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 March 04, 2016, 06:19:01 PM
-
On 15th August DI Cook took the rifle and silencer to the Police Scientific Development Branch (now known as Centre For Applied Science And Technology) at Sandridge, Hertfordshire in an attempt to reveal latent fingerprints on the two items.
This involved placing the items in a cyanoacrylate (superglue) fuming chamber which works by reacting with chemicals contained in fingerprints. The airtight chamber contains a few drops of superglue in an open container which is situated on a heater. Once the superglue reaches boiling point it will boil away into the surrounding atmosphere creating a concentration of gaseous cyanoacrylate. If any latent fingerprints exist anywhere inside the chamber, they will eventually be exposed to the gaseous cyanoacrylate. This exposure and the natural humidity contained in the atmosphere are enough to trigger the reaction automatically with the chemicals in fingerprints to reveal latent fingerprints.
Two vids to explain:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fey7XzbYdyM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb1Gkk7KeMU
What has this got to do with the flake of blood found in the silencer? When John Hayward tested the flake of blood in the silencer on 12th Sept he did so by way of conventional serological analysis. This was clearly AFTER the silencer and flake of blood had been subjected to the heat and humidity in fuming chamber (above). The problem is that blood samples found at crime scenes on nonporous surfaces, such as the flake within the silencer, need very careful handling especially if the blood sample is to be analysed by way of conventional serological analysis. Such a sample must never be exposed to heat and humidity otherwise it will destroy its evidential value. So how did the flake survive the heat and humidity in the fuming chamber? This just reinforces my view that the silencer was deliberately contaminated.
For the naysayers Google "Collection and preservation of blood evidence heat and humidity". You just need to be mindful that in JB's case we are talking about conventional serologcial analysis of blood and not DNA testing. Blood samples for DNA testing do not need to be of such good quality as blood for conventional serological analysis.
It should now be possible to carry out a straightforward and cost effective test by introducing blood the size of the flake into a Parker Hale silencer and subjecting to the same treatment as the silencer underwent on 15th Aug in the fuming chamber. If the flake is then unable to produce results for serological analysis then it really is game over for the flake of blood which underpins JB's conviction.
JB could then go straight to the DPP or CPS and disclose the material, rather than presenting the material to the CCRC. If it is clear cut the DPP/CPS can then agree - and have done so on occasions - that they will not oppose an appeal against conviction and in that situation the case can be fast tracked to the Court of Appeal, with a bail application made immediately pending the hearing of the appeal.
5
-
Extreme heat and humidity CAN damage blood that doesn't mean it WILL damage blood to the extent that it can't be tested successfully.
You always try to make a hard rule out of possibilities like when you took the claim that bone and other tissue CAN be present in spatter and insisted it must be present.
Such twisting accomplishes nothing in a legal setting.
-
Extreme heat and humidity CAN damage blood that doesn't mean it WILL damage blood to the extent that it can't be tested successfully.
You always try to make a hard rule out of possibilities like when you took the claim that bone and other tissue CAN be present in spatter and insisted it must be present.
Such twisting accomplishes nothing in a legal setting.
Yes it's just a hypothesis at this moment in time but one that I'm cautiously optimistic about ?>)()<
George Schiro a forensic scientist with 30 years experience states a "large" (quarter size) blood sample is usually required in good condition for conventional serological analysis. You don't need me to tell you the size of a quarter coin but for the benefit of others who might not know it's 24.26mm in diameter with a 1.75mm width. The flake measured 6.35mm (quarter of an inch).
http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/print/blood-print.html
http://www.forensicscienceresources.com/georgecv.htm
The prosecution claim JB murdered the victims in quick succession with a total of 25 shots fired and one of the two shots to SC causing 'draw-back'. By this time the silencer was warm or hot. Any blood drawn into the silencer would be almost instantaneous with discharge of the rifle. Meaning hot gasses were still exiting over the blood (see gif below). It is then claimed JB placed the silencer in a bag. Plastic bags can be harmful to blood samples but I accept this would be difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. Plus I'm unsure whether the bag was plastic or cloth. The silencer remained in situ until the relatives discovered it on 10th Aug. It was taken to Oak Farm in the boot of AE's car. Again another potentially hazardous environment. It was then placed in a wardrobe ? until DS Jones collected on 12th Aug. Another car journey to EP on 13th Aug when it was handed to DI Cook who took it to the lab where scientist Glynis Howard examined the outside. It was then handed back to DI Cook who transported it back to EP. On 15th August another car journey to Sandridge where it was subjected to the fuming chamber in an attempt to reveal latent fingerprints. It was also photographed. It then remained with EP until it was transported again to the lab around 12th Sept for further analysis.
The 'chain of custody' shows many harmful environments which are likely to degrade a blood sample. Some can easily be quantified others not.
I think given the small sample that the fuming chamber alone would kill it dead.
Other potential hazards are ultra-violet light but I guess given the 'flake' was trapped between the baffles it was well protected &%+((£
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Yes it's just a hypothesis at this moment in time but one that I'm cautiously optimistic about ?>)()<
Cautiously optimistic about what? It is a known fact proven in real world settings that drawback has been able to be successfully tested. It is a know proven fact in real world settings blood can successfully be tested despite super glue fuming.
Your hope that someone will be able to prove it can never be tested successfully has already been proven wrong.
Mark my words there will be nothing that comes of any new tests. You can remain hopeful all you like but when all is said and done remember what I said- so I don't have to bother telling you I told you so.
-
Cautiously optimistic about what? It is a known fact proven in real world settings that drawback has been able to be successfully tested. It is a know proven fact in real world settings blood can successfully be tested despite super glue fuming.
Your hope that someone will be able to prove it can never be tested successfully has already been proven wrong.
Mark my words there will be nothing that comes of any new tests. You can remain hopeful all you like but when all is said and done remember what I said- so I don't have to bother telling you I told you so.
Are you able to provide any links to support your assertions that cyanoacrylate fuming is not detrimental to blood that is subsequently tested by way of conventional serological analysis?
It is not just that the environments per se had the potential to harm the evidential value of the flake but that once removed from those environments and kept at ambient temperature it was susceptible to degradation from bacteria.
There's not a great deal on line about cyanoacrylate fuming and conventional serological analysis of blood. Probably because the two tests crossed over ie as cyanoacrylate fuming became an established method of recovering latents fingerprints, conventional serological analysis of blood was succeeded by DNA testing.
What I've discovered so far is that cyanoacrylate fuming is detrimental to DAB processing. DAB processing is a method used to recover fingerprints in blood which reacts with hemoglobin present in blood and the chemical Diaminobenzidine (DAB) ie don't subject objects to the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber with bloody fingerprints as the chamber will render the bloody fingerprints useless for subsequent DAB testing as it is detrimental to hemoglobin. The fuming chamber reveals latent fingerprints on non porous objects but it is not able to reveal fingerprints in blood.
John Hayward identified Haptoglobin (Hp) in the sample which binds to hemoglobin above, so yes I'm feeling optimistic.
The norm at a scene of crime would be for all blood evidence to be collected and preserved using established methods. In JB's case it was anything but.
"Cyanoacrylate fuming is detrimental to D.A.B. processing".
http://www.cbdiai.org/Reagents/dab.html
-
On 15th August DI Cook took the rifle and silencer to the Police Scientific Development Branch (now known as Centre For Applied Science And Technology) at Sandridge, Hertfordshire in an attempt to reveal latent fingerprints on the two items.
This involved placing the items in a cyanoacrylate (superglue) fuming chamber which works by reacting with chemicals contained in fingerprints. The airtight chamber contains a few drops of superglue in an open container which is situated on a heater. Once the superglue reaches boiling point it will boil away into the surrounding atmosphere creating a concentration of gaseous cyanoacrylate. If any latent fingerprints exist anywhere inside the chamber, they will eventually be exposed to the gaseous cyanoacrylate. This exposure and the natural humidity contained in the atmosphere are enough to trigger the reaction automatically with the chemicals in fingerprints to reveal latent fingerprints.
Two vids to explain:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fey7XzbYdyM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb1Gkk7KeMU
What has this got to do with the flake of blood found in the silencer? When John Hayward tested the flake of blood in the silencer on 12th Sept he did so by way of conventional serological analysis. This was clearly AFTER the silencer and flake of blood had been subjected to the heat and humidity in fuming chamber (above). The problem is that blood samples found at crime scenes on nonporous surfaces, such as the flake within the silencer, need very careful handling especially if the blood sample is to be analysed by way of conventional serological analysis. Such a sample must never be exposed to heat and humidity otherwise it will destroy its evidential value. So how did the flake survive the heat and humidity in the fuming chamber? This just reinforces my view that the silencer was deliberately contaminated.
For the naysayers Google "Collection and preservation of blood evidence heat and humidity". You just need to be mindful that in JB's case we are talking about conventional serologcial analysis of blood and not DNA testing. Blood samples for DNA testing do not need to be of such good quality as blood for conventional serological analysis.
It should now be possible to carry out a straightforward and cost effective test by introducing blood the size of the flake into a Parker Hale silencer and subjecting to the same treatment as the silencer underwent on 15th Aug in the fuming chamber. If the flake is then unable to produce results for serological analysis then it really is game over for the flake of blood which underpins JB's conviction.
JB could then go straight to the DPP or CPS and disclose the material, rather than presenting the material to the CCRC. If it is clear cut the DPP/CPS can then agree - and have done so on occasions - that they will not oppose an appeal against conviction and in that situation the case can be fast tracked to the Court of Appeal, with a bail application made immediately pending the hearing of the appeal.
If only it was so simple Holly. The way I see it Jerry's conviction is based on a hell of a lot more than a speck of blood found in the sound moderator. The forensics in this case reveals a sequence of events which are indisputable and consistent with Jerry and not Sheila being guilty. In order to overturn the conviction every bit of that forensic evidence will have to be discredited and I for one can never see that happening. I'm afraid the magic piece of evidence which Jerry and his supporters rely on is an illusion.
For Jeremy Bamber to walk he will have to prove his innocence. After all this time reasonable doubt just won't cut it!
-
The following is unrelated to the blood and not really important in the grand scheme of things.
Page 21 of the following:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/jan2001/lpu.pdf
The accumulation of cyanoacrylate glue fumes on some parts of a firearm could have an
unfavorable effect during a subsequent firearms examination. In those instances when a firearms
examination is to be done or anticipated, each chamber opening (e.g., the cylinder of a revolver)
and each barrel opening should be covered with a small piece of tape (just large enough to cover
the opening) before fuming with glue. Ensure that the area to be covered by the tape is
processed by other appropriate methods, prior to covering. Remove the tape after the
cyanoacrylate glue fuming process.
Is this the reason, in full or part, the rifle malfunctioned when Malcolm Fletcher carried out firearms testing?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=271.0;attach=871
-
DI Ron Cook in conversation with CAL (2013)...
He explains: ‘One of the fingerprint development techniques being researched then was cyanoacrylate – superglue fuming – which was ideal for untreated metals such as guns. Sandridge was an experimental research establishment where authorized personnel were allowed to use the equipment, but it took time. You had to book a slot, then take items away to be photographed because Sandridge didn’t have those facilities, and take them back to complete the process. It wasn’t a matter of just rolling up at the door. The other issue was that we didn’t know then whether superglue treatment affected blood groupings. Fortunately, that turned out fine.’
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. (p. 239). Pan Macmillan.
I think the breech damage of the rifle had nothing to do with superglue fuming, but was the result of mishandling, i.e. when Jeremy used it to batter the living daylights out of his father, with either the butt-end directed at his face or in a pistol-whipping action which caused the linear bruising on his right forearm.
-
DI Ron Cook in conversation with CAL (2013)...
He explains: ‘One of the fingerprint development techniques being researched then was cyanoacrylate – superglue fuming – which was ideal for untreated metals such as guns. Sandridge was an experimental research establishment where authorized personnel were allowed to use the equipment, but it took time. You had to book a slot, then take items away to be photographed because Sandridge didn’t have those facilities, and take them back to complete the process. It wasn’t a matter of just rolling up at the door. The other issue was that we didn’t know then whether superglue treatment affected blood groupings. Fortunately, that turned out fine.’
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. (p. 239). Pan Macmillan.
I think the breech damage of the rifle had nothing to do with superglue fuming, but was the result of mishandling, i.e. when Jeremy used it to batter the living daylights out of his father, with either the butt-end directed at his face or in a pistol-whipping action which caused the linear bruising on his right forearm.
Yes I was aware of DI Cook's comments in CAL's book but I didn't bother posting them as they seem irrelevant. &%+((£ When the silencer/flake underwent the fuming process on 15th Aug the flake hadn't even been identified so the fact DI Cook states it didn't affect groupings doesn't really mean much? If the silencer was deliberately contaminated, as I think it was, who was responsible for oversight and the chain of communication to flag up the fuming process? How does DI Cook know the fuming process didn't have a detrimental affect on the flake analysed on 12th or 13th Sep? Did JB's defence test it? Not as far as I can see.
The rifle still exists so it should be possible to foresnsically analyse it for superglue residues but as I said its not really important in the grand scheme of things anyway.
-
One of the reasons I am sceptical about the 'flake' is that the blood on the rifle was unable to be grouped by way of conventional serological analysis referred to as 'grouping' below.
From CoA document:
71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding. On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful.
462. In one respect Dr Lincoln was in error. Whether that error was from something said by Mr Hayward or simply from an assumption made by Dr Lincoln cannot now be ascertained and matters not. The error was to suggest that the whole of the blood flake was dissolved and the resulting solution was used for all the tests. In fact what had happened was that the flake had been divided into a number of parts and each part had then been used for a separate group test. Thus the tests were not done on liquid drawn from the same solution made from the whole flake but on separate solutions each made from distinct parts of the flake. We have no means of knowing whether correction of this error would in any way have altered Dr Lincoln's view.
So why was the flake able to yield results but not the splashes and smears? Especially given the splashes and smears were not exposed to harmful environments? The blood testing on the rifle was carried out on 13th Aug (a month before the flake) and before entering the fuming chamber.
-
If only it was so simple Holly. The way I see it Jerry's conviction is based on a hell of a lot more than a speck of blood found in the sound moderator. The forensics in this case reveals a sequence of events which are indisputable and consistent with Jerry and not Sheila being guilty. In order to overturn the conviction every bit of that forensic evidence will have to be discredited and I for one can never see that happening. I'm afraid the magic piece of evidence which Jerry and his supporters rely on is an illusion.
For Jeremy Bamber to walk he will have to prove his innocence. After all this time reasonable doubt just won't cut it!
Sadly I think it might be with regards to the flake. I say sadly because if I am right regarding my hypothesis and the flake then surely it is something Paul Terzeon and Geoffrey Rivling QC should have picked up on pre-trial? My understanding is that the blood flake found in the silencer matching SC's blood serology which the prosecution claim was there as result of draw-back underpins JB's conviction. This is certainly the view of JB's defence:
"The possibility that the blood grouping result achieved by the prosecution which indicated that Sheila Caffell's blood was in the silencer, was potentially the best point the Crowns had at trial and consequently was examined closely"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=569.0;attach=1865
If tests prove my hypothesis correct then it must be the silencer was deliberately contaminated? If other aspects of the prosecution case against JB were strong then why would there be a need to fabricate evidence?
I don't believe it is necessary to take apart every aspect of the prosecutions case for a conviction to be quashed. My understanding is that some new evidence is required that had jurors known about at trial might have altered their verdicts. No one knows what weight jurors gave to the various aspects of the prosecutions case. We only know taken as a whole 10 of the 12 jurors found JB guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
-
For those reading this thread that might be assisting JB I just wish to add that I personally would not trust JB's defence at trial as far as I could throw them. If they say they covered off the fuming chamber I would still recommend independent testing. Geoffrey Rivlin QC (and possibly to a lesser extent Paul Terzeon) will not want their professional reputations in tatters. I believe they will do anything and I mean anything to protect their reputations. No doubt hoping if anything comes to light they can get off on non-disclosure rather than their own complacency and incompetence.
8()(((@#
-
Are you able to provide any links to support your assertions that cyanoacrylate fuming is not detrimental to blood that is subsequently tested by way of conventional serological analysis?
It is not just that the environments per se had the potential to harm the evidential value of the flake but that once removed from those environments and kept at ambient temperature it was susceptible to degradation from bacteria.
There's not a great deal on line about cyanoacrylate fuming and conventional serological analysis of blood. Probably because the two tests crossed over ie as cyanoacrylate fuming became an established method of recovering latents fingerprints, conventional serological analysis of blood was succeeded by DNA testing.
What I've discovered so far is that cyanoacrylate fuming is detrimental to DAB processing. DAB processing is a method used to recover fingerprints in blood which reacts with hemoglobin present in blood and the chemical Diaminobenzidine (DAB) ie don't subject objects to the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber with bloody fingerprints as the chamber will render the bloody fingerprints useless for subsequent DAB testing as it is detrimental to hemoglobin. The fuming chamber reveals latent fingerprints on non porous objects but it is not able to reveal fingerprints in blood.
John Hayward identified Haptoglobin (Hp) in the sample which binds to hemoglobin above, so yes I'm feeling optimistic.
The norm at a scene of crime would be for all blood evidence to be collected and preserved using established methods. In JB's case it was anything but.
"Cyanoacrylate fuming is detrimental to D.A.B. processing".
http://www.cbdiai.org/Reagents/dab.html
"Cyanoacrylate fuming can be detrimental to all blood DAB processing. DAB processing must be completed before
processing with cyanoacrylate"
Page 24:
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj2-bTkjrHLAhXCuRQKHSS8A44QFggiMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Fabout-us%2Flab%2Fforensic-science-communications%2Ffsc%2Fjan2001%2Flpu.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFv3wpeYREiJzOS2y0cUtImjnD2uQ
I accept the above statement isn't the same as saying cyanoacrylate fuming can be detrimental to blood serology testing but it gives an indication that the technique is detrimental to blood or part of its constituents. Hardly surprising if the fumes are capable of adhering to firearm mechanisms and causing them to malfunction. See post #6
-
I've been unable to find any info relating to cyanoacrylate fuming and blood sereology testing. Probably because investigators and forensic scientists would know that blood intended for further testing must be removed or tested prior to entering the chamber to preserve its evidential value.
Blood for DNA testing is different in that poor quality samples are capable of yielding a profile unlike blood samples used for serology testing which require good quality samples to yield results.
-
"Cyanoacrylate fuming can be detrimental to all blood DAB processing. DAB processing must be completed before
processing with cyanoacrylate"
Page 24:
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj2-bTkjrHLAhXCuRQKHSS8A44QFggiMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Fabout-us%2Flab%2Fforensic-science-communications%2Ffsc%2Fjan2001%2Flpu.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFv3wpeYREiJzOS2y0cUtImjnD2uQ
I accept the above statement isn't the same as saying cyanoacrylate fuming can be detrimental to blood serology testing but it gives an indication that the technique is detrimental to blood or part of its constituents. Hardly surprising if the fumes are capable of adhering to firearm mechanisms and causing them to malfunction. See post #6
Can be is meaningless. You need to establish it always degrades blood to the point that one can NEVER EVER successfully obtain a testing result. You can't establish such because it is not true. There are numerous cases where blood evidence was used after super glue fuming. That is true of both conventional as well as DNA testing of blood.
When bodies are left outdoors exposed to the elements for long periods before being found there is a good chance DNA and other evidence will be washed away or so badly decomposed so that no successful results can be obtained. Yet on some occasions such results still have been successfully obtained. In such a case you would want to argue the results must have been fabricated because they can never be obtained but there is no such hard and fast rule.
You are doing the equivalent here. You want to argue it is not possible for results to be successfully obtained and thus they must have been fabricated. You are taking passages that say it is possible for the evidence to be spoiled and choosing to interpret such as a hard and fast rule that it will be damaged and no result can ever be obtained. You are not choosing such position because science tells you this is the case, you have no such sources. You take this position because your goal is to dismiss the evidence and inventing such a hard rule is the only way for you to be able to do so. There is no such rule though. Nothing is going to come of this.
-
Can be is meaningless. You need to establish it always degrades blood to the point that one can NEVER EVER successfully obtain a testing result. You can't establish such because it is not true. There are numerous cases where blood evidence was used after super glue fuming. That is true of both conventional as well as DNA testing of blood.
When bodies are left outdoors exposed to the elements for long periods before being found there is a good chance DNA and other evidence will be washed away or so badly decomposed so that no successful results can be obtained. Yet on some occasions such results still have been successfully obtained. In such a case you would want to argue the results must have been fabricated because they can never be obtained but there is no such hard and fast rule.
You are doing the equivalent here. You want to argue it is not possible for results to be successfully obtained and thus they must have been fabricated. You are taking passages that say it is possible for the evidence to be spoiled and choosing to interpret such as a hard and fast rule that it will be damaged and no result can ever be obtained. You are not choosing such position because science tells you this is the case, you have no such sources. You take this position because your goal is to dismiss the evidence and inventing such a hard rule is the only way for you to be able to do so. There is no such rule though. Nothing is going to come of this.
Rigorous testing will be carried out which will include blood samples the size of the flake introduced to Parker Hale silencers to mirror the location of the flake. The fuming chamber will be set to also mirror the settings applied to the silencer in JB's case. If the blood samples are then unable to yield results for testing of blood serology its game over for the flake.
DNA had not even been envisaged at the time of JB's trial. I've already pointed out in post #1 and #13 that blood samples for DNA testing do not need to be of the same quality as blood samples for blood serology testing.
http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/blood.html
Conventional serological analysis
Analysis of the proteins, enzymes, and antigens present in the blood. These substances are more susceptible to degradation than DNA and this type of testing usually requires a "large" sample (quarter size) in good condition for optimal results. This type of testing is rarely statistically individualizing.
Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) DNA analysis
Direct analysis of certain DNA sequences present in the white blood cells.DNA is much less susceptible to degradation than proteins, enzymes, and antigens. RFLP DNA testing is commonly statistically individualizing (one out of several million or several billion)
Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) DNA analysis
Analysis of certain DNA sequences that have been copied multiple times to a detectable level.PCR based testing works well on degraded samples and "small" samples (pinhead size).
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 (Antigens)
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)
-
Rigorous testing will be carried out which will include blood samples the size of the flake introduced to Parker Hale silencers to mirror the location of the flake. The fuming chamber will be set to also mirror the settings applied to the silencer in JB's case. If the blood samples are then unable to yield results for testing of blood serology its game over for the flake.
DNA had not even been envisaged at the time of JB's trial. I've already pointed out in post #1 and #13 that blood samples for DNA testing do not need to be of the same quality as blood samples for blood serology testing.
http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/blood.html
Conventional serological analysis
Analysis of the proteins, enzymes, and antigens present in the blood. These substances are more susceptible to degradation than DNA and this type of testing usually requires a "large" sample (quarter size) in good condition for optimal results. This type of testing is rarely statistically individualizing.
Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) DNA analysis
Direct analysis of certain DNA sequences present in the white blood cells.DNA is much less susceptible to degradation than proteins, enzymes, and antigens. RFLP DNA testing is commonly statistically individualizing (one out of several million or several billion)
Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) DNA analysis
Analysis of certain DNA sequences that have been copied multiple times to a detectable level.PCR based testing works well on degraded samples and "small" samples (pinhead size).
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 (Antigens)
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)
They would need to establish results can NEVER be obtained not that the results could not be obtained based on 1 test. That is much more rigorous a demand than establishing it can inhibit getting a result. It is something that would require large series of tests without any results obtained in any in order to prove results can never be obtained and will always be damaged by the super glue fuming. As I noted they already obtained results in other cases this was not the first case to do serology testing after super glue fuming.
You have inflated hopes.
-
They would need to establish results can NEVER be obtained not that the results could not be obtained based on 1 test. That is much more rigorous a demand than establishing it can inhibit getting a result. It is something that would require large series of tests without any results obtained in any in order to prove results can never be obtained and will always be damaged by the super glue fuming. As I noted they already obtained results in other cases this was not the first case to do serology testing after super glue fuming.
You have inflated hopes.
That is why I used plural for "samples" and "silencers" in my post above.
The flake was separated out for five tests:
ABO = Blood Group System (Antigens)
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)
Therefore we kinda get four shots per sample ie if one of the tests for the antigens, enzymes and protein fails across all samples to provide a result its game over for the flake that underpins JB's conviction. Eg if say for example Haptoglobin fails on every occasion to provide a result its game over for the flake that underpins JB's conviction.
I requested from you some documentary evidence, links etc in a previous post to support your assertions regarding cyanoacrylate fuming and blood serology testing but so far nothing has been forthcoming.
Why would investigators/forensic scientists even consider putting blood evidence in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber?
