for sure her blood was inside. Others though say enough markers matched to statistically say her DNA was inside. The problem though is that ther eis nothing to establish such DNA was blood based and that is what matters not DNA that got there through contamination while the moderator was being handle post murder. What matters is whose blood was removed and none of that was preserved for DNA testing. Neither the prosecution nor defense anticipated one day doing a DNA test so neither kept any.
They saved blood samples from the victims until 1996 but in 1996 they were tossed by the police depository. I have repeatedly searched for information on anything else that the defense claims was destroyed post trial but have not seen any evidence except in relation to the blood samples- destruction of the samples is documented.