Why do you think DI Cook arranged for the visible blood on the outside of the rifle and silencer to be tested before submitting to the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber? Or do you think this is just the way it happened ie accident, convenience etc rather than design?
Oh and btw once the test samples leave the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber they will not be tested for 28 days to mirror the time between the silencer entering the fuming chamber (15th Aug) and John Hayward testing the flake (12th Sep). In fact the blood samples will be deposited in the silencers and left for 8 days before entering the cyacoacrylate fuming chamber to again mirror the time from the prosecutions claim of draw-back (7th Aug) to the time the silencer entered cyanoacrylate fuming chamber (15th Aug). The silencer was of course exposed to many more potentially harmful environments and opinion will be sought as to whether these could be quantified and factored in eg heat from rifle/silencer. Current thinking is that the size of the flake alone would not be capable of yielding results never mind anything else.
I remain cautiously optimistic.
-
I've put together a table of exhibits with their blood serology test results based on Dr Lincoln's letter to JB's solicitor Paul Terzeon. The letter is contained within this link;
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=276.msg4584#msg4584
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 EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
Blood Outside Sil.
Rifle O
Carpet Sample 20 A* AK2-1
Carpet Sample 21 A* AK2-1
Socks A AK2-1
Watch
Carpet Fibres 95 O AK2-1
Carpet Fibres 96 A*
Wallpaper O
Jacket
Bathrobe
Car
Nightdress A AK-1**
Bold = Indicative results but not conclusive insofar as results did not meet the labs criteria for a definitive
* = Performed or repeated by Dr Lincoln
** = No photograpic evidence but on lab worksheet
Photographs show results other than for ABO groupings
ABO = Blood Group System (Antigens)
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 the above the inside of the silencer was the only exhibit capable of producing all four results and the only exhibit capable of a result for the enzyme Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase (EAP) and the protein Haptoglobin (HP). &%+((£
-
Sadly I think it might be with regards to the flake. I say sadly because if I am right regarding my hypothesis and the flake then surely it is something Paul Terzeon and Geoffrey Rivling QC should have picked up on pre-trial? My understanding is that the blood flake found in the silencer matching SC's blood serology which the prosecution claim was there as result of draw-back underpins JB's conviction. This is certainly the view of JB's defence:
"The possibility that the blood grouping result achieved by the prosecution which indicated that Sheila Caffell's blood was in the silencer, was potentially the best point the Crowns had at trial and consequently was examined closely"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=569.0;attach=1865
If tests prove my hypothesis correct then it must be the silencer was deliberately contaminated? If other aspects of the prosecution case against JB were strong then why would there be a need to fabricate evidence?
I don't believe it is necessary to take apart every aspect of the prosecutions case for a conviction to be quashed. My understanding is that some new evidence is required that had jurors known about at trial might have altered their verdicts. No one knows what weight jurors gave to the various aspects of the prosecutions case. We only know taken as a whole 10 of the 12 jurors found JB guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
It would need to be exceptionally strong evidence to overturn a conviction for five murders. Somehow I don't see that happening given all the circumstantial evidence against him and Julie Mugford's very specific testimony.
-
For those reading this thread that might be assisting JB I just wish to add that I personally would not trust JB's defence at trial as far as I could throw them. If they say they covered off the fuming chamber I would still recommend independent testing. Geoffrey Rivlin QC (and possibly to a lesser extent Paul Terzeon) will not want their professional reputations in tatters. I believe they will do anything and I mean anything to protect their reputations. No doubt hoping if anything comes to light they can get off on non-disclosure rather than their own complacency and incompetence.
8()(((@#
Didn't Bamber's defence team consider him a psychopath and guilty? Frankly I fail to see what Sheila's blood or anyone elses for that matter being in the silencer can prove anything and particularly could possibly be of such significance of being capable of overturning this conviction.
-
Didn't Bamber's defence team consider him a psychopath and guilty? Frankly I fail to see what Sheila's blood or anyone elses for that matter being in the silencer can prove anything and particularly could possibly be of such significance of being capable of overturning this conviction.
Not as far as I'm aware.
SC's blood type in the silencer is by far the strongest aspect of the prosecution case against JB. Many supporters fail to understand it. Even Andrew Hunter in Crimes That Shook Britian wrongly asserted it was animal blood.
It seems obvious to me from the judges summing up, jury's deliberations and questions to judge that it was an aspect of the case the jury placed a lot of weight on. Since JB's conviction and post his late 80's appeal which was largely based on an unfair summing up, all further appeals and CCRC applications have attempted to discredit the blood/silencer evidence:
- Cicra 1993 David Martin-Sperry, Isabelle Gillard, and Ewen Smith:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=961
- 2002 Michael Turner QC:
DNA evidence showing June's DNA was in the silencer, SC's might have been and DNA evidence of an unidentified male. Since contamination could not be ruled out all this is meaningless and the case should never have been referred to CoA in first place.
- 2012 Simon McKay
Testing in an attempt to show it was the barrel end of the rifle that caused the burn marks to NB's back and the dirt ring/abrasion collar of SC's gunshot wounds.
- NGB
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,570.msg11489.html#msg11489
(NGB I wonder if the tape over the end of the silencer was an attempt to show the evidential value of the 'flake' had been preserved when it entered the fuming chamber? Unlikely to have bothered since it had already been examined by the lab and blood on the outside of the silencer removed. Note DI Cook's comments in CAL's book - see post # 7 8(0(*)
I am very much convinced that simple testing by way of blood introduced into a number of silencers replicating the flake and following the 'chain of custody' attached to the silencer used at JB's trial will show the blood flake would not be capable of yielding the blood results the prosecution claim. Meaning the blood/silencer was fabricated. As far as I am aware no testing in this regard has taken place.
Unless the blood/silencer evidence can be overcome JB's chances of having his conviction quashed are virtually zero.
-
That is why I used plural for "samples" and "silencers" in my post above.
The flake was separated out for five tests:
ABO = Blood Group System (Antigens)
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)
Therefore we kinda get four shots per sample ie if one of the tests for the antigens, enzymes and protein fails across all samples to provide a result its game over for the flake that underpins JB's conviction. Eg if say for example Haptoglobin fails on every occasion to provide a result its game over for the flake that underpins JB's conviction.
I requested from you some documentary evidence, links etc in a previous post to support your assertions regarding cyanoacrylate fuming and blood serology testing but so far nothing has been forthcoming.
Why would investigators/forensic scientists even consider putting blood evidence in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber?
Why do you think DI Cook arranged for the visible blood on the outside of the rifle and silencer to be tested before submitting to the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber? Or do you think this is just the way it happened ie accident, convenience etc rather than design?
Oh and btw once the test samples leave the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber they will not be tested for 28 days to mirror the time between the silencer entering the fuming chamber (15th Aug) and John Hayward testing the flake (12th Sep). In fact the blood samples will be deposited in the silencers and left for 8 days before entering the cyacoacrylate fuming chamber to again mirror the time from the prosecutions claim of draw-back (7th Aug) to the time the silencer entered cyanoacrylate fuming chamber (15th Aug). The silencer was of course exposed to many more potentially harmful environments and opinion will be sought as to whether these could be quantified and factored in eg heat from rifle/silencer. Current thinking is that the size of the flake alone would not be capable of yielding results never mind anything else.
I remain cautiously optimistic.
Such tests offer no legal value whatsoever.
To have legal significance they need to do such a large number of the same test over and over again that they would be able to establish results can never be obtained. Only a huge number of tests could establish results can never be obtained and that the results were thus doctored by the lab.
Obviously if they get results then it is game over. But even if they fail to get results that would not establish it is impossible to ever get results. Unless they are prepared to go the full distance of doing a huge number of tests this is pretty much a waste of time. How many tests would be required in order to prove scientifically that it is impossible? Only scientists could assess that and it will be a guess on their part and thus speculation which other experts can disagree with.
Your optimism is driven by your agenda not by any realistic chance of success.
I never let my agenda stand in the way of facing reality because all false hope does is set up a future disappointment.
-
If you want to shell out the money you can read a study that found blood typing can still successfully be done after superglue fuming:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00085030.1988.10756959
That's not their first testing, they did testing years prior on superglue fuming and lasers while this 1988 study included both it also included other fingerprint methods.
This is from 1984 and referenced some of their earlier work:
-
Thirty-one quid for an article shouldn't be any problem for Miss Moneybags, especially if she intends throwing hundreds down an empty wishing-well for new tests.
-
Thirty-one quid for an article shouldn't be any problem for Miss Moneybags, especially if she intends throwing hundreds down an empty wishing-well for new tests.
It would be a waste of money since the study found results can be obtained. It doesn't matter that they found in some instances results were fuzzy they needed to find results can never ever be obtained in order for Holly to argue the results were impossible and thus the blood had to be planted after it was superglue fumed.
This is from 1988 and discusses several studies including a 1983 FBI study often cited in books for the proposition that superglue fuming doesn't inhibit bloodtyping:
-
It would be a waste of money since the study found results can be obtained. It doesn't matter that they found in some instances results were fuzzy they needed to find results can never ever be obtained in order for Holly to argue the results were impossible and thus the blood had to be planted after it was superglue fumed.
This is from 1988 and discusses several studies including a 1983 FBI study often cited in books for the proposition that superglue fuming doesn't inhibit bloodtyping:
Well done for finding some info Scipio 8@??)(
However I'm not sure how you've interpreted the above as supporting your argument that cyanoacrylate fuming does not adversely affect blood serology tests? The studies are contradictory with one of the studies by Kimes and Principe showing EAP (starch), EAP (Group 11), AK2-1 and AK-1 were all adversely affected. The article concludes:
"Cyanoacrylate ester development of fingerprints by two methods affected the stain the same. The only visible difference was the production of a white haze over the stained and unstained portions of the knives by the commercial pad method. Luminol and ninhydrin was destructive to enzyme testing but the for most part did not affect the other tests. Black powder did not affect any of the other tests. These results strongly suggest that before any fingerprint development is undertaken, blood samples should be collected for serological examination except when black powder method is used. Stain maltreatment by fingerprint agents is readily observable. The analyst is therefore alerted to this by anomalies in elecrophoretic genetic typing tests. The main consequence of a specimen contact with a fingerprint agent is the apparent loss of typability but certainly not typing error.
-
The studies obviously use certain parameters. Change the parameters and the results might change. In JB's case the parameters should be known:
- The length of time the silencer and flake (if such a flake ever existed as a result of draw-back) were kept at ambient temp from 7th Aug until entering the chamber on 15th Aug is known.
- A record should hopefully exist somewhere detailing exactly how the fuming chamber was set up in terms of humidity and processing time.
- The length of time the silencer and flake (if such a flake ever existed as a result of draw-back) were kept at ambient temp from leaving the fuming chamber on 15th Aug until analysed at the lab is known (12th Sep or was it 13th Sep?)
Enquiries have already been made with a principal scientist at one of the UK's leading forensic firms. She has over 20 years experience involving all body fluids. She has provided expert opinion on many cases and given testimony in cases of murder.
-
I think there are many aspects of the blood evidence that have been overlooked.
Scipio what do you think of the table in post #18 ie why was the blood flake that was supposedly found in the silencer the only exhibit capable of four results? (1 of the 4 results didn't reach the labs internal standards for a definitive result according to Dr Lincoln?)
Why are the blood results overall poor?
It would be interesting to have the silencer forensically analysed for superglue residues. This might help to resolve claims from various quarters that more than one silencer existed?
-
Well done for finding some info Scipio 8@??)(
However I'm not sure how you've interpreted the above as supporting your argument that cyanoacrylate fuming does not adversely affect blood serology tests? The studies are contradictory with one of the studies by Kimes and Principe showing EAP (starch), EAP (Group 11), AK2-1 and AK-1 were all adversely affected. The article concludes:
"Cyanoacrylate ester development of fingerprints by two methods affected the stain the same. The only visible difference was the production of a white haze over the stained and unstained portions of the knives by the commercial pad method. Luminol and ninhydrin was destructive to enzyme testing but the for most part did not affect the other tests. Black powder did not affect any of the other tests. These results strongly suggest that before any fingerprint development is undertaken, blood samples should be collected for serological examination except when black powder method is used. Stain maltreatment by fingerprint agents is readily observable. The analyst is therefore alerted to this by anomalies in elecrophoretic genetic typing tests. The main consequence of a specimen contact with a fingerprint agent is the apparent loss of typability but certainly not typing error.
The adverse effects to AK were double banding which was only able to be observed when the plates were overdeveloped. This did not inhibit their ability to detect and use the AK findings.
You can try spinning this all you like but the bottom line is that they found at most that in some instances it inhibited them but for the most part it had no impact. So you are stuck at what I said from the outset. It can in some instances cause issues but does not HAVE TO cause any issues and doesn't always prevent results from successfully being obtained. You need to demonstrate results can never ever be obtained after super glue fuming in order to argue that blood had to have been planted after the super glue fuming because if it was there at the time it would for sure have been damaged and no results would have been obtainable. There is no hope of proving that blood typing can never successfully be done after super glue fuming, studies and real life testing have already proven it is possible. These tests are thus a complete waste of time and money.
If this were still the trial stage you could look for testing to try to use at the trial itself to try to confuse the jury but we are not at the trial stage we are at the appellate level. At this level the only way to get the verdict nullified would be to prove the results were impossible to achieve and thus the blood had to be planted after the superglue fuming. If this were actually he case the defense would have found experts at the time who would have indicated results can't be obtained after superglue fuming. Lincoln would have identified the problem. But studies showed that it did not prevent successful bloodtyping. There is no new science not available at the time of the trial. The defense could have done testing at the time of the trial if desired. One of the requirements is that testing has to have been unavailable at the time of the trial because of the state of science not simply the defense was too cheap or lazy to do testing at that time.
Scenario:
Defense claims they did testing of 3 samples and they were unable to get results. Would this fit new testing that was unavailable for them to do at the time? No, using due diligence they could have done such tests if they wanted to so this doesn't fit the new requirement.
Would this prove from a scientific standpoint that results are never obtainable and that the blood tested in 1985 must have been planted after the superglue fuming? No at most it simply establishes that they were unable to get results and that results can be inhibited it would not be able to establish results will always be inhibited and never be obtainable. The government would cite the studies showing results were obtainable and the court would hold that even if they ignored the new requirement and gave Bamber great latitude his evidence fails to establish the blood evidence is untrustworthy.
It would be a complete waste of time and money to even bother given the testing has no ability to prove what needs to be proven in order for a court to vacate the conviction. That is is the sort of thing Innocence Project lawyers have to evaluate in order to decide who to aid since they don't have limitless resources.
-
The adverse effects to AK were double banding which was only able to be observed when the plates were overdeveloped. This did not inhibit their ability to detect and use the AK findings.
You can try spinning this all you like but the bottom line is that they found at most that in some instances it inhibited them but for the most part it had no impact. So you are stuck at what I said from the outset. It can in some instances cause issues but does not HAVE TO cause any issues and doesn't always prevent results from successfully being obtained. You need to demonstrate results can never ever be obtained after super glue fuming in order to argue that blood had to have been planted after the super glue fuming because if it was there at the time it would for sure have been damaged and no results would have been obtainable. There is no hope of proving that blood typing can never successfully be done after super glue fuming, studies and real life testing have already proven it is possible. These tests are thus a complete waste of time and money.
If this were still the trial stage you could look for testing to try to use at the trial itself to try to confuse the jury but we are not at the trial stage we are at the appellate level. At this level the only way to get the verdict nullified would be to prove the results were impossible to achieve and thus the blood had to be planted after the superglue fuming. If this were actually he case the defense would have found experts at the time who would have indicated results can't be obtained after superglue fuming. Lincoln would have identified the problem. But studies showed that it did not prevent successful bloodtyping. There is no new science not available at the time of the trial. The defense could have done testing at the time of the trial if desired. One of the requirements is that testing has to have been unavailable at the time of the trial because of the state of science not simply the defense was too cheap or lazy to do testing at that time.
Scenario:
Defense claims they did testing of 3 samples and they were unable to get results. Would this fit new testing that was unavailable for them to do at the time? No, using due diligence they could have done such tests if they wanted to so this doesn't fit the new requirement.
Would this prove from a scientific standpoint that results are never obtainable and that the blood tested in 1985 must have been planted after the superglue fuming? No at most it simply establishes that they were unable to get results and that results can be inhibited it would not be able to establish results will always be inhibited and never be obtainable. The government would cite the studies showing results were obtainable and the court would hold that even if they ignored the new requirement and gave Bamber great latitude his evidence fails to establish the blood evidence is untrustworthy.
It would be a complete waste of time and money to even bother given the testing has no ability to prove what needs to be proven in order for a court to vacate the conviction. That is is the sort of thing Innocence Project lawyers have to evaluate in order to decide who to aid since they don't have limitless resources.
Correct but it is actually highly significant. As far as I am aware the method used by the FSS at Huntingdon to test the enzymes and proteins was based on Gel Electrophoresis?
Furthermore in addition to the "significant double banding", which is highly significant if you understand how Gel Electrophoresis works, cyanoacrylate ester also adversely affected ESD (group 1), EAP (starch), EAP (group11) and G6PD. The relevant enzyme in JB's case is EAP although I do not know whether starch, group 11 or some other subset?
From the bottom of page 2 of your image above in post #26
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg314191#msg314191
"The results of the treatment of samples with chemical agents, where an effect was observed, was the weakening or destruction of the entire band pattern. A result was never observed where the loss or gain of bands could be interpreted or confused with another blood type. Normal bands for ESD (group1), EAP (starch), EAP (group11) and G6PD were all weak to a point where interpretation of the plate became difficult if not impossible in cyanoacrylate ester development. Even though this technique was not as destructive as the other two methods, enough of the enzymes were affected to significantly exclude many of the routine enzymatic examinations used by forensic laboratories".
If you check out how Gel Electrophoresis works you will see it produces photographic evidence of the results. It's unlikely Dr Lincoln was on the look out for fabrication of evidence. It seems to me he was there to check on methods, competency and liaise between the lab and JB's defence.
I still maintain testing will either show the cyanoacrylate fuming process and overall length of time the silencer was kept at ambient temperature had no adverse affect on the flakes ability to produce results or it will show the flakes ability was adversely affected. If the latter then it strongly suggests the flake/results were fabricated.
I'm sure a UK based principal scientist with some 20 years experience at one of the UK's leading forensic science firms is more than capable of setting up tests that meet criteria for use in court.
-
Correct but it is actually highly significant. As far as I am aware the method used by the FSS at Huntingdon to test the enzymes and proteins was based on Gel Electrophoresis?
Furthermore in addition to the "significant double banding", which is highly significant if you understand how Gel Electrophoresis works, cyanoacrylate ester also adversely affected ESD (group 1), EAP (starch), EAP (group11) and G6PD. The relevant enzyme in JB's case is EAP although I do not know whether starch, group 11 or some other subset?
From the bottom of page 2 of your image above in post #26
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg314191#msg314191
"The results of the treatment of samples with chemical agents, where an effect was observed, was the weakening or destruction of the entire band pattern. A result was never observed where the loss or gain of bands could be interpreted or confused with another blood type. Normal bands for ESD (group1), EAP (starch), EAP (group11) and G6PD were all weak to a point where interpretation of the plate became difficult if not impossible in cyanoacrylate ester development. Even though this technique was not as destructive as the other two methods, enough of the enzymes were affected to significantly exclude many of the routine enzymatic examinations used by forensic laboratories".
If you check out how Gel Electrophoresis works you will see it produces photographic evidence of the results. It's unlikely Dr Lincoln was on the look out for fabrication of evidence. It seems to me he was there to check on methods, competency and liaise between the lab and JB's defence.
I still maintain testing will either show the cyanoacrylate fuming process and overall length of time the silencer was kept at ambient temperature had no adverse affect on the flakes ability to produce results or it will show the flakes ability was adversely affected. If the latter then it strongly suggests the flake/results were fabricated.
I'm sure a UK based principal scientist with some 20 years experience at one of the UK's leading forensic science firms is more than capable of setting up tests that meet criteria for use in court.
Apparently you need someone to interpret for you:
"ABO typing was not affected"
Translation: Superglue fuming did not in any way inhibit successfully typing ABO systems. This is what what was used in the Bamber case to assess blood type. The blood in the moderator was determined to be group A blood. June and Sheila both had Group A blood and shared the same attributes except Sheila had AK1 while June had AK2-1 thus the AK enzyme test was the one which would reveal whether it was June or Sheila's blood.
"The results of the treatment of samples with chemical agents, where an effect was observed, was the weakening or destruction of the entire band pattern. A result was never observed where the loss or gain of bands could be interpreted or confused with another blood type."
Translation: In those instances where there was a problem the result was either a weak result or no result obtained. There was never an instance where the result could be confused and misinterpreted as a different blood type. This eliminates any ability to argue superglue fuming caused them to mistake 1 enzyme type for another enzyme type.
"Normal bands for ESD (group1), EAP (starch), EAP (group11) and G6PD were all weak to a point where interpretation of the plate became difficult if not impossible in cyanoacrylate ester development. Even though this technique was not as destructive as the other two methods, enough of the enzymes were affected to significantly exclude many of the routine enzymatic examinations used by forensic laboratories".
Translation: Superglue fuming weakens ESD, EAP and G6pd thus making it more difficult to get a result and in many instances making it impossible to get a result. Though it is still possible to successfully get a result it is more difficult and in many cases a result will not be obtainable. So it is impossible? NO! If you desire to test these particular enzymes is it better to do it before superglue fuming? Yes, because there is the potential to damage them to such an extent that no result will be obtained. So does this prove it is impossible to get am EAP result after superglue fuming? No it expressly states they still in some instances were able to get results. June and Sheila had the same EAP so this test was worthless anyway in assessing whether it was June or Sheila's blood. A successful EAP result was obtained though from the blood in the moderator just like it was successfully obtained in some of the FBI tests. You always want to conflate can damage with will though can is very different from always will.
What about the AK enzyme? Nothing you quoted discussed it which is funny because that it the enzyme that was dispositive in this case. The source stated the only issue was that double banding was observed when the plates were intentionally overdeveloped. So if one intentionally overdevelops the plates they have to be aware double banding will occur and take such into account when making their assessments. Does this suggest that the AK enzymes are never able to be detected after superglue fuming? No they were able to be detected successfully. The AK1 enzyme was detected and this was associated with Sheila not June. Whether they overdeveloped the plates is something one could look at to try to see if they did so and were aware of the risks. That is the only avenue of attack that could be investigated. Since they said that extra bands were unable to result in misinterpreting the results as a different enzyme type that drastically limits the effects the usefullness of such attack though.
You can live in your own fantasyland all you like. The reality is that testing has been successfully done after superglue fuming and there is no way for limited testing to have the ability to prove it is impossible to ever get results after superglue fuming. Jeremy advocates need to prove it is never ever possible and limited testing is incapable of establishing that. Since prior testing revealed results were successfully achieved and there is really nothing that could come from this supposed new testing I'm not going to give this a second thought because in a legal sense it has no potential to go anywhere.
-
Apparently you need someone to interpret for you:
"ABO typing was not affected"
Translation: Superglue fuming did not in any way inhibit successfully typing ABO systems. This is what what was used in the Bamber case to assess blood type. The blood in the moderator was determined to be group A blood. June and Sheila both had Group A blood and shared the same attributes except Sheila had AK1 while June had AK2-1 thus the AK enzyme test was the one which would reveal whether it was June or Sheila's blood.
"The results of the treatment of samples with chemical agents, where an effect was observed, was the weakening or destruction of the entire band pattern. A result was never observed where the loss or gain of bands could be interpreted or confused with another blood type."
Translation: In those instances where there was a problem the result was either a weak result or no result obtained. There was never an instance where the result could be confused and misinterpreted as a different blood type. This eliminates any ability to argue superglue fuming caused them to mistake 1 enzyme type for another enzyme type.
"Normal bands for ESD (group1), EAP (starch), EAP (group11) and G6PD were all weak to a point where interpretation of the plate became difficult if not impossible in cyanoacrylate ester development. Even though this technique was not as destructive as the other two methods, enough of the enzymes were affected to significantly exclude many of the routine enzymatic examinations used by forensic laboratories".
Translation: Superglue fuming weakens ESD, EAP and G6pd thus making it more difficult to get a result and in many instances making it impossible to get a result. Though it is still possible to successfully get a result it is more difficult and in many cases a result will not be obtainable. So it is impossible? NO! If you desire to test these particular enzymes is it better to do it before superglue fuming? Yes, because there is the potential to damage them to such an extent that no result will be obtained. So does this prove it is impossible to get am EAP result after superglue fuming? No it expressly states they still in some instances were able to get results. June and Sheila had the same EAP so this test was worthless anyway in assessing whether it was June or Sheila's blood. A successful EAP result was obtained though from the blood in the moderator just like it was successfully obtained in some of the FBI tests. You always want to conflate can damage with will though can is very different from always will.
What about the AK enzyme? Nothing you quoted discussed it which is funny because that it the enzyme that was dispositive in this case. The source stated the only issue was that double banding was observed when the plates were intentionally overdeveloped. So if one intentionally overdevelops the plates they have to be aware double banding will occur and take such into account when making their assessments. Does this suggest that the AK enzymes are never able to be detected after superglue fuming? No they were able to be detected successfully. The AK1 enzyme was detected and this was associated with Sheila not June. Whether they overdeveloped the plates is something one could look at to try to see if they did so and were aware of the risks. That is the only avenue of attack that could be investigated. Since they said that extra bands were unable to result in misinterpreting the results as a different enzyme type that drastically limits the effects the usefullness of such attack though.
You can live in your own fantasyland all you like. The reality is that testing has been successfully done after superglue fuming and there is no way for limited testing to have the ability to prove it is impossible to ever get results after superglue fuming. Jeremy advocates need to prove it is never ever possible and limited testing is incapable of establishing that. Since prior testing revealed results were successfully achieved and there is really nothing that could come from this supposed new testing I'm not going to give this a second thought because in a legal sense it has no potential to go anywhere.
I am thinking about paying a visit to the Essex Police Museum, Maybe they could give me some details about their Superglue fuming facilities and methods that were used at the time. I also want to know what happened to the Sound Moderator and Rifle. If I do go anything in particular you want me to ask that you think might be helpful to us?
-
I am thinking about paying a visit to the Essex Police Museum, Maybe they could give me some details about their Superglue fuming facilities and methods that were used at the time. I also want to know what happened to the Sound Moderator and Rifle. If I do go anything in particular you want me to ask that you think might be helpful to us?
You'd be better off emailing Becky Wash, their lovely curator, about the above...
http://www.essex.police.uk/museum/contact-us/ (http://www.essex.police.uk/museum/contact-us/)
... although you might then be requested to address your questions through the appropriate channels, and await the standard response that JB and the CT always receive...
“Jeremy Bamber's conviction has been the subject of several appeals and reviews by the Criminal Cases Review Commission and there has never been anything to suggest that he was wrongly convicted.”
-
Apparently you need someone to interpret for you:
"ABO typing was not affected"
Translation: Superglue fuming did not in any way inhibit successfully typing ABO systems. This is what what was used in the Bamber case to assess blood type. The blood in the moderator was determined to be group A blood. June and Sheila both had Group A blood and shared the same attributes except Sheila had AK1 while June had AK2-1 thus the AK enzyme test was the one which would reveal whether it was June or Sheila's blood.
"The results of the treatment of samples with chemical agents, where an effect was observed, was the weakening or destruction of the entire band pattern. A result was never observed where the loss or gain of bands could be interpreted or confused with another blood type."
Translation: In those instances where there was a problem the result was either a weak result or no result obtained. There was never an instance where the result could be confused and misinterpreted as a different blood type. This eliminates any ability to argue superglue fuming caused them to mistake 1 enzyme type for another enzyme type.
"Normal bands for ESD (group1), EAP (starch), EAP (group11) and G6PD were all weak to a point where interpretation of the plate became difficult if not impossible in cyanoacrylate ester development. Even though this technique was not as destructive as the other two methods, enough of the enzymes were affected to significantly exclude many of the routine enzymatic examinations used by forensic laboratories".
Translation: Superglue fuming weakens ESD, EAP and G6pd thus making it more difficult to get a result and in many instances making it impossible to get a result. Though it is still possible to successfully get a result it is more difficult and in many cases a result will not be obtainable. So it is impossible? NO! If you desire to test these particular enzymes is it better to do it before superglue fuming? Yes, because there is the potential to damage them to such an extent that no result will be obtained. So does this prove it is impossible to get am EAP result after superglue fuming? No it expressly states they still in some instances were able to get results. June and Sheila had the same EAP so this test was worthless anyway in assessing whether it was June or Sheila's blood. A successful EAP result was obtained though from the blood in the moderator just like it was successfully obtained in some of the FBI tests. You always want to conflate can damage with will though can is very different from always will.
What about the AK enzyme? Nothing you quoted discussed it which is funny because that it the enzyme that was dispositive in this case. The source stated the only issue was that double banding was observed when the plates were intentionally overdeveloped. So if one intentionally overdevelops the plates they have to be aware double banding will occur and take such into account when making their assessments. Does this suggest that the AK enzymes are never able to be detected after superglue fuming? No they were able to be detected successfully. The AK1 enzyme was detected and this was associated with Sheila not June. Whether they overdeveloped the plates is something one could look at to try to see if they did so and were aware of the risks. That is the only avenue of attack that could be investigated. Since they said that extra bands were unable to result in misinterpreting the results as a different enzyme type that drastically limits the effects the usefullness of such attack though.
You can live in your own fantasyland all you like. The reality is that testing has been successfully done after superglue fuming and there is no way for limited testing to have the ability to prove it is impossible to ever get results after superglue fuming. Jeremy advocates need to prove it is never ever possible and limited testing is incapable of establishing that. Since prior testing revealed results were successfully achieved and there is really nothing that could come from this supposed new testing I'm not going to give this a second thought because in a legal sense it has no potential to go anywhere.
The above translations are all yours Scipio and it obvious that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever about blood serology and/or the testing of it. Anyone reading the information you provided will see that the tests carried out using cyanoacrylate fuming had an adverse affect on the EAP and AK enzymes. Other test results elsewhere show this is not the case so it is all pretty meaningless. In order to demonstrate the flake of blood, or rather its constituent parts, supposedly found in the silencer were adversely affected by the fuming process will obviously require personalised testing. If you want to dismiss this out of hand then go ahead I will not be wasting time going round in circles with you when it is plainly obvious to most, including scientists, that without personalised testing it is a complete unknown.
I never claimed the ABO groupings were affected in the tests carried out in the information you provided. The ABO groupings (antigens) are completely unconnected to the enzyme Adenylate Kinase (AK). The information you provided showed the EAP and AK enzymes were adversely affected by the fuming process.
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 (Antigens)
PGM = Phosphoglucomutase (Enzyme)
EAP = Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase (Enzyme)
AK = Adenylate Kinase (Enzyme)
HP = Haptoglobin (Protein)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABO_blood_group_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenylate_kinase
By the way just for the record I am not suggesting RB dobbed his own blood in the silencer (although it is a possibility) I simply slotted in his blood groupings to show that many members of the population share blood serology groupings - about 8% of unrelated white British people according to Dr Lincoln.
-
I am thinking about paying a visit to the Essex Police Museum, Maybe they could give me some details about their Superglue fuming facilities and methods that were used at the time. I also want to know what happened to the Sound Moderator and Rifle. If I do go anything in particular you want me to ask that you think might be helpful to us?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg312991#msg312991
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg313459#msg313459
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/143865/fsb-chap3-sec10and11-development.pdf
-
I am thinking about paying a visit to the Essex Police Museum, Maybe they could give me some details about their Superglue fuming facilities and methods that were used at the time. I also want to know what happened to the Sound Moderator and Rifle. If I do go anything in particular you want me to ask that you think might be helpful to us?
More than a year ago the museum told me they never had the weapon or sound moderator even though some reporters/Jeremy advocates claimed they did. The police still have them in their evidence storage. I don't think the museum will be able to help at all in any respect. You need to ask the people who did the superglue fuming what variables they used if you want to know precisely what they did. The exact glue formulation, method of humidification, temperature, time etc (variables) are always up to the technicians and thus they are the ones who have to be consulted or records they made. Such notes would not be in the museum.
-
More than a year ago the museum told me they never had the weapon or sound moderator even though some reporters/Jeremy advocates claimed they did. The police still have them in their evidence storage. I don't think the museum will be able to help at all in any respect. You need to ask the people who did the superglue fuming what variables they used if you want to know precisely what they did. The exact glue formulation, method of humidification, temperature, time etc (variables) are always up to the technicians and thus they are the ones who have to be consulted or records they made. Such notes would not be in the museum.
The odd thing is I have a copy of a Fax correspondence from Special Branch to Chelmsford Essex Police instructing to have the Silencer and Rifle put on display in the Museum, and also saying they will have the pin removed from gun before they put it on display. The Fax is dated 1996, Maybe it was taken away for Jeremy's appeal in 2001 but not returned? Its possible the staff you spoke to did not work there at the time?
The Museum is located right underneath the Chelmsford police headquarters so its very possible they could be in the loop about the superglue fuming since its part of the same building
-
I've added two columns at the end for positive reaction for blood (PRB) and human in origin (blood) (HIO). The reason I've done this is to see whether these tests adversely affect later tests eg the ABO groupings etc. I very much doubted it but I'm looking for reasons why the inside of the silencer/flake was able to produce significantly more results than the other exhibits. It doesn't appear the inside of the silencer/flake was subjected to the PRB and HIO test. Why?
ABO PGM EAP AK Hp PRB HIO
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 EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
Blood Outside Sil. Y Y
Rifle O Y Y
Carpet Sample 20 A* AK2-1 Y
Carpet Sample 21 A* AK2-1 Y
Socks A AK2-1 Y
Watch Y Y
Carpet Fibres 95 O AK2-1 Y
Carpet Fibres 96 A* Y
Wallpaper O
Jacket Y Y
Bathrobe Y Y
Car Y Y inconclusive
Nightdress A AK-1**
Bold = Indicative results but not conclusive insofar as results did not meet the labs criteria for a definitive
* = Performed or repeated by Dr Lincoln
** = No photograpic evidence but on lab worksheet
Photographs show results other than for ABO groupings
ABO = Blood Group System (Antigens)
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)
PRB = Positive Reaction For Blood
HIO = Human In Origin (Blood)
-
There must be some explanation why some exhibits are more capable than others of producing results. It seems its probably quality and quantity? Eg blood outside silencer was small quantity and blood on the car seat small quantity and the quality was probably poor from age, heat/sunlight through car window hence very limited results?
What I can't understand is that the rifle contained a number of smears and splashes. The flake in the silencer measured a 1/4 of an inch and was separated into five parts for the group tests. Therefore surely there was sufficient quantity on the rifle to match the quantity of the flake separated into five parts?
-
Oh Scipio.... come play with me over my table 8**8:/:
-
The above translations are all yours Scipio and it obvious that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever about blood serology and/or the testing of it. Anyone reading the information you provided will see that the tests carried out using cyanoacrylate fuming had an adverse affect on the EAP and AK enzymes. Other test results elsewhere show this is not the case so it is all pretty meaningless. In order to demonstrate the flake of blood, or rather its constituent parts, supposedly found in the silencer were adversely affected by the fuming process will obviously require personalised testing. If you want to dismiss this out of hand then go ahead I will not be wasting time going round in circles with you when it is plainly obvious to most, including scientists, that without personalised testing it is a complete unknown.
I never claimed the ABO groupings were affected in the tests carried out in the information you provided. The ABO groupings (antigens) are completely unconnected to the enzyme Adenylate Kinase (AK). The information you provided showed the EAP and AK enzymes were adversely affected by the fuming process.
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 (Antigens)
PGM = Phosphoglucomutase (Enzyme)
EAP = Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase (Enzyme)
AK = Adenylate Kinase (Enzyme)
HP = Haptoglobin (Protein)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABO_blood_group_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenylate_kinase
By the way just for the record I am not suggesting RB dobbed his own blood in the silencer (although it is a possibility) I simply slotted in his blood groupings to show that many members of the population share blood serology groupings - about 8% of unrelated white British people according to Dr Lincoln.
The translations were because you keep trying to distort.
The only "damage" to the AK enzymes were if the plates were additionally overdeveloped, it caused double banding but that double banding still allowed them to assess whether it was AK1 or AK2-1 and did not provide a means to confuse the 2.
Your hope that it is impossible to ever get results when superglue fuming is done have already been proven wrong by past studies and the testing being done now has no chance in hell of proving it is impossible to ever get results. Nothing short of proving it is impossible to get results after superglue fuming would have any legal significance. So from a legal standpoint there is no reason to even pay attention to the testing supposedly being done.
-
The odd thing is I have a copy of a Fax correspondence from Special Branch to Chelmsford Essex Police instructing to have the Silencer and Rifle put on display in the Museum, and also saying they will have the pin removed from gun before they put it on display. The Fax is dated 1996, Maybe it was taken away for Jeremy's appeal in 2001 but not returned? Its possible the staff you spoke to did not work there at the time?
The Museum is located right underneath the Chelmsford police headquarters so its very possible they could be in the loop about the superglue fuming since its part of the same building
Maybe they never did the transfer upon learning that the Home Office still considered the appeal open. A document saying they planned to do something is different than one that confirms transport and receipt.
If the transfer did occur it was for a very short period of time because certainly after it was discovered the appeal was still active they would have obtained the items from the museum to put back in storage. Since the museum says they don't have it now going there to hope to see it would obviously be futile.
-
There must be some explanation why some exhibits are more capable than others of producing results. It seems its probably quality and quantity? Eg blood outside silencer was small quantity and blood on the car seat small quantity and the quality was probably poor from age, heat/sunlight through car window hence very limited results?
What I can't understand is that the rifle contained a number of smears and splashes. The flake in the silencer measured a 1/4 of an inch and was separated into five parts for the group tests. Therefore surely there was sufficient quantity on the rifle to match the quantity of the flake separated into five parts?
None of the smears dried into a single flake. It was blood stuck to the side of wood. It was small amounts because the spatter was small and the killer was still using the weapon thus some of the blood would have wiped off onto the killer. Blood that was undisturbed pooled inside the moderator forming into a flake. The whole flake was in 1 whole part. Swabbing blood stuck to something with a swab to get a tiny amount results in less to test. The blood on the baffles that was swabbed was thus also insufficient to get results beyond knowing it was human. Right inside the opening defense Lincoln found enough blood to tests and determine it was Sheila's, the blood on the baffles he detected was too little. Part of the reason why he was not used was because he found such blood and would simply confirm the findings of the lab.
-
The translations were because you keep trying to distort.
The only "damage" to the AK enzymes were if the plates were additionally overdeveloped, it caused double banding but that double banding still allowed them to assess whether it was AK1 or AK2-1 and did not provide a means to confuse the 2.
Your hope that it is impossible to ever get results when superglue fuming is done have already been proven wrong by past studies and the testing being done now has no chance in hell of proving it is impossible to ever get results. Nothing short of proving it is impossible to get results after superglue fuming would have any legal significance. So from a legal standpoint there is no reason to even pay attention to the testing supposedly being done.
That is not what the article states at all. You appear to have no understanding of gel electrophoresis and therefore fail to see the significance with the bands.
The first article states the results for the enzyme EAP were "fuzzy":
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7083.0;attach=6141
The second article states for EAP: "interpretation of the the plate became difficult if not impossible and enough of the enzymes were affected to significantly exclude many of the routine enzymatic examinations used by forensic laboratories. And for AK "Adenylate Kinase was the only enzyme that showed effects of chemical modification resulting in banding with altered mobility. Cyanoacrylate exposure by either method produced significant double banding in AK2-1 and AK1, this band became prominent only when the plates were intentionally overlapped."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7083.0;attach=6143
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7083.0;attach=6145
If the tests John Hayward carried out produced these sorts of results Dr Lincoln would have known about it. They would be written off and never see the inside of court.
-
None of the smears dried into a single flake. It was blood stuck to the side of wood. It was small amounts because the spatter was small and the killer was still using the weapon thus some of the blood would have wiped off onto the killer. Blood that was undisturbed pooled inside the moderator forming into a flake. The whole flake was in 1 whole part. Swabbing blood stuck to something with a swab to get a tiny amount results in less to test. The blood on the baffles that was swabbed was thus also insufficient to get results beyond knowing it was human. Right inside the opening defense Lincoln found enough blood to tests and determine it was Sheila's, the blood on the baffles he detected was too little. Part of the reason why he was not used was because he found such blood and would simply confirm the findings of the lab.
The single flake measuring a 1/4 of an inch (6.25mm) was separated into five parts for each test. I'm sure the "smears" and "splashes" on the rifle were of a similar size to the separated parts of the flake circa 1.25mm. Do you have any visuals for the blood on the rifle?
The blood on the rifle was not restricted to the wooden stock.
71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
The only blood in or on the silencer attributed to SC was the flake. The only other blood that was capable of grouping was blood on the upper baffles which produced results for A and EAP BA.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=929
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=931
-
Maybe they never did the transfer upon learning that the Home Office still considered the appeal open. A document saying they planned to do something is different than one that confirms transport and receipt.
If the transfer did occur it was for a very short period of time because certainly after it was discovered the appeal was still active they would have obtained the items from the museum to put back in storage. Since the museum says they don't have it now going there to hope to see it would obviously be futile.
Its possible that it was on display for a short period but caused too much controversy maybe? so they put it away.
Were do you think the Silencer and Rifle would be today? if you had to guess
-
Its possible that it was on display for a short period but caused too much controversy maybe? so they put it away.
Were do you think the Silencer and Rifle would be today? if you had to guess
Controversy? &%+((£
-
The single flake measuring a 1/4 of an inch (6.25mm) was separated into five parts for each test. I'm sure the "smears" and "splashes" on the rifle were of a similar size to the separated parts of the flake circa 1.25mm. Do you have any visuals for the blood on the rifle?
The blood on the rifle was not restricted to the wooden stock.
71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
The only blood in or on the silencer attributed to SC was the flake. The only other blood that was capable of grouping was blood on the upper baffles which produced results for A and EAP BA.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=929
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=931
The blood stains on the metal portion of the rifle were even smaller than the stains on the stock. Nevill's arms and skull provided minimal levels of blood to hit the weapon. Potentially his jaw could deposit more blood but it still would still be back spatter and not necessarily that big. We don't know precisely how much blood was flowing outside of his jaw/lip versus inside. We also don't know if he got hit in the jaw. We know he was punched or stuck in the nose/eye region but it is unclear whether damage to his jaw was done by the bullets alone or being hit.
Aside from the fact that spatter is not very big, larger bits of spatter travel less far. So only the smallest spatter could travel to the metal parts of the weapon. The larger spatter would not travel as far so only hit the stock and killer. Larger doesn't mean large though the terms are relative. As I already mentioned the killer was touching the stock both during the bludgeoning and after to fire the weapon so the blood was disturbed. It did not instantly dry.
Enough blood remained right inside the opening for Lincoln to test it and determine it was group A. Since it was not a large amount he didn't do an AK test. He wanted to make sure there was enough material to get a blood type result. Some of the material he lifted from the 8 baffles he did AK tests on but got no results and the rest he did blood typing but got no results. He didn't expect to get any considering how small the traces he found were.
Should he have divided the blood near the opening in half and done blood typing on half and AK testing on the other? Even in hindsight there is no way to know whether dividing it would have resulted in samples too small to get results. Had he or the lab saved some of this blood instead of expending it we would have had blood to DNA test but they didn't think at the time about such potential down the road.
So all we know is that Lincoln removed group A blood and the lab removed group A blood with AK1 which only could have come from Sheila.
Finding any victim blood in there is bad for your position. The notion Sheila went to the closet to get the moderator to attach it and use it then removed it and put it away in the closet before killing herself is absurd. In any even even the defense's own expert conceded the blood the prosecution tested could have come only from Sheila.
Boutflour had no idea what blood type Sheila was let alone knew he even had the same enzymes so notions he planted his blood inside are not the least bit credible. Furthermore, if he had used a dropper it would not have hit the first 8 baffles nor have left a flake in between the first 2 baffles. The distribution of blood was blood in diminishing quantity on each successive baffle. That is consistent with drawback. The largest drops can't travel as far plus each baffle blocks the ones behind to an extent. Only smaller drops can travel deeper inside and there will be fewer and fewer drops left as they hit the prior plates.
Time and again I see the same argument from Jeremy supporters/former supporters who doubt the blood evidence. They argue Jeremy's lawyers would not be trying to do tests to discredit the blood in the moderator if Jeremy did in fact use the moderator because Jeremy would know tests might confirm his guilt.
The same argument has been made when lawyers of convicted rapists demanded DNA tests. Guess what a sizable number of such convicts are proven to be guilty by such tests despite demanding them. They hope and pray that someone else's DNA was on the victim or that the results will somehow end up providing a way for the defense to attack despite being guilty.
Convicted people have nothing to lose they are already jailed and thus a test that fails to help them is meaningless. They want any and all testing in hopes of trying to twist the results in their favor.
In another case many years after the conviction DNA testing was done on a scarf (victim was strangled with it), victims shirt and victim's bra. It was all the DNA of the same person. The convict could not be excluded. DNA testing of a thumbnail revealed DNA of and unknown male that was ruled out as being that of the convict.
Did the defense conceded defeat since the testing they demanded supported guilt of their client? No they argued the convicts DNA was on the scarf because it was his scarf and there was so much DNA on it the killer must have gotten it on his hands and then transferred such DNA to the shirt and bra.
But they rule out any chance of contamination of DNA to the thumb and say the DNA on the thumb must have belonged to the killer. Experts though said the complete opposite they said that since the DNA was the same person on all 3 objects this supports it being the killer's DNA particularly since the statistical odds were significant when the suspect was tied to the victim by other evidence. They said when other evidence ties the victim to the donor the odds are significant. As for the thumbnail, they noted:
1) the victim was bound thus unlikely to have been able to scratch her attacker
2) when a victim scratches an attacker there is some sort of trauma to the nails but was none
3) the fingers not thumb are mainly used to scratch
4) no precautions were taken during the collecting of evidence or handling of evidence in the lab to prevent DNA contamination
5) the amount of DNA found was very tiny and had to be replicated just to be able to get a result and thus it is ripe for contamination on a variety of levels.
Defense lawyers have no problem trying to twist results and supporters or other people with an agenda do the same. So the notion that if Jeremy used the moderator he would not allow his lawyers etc to do testing is nonsense. He wants testing so he and his advocates can try to twist the results in his favor.
Trying to twist results accomplishes little though in most instances. The testing they are doing can't prove it is impossible to ever get results after superglue fuming and thus s a waste of time. ONLY if they can prove to a court that testing results can never be obtained after superglue fuming would this provide a basis to vacate the conviction. They would need to plan a est so large it has the ability to prove such. But we already know they have successfully achieved results in the past and that this would be a complete waste of time.
At most supporters will spin the results and try to use them for propaganda purposes to the public. That won't help Jeremy get his conviction vacated.
-
The blood stains on the metal portion of the rifle were even smaller than the stains on the stock. Nevill's arms and skull provided minimal levels of blood to hit the weapon. Potentially his jaw could deposit more blood but it still would still be back spatter and not necessarily that big. We don't know precisely how much blood was flowing outside of his jaw/lip versus inside. We also don't know if he got hit in the jaw. We know he was punched or stuck in the nose/eye region but it is unclear whether damage to his jaw was done by the bullets alone or being hit.
Aside from the fact that spatter is not very big, larger bits of spatter travel less far. So only the smallest spatter could travel to the metal parts of the weapon. The larger spatter would not travel as far so only hit the stock and killer. Larger doesn't mean large though the terms are relative. As I already mentioned the killer was touching the stock both during the bludgeoning and after to fire the weapon so the blood was disturbed. It did not instantly dry.
Scipio I have taken the time to read your lengthy post in its entirety but I can't see how paragraphys 9 - 14 inclusive are relevant to the case let alone the thread? Can I ask please, that where possible, you stick to thread topic as per forum rules.
You have made many, many posts telling us had SC been the perp she would have been covered in high impact back spatter from the victims' gunshot wounds and medium impact spatter from the beating it appears NB sustained most likely from the rifle. Now it appears you are saying that this spatter was minimal hence the lab and Dr Lincoln were unable to find sufficient blood for group testing? Which is it?
The blood on the outside of the silencer was minimal hence the lab did not even attempt blood grouping. This was not the case with the rifle. John Hayward attempted to group for ABO (antigens) and Hp (protein). Group O was identified but this was deemed inconclusive as it did not meet the labs internal procedures/standards for a conclusive result.
Silencer
"Mr Hayward considered that in view of the very small amounts of staining present on the outside of the moderator, there was no point in attempting to determine the group of the blood."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=929
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=931
Rifle
"Attempts were made to determine the ABO and the Hp groups of the bloodstains shown to be human but these were not successful".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=931
Enough blood remained right inside the opening for Lincoln to test it and determine it was group A. Since it was not a large amount he didn't do an AK test. He wanted to make sure there was enough material to get a blood type result. Some of the material he lifted from the 8 baffles he did AK tests on but got no results and the rest he did blood typing but got no results. He didn't expect to get any considering how small the traces he found were.
Should he have divided the blood near the opening in half and done blood typing on half and AK testing on the other? Even in hindsight there is no way to know whether dividing it would have resulted in samples too small to get results. Had he or the lab saved some of this blood instead of expending it we would have had blood to DNA test but they didn't think at the time about such potential down the road.
So all we know is that Lincoln removed group A blood and the lab removed group A blood with AK1 which only could have come from Sheila.
As far as I am aware your assertions above are wrong. If you disagree please provide documentary, or other evidence, showing to the contrary of the following links. The only blood grouped inside the silencer was the flake (A, EAP BA, HP2-1 and AK-1) and blood on the upper baffle plates (A, EAP BA).
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=929
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=931
There was no blood near the opening. Had there have been Glynis Howard would have been alerted to it when she examined the silencer on 13th Aug which rather begs the question how blood ended up inside the silencer without touching the opening?
Finding any victim blood in there is bad for your position. The notion Sheila went to the closet to get the moderator to attach it and use it then removed it and put it away in the closet before killing herself is absurd. In any even even the defense's own expert conceded the blood the prosecution tested could have come only from Sheila.
I agree the notion SC went to the gun cupboard to use the silencer and then returned it before shooting herself is absurd in the extreme. But that's Geoffrey Rivlin for you. Completely out of touch with the sensibilities of a jury.
Boutflour had no idea what blood type Sheila was let alone knew he even had the same enzymes so notions he planted his blood inside are not the least bit credible. Furthermore, if he had used a dropper it would not have hit the first 8 baffles nor have left a flake in between the first 2 baffles. The distribution of blood was blood in diminishing quantity on each successive baffle. That is consistent with drawback. The largest drops can't travel as far plus each baffle blocks the ones behind to an extent. Only smaller drops can travel deeper inside and there will be fewer and fewer drops left as they hit the prior plates.
Again I agree. RB was unlikely to know he shared the same ABO grouping with SC let alone the enzymes and protein.
I do not agree the distribution/pattern of blood is consistent with 'draw-back'. If it was it is likely that blood would be present around the opening. And other blood would would be present around the centre of the baffle plates representing a fine mist consistent with high impact back spatter from a gunshot wound. Instead we have blood pooling to form a flake under the first or second baffle plate and blood on the upper baffle plates.
Blood pattern analysis was somewhat in its infancy at the time of JB's trial but it surely wasn't beyond JB's defence to search out expert opinion in this regard even if it meant going further afield eg US or S.Africa where gun crime was/is commonplace compared with the UK.
Time and again I see the same argument from Jeremy supporters/former supporters who doubt the blood evidence. They argue Jeremy's lawyers would not be trying to do tests to discredit the blood in the moderator if Jeremy did in fact use the moderator because Jeremy would know tests might confirm his guilt.
There's every reason for anyone looking objectively at the case to doubt the silencer/blood evidence with its questionable 'chain of custody'.
The same argument has been made when lawyers of convicted rapists demanded DNA tests. Guess what a sizable number of such convicts are proven to be guilty by such tests despite demanding them. They hope and pray that someone else's DNA was on the victim or that the results will somehow end up providing a way for the defense to attack despite being guilty.
Convicted people have nothing to lose they are already jailed and thus a test that fails to help them is meaningless. They want any and all testing in hopes of trying to twist the results in their favor.
In another case many years after the conviction DNA testing was done on a scarf (victim was strangled with it), victims shirt and victim's bra. It was all the DNA of the same person. The convict could not be excluded. DNA testing of a thumbnail revealed DNA of and unknown male that was ruled out as being that of the convict.
Did the defense conceded defeat since the testing they demanded supported guilt of their client? No they argued the convicts DNA was on the scarf because it was his scarf and there was so much DNA on it the killer must have gotten it on his hands and then transferred such DNA to the shirt and bra.
But they rule out any chance of contamination of DNA to the thumb and say the DNA on the thumb must have belonged to the killer. Experts though said the complete opposite they said that since the DNA was the same person on all 3 objects this supports it being the killer's DNA particularly since the statistical odds were significant when the suspect was tied to the victim by other evidence. They said when other evidence ties the victim to the donor the odds are significant. As for the thumbnail, they noted:
1) the victim was bound thus unlikely to have been able to scratch her attacker
2) when a victim scratches an attacker there is some sort of trauma to the nails but was none
3) the fingers not thumb are mainly used to scratch
4) no precautions were taken during the collecting of evidence or handling of evidence in the lab to prevent DNA contamination
5) the amount of DNA found was very tiny and had to be replicated just to be able to get a result and thus it is ripe for contamination on a variety of levels.
The above paragraphs have nothing whatsover to do with the case let alone thread.
Defense lawyers have no problem trying to twist results and supporters or other people with an agenda do the same. So the notion that if Jeremy used the moderator he would not allow his lawyers etc to do testing is nonsense. He wants testing so he and his advocates can try to twist the results in his favor.
Trying to twist results accomplishes little though in most instances. The testing they are doing can't prove it is impossible to ever get results after superglue fuming and thus s a waste of time. ONLY if they can prove to a court that testing results can never be obtained after superglue fuming would this provide a basis to vacate the conviction. They would need to plan a est so large it has the ability to prove such. But we already know they have successfully achieved results in the past and that this would be a complete waste of time.
At most supporters will spin the results and try to use them for propaganda purposes to the public. That won't help Jeremy get his conviction vacated.
It seems to me most JB supporters don't understand the silencer/blood evidence. In fact I'm not even convinced most defence lawyers do. Probably out of laziness rather than lack of ability. I remain totally confident that the silencer/blood evidence will eventually be shown to be fabricated and JB's conviction will be quashed. At this stage there will quite rightly be uproar and the PM of the day will order a proper inquiry into the whole fiasco which will change the face of British justice forever.
-
I've updated the table to show the blood groupings for the blood on the upper baffles in the silencer. It still screams out to me begging the question why the flake was able to produce blood results where other exhibits failed. The inside of the silencer was the only exhibit capable of producing a result for the EAP enzyme and a partial/inconclusive result for the HP protein. There could of course be plausible reasons for this such as protected from natural and artificial light. Although I haven't read anything saying light has an adverse affect on bloodstains and subsequent testing. The info Scipio provided about cyanoacrylate fuming showed the EAP enzyme was adversely affected by the fuming chamber and yet the inside of the silencer (flake and upper baffles) was the only exhibit capable of producing a result for the EAP enzyme &%+((£
ABO PGM EAP AK Hp PRB HIO
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 Sil. Flake A EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
Blood In Sil. Baffles A EAP BA
Blood Outside Sil. Y Y
Rifle O Y Y
Carpet Sample 20 A* AK2-1 Y
Carpet Sample 21 A* AK2-1 Y
Socks A AK2-1 Y
Watch Y Y
Carpet Fibres 95 O AK2-1 Y
Carpet Fibres 96 A* Y
Wallpaper O
Jacket Y Y
Bathrobe Y Y
Car Y Y inconclusive
Nightdress A AK-1**
Bold = Indicative results but not conclusive insofar as results did not meet the labs criteria for a definitive
* = Performed or repeated by Dr Lincoln
** = No photograpic evidence but on lab worksheet
Photographs show results other than for ABO groupings
Sil. = Silencer
ABO = Blood Group System (Antigens)
PGM = Phosphoglucomutase (Enzyme)
EAP = Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase (Enzyme)
AK = Adenylate Kinase (Enzyme)
HP = Haptoglobin (Protein)
PRB = Positive Reaction For Blood
HIO = Human In Origin (Blood)
-
I'm not sure if this means something or nothing...
It appears John Hayward (Home Office scientist/biologist) led Dr Lincoln (for the defence) to believe that the flake had been disolved whole and the content then used for carry out the five tests: ABO groupings, enzymes: EAP, PGM, AK and protein HP. What actually happened was that John Hayward had separated the whole flake into five parts for each individual test.
Did John Hayward set out to deceive or was there some genuine misunderstanding between the pair?
Dr Lincoln's letter to JB's defence: (Bottom of first page, top of second).
"Mr Hayward stated that he had found a flake of blood trapped under the first or second baffle plate. He used this single flake to produce a solution form which he was able to determine the groups: A, EAP BA, HP 2.1 and AK1. This means that the explanation set out in my previous letters cannot be entertained".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=929
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=931
However at JB's 2002 CoA hearing:
461. On 8 September 1986, Dr Lincoln again went to the laboratory and this time met and discussed the matter with Mr Hayward. As a result of this meeting, Dr Lincoln appreciated that the blood tested all came from a single flake trapped under the first or second baffle. In a letter to the defence solicitors, Dr Lincoln said that Mr Hayward "used this single flake to produce a solution from which he was able to determine the groups". He said that this meant that the possible explanation he had earlier suggested as to a combination of more than one persons blood no longer applied.
462. In one respect Dr Lincoln was in error. Whether that error was from something said by Mr Hayward or simply from an assumption made by Dr Lincoln cannot now be ascertained and matters not. The error was to suggest that the whole of the blood flake was dissolved and the resulting solution was used for all the tests. In fact what had happened was that the flake had been divided into a number of parts and each part had then been used for a separate group test. Thus the tests were not done on liquid drawn from the same solution made from the whole flake but on separate solutions each made from distinct parts of the flake. We have no means of knowing whether correction of this error would in any way have altered Dr Lincoln's view.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
Actually by the misunderstanding in post #52 it enabled the prosecution to argue that the flake comprising a mixture of NB and June's blood was "a remote possibility" when it should have been considered a real possibility.
464.
vii) In the circumstances it was wrong to characterise the possibility that the group testing results came from a mixture of the blood of Mr and Mrs Bamber as "a remote possibility" and it should have been considered to be a real possibility
Either way whether the whole flake was dissolved or not I struggle to see it representing a mixture of NB and June's blood.
-
I'm not sure if this means something or nothing...
It appears John Hayward (Home Office scientist/biologist) led Dr Lincoln (for the defence) to believe that the flake had been disolved whole and the content then used for carry out the five tests: ABO groupings, enzymes: EAP, PGM, AK and protein HP. What actually happened was that John Hayward had separated the whole flake into five parts for each individual test.
Did John Hayward set out to deceive or was there some genuine misunderstanding between the pair?
Dr Lincoln's letter to JB's defence: (Bottom of first page, top of second).
"Mr Hayward stated that he had found a flake of blood trapped under the first or second baffle plate. He used this single flake to produce a solution form which he was able to determine the groups: A, EAP BA, HP 2.1 and AK1. This means that the explanation set out in my previous letters cannot be entertained".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=929
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=931
However at JB's 2002 CoA hearing:
461. On 8 September 1986, Dr Lincoln again went to the laboratory and this time met and discussed the matter with Mr Hayward. As a result of this meeting, Dr Lincoln appreciated that the blood tested all came from a single flake trapped under the first or second baffle. In a letter to the defence solicitors, Dr Lincoln said that Mr Hayward "used this single flake to produce a solution from which he was able to determine the groups". He said that this meant that the possible explanation he had earlier suggested as to a combination of more than one persons blood no longer applied.
462. In one respect Dr Lincoln was in error. Whether that error was from something said by Mr Hayward or simply from an assumption made by Dr Lincoln cannot now be ascertained and matters not. The error was to suggest that the whole of the blood flake was dissolved and the resulting solution was used for all the tests. In fact what had happened was that the flake had been divided into a number of parts and each part had then been used for a separate group test. Thus the tests were not done on liquid drawn from the same solution made from the whole flake but on separate solutions each made from distinct parts of the flake. We have no means of knowing whether correction of this error would in any way have altered Dr Lincoln's view.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
It means nothing. Lincoln wrote in his first report that it was unclear whether the type testing was done to blood obtained from a single area or whether multiple areas were swabbed using the same swab and then tested. He said that if multiple areas were swabbed together then it could be a mixture of blood. This is the same argument made in the Knox case. In the Knox case the same swab was used to swab multiple areas of the bathroom and thus could have mixed together blood/DNA that was not mixed originally. Lincoln noted the same possibility if swabbing multiple areas except only discussed the blood aspect not DNA.
Subsequently he learned a single flake was tested not blood that was from multiple areas and thus declared in his second report that the he learned they tested a single area and thus his mixed blood possibility did not apply.
-
Actually by the misunderstanding in post #52 it enabled the prosecution to argue that the flake comprising a mixture of NB and June's blood was "a remote possibility" when it should have been considered a real possibility.
464.
vii) In the circumstances it was wrong to characterise the possibility that the group testing results came from a mixture of the blood of Mr and Mrs Bamber as "a remote possibility" and it should have been considered to be a real possibility
Either way whether the whole flake was dissolved or not I struggle to see it representing a mixture of NB and June's blood.
There is no distinction between:
A) dissolving it and then separating it into 5 parts to do 5 different tests
B) cutting it up into 5 parts then dissolving each part separately.
that could enable a mixture to exist but be missed.
The issue Lincoln raised was the possibility the lab itself mixed blood from two different areas of the moderator (hence mixed blood from 2 different blood stains) and the possibility each stain was from a different person thus mixing stains from 2 people.
He posited this possibility at a time when it was unclear to him where the blood that was tested came from. Upon learning the results were obtained from a single flake (hence single blood stain) he said this possibility was ruled out. Lincoln also tested his blood from a single area he did not mix the blood he detected from the baffles with it.
-
Scipio I have taken the time to read your lengthy post in its entirety but I can't see how paragraphys 9 - 14 inclusive are relevant to the case let alone the thread? Can I ask please, that where possible, you stick to thread topic as per forum rules.
You have made many, many posts telling us had SC been the perp she would have been covered in high impact back spatter from the victims' gunshot wounds and medium impact spatter from the beating it appears NB sustained most likely from the rifle. Now it appears you are saying that this spatter was minimal hence the lab and Dr Lincoln were unable to find sufficient blood for group testing? Which is it?
The blood on the outside of the silencer was minimal hence the lab did not even attempt blood grouping. This was not the case with the rifle. John Hayward attempted to group for ABO (antigens) and Hp (protein). Group O was identified but this was deemed inconclusive as it did not meet the labs internal procedures/standards for a conclusive result.
Silencer
"Mr Hayward considered that in view of the very small amounts of staining present on the outside of the moderator, there was no point in attempting to determine the group of the blood."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=929
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=931
Rifle
"Attempts were made to determine the ABO and the Hp groups of the bloodstains shown to be human but these were not successful".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=931
As far as I am aware your assertions above are wrong. If you disagree please provide documentary, or other evidence, showing to the contrary of the following links. The only blood grouped inside the silencer was the flake (A, EAP BA, HP2-1 and AK-1) and blood on the upper baffle plates (A, EAP BA).
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=929
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=931
There was no blood near the opening. Had there have been Glynis Howard would have been alerted to it when she examined the silencer on 13th Aug which rather begs the question how blood ended up inside the silencer without touching the opening?
I agree the notion SC went to the gun cupboard to use the silencer and then returned it before shooting herself is absurd in the extreme. But that's Geoffrey Rivlin for you. Completely out of touch with the sensibilities of a jury.
Again I agree. RB was unlikely to know he shared the same ABO grouping with SC let alone the enzymes and protein.
I do not agree the distribution/pattern of blood is consistent with 'draw-back'. If it was it is likely that blood would be present around the opening. And other blood would would be present around the centre of the baffle plates representing a fine mist consistent with high impact back spatter from a gunshot wound. Instead we have blood pooling to form a flake under the first or second baffle plate and blood on the upper baffle plates.
Blood pattern analysis was somewhat in its infancy at the time of JB's trial but it surely wasn't beyond JB's defence to search out expert opinion in this regard even if it meant going further afield eg US or S.Africa where gun crime was/is commonplace compared with the UK.
There's every reason for anyone looking objectively at the case to doubt the silencer/blood evidence with its questionable 'chain of custody'.
The above paragraphs have nothing whatsover to do with the case let alone thread.
It seems to me most JB supporters don't understand the silencer/blood evidence. In fact I'm not even convinced most defence lawyers do. Probably out of laziness rather than lack of ability. I remain totally confident that the silencer/blood evidence will eventually be shown to be fabricated and JB's conviction will be quashed. At this stage there will quite rightly be uproar and the PM of the day will order a proper inquiry into the whole fiasco which will change the face of British justice forever.
I didn't say the killer would have large blood stains and be dripping in blood. I said the rifle had spatter on it and clear so would the killer. That doesn't mean the spatter would be huge drops. It often is small enough that killer's don't see it which is why many get caught. Since the stock had spatter and the killer had to touch it to fire that means some of the spatter would have been wiped onto the killer's clothing or hands as well. It would have most likely been in the hair as well that is another area attackers often miss. When there is a bludgeoning with a weapon that draws a lot of blood and makes a real mess then the killer will obviously see the blood and know to take a bath and get rid of their clothing. This wasn't an axe murder though.
Blood removed from the inside opening of the moderator by Howard is what was tested to see whether it was human blood. She noted several areas that tested positive outside as well as the blood she tested from the inside opening.
Lincoln noted that because the stains were small and most was expended doing tests to see whether the blood was human it was not surprising that the remnants were insufficient for the lab to successfully blood type.
In addition to Howard finding blood inside the opening and the lab testing the flake and blood on the baffles Lincoln himself tested blood he removed from the inside opening.
-
Howard's statement noting blood was found inside as well as out
-
It means nothing. Lincoln wrote in his first report that it was unclear whether the type testing was done to blood obtained from a single area or whether multiple areas were swabbed using the same swab and then tested. He said that if multiple areas were swabbed together then it could be a mixture of blood. This is the same argument made in the Knox case. In the Knox case the same swab was used to swab multiple areas of the bathroom and thus could have mixed together blood/DNA that was not mixed originally. Lincoln noted the same possibility if swabbing multiple areas except only discussed the blood aspect not DNA.
Subsequently he learned a single flake was tested not blood that was from multiple areas and thus declared in his second report that the he learned they tested a single area and thus his mixed blood possibility did not apply.
Are you able to upload the first report please? I don't think we have it here.
It seems from the CoA doc that Dr Lincoln initially fed back to JB's defence the possibility that John Hayward might have swabbed different parts of the silencer obtaining the four blood results which matched SC's blood group but this could have represented a combination of NB and June's blood results which would also match SC's blood group. Dr Lincoln then came to understand from John Hayward the blood tested came from a single source ie the flake and that the flake was dissolved whole and from this solution the five group tests were carried out thus pretty much ruling out the possibility the blood/flake represented a combination of NB's and June's. The misunderstanding involves the fact that although John Hayward used blood from a single source ie the flake it was not in fact dissolved whole put separated into five parts. Each of the five parts were then dissolved and the resulting solution from each used for one of the five tests. This method according to the CoA doc meant that the probability of the blood representing NB's and June's shifted to "a real possibility".
- Was Dr Lincoln deliberately deceived to secure the conviction the prosecution were looking for?
- Was the method of separating the flake into five parts and then dissolving to carry out the group tests an established method? I think it must have been otherwise Mark Webster at the CoA hearing would have been alerted to it.
- What are the advantages/disadvantages to both methods and when would they be used?
-
Howard's statement noting blood was found inside as well as out
Is this document authenticated by way of a signature anywhere?
The original sketch drawn by Glynnis Howard shows blood staining on three places which corresponds with the CoA hearing and does not include blood inside the silencer:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1026.0;attach=2053
Scientific examination of the sound moderator 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.
How does blood enter a silencer via 'draw-back' from a gunshot wound and yet avoid leaving a trace around the opening? &%+((£
-
Are you able to upload the first report please? I don't think we have it here.
It seems from the CoA doc that Dr Lincoln initially fed back to JB's defence the possibility that John Hayward might have swabbed different parts of the silencer obtaining the four blood results which matched SC's blood group but this could have represented a combination of NB and June's blood results which would also match SC's blood group. Dr Lincoln then came to understand from John Hayward the blood tested came from a single source ie the flake and that the flake was dissolved whole and from this solution the five group tests were carried out thus pretty much ruling out the possibility the blood/flake represented a combination of NB's and June's. The misunderstanding involves the fact that although John Hayward used blood from a single source ie the flake it was not in fact dissolved whole put separated into five parts. Each of the five parts were then dissolved and the resulting solution from each used for one of the five tests. This method according to the CoA doc meant that the probability of the blood representing NB's and June's shifted to "a real possibility".
- Was Dr Lincoln deliberately deceived to secure the conviction the prosecution were looking for?
- Was the method of separating the flake into five parts and then dissolving to carry out the group tests an established method? I think it must have been otherwise Mark Webster at the CoA hearing would have been alerted to it.
- What are the advantages/disadvantages to both methods and when would they be used?
There is no advantage or disadvantage in terms of science. It may be easier to cut it into 5 parts than to try separating a small solution into 5 parts or vice versa. Since I have not tried both I have no frame of reference to say whether one is easier to do. It's been a long time since I played with slides and microscopes period...
-
Is this document authenticated by way of a signature anywhere?
The original sketch drawn by Glynnis Howard shows blood staining on three places which corresponds with the CoA hearing and does not include blood inside the silencer:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1026.0;attach=2053
Scientific examination of the sound moderator 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.
How does blood enter a silencer via 'draw-back' from a gunshot wound and yet avoid leaving a trace around the opening? &%+((£
The decision discusses the blood inside that was tested for blood typing. There was no need to discuss the blood that Howard found inside to be of human origin it was not relevant.
Not only was it signed, there is documentation proving that on Aug 14 police were notified human blood was found inside and outside the moderator in addition to red paint found on the outside. COLP noted such documentation when questioning specific police to find out when they read such message.
Furthermore her examination record does in fact detail such blood. The first diagram is of the opening and points to blood found inside that opening and details it tested positive as human blood.
-
Are you able to upload the first report please? I don't think we have it here.
-
There is no advantage or disadvantage in terms of science. It may be easier to cut it into 5 parts than to try separating a small solution into 5 parts or vice versa. Since I have not tried both I have no frame of reference to say whether one is easier to do. It's been a long time since I played with slides and microscopes period...
Mr Webster (for the defence) at JB's 2002 CoA hearing:
vi) Whilst he accepted that the method of testing was the standard approach to blood grouping at the time, it was only applicable to "a run of the mill" case where it was known that each bloodstain was from a single individual. When there was a risk that it might be from more than one blood source, as here, Mr Hayward should have taken steps to ensure that the different group tests were carried out on the same material. This could have been achieved either by dissolving the whole flake and forming a single solution or by crushing the flake and pulverising it to ensure that all parts were completely mixed.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
I don't think the tests involve slides and microscopes. As I said previously I believe the tests are based on gel electrophoresis. Same sort of tests for DNA but in JB's case it was based on blood serology of enzymes and proteins (all enzymes are proteins but not all proteins are enzymes). The test separates molecules by their size. Unlike DNA it's not statistically individualising.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkBUriMK9u8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gel_electrophoresis
I guess there are three issues in red above: a) from a legal perspective giving the jury the benefit of allowing them to consider the possibility that the blood may have been a mix of NB's and June's. And b) from a ballistics perspective this seems so unlikely that the prosecution could and should have demolished the argument. Malcolm Fletcher said one of the shots June sustained might have been a contact shot but according to him it was "unlikely". None of the shots NB sustained were described as contact. I guess it could be argued that blood from the beating NB sustained from the silencer/rifle entered the silencer. And c) the notion SC would return the silencer to the gun cupboard having shot herself. This might have been plausible if it was found in the front of the cupboard but it was in a bag at the back.
To my mind even though John Hayward didn't follow the correct procedure I can't buy into the idea that the blood results represented a mixture of NB and June's. I think Geoffrey Rivlin cocked up big time and defence lawyers since have been trying to pick up the pieces and running with the blood results representing a mixture of NB's and June's instead. Imo GR should have gone down the fabricated evidence route in the first place. It was all there on a plate: the 'chain of custody', the fact blood serology testing is not statistically individualising and blood pattern analysis. If they knew about the fuming chamber surely this would raise further queries along with the fact the flake was able to produce significantly more results than any other exhibit.
-
The decision discusses the blood inside that was tested for blood typing. There was no need to discuss the blood that Howard found inside to be of human origin it was not relevant.
Not only was it signed, there is documentation proving that on Aug 14 police were notified human blood was found inside and outside the moderator in addition to red paint found on the outside. COLP noted such documentation when questioning specific police to find out when they read such message.
Furthermore her examination record does in fact detail such blood. The first diagram is of the opening and points to blood found inside that opening and details it tested positive as human blood.
Yes I've acknowledged the blood stain on the front of the silencer but where's the blood around the opening? The fragements refer to the paint supposedly from the struggle in the kitchen when the silencer, again supposedly, scratched the mantle.
-
Mr Webster (for the defence) at JB's 2002 CoA hearing:
vi) Whilst he accepted that the method of testing was the standard approach to blood grouping at the time, it was only applicable to "a run of the mill" case where it was known that each bloodstain was from a single individual. When there was a risk that it might be from more than one blood source, as here, Mr Hayward should have taken steps to ensure that the different group tests were carried out on the same material. This could have been achieved either by dissolving the whole flake and forming a single solution or by crushing the flake and pulverising it to ensure that all parts were completely mixed.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
I don't think the tests involve slides and microscopes. As I said previously I believe the tests are based on gel electrophoresis. Same sort of tests for DNA but in JB's case it was based on blood serology of enzymes and proteins (all enzymes are proteins but not all proteins are enzymes). The test separates molecules by their size. Unlike DNA it's not statistically individualising.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkBUriMK9u8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gel_electrophoresis
I guess there are three issues in red above: a) from a legal perspective giving the jury the benefit of allowing them to consider the possibility that the blood may have been a mix of NB's and June's. And b) from a ballistics perspective this seems so unlikely that the prosecution could and should have demolished the argument. Malcolm Fletcher said one of the shots June sustained might have been a contact shot but according to him it was "unlikely". None of the shots NB sustained were described as contact. I guess it could be argued that blood from the beating NB sustained from the silencer/rifle entered the silencer. And c) the notion SC would return the silencer to the gun cupboard having shot herself. This might have been plausible if it was found in the front of the cupboard but it was in a bag at the back.
To my mind even though John Hayward didn't follow the correct procedure I can't buy into the idea that the blood results represented a mixture of NB and June's. I think Geoffrey Rivlin cocked up big time and defence lawyers since have been trying to pick up the pieces and running with the blood results representing a mixture of NB's and June's instead. Imo GR should have gone down the fabricated evidence route in the first place. It was all there on a plate: the 'chain of custody', the fact blood serology testing is not statistically individualising and blood pattern analysis. If they knew about the fuming chamber surely this would raise further queries along with the fact the flake was able to produce significantly more results than any other exhibit.
I posted the above in a bit of a hurry and reading it back now I can see I made an error! I meant to say the idea that SC shot her parents and returned the silencer to the gun cupboard is crazy IMO. I Made reference in my post to SC shooting herself and returning the silencer to the gun cupboard.
-
Two questions -
What does "scattered fragments, 1/16" dia. 1/5 bore" in the moderator's opening refer to - blood or paint?
What is that unlabelled large mark on the left-hand side - blood or paint?
-
Two questions -
What does "scattered fragments, 1/16" dia. 1/5 bore" in the moderator's opening refer to - blood or paint?
What is that unlabelled large mark on the left-hand side - blood or paint?
As far as I'm aware the "scattered fragments" refers to paint.
The unlabelled mark seems to be duplicated further down the page on the left hand side? The sketch shows three (or four?) blood stains and yet in the top rhc GH produces a key for 2 blood stains? Perhaps she means two stains on the flat surface?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1026.0;attach=2053
-
As far as I'm aware the "scattered fragments" refers to paint.
The unlabelled mark seems to be duplicated further down the page on the left hand side? The sketch shows three (or four?) blood stains and yet in the top rhc GH produces a key for 2 blood stains? Perhaps she means two stains on the flat surface?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1026.0;attach=2053 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1026.0;attach=2053)
There should an a and b on the drawing to which the key refers. Maybe they've been cut off on the left-hand side of the page when it was photo-copied.
I'm convinced that the moderator was wiped down after use. Hence the reason DB said it was sticky (perhaps from blood diluted with a thin, protective oil coating on the silencer). And also because of the 3/4" long x 1/16" wide stain embedded in the groove near the Parker-Hale logo at the screw-on end. If the moderator was given just a cursory wipe in the the rush to get away from the scene, it's easy to imagine that this concealed detail would be overlooked by the perp.
-
There should an a and b on the drawing to which the key refers. Maybe they've been cut off on the left-hand side of the page when it was photo-copied.
I'm convinced that the moderator was wiped down after use. Hence the reason DB said it was sticky (perhaps from blood diluted with a thin, protective oil coating on the silencer). And also because of the 3/4" long x 1/16" wide stain embedded in the groove near the Parker-Hale logo at the screw-on end. If the moderator was given just a cursory wipe in the the rush to get away from the scene, it's easy to imagine that this concealed detail would be overlooked by the perp.
It seems like ages since we've exchanged posts - I've missed you 8**8:/:
When Glynnis Howard examined the silencer had she observed any blood around the opening surely she would have peered into the opening and had she have observed blood she would have noted such and taken it upon herself to unscrew the end cap to see if the blood extended further into the silencer?
Anyway no one else mentions any stickiness.
As far as I'm aware blood was not detected in the end cap. The actual opening looks to have a depth of about 0.5cm. I can't see how blood could enter the silencer via draw-back without touching the sides of the opening on the surface and throughout the 0.5cm depth?
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=aGrGCnStmrk
-
Thanks for providing Dr Lincoln's reports Scipio. They are actually available here:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=276.msg4584#msg4584
See page 1 of his letter dated 27th May '86 para 3 he states for technical reasons he's unable to perform the haptoglobin (HP) test. I wonder what the tech reasons were?
-
It seems like ages since we've exchanged posts - I've missed you 8**8:/:
When Glynnis Howard examined the silencer had she observed any blood around the opening surely she would have peered into the opening and had she have observed blood she would have noted such and taken it upon herself to unscrew the end cap to see if the blood extended further into the silencer?
Anyway no one else mentions any stickiness.
As far as I'm aware blood was not detected in the end cap. The actual opening looks to have a depth of about 0.5cm. I can't see how blood could enter the silencer via draw-back without touching the sides of the opening on the surface and throughout the 0.5cm depth?
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=aGrGCnStmrk (https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=aGrGCnStmrk)
Thought I'd let you get on with your psychoacrylate fuming or whatever, with scipio. ?{)(**
Maybe GH was requested not to open it up at that stage... who knows?
DB was insistent that it was still sticky for some reason two days after the murders, and I don't doubt him.
Blood might have been sucked back into the moderator through drawback or contraction of exhaust gases, leaving the opening without... again, who knows?
Thanks for the link to all the YouTube stuff I've been watching and what they've recommended for me to view - Solidworks tutorials, the horrendous effects of Krokodil, Sticky Vicky, and not forgetting the best pie shop in Wiggin.
-
Thought I'd let you get on with your psychoacrylate fuming or whatever, with scipio. ?{)(**
Maybe GH was requested not to open it up at that stage... who knows?
DB was insistent that it was still sticky for some reason two days after the murders, and I don't doubt him.
Blood might have been sucked back into the moderator through drawback or contraction of exhaust gases, leaving the opening without... again, who knows?
Thanks for the link to all the YouTube stuff I've been watching and what they've recommended for me to view - Solidworks tutorials, the horrendous effects of Krokodil, Sticky Vicky, and not forgetting the best pie shop in Wiggin.
If it recommends Lovehoney tutorials that's nothing to do with me 8()-000(
-
Yes I've acknowledged the blood stain on the front of the silencer but where's the blood around the opening? The fragements refer to the paint supposedly from the struggle in the kitchen when the silencer, again supposedly, scratched the mantle.
The diagram has a line pointing inside the opening (inside the hole) that notes such material tested positive as human blood. Howard removed this material with a swab she didn't take the moderator apart. Right inside the hole is effectively a shelf formed by the threading. This is what she swabbed and it also is what Lincoln swabbed that he then tested and determined was group A blood. Apparently the fact she didn't swab it that thoroughly is what enabled Lincoln to be able to successfully test it. Had she removed more then he would not have found enough to test. That effectively denied the prosecution of some evidence. Had she swabbed more to test the blood type or ad the lab done so in September then they could have told the jury about this additional support. Since Lincoln found it instead and he didn't testify the prosecution never found out until during the appeal. This is one of the reasons why he was not used.
The defense did in fact know what it was doing. The facts in this case were not good though for the defense.
-
Mr Webster (for the defence) at JB's 2002 CoA hearing:
vi) Whilst he accepted that the method of testing was the standard approach to blood grouping at the time, it was only applicable to "a run of the mill" case where it was known that each bloodstain was from a single individual. When there was a risk that it might be from more than one blood source, as here, Mr Hayward should have taken steps to ensure that the different group tests were carried out on the same material. This could have been achieved either by dissolving the whole flake and forming a single solution or by crushing the flake and pulverising it to ensure that all parts were completely mixed.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
I don't think the tests involve slides and microscopes. As I said previously I believe the tests are based on gel electrophoresis. Same sort of tests for DNA but in JB's case it was based on blood serology of enzymes and proteins (all enzymes are proteins but not all proteins are enzymes). The test separates molecules by their size. Unlike DNA it's not statistically individualising.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkBUriMK9u8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gel_electrophoresis
I guess there are three issues in red above: a) from a legal perspective giving the jury the benefit of allowing them to consider the possibility that the blood may have been a mix of NB's and June's. And b) from a ballistics perspective this seems so unlikely that the prosecution could and should have demolished the argument. Malcolm Fletcher said one of the shots June sustained might have been a contact shot but according to him it was "unlikely". None of the shots NB sustained were described as contact. I guess it could be argued that blood from the beating NB sustained from the silencer/rifle entered the silencer. And c) the notion SC would return the silencer to the gun cupboard having shot herself. This might have been plausible if it was found in the front of the cupboard but it was in a bag at the back.
To my mind even though John Hayward didn't follow the correct procedure I can't buy into the idea that the blood results represented a mixture of NB and June's. I think Geoffrey Rivlin cocked up big time and defence lawyers since have been trying to pick up the pieces and running with the blood results representing a mixture of NB's and June's instead. Imo GR should have gone down the fabricated evidence route in the first place. It was all there on a plate: the 'chain of custody', the fact blood serology testing is not statistically individualising and blood pattern analysis. If they knew about the fuming chamber surely this would raise further queries along with the fact the flake was able to produce significantly more results than any other exhibit.
The trial testimony was that very little blood from the beating could theoretically get inside and if it did then it would not be able to far at all. The jury was told there was too much blood and it was too deep inside to be from the beating.
Rivlin felt that his best chance was to try to get the jury to believe it possibly was a mixture and hope the jury would feel this amounted to reasonable doubt. This was a weak argument for numerous reasons but the best he could do under the circumstances. Evidence that went against this was the jury being told it was unlikely any of the wounds to June and Nevill were contact wounds thus unlikely there would be any chance of drawback. Worse still hey were told the only way for it to be a mixture and for this not to be detected would be if the blood did not intimately mix yet testing showed blood would intimately mix in a moderator. They were told AK1 is more hardy than AK2-1 and that since AK1 was detected then if June's blood had been present then AK2-1 would have been detected. He hoped the jury would overlook such and simply listen to Hayward saying a mixture was a possibility and them just believing that amounts to reasonable doubt. He hoped they were not so bright and could be taken in by this. Obviously another flaw in this is that it is not credible that in a crazy rage she would take the time to go get the moderator to attach it and use it let alone to put it away when she was done. But this was the best argument the defense could come up with because they are limited by the facts of the case.
Chain of custody is a legal issue and required for authentication. That was satisfied in this case. By discussing the chain of custody you seem to suggest they should have asserted the blood was planted by the family. They had no basis to suggest such though. As much as some hate Anne there is nothing to suggest she would be a party to such a deception. Nor is there anything to suggest the family knew Sheila suffered a contact wound that would result in drawback or knew anything about drawback period let alone would know how to plant blood inside so as to simulate drawback. Without being able to prove such knowledge as well as opportunity it is not something courts allow and not something that has much of a chance of a jury believing anyway. You need some evidence to support such happened.
In this case only the lab had the knowledge about drawback. Yet blood was found right away and there is nothing at all to suggest the lab planted anything.
You are criticizing them for not using evidence you don't have. You are counting on evidence you will get from testing that you don't yet have and for reasons previously discussed won't have. Lawyers need witnesses to present evidence. The defense in this case had zilch to try to attack the moderator evidence. The best they could think up was the rather novel idea of getting Hayward to admit there was a remote possibility it was a mixture and that being able to sway the jury. While it didn't work it was the only thing they had and better than not making any argument at all.
If defense testing of the blood revealed a preservative agent then the defense would have been able to have an expert note such and say this suggests the blood was planted not directly from a human. But they had no such evidence. Even today nothing has been found to support such.
If they didn't suggest the blood was a mixture they would have basically had no defense at all against the evidence and just have featured Jeremy insisting he is innocent.
Aside from no evidence to suggest police planted anything think about it logically. If police had known about drawback and had planted the blood and removed blood from the rifle so the lab would not find any what would the police do? They would make sure the lab tested such blood right away to come up with their conclusions. Did police press the lab to test blood right away? No Cook first fingerprinted the moderator then superglued it and took his sweet time getting it to the lab. Did the lab process it right away? No they took their sweet time as well. Is there anything to suggest police put any pressure on the lab to move faster? There is nothing the defense could have latched on to.
Officer Cook did you plant any blood? No
Officer Jones did you plan any blood? No
Ms. Howard did you plant any blood? No
Mr. Hayward did you plant any blood? No
Had the defense asked such, after they answered no what could the defense do? Nothing. How would this help matters even if the court didn't sanction them? People get their ideas about trials largely from TV and things in real life are different.
-
Thought I'd let you get on with your psychoacrylate fuming or whatever, with scipio. ?{)(**
Maybe GH was requested not to open it up at that stage... who knows?
DB was insistent that it was still sticky for some reason two days after the murders, and I don't doubt him.
Blood might have been sucked back into the moderator through drawback or contraction of exhaust gases, leaving the opening without... again, who knows?
Thanks for the link to all the YouTube stuff I've been watching and what they've recommended for me to view - Solidworks tutorials, the horrendous effects of Krokodil, Sticky Vicky, and not forgetting the best pie shop in Wiggin.
It was suggested the stickiness was from a cleaning agent. The suggestion was that Jeremy cleaned it off but missed a few tiny spots and didn't realize there was blood inside let alone the potential significance of such blood.
-
Two questions -
What does "scattered fragments, 1/16" dia. 1/5 bore" in the moderator's opening refer to - blood or paint?
What is that unlabelled large mark on the left-hand side - blood or paint?
Blood. There was also a tiny bit of blood on the "face" of the moderator which means on the flat outside surface surrounding the opening. The paint was in the knurled portion of the moderator. The knurled portion scratched the mantle and that allowed it to deposit inside the grooving of the knurled portion. The knurled portion is the only part of the moderator that dry paint could adhere too. The rest of the moderator was smooth.
The blood on the outside was high velocity impact back spatter. The blood on the inside was drawback which in most simple terms is back spatter when the barrel is fired at contact range. At contact range the blood is drawn inside the opening otherwise it will hit the outside of the weapon and shooter unless the weapon is not being used at close or intermediate range. The location of the shot will dictate whether back spatter will occur. If spatter occurs the range will determine whether it hits the shooter/weapon, goes inside or does neither. Spatter can hit a bystander not merely a shooter. Spatter doesn't always prove one is a shooter it simply will prove for sure one was close by when the shooting or beating occurred.
-
As far as I'm aware the "scattered fragments" refers to paint.
The unlabelled mark seems to be duplicated further down the page on the left hand side? The sketch shows three (or four?) blood stains and yet in the top rhc GH produces a key for 2 blood stains? Perhaps she means two stains on the flat surface?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1026.0;attach=2053
No the fragments are the blood she removed from inside the opening. The line goes to the hole and it expressly says inside opening. Above that is a line pointing to spatter found outside the opening on the flat face.
The second diagram deals with the paint. It was found in the knurled portion. Most of the moderator is smooth there is nothing for dry paint to adhere to. The knurled portion has grooving and some dry paint deposited inside the grooving. This is the only portion that had paint because it is the only portion the paint could adhere to. The grooving also enabled it to scratch the paint of course. The grooving is similar to a file.
Note that there also was a blood stain found int he knurling not just paint.
-
The trial testimony was that very little blood from the beating could theoretically get inside and if it did then it would not be able to far at all. The jury was told there was too much blood and it was too deep inside to be from the beating.
I agree it is difficult to see how blood from any beating NB sustained from the rifle/silencer ended up inside the silencer (which I don't believe even left the gun cupboard on that fateful night). For the record I haven't seen any evidence of what the jury were told in this regard. Are you able to provide any documentary evidence supporting your assertions?
Rivlin felt that his best chance was to try to get the jury to believe it possibly was a mixture and hope the jury would feel this amounted to reasonable doubt. This was a weak argument for numerous reasons but the best he could do under the circumstances. Evidence that went against this was the jury being told it was unlikely any of the wounds to June and Nevill were contact wounds thus unlikely there would be any chance of drawback. Worse still hey were told the only way for it to be a mixture and for this not to be detected would be if the blood did not intimately mix yet testing showed blood would intimately mix in a moderator.
Geoffrey Rivlin was known as a prosecutor not a defender. Months after JB's trial he quit advocacy to take on the role of full-time judge which says it all imo. These people are unaccountable when they cock up. I understand he has always been "helpful" to JB's defence since trial. Is this the norm or a guilty conscience knowing he cocked up? How many time do you hear JB "supporters" criticise his defence at trial? Never. Instead they blame prosection witnesses, the police, lab staff and just about anyone they can think of but never JB's defence at trial.
I agree the argument about the blood in the silencer representing an intimate mix of NB and June's blood was/is weak. There was nothing whatsover to stop Geoffrey Rivlin going down the accidental/deliberate contamination route. The tests used to analyse the blood are not statistically indivualising. This can be evidenced by the fact RB shared the exact same blood groups with SC/the flake. It is obvious from the jury's questions to the judge that they misunderstood the whole blood evidence believing the blood in the silencer could only pertain to SC or a remote possibility of NB and June's. When in fact as stated by Dr Lincoln the blood groups found in the silencer are shared by approx 8% of unrelated white British population - 5th para down:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7083.0;attach=6212
They were told AK1 is more hardy than AK2-1 and that since AK1 was detected then if June's blood had been present then AK2-1 would have been detected. He hoped the jury would overlook such and simply listen to Hayward saying a mixture was a possibility and them just believing that amounts to reasonable doubt. He hoped they were not so bright and could be taken in by this. Obviously another flaw in this is that it is not credible that in a crazy rage she would take the time to go get the moderator to attach it and use it let alone to put it away when she was done. But this was the best argument the defense could come up with because they are limited by the facts of the case.
Where is the evidence AK2-1 is "more hardy" than AK-1? John Hayward said had June's blood been present he would have expeted to detect AK2-1 but nothing about it being "more hardy"than AK-1? The following is from the CoA doc point 454:
However, if there was sufficient of Mrs Bamber's blood present to give the clear cut group A result, he would have "stood a good chance of detecting the AK2-1 which would have gone with it".
I agree the whole idea the blood represented a mix of NB and June's and that SC would return the silencer to the gun cupboard before shooting herself is simply absurd whichever way you look at it. What was going through Geoffrey Rivlin's mind? Imo on the one hand he was arrogant thinking the jury would be easily fooled. On the other hand lacking the balls to go down the accidental/deliberate contamination route.
Chain of custody is a legal issue and required for authentication. That was satisfied in this case. By discussing the chain of custody you seem to suggest they should have asserted the blood was planted by the family. They had no basis to suggest such though. As much as some hate Anne there is nothing to suggest she would be a party to such a deception. Nor is there anything to suggest the family knew Sheila suffered a contact wound that would result in drawback or knew anything about drawback period let alone would know how to plant blood inside so as to simulate drawback. Without being able to prove such knowledge as well as opportunity it is not something courts allow and not something that has much of a chance of a jury believing anyway. You need some evidence to support such happened.
The chain of custody in this case is quite simply appaling and when the Great British public understand the enormity of what went on will quite rightly be outraged:
- Silencer not found at SoC by police but some 3 days later by JB's relatives.
- The relatives did not leave the silencer at SoC and alert police but removed it where they subsequently "examined" it.
- A police officer collected some 2 days later. Instead of going prepared with an exhibit bag he improvised by using the inner tube of a kitchen roll. He did not hurry back to the station but sat drinking whisky with the relative.
- The officer handed the silencer in at the police station the following day.
- He did not deal with the administration of the silencer/exhibit correctly circumventing procedures.
- The following day the silencer was submitted to the lab where a scientist examined blood and paint on the outside only.
- Two days later the silencer was taken to a different site miles away for superglue fuming in an attempt to reveal latent fingerprints. Had the lab identified any blood inside the silencer it would have been removed prior to the superglue fuming as it is known this CAN have an adverse affect on any subsequent testing of blood.
- Some 28/29 days later the police returned the silencer to the lab and hey presto by magic an in tact flake of blood appeared which just so happened to match SC's blood groups!
- By this time the relatives had done a sterling job on the police convincing them of JB's guilt based on nothing more than entirely subjective matters.
- 30 years ago and with the UK's low rate of gun crime all concerned were out of their depth and JB was like a lamb to the slaughter.
In this case only the lab had the knowledge about drawback. Yet blood was found right away and there is nothing at all to suggest the lab planted anything.
You are criticizing them for not using evidence you don't have. You are counting on evidence you will get from testing that you don't yet have and for reasons previously discussed won't have. Lawyers need witnesses to present evidence. The defense in this case had zilch to try to attack the moderator evidence. The best they could think up was the rather novel idea of getting Hayward to admit there was a remote possibility it was a mixture and that being able to sway the jury. While it didn't work it was the only thing they had and better than not making any argument at all.
If defense testing of the blood revealed a preservative agent then the defense would have been able to have an expert note such and say this suggests the blood was planted not directly from a human. But they had no such evidence. Even today nothing has been found to support such.
If they didn't suggest the blood was a mixture they would have basically had no defense at all against the evidence and just have featured Jeremy insisting he is innocent.
Aside from no evidence to suggest police planted anything think about it logically. If police had known about drawback and had planted the blood and removed blood from the rifle so the lab would not find any what would the police do? They would make sure the lab tested such blood right away to come up with their conclusions. Did police press the lab to test blood right away? No Cook first fingerprinted the moderator then superglued it and took his sweet time getting it to the lab. Did the lab process it right away? No they took their sweet time as well. Is there anything to suggest police put any pressure on the lab to move faster? There is nothing the defense could have latched on to.
Officer Cook did you plant any blood? No
Officer Jones did you plan any blood? No
Ms. Howard did you plant any blood? No
Mr. Hayward did you plant any blood? No
Had the defense asked such, after they answered no what could the defense do? Nothing. How would this help matters even if the court didn't sanction them? People get their ideas about trials largely from TV and things in real life are different.
There's no evidence to suggest only lab staff were familiar with 'draw-back'. Peter Eaton was a registered gun dealer and members of the police firearms trained. Many involved were just as likely to be familiar with draw-back as any lab staff were if not more familiar.
Blood inside the silencer was not found straight away. See above.
There's no evidence of what was added to the victims' blood samples taken at autopsy and whether or not Dr Lincoln attempted to carry out any tests in this regard.
NGB has stated the defence had grounds to pursue accidental and/or deliberate contamination and I have no reason to doubt him in this regard:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5861.msg209325#msg209325
The CPS/DPP NEEDED the fabricated evidence of the silencer to get the case to court.
-
I agree it is difficult to see how blood from any beating NB sustained from the rifle/silencer ended up inside the silencer (which I don't believe even left the gun cupboard on that fateful night). For the record I haven't seen any evidence of what the jury were told in this regard. Are you able to provide any documentary evidence supporting your assertions?
I didn't save everything I read on blue. I know for a fact that the blood spatter testimony included such. They didn't even bother to mention that since the butt of the weapon was being used to beat him that means the blood would not even be near the opening. It just discussed the scientific issues of spatter being able to enter a barrel discussing both the issue of spatter from bullets as well as from beatings. The jury was told that very little spatter could get inside whether by beating or shooting and it would not travel far even if a bit did by coincidence end up in the hole. The quantity and depth were only associated with drawback.
Geoffrey Rivlin was known as a prosecutor not a defender. Months after JB's trial he quit advocacy to take on the role of full-time judge which says it all imo. These people are unaccountable when they cock up. I understand he has always been "helpful" to JB's defence since trial. Is this the norm or a guilty conscience knowing he cocked up? How many time do you hear JB "supporters" criticise his defence at trial? Never. Instead they blame prosection witnesses, the police, lab staff and just about anyone they can think of but never JB's defence at trial.
So what, in JAG we did both. Working both sides just gives one a better perspective. Former prosecutors make some of the best defense attorneys because they know ever angle a prosecutor has. The problem is when someone who never handled a particular matter before such as never handled murders or the like is tasked with defending someone. There is a learning curve and they may or may not be able to learn sufficiently.
I have no problem blaming a defense lawyer who does a horrible job by missing something significant but that didn't happen here. The defense here had lousy facts and there was really no hope of winning this case except getting a jury of who hated the police and would never trust the police no matter what and acquit no matter what. There are people like that and for all we know they may have gotten 2 jurors of such a nature we don't know what the 2 who voted to acquit were like. Chances of getting more than 3 in a lot of 12 is not good though which is why they feel 10 is good enough for a majority verdict and don't feel any need to go lower.
Jeremy could not have been a worse client. He acted snide on the witness stand and many of the things he told police and on the stand even were less than helpful to his cause. Calling Julie before police was a mistake and lying about calling police first only compounded it. He told police he called them right away but at the trial he admitted he waited a while and said he didn't call 999 because he didn't initially appreciate there was an emergency it took time for it to soak in and only after it soaked in did he recognize there was an emergency and that he had better call police. This was a horrible explanation for not dialing 999. All such accounts for is a delay in calling police it fails to explain why he didn't dial 999. Logically once it sunk it that there was an emergency he should have called 999 at the point. He basically said it sunk in that there was an emergency then he panicked and figured he better call police and looked up a number. He had told the police that he didn't realize 999 would be faster which is something he told police as well. How could you not know that it would be faster to dial 999 than to go get a number and look it up? There is only so much a defense attorney can do to try to ameliorate such things. That is apart from the moderator and things like leaving too many bullets in the kitchen for his story of loading the gun there and then leaving the bullets to be true. When everything is taken into account this is a horrible case.
F Lee Bailey did a lousy job defending Patty Hearst that was a winnable case even though the judge was biased and made bad rulings. I can criticize specific things he said and did which from a lawyer perspective were poor. In this case there is nothing like that, the facts and evidence were simply bad and they lost as a result.
I agree the argument about the blood in the silencer representing an intimate mix of NB and June's blood was/is weak. There was nothing whatsover to stop Geoffrey Rivlin going down the accidental/deliberate contamination route. The tests used to analyse the blood are not statistically indivualising. This can be evidenced by the fact RB shared the exact same blood groups with SC/the flake. It is obvious from the jury's questions to the judge that they misunderstood the whole blood evidence believing the blood in the silencer could only pertain to SC or a remote possibility of NB and June's. When in fact as stated by Dr Lincoln the blood groups found in the silencer are shared by approx 8% of unrelated white British population - 5th para down:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7083.0;attach=6212
The testimony at trial was that it was impossible for accidental contamination to be a cause of the blood it got there either by drawback or deliberately placed there was the testimony. So there was no way to argue innocent contamination. That is the most the defense could get so far as being able to suggest planting. They had no one to question who could suggest anything particular.
Evidence it entered on the record by questioning witnesses. There was no one to question who would help support the claim of evidence being planted because nothing was uncovered to suggest any planting of evidence occurred. If he asked what it would take to plant evidence the difficulty of planting evidence in the moderator and concealing the finding of blood in the rifle would would have simply made the jury not even consider it a possibility. That's the only other thing that could have been asked.
Where is the evidence AK2-1 is "more hardy" than AK-1? John Hayward said had June's blood been present he would have expeted to detect AK2-1 but nothing about it being "more hardy"than AK-1? The following is from the CoA doc point 454:
However, if there was sufficient of Mrs Bamber's blood present to give the clear cut group A result, he would have "stood a good chance of detecting the AK2-1 which would have gone with it".
I agree the whole idea the blood represented a mix of NB and June's and that SC would return the silencer to the gun cupboard before shooting herself is simply absurd whichever way you look at it. What was going through Geoffrey Rivlin's mind? Imo on the one hand he was arrogant thinking the jury would be easily fooled. On the other hand lacking the balls to go down the accidental/deliberate contamination route.
AK2-1 is mitochondrial based it is more durable than AK1 which is cytosolic. Adenylate kinase degrades over time unless refrigerated and some other variables come into play as well. Ak2-1 degrades more slowly thank AK1. Part of the reason why they would have expected to be able to detect AK2-1 was because AK1 was detected. Another reason of course is just that it breaks down slower and was within the window where it should have been able to be detect it. It's not impossible for all adenylate kinase in a sample to be too degraded to get a result though. Some defense attempts were made to question the AK1 finding and suggesting perhaps no result was obtained but Lincoln and no one else really were willing to say they made it up. Testing a larger sample would have been better, cutting it into 5 parts really reduced the size significantly. In fact, sometimes labs would do multiple tests in combination (batch test) on the same sample. For instance run PGM, AK and ADA all at once on the same sample. They could have divided it in half or 3 parts instead of 5 and done batch tests. Some labs chose not do it that way though and some stopped. I have no idea why they stopped, I never saw anything that suggested it skewed results doing such batch testing. Sometimes scientists will do things in fads.
What was going through Rivlin's mind was that he had zilch and the best he could think of to try to get jurors to disregard the evidence and find reasonable doubt was them hearing the prosecution expert say it was possible to be a mixture. He hoped hearing the word possible would sway them and that they would ignore "remote", ignore the evidence Hayward presented of why he said he didn't believe it happened and ignore the nonsense of her putting it away and just taking the position crazy lady will do anything. That is the position plenty of supporters on blue take. They just say crazy people do things that make no sense and you can't ever figure out why. That is wrong of course, usually there is a method to their madness one just has to figure it out.
Still many people have preconceived notions about crazy people and drug users for that matter and such can be exploited by one side or the other. He didn't just try to use such for the moderator issue but also the issue of her washing and changing clothes.
The chain of custody in this case is quite simply appaling and when the Great British public understand the enormity of what went on will quite rightly be outraged:
- Silencer not found at SoC by police but some 3 days later by JB's relatives.
- The relatives did not leave the silencer at SoC and alert police but removed it where they subsequently "examined" it.
- A police officer collected some 2 days later. Instead of going prepared with an exhibit bag he improvised by using the inner tube of a kitchen roll. He did not hurry back to the station but sat drinking whisky with the relative.
- The officer handed the silencer in at the police station the following day.
- He did not deal with the administration of the silencer/exhibit correctly circumventing procedures.
- The following day the silencer was submitted to the lab where a scientist examined blood and paint on the outside only.
- Two days later the silencer was taken to a different site miles away for superglue fuming in an attempt to reveal latent fingerprints. Had the lab identified any blood inside the silencer it would have been removed prior to the superglue fuming as it is known this CAN have an adverse affect on any subsequent testing of blood.
- Some 28/29 days later the police returned the silencer to the lab and hey presto by magic an in tact flake of blood appeared which just so happened to match SC's blood groups!
- By this time the relatives had done a sterling job on the police convincing them of JB's guilt based on nothing more than entirely subjective matters.
- 30 years ago and with the UK's low rate of gun crime all concerned were out of their depth and JB was like a lamb to the slaughter.
There's no evidence to suggest only lab staff were familiar with 'draw-back'. Peter Eaton was a registered gun dealer and members of the police firearms trained. Many involved were just as likely to be familiar with draw-back as any lab staff were if not more familiar.
Blood inside the silencer was not found straight away. See above.
There's no evidence of what was added to the victims' blood samples taken at autopsy and whether or not Dr Lincoln attempted to carry out any tests in this regard.
NGB has stated the defence had grounds to pursue accidental and/or deliberate contamination and I have no reason to doubt him in this regard:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5861.msg209325#msg209325
The CPS/DPP NEEDED the fabricated evidence of the silencer to get the case to court.
1) You still keep ignoring that on Aug 13 human blood was removed from the inside not merely found on the outside.
2) The family examination of the moderator consisted of looking at it. There was very specific testimony of who was present when it was found and what they did with it. There is no reason to doubt their claims. If they opened it up they could have ended up destroying evidence and losing evidence but nothing suggests that they did such. There was testimony one tried to open it but luckily failed. This is where police efforts loom large. Imagine if he opened it and the flake was lost. That would have eliminated the flake evidence.
3) Knowledge of drawback is an obscure even today, assuming that gun dealers know about drawback is silly. The only requirements to become a gun dealer is to register with the government. Those who deal with issues that involve drawback are the ones who know about it. Forensic experts are taught about it. lawyers who handled cases that involve drawback learn about it or who take courses that discuss it will learn about it. Some courses that address various issues are in the context of required continuing legal education but there are also various seminars put together for lawyers that don't give CLE credits (many jurisdictions require taking a certain number of CLE credits each year) but are simply to make a lawyer more effective by teaching them about subjects helpful. Police usually would only learn about such things on the job but now there are more forensic courses and the like which they take so they could be more generally aware. Being a gun seller and hunter means nada.
Even someone who knows generally about drawback will not simply know whether a shot is one that will cause it without there being testing or being provided with specific information. It will only happen when there is a contact wound. It won't happen with all contact wounds the location is significant as well as whether there is clothing in the way. A prior nearby wound will greatly increase the chance and volume of drawback. These are all things that have to be looked at which the family and even police had no way to know about until the lab told them.
4) I don't think you realize just how many times people bring police evidence. Police don't always find evidence on their own. While it was lousy police work to not take all the firearms, bullets, and accessories right away there is no evidence that any harm came from it. Potentially evidence could have been lost so they should strive to do better. If the flake had been lost by the family opening it that would have resulted in there being less evidence. the lost hair wound up being meaningless but they had no idea at the time this would be the case and should have been more careful.
The same reason the family and police didn't know anything about drawback is why Jeremy didn't and that is why he didn't realize he should make sure he removed the moderator before shooting Sheila. Forensic shows have opened the masses to things they had no idea about in Jeremy's day like GSR and blood spatter. Drawback is a derivative of spatter but even today is not mentioned much and not known by many. But for this case most people on this site and blue would never have even heard of it. So you can't fault Jeremy too much. Now telling Julie his plans on the other hand was quite stupid. For that he deserves an idiot award and he deserve another for not dialing 999 and yet another for calling Julie before police. He should have foreseen the problems.
-
2) The family examination of the moderator consisted of looking at it. There was very specific testimony of who was present when it was found and what they did with it. There is no reason to doubt their claims.
This is if you take their word for it.
Specific testimony includes RWB stating that while they discovered the sound moderator he was looking at the fingerprint dusting that was done throughout the house. The significance of this is that the house was not dusted for prints until early September.
Now telling Julie his plans on the other hand was quite stupid. For that he deserves an idiot award and he deserve another for not dialing 999 and yet another for calling Julie before police. He should have foreseen the problems.
Guilty or not I do not believe he told Julie anything. Allot of what Julie told police are theories that can be found in RWBs diary long before she came forward, Ideas and theories that RWB gave to the police.
You also have Julies September statement were she claims Jeremy told her that Neville had been shot 7 times, The problem here is that Neville was shot 8 times and the figure of 7 shots was erroneously published in the newspapers and tabloids! Hence it take's only a shade of common sense to work out were she actually got that from.
(http://s12.postimg.org/6ldt78ex9/mugford_rivlin.jpg) (http://s11.postimg.org/b0dfxhizn/mugford_rivlin2.jpg)
-
This thread has gone way off topic. Post #79 has introduced the phone calls. I cannot even see a tenuous link between the phone calls and previous posts/thread topic? Post #80 has continued with the phone calls.
All we ask it that anyone posting here signs up to the three high level rules on the homepage:
* Posters are asked to keep to thread topics where possible
* Libellous or defamatory material will be removed on sight
* Abuse will not be tolerated. Break the rules expect a ban!
By all means discuss the phone calls in an appropriate thread, either existing or create a new one.
The three high level rules are designed for everyones benefit. When threads go off topic they can become unwieldy.
This thread will be tidied up and revelant text/posts moved.
Thank you for your cooperation.
-
Please Miss! Will tidying up include Reply#72 which wandered off onto those naughty video tutorials you view in private? No wonder you're looking a bit sheepish.
I might be tempted to have a shifty if you remove my YouTube video link! 8(0(*
-
The instructions for Cyanoacrylate Fuming include 'covering up chamber openings' with tape https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/jan2001/lpu.pdf. This would protect any substances inside. Also, to repeat the original test, the conditions would have to be exactly the same (equipment, materials, timings) and as this article suggest, that would be impossible. http://www.labconco.com/news/cyanoacrylate-fuming-variables
-
This is if you take their word for it.
Specific testimony includes RWB stating that while they discovered the sound moderator he was looking at the fingerprint dusting that was done throughout the house. The significance of this is that the house was not dusted for prints until early September.
What does that have to do with anything? They got a number of inconsequential things wrong in their statements because the amount of time that passed by the time they gave such statements. One thing wrong was that Boutflour thought Anne showed him the damage to the mantle earlier than she actually did. That resulted in worthless conspiracy claims that he found the damage before police so might have caused it though the date he was there to look at it was after.
If they took it apart that would have resulted in lost evidence. None of them say they saw anyone take it apart and none say they did take it apart. There is nothing that suggests opened it let alone that they planted blood which would require far more expertise than they possessed. People keep making up hat they would know all about drawback and all about the nature of Sheila's injuries but this is not in the least bit true. People who choose to believe the family planted evidence are people who simply don't want to believe Jeremy is guilty and will choose to believe anything they can to avoid facing reality.
Guilty or not I do not believe he told Julie anything. Allot of what Julie told police are theories that can be found in RWBs diary long before she came forward, Ideas and theories that RWB gave to the police.
You also have Julies September statement were she claims Jeremy told her that Neville had been shot 7 times, The problem here is that Neville was shot 8 times and the figure of 7 shots was erroneously published in the newspapers and tabloids! Hence it take's only a shade of common sense to work out were she actually got that from.
(http://s12.postimg.org/6ldt78ex9/mugford_rivlin.jpg) (http://s11.postimg.org/b0dfxhizn/mugford_rivlin2.jpg)
Most of what Julie said was not found in RWB's diary. The most damning things were all said by her only such as all about the long term planning he had been doing. The content of the 3 phone discussions she had with him, 1 before the murders and 2 after were not contained in the diary. The hitman story was not in his diary. Nothing suggests she saw that diary and consulted with Boutflour anyway before speaking to police. You don't want to believe her so simply look for something you can hang your hat on to avoid admitting you just don't want to and want to pretend you have some rational reason for not believing her.
She clearly was telling the truth about the caravan break-in. She admitted to various crimes that she had no need to admit to further demonstrating she was doing it to fully come clean. She had no reason to make up the hit man claims if she wanted to just make up things to hurt Jeremy she would have said he admitted to her to killing everyone. He had no alibi she had no need to make up a hitman claim. If making up that he told her such she would have said he failed to name the hitman not give a name so police could prove the claim false. Numerous things support her claims including but not limited to him calling her before he called police. that is extremely damning and lying about calling police immediately when in fact he called her first is even more damning.
For all you know Jeremy himself believed he only shot Nevill 7 times. it is actually fairly common for shooters to get the number of shots they fired and times they hit a victim wrong. Even on the range where there is far less to take away your concentration than in real life situations people will lose track because you have to religiously count and keep a running tally.
Jeremy could have told her the wrong number because he believed the paper or because he misremembered. He could have told her the right number and she could have forgotten and had 7 stuck in her mind because of the paper. We will never know which of these is the case. It makes no difference though. Getting such wrong doesn't suggest she made up the entire story of him telling her he wanted to burn them and so forth.
There is a big difference between incorrectly thinking he told her 7 shots when he said 8 and thinking he repeatedly said he wanted to kill them when it never happened.
The level of detail she told is well beyond what someone trying to make up stories would be capable of. His own actions and other evidence proving Sheila didn't kill anyone and that he made up the call from Nevill just further harms him as does calling her before police. That he did that suggests he kept her in the loop of what he was doing.
I have yet to see anyone come up with good reasons to doubt Julie's claims and something solid to suggest she was lying and had a reason to lie. People lie for a reason and saying she did it to get back at him for flirting with a girl in front of her after they broke up is simply silly.
Jeremy could have screwed up and believed he only shot him
-
The instructions for Cyanoacrylate Fuming include 'covering up chamber openings' with tape https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/jan2001/lpu.pdf. This would protect any substances inside. Also, to repeat the original test, the conditions would have to be exactly the same (equipment, materials, timings) and as this article suggest, that would be impossible. http://www.labconco.com/news/cyanoacrylate-fuming-variables
Moreso the concern is about detrimental effects on ballistics testing, like it getting in rifling and changing rifling marks but tape could potentially be used to prevent anything being done to blood inside. Cook was never asked about whether he did such or not on the stand and not asked to write it down but he could have verbally told someone. The defense could have been aware he did so but much more likely is that the defense knew super glue fuming didn't prevent successful blood testing so didn't feel any need to ask if he took efforts to tape up the openings because even he had not done so it would not matter.
-
Moreso the concern is about detrimental effects on ballistics testing, like it getting in rifling and changing rifling marks but tape could potentially be used to prevent anything being done to blood inside. Cook was never asked about whether he did such or not on the stand and not asked to write it down but he could have verbally told someone. The defense could have been aware he did so but much more likely is that the defense knew super glue fuming didn't prevent successful blood testing so didn't feel any need to ask if he took efforts to tape up the openings because even he had not done so it would not matter.
There are too many unknown variables to make this 'revelation' even credible.
-
Please Miss! Will tidying up include Reply#72 which wandered off onto those naughty video tutorials you view in private? No wonder you're looking a bit sheepish.
I might be tempted to have a shifty if you remove my YouTube video link! 8(0(*
Yes I agree we don't want anything too prescriptive and certainly nothing that removes fun and spontaneity with the odd one or two liner thrown in! But when posts veer from a superglue chamber/blood flake to the phone calls in the same breath it's time for me to whip round with the duster and hoover and tidy up. Problem is I've yet to master the art of how to move posts!
-
There are too many unknown variables to make this 'revelation' even credible.
What are the unknown variables connected to this 'revelation'? Once an exhibit is seized the responsibility for 'chain of custody' is with the prosecution:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody
-
What are the unknown variables connected to this 'revelation'? Once an exhibit is seized the responsibility for 'chain of custody' is with the prosecution:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody
This process isn't standardised (I posted the article - you just had to read it) everyone does it differently. We don't know what Cook did or how he did it and to do what you are suggesting, you couldn't just stick the silencer in a fuming chamber - it would have to be the same chamber that Cook used, using the same type of chemical (it's not just super glue from the pound shop) and the same times etc. We don't know if he covered the ends of the silencer and as there didn't seem to be any residue on it, we don't know if what he did even worked. However, just because there isn't any residue doesn't mean he didn't complete the process, he just may not have carried out the procedure correctly. I don't believe the silencer was used, but I don't see how repeating the cyanoacrylate process would prove anything at all. Unless it can be PROVEN that this process destroys blood EVERY TIME, you would be on a hiding to no where and the fact is, there is no evidence to suggest it does.
-
This process isn't standardised (I posted the article - you just had to read it) everyone does it differently. We don't know what Cook did or how he did it and to do what you are suggesting, you couldn't just stick the silencer in a fuming chamber - it would have to be the same chamber that Cook used, using the same type of chemical (it's not just super glue from the pound shop) and the same times etc. We don't know if he covered the ends of the silencer and as there didn't seem to be any residue on it, we don't know if what he did even worked. However, just because there isn't any residue doesn't mean he didn't complete the process, he just may not have carried out the procedure correctly. I don't believe the silencer was used, but I don't see how repeating the cyanoacrylate process would prove anything at all. Unless it can be PROVEN that this process destroys blood EVERY TIME, you would be on a hiding to no where and the fact is, there is no evidence to suggest it does.
That is the problem in a nutshell. They would need to conduct a large series of testing that covers every possible angle -such a large number of tests that statistically they could make reliable predictions- and would have to never be able to get a blood test result successfully. Not only would such be expensive and take a long time, based on prior testing it is clear they will be able to get results at least some of the times. The hope they never would get any results is futile since they successfully did so in the past.
If people want to waste their money that is up to them but I would not waste mine in such manner. Sometimes people need to learn the hard way...
-
This process isn't standardised (I posted the article - yo just had to read it) everyone does it differently. We don't know what Cook did or how he did it and to do what you are suggesting, you couldn't just stick the silencer in a fuming chamber - it would have to be the same chamber that Cook used, using the same type of chemical (it's not just super glue from the pound shop) and the same times etc. We don't know if he covered the ends of the silencer and as there didn't seem to be any residue on it, we don't know if what he did even worked. However, just because there isn't any residue doesn't mean he didn't complete the process, he just may not have carried out the procedure correctly. I don't believe the silencer was used, but I don't see how repeating the cyanoacrylate process would prove anything at all. Unless it can be PROVEN that this process destroys blood EVERYTIME, you would be on a hiding to no where and the fact is, it doesn't.
Caroline I did read the article. I do consider that I have good listening skills in every sense of the word although you might beg to differ! I don't see the relevance of the article with regard to superglue fuming and its impact on subsequent blood testing? The article is about variables that exist with superglue fuming: size of chamber, heat/humidity settings, exposure time, ingredients of glue etc.
We know the silencer was tested at Sandridge. This thread contains posts re Sandridge and its history along with its successor Foster and Freeman:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg314778#msg314778
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg312991#msg312991
(See the first Youtube vid by Foster and Freeman
We consider we now have all the right players on board to take this forward and remain cautiously optimistic. If it fails it will be back to the drawing board and we will remain as determined as ever to get to the truth. ?>)()<
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg314370#msg314370
(See last para.)
With regard to your other points they have all been covered in this thread:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg314055#msg314055
(NGB tape over end of silencer)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg313438#msg313438
(superglue residues potentially jamming firearms)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg313459#msg313459
Has the silencer been forensically analysed for superglue residues internally and externally?
It will be down to those responsible for Sandridge and DI Cook to explain precisely what happened as the prosecution are responsible for the 'chain of custody'. If they are unable or unwilling then I would suggest the courts will "protect the appellant's postion by making assumptions in his favour" as they did at JB's 2002 CoA hearing when exhibits were destroyed:
165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
Caroline I did read the article. I do consider that I have good listening skills in every sense of the word although you might beg to differ! I don't see the relevance of the article with regard to superglue fuming and its impact on subsequent blood testing? The article is about variables that exist with superglue fuming: size of chamber, heat/humidity settings, exposure time, ingredients of glue etc.
We know the silencer was tested at Sandridge. This thread contains posts re Sandridge and its history along with its successor Foster and Freeman:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg314778#msg314778
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg312991#msg312991
(See the first Youtube vid by Foster and Freeman
We consider we now have all the right players on board to take this forward and remain cautiously optimistic. If it fails it will be back to the drawing board and we will remain as determined as ever to get to the truth. ?>)()<
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg314370#msg314370
(See last para.)
With regard to your other points they have all been covered in this thread:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg314055#msg314055
(NGB tape over end of silencer)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg313438#msg313438
(superglue residues potentially jamming firearms)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg313459#msg313459
Has the silencer been forensically analysed for superglue residues internally and externally?
It will be down to those responsible for Sandridge and DI Cook to explain precisely what happened as the prosecution are responsible for the 'chain of custody'. If they are unable or unwilling then I would suggest the courts will "protect the appellant's postion by making assumptions in his favour" as they did at JB's 2002 CoA hearing when exhibits were destroyed:
165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
Fill your boots, I can't see how this could go any where but it's your money. Personally, I don't believe he used the silencer and although I don't think this has a cat in hells chance of working - you could be responsible for helping to release a man who killed five people. 8((()*/
-
Caroline I did read the article. I do consider that I have good listening skills in every sense of the word although you might beg to differ! I don't see the relevance of the article with regard to superglue fuming and its impact on subsequent blood testing? The article is about variables that exist with superglue fuming: size of chamber, heat/humidity settings, exposure time, ingredients of glue etc.
We know the silencer was tested at Sandridge. This thread contains posts re Sandridge and its history along with its successor Foster and Freeman:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg314778#msg314778
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg312991#msg312991
(See the first Youtube vid by Foster and Freeman
We consider we now have all the right players on board to take this forward and remain cautiously optimistic. If it fails it will be back to the drawing board and we will remain as determined as ever to get to the truth. ?>)()<
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg314370#msg314370
(See last para.)
With regard to your other points they have all been covered in this thread:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg314055#msg314055
(NGB tape over end of silencer)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg313438#msg313438
(superglue residues potentially jamming firearms)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg313459#msg313459
Has the silencer been forensically analysed for superglue residues internally and externally?
It will be down to those responsible for Sandridge and DI Cook to explain precisely what happened as the prosecution are responsible for the 'chain of custody'. If they are unable or unwilling then I would suggest the courts will "protect the appellant's postion by making assumptions in his favour" as they did at JB's 2002 CoA hearing when exhibits were destroyed:
165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
The prosecution said the court could use DNA samples from family members and assume that very close matches to DNA of a relative was the DNA of a victim. This was to avoid having to argue over destruction of the blood samples.
The prosecution made those concessions know that they would argue any such victim DNA was the result of contamination.
The moderator was not destroyed it was tested for DNA.
Nothing destroyed had any ability to exonerate Jeremy. There wasn't any blood or other tissue evidence or anything that would have to be the killer's DNA which could be used to exonerate him. If there is a rape/murder and semen recovered and yet they make no attempt to test it because they are scared it will not match the accused and destroys it then the prosecution has a problem. Nothing of the sort happened here there is nothing that would for sure have the blood or DNA of the killer. There is nothing which would be able to alter the moderator findings that was destroyed to avoid testing it.
If t hey failed to test the blood in the moderator, destroyed it and simply argued it had to be Sheila's blood from her fatal wound because no other wound on anyone was a contact would that would result in questions of why it was destroyed. But that didn't happen here.
There is nothing that can be argued as evidence being destroyed to try to prevent the defense from being able to test it to prove his innocence.
-
Fill your boots, I can't see how this could go any where but it's your money. Personally, I don't believe he used the silencer and although I don't think this has a cat in hells chance of working - you could be responsible for helping to release a man who killed five people. 8((()*/
Nothing she does or pays for has any chance of getting him released. There is more a chance of someone forcing me to get a sex change operation and turning me into a woman.
It will just be a waste of time and money but if people want to do such it is their loss. I prefer not to build up false hope though it sets up a big let down.
-
The prosecution said the court could use DNA samples from family members and assume that very close matches to DNA of a relative was the DNA of a victim. This was to avoid having to argue over destruction of the blood samples.
The prosecution made those concessions know that they would argue any such victim DNA was the result of contamination.
The moderator was not destroyed it was tested for DNA.
Nothing destroyed had any ability to exonerate Jeremy. There wasn't any blood or other tissue evidence or anything that would have to be the killer's DNA which could be used to exonerate him. If there is a rape/murder and semen recovered and yet they make no attempt to test it because they are scared it will not match the accused and destroys it then the prosecution has a problem. Nothing of the sort happened here there is nothing that would for sure have the blood or DNA of the killer. There is nothing which would be able to alter the moderator findings that was destroyed to avoid testing it.
If t hey failed to test the blood in the moderator, destroyed it and simply argued it had to be Sheila's blood from her fatal wound because no other wound on anyone was a contact would that would result in questions of why it was destroyed. But that didn't happen here.
There is nothing that can be argued as evidence being destroyed to try to prevent the defense from being able to test it to prove his innocence.
Yes I appreciate the silencer wasn't destroyed but the CoA ruled in JB's favour as certain exhibits were destroyed:
491. A part of this ground of appeal relates to the destruction of June Bamber's blood sample. It is not suggested that that can be used as a free standing ground of appeal but it is combined with the DNA evidence to suggest that the appellant may have been deprived of the chance of advancing even stronger evidence that the DNA was from June Bamber. On the evidence of the two scientists, we would feel that the only safe course for us to take is to conclude that the major component of the DNA on the baffles did originate from June Bamber. When we made clear to Mr Turner that this would be our approach and queried whether in such circumstances the destruction of the samples from June Bamber could be said to prejudice the appellant, Mr Turner recognised the force in the point and after taking specific instructions from the appellant decided not to pursue that aspect further. We have therefore not considered the circumstances in which the blood samples were destroyed since they have no bearing upon any other aspect of this case.
-
That is the problem in a nutshell. They would need to conduct a large series of testing that covers every possible angle -such a large number of tests that statistically they could make reliable predictions- and would have to never be able to get a blood test result successfully. Not only would such be expensive and take a long time, based on prior testing it is clear they will be able to get results at least some of the times. The hope they never would get any results is futile since they successfully did so in the past.
If people want to waste their money that is up to them but I would not waste mine in such manner. Sometimes people need to learn the hard way...
I agree, and they would have to 'replicate exactly' what Cook did - same equipment etc.
I'm not really sure what is being suggested? Is it that the silencer couldn't have been exposed to fuming, because there was no residue? (Not sure how that would help Jeremy) OR that the flake was put inside the silencer after testing because it could be grouped whereas the outside blood could not? Not sure how this would help either because the holes could have been taped. We know it went back to the lab for further tests - perhaps this was the intention all along?
-
The superglue fuming test should be easy to replicate?
Photographs were taken prior to the silencer entering the chamber and this along with documentary evidence should show whether or not the ends were taped. However the heat and humidity from the chamber is likely to be more damaging to the blood flake than the superglue fumes.
Introduce a sample of blood to a number of silencers the same size as the flake, same position ie under 1st/2nd baffle. Wait 28/29 days (silencer superglue fumed 15th Aug; blood flake analysed 12th/13th Sept) cut the flake in 5, as John Hayward did, and run the tests for the antigens (ABO groupings); protein Haptoglobin (HP) and the three enzymes Phosphoglucomutase (PGM), Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase (EAP) and Adenylate Kinase (AK).
We know the PGM test failed when John Hayward carried out the tests. If one of the other four tests consistently fails then its game over for the flake/silencer. This is clear evidence that the flake was not in the silencer when it was superglue fumed.
And for the naysayers check out the table and ask yourself why the flake was able to produce significantly more blood test results than the other exhibits? 8(0(*
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg315462#msg315462
It's simply not the case that blood from a scene of crime will be capable of producing test results. Quantity and quality are key. The flake was small and due to handling and the length of time taken to analyse the flake the quality was likely to be poor.
-
The superglue fuming test should be easy to replicate?
Photographs were taken prior to the silencer entering the chamber and this along with documentary evidence should show whether or not the ends were taped. However the heat and humidity from the chamber is likely to be more damaging to the blood flake than the superglue fumes.
Introduce a sample of blood to a number of silencers the same size as the flake, same position ie under 1st/2nd baffle. Wait 28/29 days (silencer superglue fumed 15th Aug; blood flake analysed 12th/13th Sept) cut the flake in 5, as John Hayward did, and run the tests for the antigens (ABO groupings); protein Haptoglobin (HP) and the three enzymes Phosphoglucomutase (PGM), Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase (EAP) and Adenylate Kinase (AK).
We know the PGM test failed when John Hayward carried out the tests. If one of the other four tests consistently fails then its game over for the flake/silencer. This is clear evidence that the flake was not in the silencer when it was superglue fumed.
And for the naysayers check out the table and ask yourself why the flake was able to produce significantly more blood test results than the other exhibits? 8(0(*
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg315462#msg315462
It's simply not the case that blood from a scene of crime will be capable of producing test results. Quantity and quality are key. The flake was small and due to handling and the length of time taken to analyse the flake the quality was likely to be poor.
"Photographs were taken prior to the silencer entering the chamber and this along with documentary evidence should show whether or not the ends were taped. However the heat and humidity from the chamber is likely to be more damaging to the blood flake than the superglue fumes."
You know that these pictures still exist? What documentary evidence? If the ends were taped it's game over for the theory and even if they weren't it doesn't mean that the blood flake would be damaged given that it was inside. You would have to run this test many times but that still wouldn't prove that 30 years ago blood was planted inside the silencer.
-
"Photographs were taken prior to the silencer entering the chamber and this along with documentary evidence should show whether or not the ends were taped. However the heat and humidity from the chamber is likely to be more damaging to the blood flake than the superglue fumes."
You know that these pictures still exist? What documentary evidence? If the ends were taped it's game over for the theory and even if they weren't it doesn't mean that the blood flake would be damaged given that it was inside. You would have to run this test many times but that still wouldn't prove that 30 years ago blood was planted inside the silencer.
No I don't know if the photos and documents exist. They should but then so should the exhibits that were destroyed. Either way I don't see it as being that relevant. The manufacturers and the research centre at Sandridge should be able to confirm what the processes and procedures were at the time. If they are not then the courts are likely to rule favourable terms in JB's favour as outlined above.
Why is it game over if the ends were taped? The chamber was potentially harmful by way of heat, humidity and the fumes. Forensic analysis of the silencer testing for superglue residues will probably confirm one way or the other.
If the tests are run as I have outlined above and one or more of the blood groups are consistently negative this will show the flake was unable to sustain the environment in the chamber and/or the ambient temp before and after. The prosecution claim one silencer. A silencer that contained a flake of blood as a result of drawback/SC's contact wound. If it is put through the same environment as the flake and unable to deliver the test results its game over for the flake.
The tests need to match the scenario from the claimed drawback to blood analysis of the flake at the lab as closely as possible including time kept at ambient temperature before and after the fuming chamber.
I wouldn't describe it as a theory more a hypothesis at this stage.
In fact when I first contacted the forensic service provider around the beginning of February it was based on heat from the rifle being fired, hot gasses in the silencer, size of flake and time kept at ambient temperature.
We could speculate about many things but until the tests are carried out it remains simply a hypothesis which I'm cautiously optimistic about.
Don't forget bacteria!
-
No I don't know if the photos and documents exist. They should but then so should the exhibits that were destroyed. Either way I don't see it as being that relevant. The manufacturers and the research centre at Sandridge should be able to confirm what the processes and procedures were at the time. If they are not then the courts are likely to rule favourable terms in JB's favour as outlined above.
Why is it game over if the ends were taped? The chamber was potentially harmful by way of heat, humidity and the fumes. Forensic analysis of the silencer testing for superglue residues will probably confirm one way or the other.
If the tests are run as I have outlined above and one or more of the blood groups are consistently negative this will show the flake was unable to sustain the environment in the chamber and/or the ambient temp before and after. The prosecution claim one silencer. A silencer that contained a flake of blood as a result of drawback/SC's contact wound. If it is put through the same environment as the flake and unable to deliver the test results its game over for the flake.
The tests need to match the scenario from the claimed drawback to blood analysis of the flake at the lab as closely as possible including time kept at ambient temperature before and after the fuming chamber.
I wouldn't describe it as a theory more a hypothesis at this stage.
In fact when I first contacted the forensic service provider around the beginning of February it was based on heat from the rifle being fired, hot gasses in the silencer, size of flake and time kept at ambient temperature.
We could speculate about many things but until the tests are carried out it remains simply a hypothesis which I'm cautiously optimistic about.
Don't forget bacteria!
We're talking 30 years in a case where a conviction was achieved - I very much doubt that such records will exist without such, you can't replicate. The tests in the US came to nothing and I can't see how this is much different. But you may be right and I may be wrong.
-
We're talking 30 years in a case where a conviction was achieved - I very much doubt that such records will exist without such, you can't replicate. The tests in the US came to nothing and I can't see how this is much different. But you may be right and I may be wrong.
As far as I can see the tests I am proposing are completely different. They are black and white; either the flake withstands the environments and produces the blood results or it doesn't. It's not down to opinion. The tests in the US were based on opinion.
1.4 pretty much sets out everything.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/143865/fsb-chap3-sec10and11-development.pdf
It's not just the chamber but ambient temp before and after and the potential for bacteria to set in which would degrade the blood/flake.
You need to research it yourself if you're interested: conventional serological analysis of blood and gel electrophoresis.
-
As far as I can see the tests I am proposing are completely different. They are black and white; either the flake withstands the environments and produces the blood results or it doesn't. It's not down to opinion. The tests in the US were based on opinion.
1.4 pretty much sets out everything.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/143865/fsb-chap3-sec10and11-development.pdf
It's not just the chamber but ambient temp before and after and the potential for bacteria to set in which would degrade the blood/flake.
You need to research it yourself if you're interested: conventional serological analysis of blood and gel electrophoresis.
Thanks, will read up on it.
-
Yes I appreciate the silencer wasn't destroyed but the CoA ruled in JB's favour as certain exhibits were destroyed:
491. A part of this ground of appeal relates to the destruction of June Bamber's blood sample. It is not suggested that that can be used as a free standing ground of appeal but it is combined with the DNA evidence to suggest that the appellant may have been deprived of the chance of advancing even stronger evidence that the DNA was from June Bamber. On the evidence of the two scientists, we would feel that the only safe course for us to take is to conclude that the major component of the DNA on the baffles did originate from June Bamber. When we made clear to Mr Turner that this would be our approach and queried whether in such circumstances the destruction of the samples from June Bamber could be said to prejudice the appellant, Mr Turner recognised the force in the point and after taking specific instructions from the appellant decided not to pursue that aspect further. We have therefore not considered the circumstances in which the blood samples were destroyed since they have no bearing upon any other aspect of this case.
The COA didn't rule in his favor. The prosecution agreed to stipulate that DNA that was a close to a relative was that of a victim. This stipulation meant there would be no harm by the destruction of the blood samples and no reason for the COA to take a look at whether the defense could argue it was prejudiced by the destruction and whether the destruction was done for a nefarious reason.
The stipulation was made with full knowledge that the fact victim DNA being found failed to help Jeremy one bit because they already knew that no blood had been detected so there was no way to establish it was blood based and it was most likely the result of contamination.
-
That is the problem in a nutshell. They would need to conduct a large series of testing that covers every possible angle -such a large number of tests that statistically they could make reliable predictions- and would have to never be able to get a blood test result successfully.
For all we know DI Cook could have in his notes somewhere that he covered both ends to prevent the fumes from going inside.
-
Most of what Julie said was not found in RWB's diary. The most damning things were all said by her only such as all about the long term planning he had been doing. The content of the 3 phone discussions she had with him, 1 before the murders and 2 after were not contained in the diary. The hitman story was not in his diary. Nothing suggests she saw that diary and consulted with Boutflour anyway before speaking to police. You don't want to believe her so simply look for something you can hang your hat on to avoid admitting you just don't want to and want to pretend you have some rational reason for not believing her.
Below is part of Julies statement taken on the 9th of September
(http://s27.postimg.org/m2s6cq5ib/Juliem1.jpg)
Now here are two parts of RWBs diary from the 26th and 29th of August
(http://s12.postimg.org/ldw9gbhnx/RWB1.jpg)
(http://s8.postimg.org/bus6ka2yt/rwb2.jpg)
I do not believe in coincidences. Your telling me RWB correctly predicted exactly how Jeremy allegedly reveals his plan to Julie before she came forward? Its too convenient full stop
-
Below is part of Julies statement taken on the 9th of September
(http://s27.postimg.org/m2s6cq5ib/Juliem1.jpg)
Now here are two parts of RWBs diary from the 26th and 29th of August
(http://s12.postimg.org/ldw9gbhnx/RWB1.jpg)
(http://s8.postimg.org/bus6ka2yt/rwb2.jpg)
I do not believe in coincidences. Your telling me RWB correctly predicted exactly how Jeremy allegedly reveals his plan to Julie before she came forward? Its too convenient full stop
It's not in the least bit surprising he figured out Jeremy used the window in light of having knowledge the family used such windows before.
Nor is it surprising they thought he might have used a bike. The family didn't believe his lie about his mother giving him the bike to use for Julie, that was one of the things that made them suspicious about the bike the other was mud on it showing it had been ridden at WHF. There is nothing odd about them figuring out what Jeremy did including figuring out he removed the scope in anticipation of committing the crime.
You choose to believe she got it from RWB despite no evidence he spoke to her about it just because of bias not because of any rational reason to believe she got together with police or the family to make up a story.
You don't want to believe Jeremy told her anything though he called her before he even called police. Clearly he called her because he had kept her appraised prior of his efforts. He was excited and could not contain himself he had to share his excitement or he would explode. In all likelihood he phoned her before he even claimed to have been called by Nevill. Even her phone stored a time and it said 3:05 thus being made 10 minutes before he claimed to have received the call from Nevill (3:15) his apologists would simply say he got the time he received the call from Nevill wrong and it must have come before 3:05. There is always some excuse made to try to avoid facing he evidence and his guilt.
-
It's not in the least bit surprising he figured out Jeremy used the window in light of having knowledge the family used such windows before.
Nor is it surprising they thought he might have used a bike. The family didn't believe his lie about his mother giving him the bike to use for Julie, that was one of the things that made them suspicious about the bike the other was mud on it showing it had been ridden at WHF. There is nothing odd about them figuring out what Jeremy did including figuring out he removed the scope in anticipation of committing the crime.
You choose to believe she got it from RWB despite no evidence he spoke to her about it just because of bias not because of any rational reason to believe she got together with police or the family to make up a story.
You don't want to believe Jeremy told her anything though he called her before he even called police. Clearly he called her because he had kept her appraised prior of his efforts. He was excited and could not contain himself he had to share his excitement or he would explode. In all likelihood he phoned her before he even claimed to have been called by Nevill. Even her phone stored a time and it said 3:05 thus being made 10 minutes before he claimed to have received the call from Nevill (3:15) his apologists would simply say he got the time he received the call from Nevill wrong and it must have come before 3:05. There is always some excuse made to try to avoid facing he evidence and his guilt.
I don't believe Jeremy told her anything because I look at the evidence.
RWBs diary written in August he speculates that Jeremy used a bike, dyed his hair, used a scuba suit and had help from an "accomplice" Now in Julies September statement all this is confirmed to a T by Julie Mugford! It only takes a shade of sense to work out unless your going to prove that RWB was a psychic?
According to Julie, Jeremy hired Mathew Mcdonald yet at the same time Jeremy used a bike on the way to kill his family? contradicts the story. Now Jeremy is telling Julie two separate versions of events at the same time that contradict one another. Jeremy is then telling her about the scuba suit and dying his hair when at the same time he claiming Mathew Mcdonald was the killer? If we are to take Julies word then that means Mathew Macdonald killed the family while Jeremy randomly went on a bike ride in the fields wearing a scuba suit? Yup Sounds Legit
-
It is a fact that Bamber dyed his hair just before the massacre.
Julie said Bamber planned to cycle to to WHF and do trial runs. This is backed up with another fact, that the bike was brought over to his cottager just before the massacre. After the massacre he decided to give himself a proxy of MM. Which was a good move.
Bamber did own a wetsuit. If he wore one, it would have been under his clothes. Wetsuits are quite thick and would protect his skin from injuries. But also flexible so would not restrict his movement. Where does Julie's WS say Bamber planned to wear a wetsuit ?
-
I don't believe Jeremy told her anything because I look at the evidence.
RWBs diary written in August he speculates that Jeremy used a bike, dyed his hair, used a scuba suit and had help from an "accomplice" Now in Julies September statement all this is confirmed to a T by Julie Mugford! It only takes a shade of sense to work out unless your going to prove that RWB was a psychic?
According to Julie, Jeremy hired Mathew Mcdonald yet at the same time Jeremy used a bike on the way to kill his family? contradicts the story. Now Jeremy is telling Julie two separate versions of events at the same time that contradict one another. Jeremy is then telling her about the scuba suit and dying his hair when at the same time he claiming Mathew Mcdonald was the killer? If we are to take Julies word then that means Mathew Macdonald killed the family while Jeremy randomly went on a bike ride in the fields wearing a scuba suit? Yup Sounds Legit
Clearly he would have to get to and from WHF and seeing the bicycle at his house in Head Street would lead someone to assume he may have used that. He had to get in and out of the house so this would lead someone to speculate about which window. You say you follow the evidence BUT you always try to make it 'fit' without looking at the alternative - Jeremy said he 'INTENDED' to use the bicycle PRIOR to the murders not that he DID use it because after the murders, he said he'd hired MM. It's not Julies contradiction, it's Jeremy changing the story before and after the event. Were does Julie mention being told about the scuba suit, I thought it was RWB who mentioned that? She already knew he dyed his hair because she helped him do it.
-
I don't believe Jeremy told her anything because I look at the evidence.
RWBs diary written in August he speculates that Jeremy used a bike, dyed his hair, used a scuba suit and had help from an "accomplice" Now in Julies September statement all this is confirmed to a T by Julie Mugford! It only takes a shade of sense to work out unless your going to prove that RWB was a psychic?
According to Julie, Jeremy hired Mathew Mcdonald yet at the same time Jeremy used a bike on the way to kill his family? contradicts the story. Now Jeremy is telling Julie two separate versions of events at the same time that contradict one another. Jeremy is then telling her about the scuba suit and dying his hair when at the same time he claiming Mathew Mcdonald was the killer? If we are to take Julies word then that means Mathew Macdonald killed the family while Jeremy randomly went on a bike ride in the fields wearing a scuba suit? Yup Sounds Legit
You are not following the evidence you are ignoring it. You have made up that Boutflour fed information to Julie to allege even though you have zero evidence they had contact.
Julie said he told her he planned to kill them and blame Sheila and that part of his plan involved using a bike. That is what she said he told her BEFORE the murders. She said that after the murders he claimed he didn't personally go there on the bike to kill them but rather hired a hitman to do it. There is no conflict except in your mind. She said what he told her he was planning and that he claimed he changed things and hired a hitman instead.
Since he lied about a hitman doing it and didn't tell Julie how he got there we don't know whether he followed through with his plan and took the bike or whether he used his car or even walked though I find that extremely unlikely. I personally would have driven and he could have decided to do so. The chance of anyone being on the road at all let alone who would recognize him and his vehicle and be able to tell police they remembered seeing him is so remote it is not something that would deter a reasonable person. He could have acted unreasonably and decided to stick with the bike though or even to walk.
-
Clearly he would have to get to and from WHF and seeing the bicycle at his house in Head Street would lead someone to assume he may have used that. He had to get in and out of the house so this would lead someone to speculate about which window. You say you follow the evidence BUT you always try to make it 'fit' without looking at the alternative - Jeremy said he 'INTENDED' to use the bicycle PRIOR to the murders not that he DID use it because after the murders, he said he'd hired MM. It's not Julies contradiction, it's Jeremy changing the story before and after the event. Were does Julie mention being told about the scuba suit, I thought it was RWB who mentioned that? She already knew he dyed his hair because she helped him do it.
Exactly, there is no contradiction between saying he told her he was planning to kill them and to get there and back using his bike but after the murder he told her he changed things and had someone else kill them.
RWB was overthinking things. Jeremy had all the time he wanted to wash up and change his clothing before calling police. There was no reason he had to wear any protective clothing beyond gloves. Moreover, the crime was not very bloody so even though the killer would be hit with some spatter it would not be large amounts of blood that were extremely noticeable at first glance. He was not examined thoroughly for blood in his hair or tiny spatter on his clothing. His clothing was not examined until a month later after it had been washed. There is no way to know if he retained any clothing he used during the murders or got rid of it all.
A jacket had what looked like spatter on it but it had been washed and a month passed from the murders before police seized it and testing of it was inconclusive. Had they not returned it to him and kept it all these years they could have tried DNA testing or other advanced testing to try to assess the composition of the stains but they returned it to him and no one knows what he did with it so we will never know.
In a situation where police immediately get to a scene after a murder and someone little opportunity to change or wash that is a much different situation. Then the speculation about wearing coveralls etc comes about. Like on TV where you see a crook removing painting coveralls and sticking them in the trash before they are picked up by police. In real life people have tried such things and still been found to have tiny bits of blood in their hair. They were immediately tested though. Jeremy wasn't.
Julie didn't take RWB's claims though and advance them. From the time she first came clean to police she did not change her story by claiming Jeremy admitted to killing them. Her story was always that Jeremy told her he wanted to kill them and of ideas he had, called her after the murders to tell her they were dead, and later that day claimed he didn't personally kill them but rather hired a hitman to do it.
-
I don't believe Jeremy told her anything because I look at the evidence.
RWBs diary written in August he speculates that Jeremy used a bike, dyed his hair, used a scuba suit and had help from an "accomplice" Now in Julies September statement all this is confirmed to a T by Julie Mugford! It only takes a shade of sense to work out unless your going to prove that RWB was a psychic?
According to Julie, Jeremy hired Mathew Mcdonald yet at the same time Jeremy used a bike on the way to kill his family? contradicts the story. Now Jeremy is telling Julie two separate versions of events at the same time that contradict one another. Jeremy is then telling her about the scuba suit and dying his hair when at the same time he claiming Mathew Mcdonald was the killer? If we are to take Julies word then that means Mathew Macdonald killed the family while Jeremy randomly went on a bike ride in the fields wearing a scuba suit? Yup Sounds Legit
You seem to have left out of the equation, that almost to the point when she spoke to police, Julie "was very much in love with Jeremy and had hoped to marry him". Why, then, would she collude with RWB, who'd believed him guilty from the start, to incriminate him?
-
I don't believe Jeremy told her anything because I look at the evidence.
RWBs diary written in August he speculates that Jeremy used a bike, dyed his hair, used a scuba suit and had help from an "accomplice" Now in Julies September statement all this is confirmed to a T by Julie Mugford! It only takes a shade of sense to work out unless your going to prove that RWB was a psychic?
According to Julie, Jeremy hired Mathew Mcdonald yet at the same time Jeremy used a bike on the way to kill his family? contradicts the story. Now Jeremy is telling Julie two separate versions of events at the same time that contradict one another. Jeremy is then telling her about the scuba suit and dying his hair when at the same time he claiming Mathew Mcdonald was the killer? If we are to take Julies word then that means Mathew Macdonald killed the family while Jeremy randomly went on a bike ride in the fields wearing a scuba suit? Yup Sounds Legit
It's unlikely that he tinted his hair specifically to commit the murders. Julie coloured it for him -to cover bleach which had gone wrong and as a consequence it went black instead of brown- before the house warming party at the weekend. Colin comments on it in his book. How much of this is RWB likely to have known? As you say, he SPECULATES.
-
It's unlikely that he tinted his hair specifically to commit the murders. Julie coloured it for him -to cover bleach which had gone wrong and as a consequence it went black instead of brown- before the house warming party at the weekend. Colin comments on it in his book. How much of this is RWB likely to have known? As you say, he SPECULATES.
I don't understand any of the babble of about his hair being dyed. It seemed to me some were speculating he did it in case he had to run away and try to hide. I don't really understand what else people allege with respect to it. This is one of the things I view as a complete red herring and not even worth bothering with.
-
I don't understand any of the babble of about his hair being dyed. It seemed to me some were speculating he did it in case he had to run away and try to hide. I don't really understand what else people allege with respect to it. This is one of the things I view as a complete red herring and not even worth bothering with.
It is, as you say, all fluff and nonsense. One story goes that he wanted to dye it so that it would match Julie's jet-black hair; and another so that it would contrast with his skin to give him a paler, more mournful look at the funeral.
-
I don't understand any of the babble of about his hair being dyed. It seemed to me some were speculating he did it in case he had to run away and try to hide. I don't really understand what else people allege with respect to it. This is one of the things I view as a complete red herring and not even worth bothering with.
It added to RWB's speculative list along with a wet suit -add to that a bike and we have a modern day Don Quixote tilting at windmills. The needing to run away and hide would have made perfect sense if his hair had been bright orange.
-
You are not following the evidence you are ignoring it. You have made up that Boutflour fed information to Julie to allege even though you have zero evidence they had contact.
No you are ignoring the evidence.
RWB was in frequent contact with the police and was giving them his ideas/theories then two weeks later Julie tells the police exactly what RWB speculates! I don't believe RWB fed Julie the information but the police fed Julie the theories that RWB gave them.
Julies testimony in September is a counterfeit make-believe. Because it contains multiple contradictory narratives that a truthful story would not contain and not only that it has false information about the crime that the newspapers were publishing. Then the biggest comedy of the whole thing is that we then have to believe that Jeremy commits the perfect murder framing his sister and then decides to incriminate himself telling Julie he paid a mercenary thus making him complicit in the murder with a story that is not even true.
(http://s12.postimg.org/6ldt78ex9/mugford_rivlin.jpg)
(http://s10.postimg.org/cv6364cyh/mugforddcadams.jpg)
-
No you are ignoring the evidence.
RWB was in frequent contact with the police and was giving them his ideas/theories then two weeks later Julie tells the police exactly what RWB speculates! I don't believe RWB fed Julie the information but the police fed Julie the theories that RWB gave them.
Julies testimony in September is a counterfeit make-believe. Because it contains multiple contradictory narratives that a truthful story would not contain and not only that it has false information about the crime that the newspapers were publishing. Then the biggest comedy of the whole thing is that we then have to believe that Jeremy commits the perfect murder framing his sister and then decides to incriminate himself telling Julie he paid a mercenary thus making him complicit in the murder with a story that is not even true.
(http://s12.postimg.org/6ldt78ex9/mugford_rivlin.jpg)
(http://s10.postimg.org/cv6364cyh/mugforddcadams.jpg)
So you're saying, are you, -irrelevant of what you're presenting as evidence- there are just two options? We either accept that Julie told police what Jeremy told her OR we accept that she made up a tissue of lies which could, and did, lead to a totally innocent and blameless man being convicted to life imprisonment for a crime he didn't commit.
-
No you are ignoring the evidence.
RWB was in frequent contact with the police and was giving them his ideas/theories then two weeks later Julie tells the police exactly what RWB speculates! I don't believe RWB fed Julie the information but the police fed Julie the theories that RWB gave them.
Julies testimony in September is a counterfeit make-believe. Because it contains multiple contradictory narratives that a truthful story would not contain and not only that it has false information about the crime that the newspapers were publishing. Then the biggest comedy of the whole thing is that we then have to believe that Jeremy commits the perfect murder framing his sister and then decides to incriminate himself telling Julie he paid a mercenary thus making him complicit in the murder with a story that is not even true.
(http://s12.postimg.org/6ldt78ex9/mugford_rivlin.jpg)
(http://s10.postimg.org/cv6364cyh/mugforddcadams.jpg)
David, earlier on you said RWBs diary written in August he speculates that Jeremy used a bike, dyed his hair, used a scuba suit and had help from an "accomplice" Now in Julies September statement all this is confirmed to a T by Julie Mugford! It only takes a shade of sense to work out unless your going to prove that RWB was a psychic?
Where did Julie mention the scuba suit? By the way, Jeremy didn't commit the perfect murder, Jones was on to him from day 1.
-
Wow this thread has gone so off topic!
Anyway go for it. I need to master the art of splitting threads and moving posts so I'll have something to practice on. Thereafter I will be 'encouraging' posters to stay on topic ?{)(**
-
Wow this thread has gone so off topic!
Anyway go for it. I need to master the art of splitting threads and moving posts so I'll have something to practice on. Thereafter I will be 'encouraging' posters to stay on topic ?{)(**
Yes, madam... but this is the province of those higher up in the food chain, and you still need to master the art of posting an actual video that works!
-
Yes, madam... but this is the province of those higher up in the food chain, and you still need to master the art of posting an actual video that works!
Yes I've been side-tracked by THE FLAKE and need to clear my mind and focus!
-
None of the smears dried into a single flake. It was blood stuck to the side of wood. It was small amounts because the spatter was small and the killer was still using the weapon thus some of the blood would have wiped off onto the killer. Blood that was undisturbed pooled inside the moderator forming into a flake. The whole flake was in 1 whole part. Swabbing blood stuck to something with a swab to get a tiny amount results in less to test. The blood on the baffles that was swabbed was thus also insufficient to get results beyond knowing it was human. Right inside the opening defense Lincoln found enough blood to tests and determine it was Sheila's, the blood on the baffles he detected was too little. Part of the reason why he was not used was because he found such blood and would simply confirm the findings of the lab.
How would blood on the rifle wipe off onto the perp? What evidence exists to suggest this happened?
I don't believe there was any blood right inside the opening as you claim?
John Hayward tested blood on the upper baffles which he described as "staining". The results showed A for the antigens (ABO groupings) and EAP BA for enzyme Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase (EAP). And yet the rifle containing "splashes" and "smears" and the outside of the silencer containing "stains" were incapable of any test results beyond a positive reaction for blood and human in origin. Plus the rifle and the outside of the silencer were tested about a month before the inside of the silencer.
Why didn't the lab test the blood they claim they found inside the silencer for a positive reaction for blood and determine whether or not it was human in origin as they did with the other exhibits? Or is that a silly question? 8(0(*
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg315462#msg315462
The above is sounding horribly reminiscent of the Stefan Kizsko case:
In 1994 the surviving senior officer in charge of the original investigation, Detective Superintendent Dick Holland, and the retired forensic scientist who had worked on the case, Ronald Outteridge, were formally charged with "doing acts tending to pervert the course of justice" by allegedly suppressing evidence in Kiszko's favour, namely the results of scientific tests on semen taken from the victim's body and from the accused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
I'm so convinced the silencer/blood evidence was fabricated that I believe running the tests on a flake of blood the same size as the flake supposedly found in the silencer will show the evidence was fabricated. Never mind the fuming chamber. It simply doesn't make sense that the flake of blood in the silencer was able to produce blood test results where other exhibits failed.
Blood samples tested by way of conventional serological analysis require a good quality "large" sample about a quarter coin size (US currency) and on this basis alone the flake fails. A quarter size coin is about four times larger than the flake found in the silencer.
Dr Lincoln, who JB's defence appointed pre-trial, was not a forensic scientist. He was a senior lecturer in blood group serology at London hospital medical college. When he visited the lab I doubt any sort of wrongdoing even crossed his mind.
Why Paul Terzeon and/or Geoffrey Rivlin did not accompany Dr Lincoln to ask probing and disturbing questions of John Hayward and Dr Lincoln eg why the flake was able to produce significantly more results than the other exhibits I don't know. Perhaps more concerned with managing their time when time is money. How many cases were they involved in that included 4 murders and a sucide or five murders where death was caused by firearms?
To my mind the pair were hopeless and simply accepted what they were told without question.
-
How would blood on the rifle wipe off onto the perp? What evidence exists to suggest this happened?
I don't believe there was any blood right inside the opening as you claim?
John Hayward tested blood on the upper baffles which he described as "staining". The results showed A for the antigens (ABO groupings) and EAP BA for enzyme Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase (EAP). And yet the rifle containing "splashes" and "smears" and the outside of the silencer containing "stains" were incapable of any test results beyond a positive reaction for blood and human in origin. Plus the rifle and the outside of the silencer were tested about a month before the inside of the silencer.
Why didn't the lab test the blood they claim they found inside the silencer for a positive reaction for blood and determine whether or not it was human in origin as they did with the other exhibits? Or is that a silly question? 8(0(*
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg315462#msg315462
The above is sounding horribly reminiscent of the Stefan Kizsko case:
In 1994 the surviving senior officer in charge of the original investigation, Detective Superintendent Dick Holland, and the retired forensic scientist who had worked on the case, Ronald Outteridge, were formally charged with "doing acts tending to pervert the course of justice" by allegedly suppressing evidence in Kiszko's favour, namely the results of scientific tests on semen taken from the victim's body and from the accused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
I'm so convinced the silencer/blood evidence was fabricated that I believe running the tests on a flake of blood the same size as the flake supposedly found in the silencer will show the evidence was fabricated. Never mind the fuming chamber. It simply doesn't make sense that the flake of blood in the silencer was able to produce blood test results where other exhibits failed.
Blood samples tested by way of conventional serological analysis require a good quality "large" sample about a quarter coin size (US currency) and on this basis alone the flake fails. A quarter size coin is about four times larger than the flake found in the silencer.
Dr Lincoln, who JB's defence appointed pre-trial, was not a forensic scientist. He was a senior lecturer in blood group serology at London hospital medical college. When he visited the lab I doubt any sort of wrongdoing even crossed his mind.
Why Paul Terzeon and/or Geoffrey Rivlin did not accompany Dr Lincoln to ask probing and disturbing questions of John Hayward and Dr Lincoln eg why the flake was able to produce significantly more results than the other exhibits I don't know. Perhaps more concerned with managing their time when time is money. How many cases were they involved in that included 4 murders and a sucide or five murders where death was caused by firearms?
To my mind the pair were hopeless and simply accepted what they were told without question.
Why would John Hayward lie?
-
Why would John Hayward lie?
Did he lie?
-
How would blood on the rifle wipe off onto the perp? What evidence exists to suggest this happened?
I don't believe there was any blood right inside the opening as you claim?
Howard drew on her Aug 13 diagram that she removed apparent blood from inside the opening, noted she tested that material and it tested as human blood, the next day police were notified that she found human blood inside it, she noted such in her subsequent statements that she removed blood from inside as well as outside. In her trial testimony she said she found blood inside:
Q. Let us go to the moderator please.
A. Yes
Q. What did you examine
A. In addition to the areas I have described [in my earlier testimony] I found actually inside the bore, just inside the bore, some blood staining attached to the surface.
In addition to Howard finding blood inside the bore of the moderator so did Lincoln and he was able to determine it was group A blood.
If you don't want to believe there was blood inside the opening then it is because you don't want to believe it not because there is a lack of evidence establishing it.
John Hayward tested blood on the upper baffles which he described as "staining". The results showed A for the antigens (ABO groupings) and EAP BA for enzyme Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase (EAP). And yet the rifle containing "splashes" and "smears" and the outside of the silencer containing "stains" were incapable of any test results beyond a positive reaction for blood and human in origin. Plus the rifle and the outside of the silencer were tested about a month before the inside of the silencer.
Why didn't the lab test the blood they claim they found inside the silencer for a positive reaction for blood and determine whether or not it was human in origin as they did with the other exhibits? Or is that a silly question? 8(0(*
They did test it. Howard determined the blood she removed was human blood. They also determined the blood on the baffles was human blood of Group A but could not get any enzyme readings. The flake they got the type as well as adenylate kinase enzyme results. Lincoln's tests confirmed the blood inside the opening was human blood and was even able to type it- Group A. He was able to confirm human blood was on the first 8 baffles but was unable to type such blood.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg315462#msg315462
The above is sounding horribly reminiscent of the Stefan Kizsko case:
In 1994 the surviving senior officer in charge of the original investigation, Detective Superintendent Dick Holland, and the retired forensic scientist who had worked on the case, Ronald Outteridge, were formally charged with "doing acts tending to pervert the course of justice" by allegedly suppressing evidence in Kiszko's favour, namely the results of scientific tests on semen taken from the victim's body and from the accused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
You haven't pointed to anything remotely suggestive of anything that occurred there.
I'm so convinced the silencer/blood evidence was fabricated that I believe running the tests on a flake of blood the same size as the flake supposedly found in the silencer will show the evidence was fabricated. Never mind the fuming chamber. It simply doesn't make sense that the flake of blood in the silencer was able to produce blood test results where other exhibits failed.
Blood samples tested by way of conventional serological analysis require a good quality "large" sample about a quarter coin size (US currency) and on this basis alone the flake fails. A quarter size coin is about four times larger than the flake found in the silencer.
Dr Lincoln, who JB's defence appointed pre-trial, was not a forensic scientist. He was a senior lecturer in blood group serology at London hospital medical college. When he visited the lab I doubt any sort of wrongdoing even crossed his mind.
Why Paul Terzeon and/or Geoffrey Rivlin did not accompany Dr Lincoln to ask probing and disturbing questions of John Hayward and Dr Lincoln eg why the flake was able to produce significantly more results than the other exhibits I don't know. Perhaps more concerned with managing their time when time is money. How many cases were they involved in that included 4 murders and a sucide or five murders where death was caused by firearms?
To my mind the pair were hopeless and simply accepted what they were told without question.
You have convinced yourself blood was planted without a shred of evidence to actually establish it. You also have convinced yourself that if the blood had been present from the murders it could not have survived to be found and tested by the lab and convinced yourself Jeremy's defense will be able to prove it is impossible for such blood to survive. You don't want to believe the evidence and to placate yourself have convinced yourself there will be a way to refute it. The reality is there is no evidence to suggest it was planted and there is no way to prove it short of someone confessing and establishing with credible evidence it happened. At some point you have to decide whether to remain like Linus always waiting in the Pumpkin Patch and always coming up with some new thing to justify keeping your hope alive so that you can avoid facing a reality you find unpleasant.
-
DB didn't plant any, that's for sure!
-
Did he lie?
Then what are you suggesting? You're saying the flake was too small and of poor quality to type, Hayward said he was able to do that, so why would he put himself on the line? He either was able to identify the blood type of the flake or he was lying?
-
How would blood on the rifle wipe off onto the perp? What evidence exists to suggest this happened?
You steady a rifle by holding the stock against your body. After the blood got on the rifle stock Nevill was shot and so were other victims. There is no way to do such and not smear the blood and get it on yourself in addition to smearing it.
-
Then what are you suggesting? You're saying the flake was too small and of poor quality to type, Hayward said he was able to do that, so why would he put himself on the line? He either was able to identify the blood type of the flake or he was lying?
Did he?
Do you have an organisational chart for the lab? I haven't seen one. It appears John Hayward was the principal scientist for the biology dept? Pre trial JH met with Dr Lincoln for the defence and went on the stand at trial. If I referred to JH personally in a post it was as a figurehead. As Dr Lincoln said JH might not have carried out any of the tests. Do we know who carried out the tests on the flake? Three parts as far as I can see:
- Cutting the flake in five for the five tests.
- Running the ABO test
- Running the enzyme and protein tests using gel electrophoresis
See the following 'Records of results obtained by Home Office Laboratory':
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=935
-
Did he?
Do you have an organisational chart for the lab? I haven't seen one. It appears John Hayward was the principal scientist for the biology dept? Pre trial JH met with Dr Lincoln for the defence and went on the stand at trial. If I referred to JH personally in a post it was as a figurehead. As Dr Lincoln said JH might not have carried out any of the tests. Do we know who carried out the tests on the flake? Three parts as far as I can see:
- Cutting the flake in five for the five tests.
- Running the ABO test
- Running the enzyme and protein tests using gel electrophoresis
See the following 'Records of results obtained by Home Office Laboratory':
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=935
At the time of JB's trial John Hayward was in private practice. Was this part of his game plan? Or was he uncomfortable with what went on (if anything) at the lab over the WHF case or in general? Or was he ousted?
John Hayward passed away in 2011. His son, David, now runs the firm Hayward Forensics:
http://www.haywardforensics.co.uk/
I contacted David in January re his firm carrying out some forensic work. For obvious reasons I would have been wary but didn't have to cross that bridge! I don't think I'm betraying any confidences in relaying our brief email converations as there's nothing confidential and/or sensitive.
To David Hayward
Dear David
I am sure you will be familiar with the above case due to your late fathers involvement. I have studied the case carefully over some 4 years and I am inclined to see JB as a victim of a miscarriage of justice. As such I guess you would term me a 'supporter'. I would like to discuss with you the possibility of your firm carrying out some forensic work on a commercial basis. I have long connections with Cambridge and Huntingdon and as I noticed you are based in St Ives I thought why not. I guess for various personal and professional reasons you will either welcome the opportunity of getting involved with the case or not want to touch it with a barge pole which I will quite understand.
From David Hayward
Dear Toni
Many thanks for your enquiry. I have never had any professional involvement in this matter.
My father was always very clear that he did not believe that there had been a miscarriage of justice. Should I undertake work in relation to this case, then any findings I produce could therefore be interpreted as not coming from a neutral standpoint. I would therefore respectively suggest that you look for assistance from forensic practitioners with no prior connection to the case.
I've not uploaded the original emails as I don't want my email address in the public domain. Original emails sent to Myster to authenticate.
-
We trust you Holly. I haven't received any mail yet, but I'll let you know tomorrow as I'm clocking off now.
-
Did he?
Do you have an organisational chart for the lab? I haven't seen one. It appears John Hayward was the principal scientist for the biology dept? Pre trial JH met with Dr Lincoln for the defence and went on the stand at trial. If I referred to JH personally in a post it was as a figurehead. As Dr Lincoln said JH might not have carried out any of the tests. Do we know who carried out the tests on the flake? Three parts as far as I can see:
- Cutting the flake in five for the five tests.
- Running the ABO test
- Running the enzyme and protein tests using gel electrophoresis
See the following 'Records of results obtained by Home Office Laboratory':
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=935
John Hayward must have carried out the tests because he was the one on the stand, had he not, then whoever did would have been in court to give evidence. In respect to the blood on the outside of the moderator, I believe it couldn't be grouped simply because there was insufficient available.
-
We trust you Holly. I haven't received any mail yet, but I'll let you know tomorrow as I'm clocking off now.
I had a problem with my email connection yesterday but they should now be in your inbox.
-
John Hayward must have carried out the tests because he was the one on the stand, had he not, then whoever did would have been in court to give evidence. In respect to the blood on the outside of the moderator, I believe it couldn't be grouped simply because there was insufficient available.
As I said I believe John Hayward was the principal scientist at FSS in terms of biological evidence and had overall responsible for the blood evidence in the WHF case. It's not clear to me who actually carried out the processing/testing of the flake. Did he go on the stand because he personally carried out the tests on the flake or he was the person with overall responsibility for the processing and testing of the blood evidence? He was able to carry out checks and balances internally and answer counsels questions on the stand.
His own hand-written statement refers in general terms to tests being carried out. No mention of him personally carrying out the tests or any other person by name. We know Glynis Howard tested blood on the outside of the silencer and yet he does not refer to her by name here:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=260.0;attach=844
Dr Lincoln stated:
It appears from the worksheets which I have seen and from the information given to me, Mr Hayward did not of course perform most if any of the procedures himself.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=935
And yet in the CoA document we have:
461. On 8 September 1986, Dr Lincoln again went to the laboratory and this time met and discussed the matter with Mr Hayward. As a result of this meeting, Dr Lincoln appreciated that the blood tested all came from a single flake trapped under the first or second baffle. In a letter to the defence solicitors, Dr Lincoln said that Mr Hayward "used this single flake to produce a solution from which he was able to determine the groups". He said that this meant that the possible explanation he had earlier suggested as to a combination of more than one persons blood no longer applied.
462. In one respect Dr Lincoln was in error. Whether that error was from something said by Mr Hayward or simply from an assumption made by Dr Lincoln cannot now be ascertained and matters not. The error was to suggest that the whole of the blood flake was dissolved and the resulting solution was used for all the tests. In fact what had happened was that the flake had been divided into a number of parts and each part had then been used for a separate group test. Thus the tests were not done on liquid drawn from the same solution made from the whole flake but on separate solutions each made from distinct parts of the flake. We have no means of knowing whether correction of this error would in any way have altered Dr Lincoln's view.
Make of it what you will Caro....
Like you I don't believe the silencer/blood evidence but at this moment in time I don't have any firm ideas as to exactly what took place.
-
Also I'm not understanding the flake cut into five for the five tests but this may be down to my limited understanding of conventional serological analysis of blood and gel electrophoresis.
The testing of the antigens (ABO) uses a different method from the enzymes and protein: EAP, HP, AK and PGM. The latter are based on molecular weight using gel electrophesis. Gel electrophesis is also used for DNA profiling. DNA profiling is based on one sample eg blood and compared with another sample ie the sample is not cut up to test for all manner of genes. Therefore I don't get the cutting up of the flake to carry out individual tests for the enzymes and protein. Dr Lincoln's understanding was that the whole flake was dissolved to carry out the tests.
-
Could it be that different quantities of solvent (water?) were required for each individual test to achieve the most satisfactory result, rather than having a one concentration fits all approach?
-
At the time of JB's trial John Hayward was in private practice. Was this part of his game plan? Or was he uncomfortable with what went on (if anything) at the lab over the WHF case or in general? Or was he ousted?
John Hayward passed away in 2011. His son, David, now runs the firm Hayward Forensics:
http://www.haywardforensics.co.uk/ (http://www.haywardforensics.co.uk/)
I contacted David in January re his firm carrying out some forensic work. For obvious reasons I would have been wary but didn't have to cross that bridge! I don't think I'm betraying any confidences in relaying our brief email converations as there's nothing confidential and/or sensitive.
To David Hayward
Dear David
I am sure you will be familiar with the above case due to your late fathers involvement. I have studied the case carefully over some 4 years and I am inclined to see JB as a victim of a miscarriage of justice. As such I guess you would term me a 'supporter'. I would like to discuss with you the possibility of your firm carrying out some forensic work on a commercial basis. I have long connections with Cambridge and Huntingdon and as I noticed you are based in St Ives I thought why not. I guess for various personal and professional reasons you will either welcome the opportunity of getting involved with the case or not want to touch it with a barge pole which I will quite understand.
From David Hayward
Dear Toni
Many thanks for your enquiry. I have never had any professional involvement in this matter.
My father was always very clear that he did not believe that there had been a miscarriage of justice. Should I undertake work in relation to this case, then any findings I produce could therefore be interpreted as not coming from a neutral standpoint. I would therefore respectively suggest that you look for assistance from forensic practitioners with no prior connection to the case.
I've not uploaded the original emails as I don't want my email address in the public domain. Original emails sent to Myster to authenticate.
As I said yesterday Holly, no-one doubts your sincerity and honesty, so there was no need to forward the above emails for to me to verify.
But yes, I can confirm the messages exchanged between you and David Hayward are genuine.
-
Could it be that different quantities of solvent (water?) were required for each individual test to achieve the most satisfactory result, rather than having a one concentration fits all approach?
I don't believe so but I might be wrong. My understanding is that the "dissolving" involves just enough processing to transform say a flake of blood into a consistency to enable gel electrophoresis to take place.
I did some posts a while back on DNA evidence and gel electrophoresis. The same method of testing applies to the enzymes and protein in the WHF case.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5861.msg211665#msg211665
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5861.msg211903#msg211903
Conventional serological analysis of blood based on the molecular weight and charge of enzymes and proteins (used in the WHF case) was the precursor to DNA testing.
-
As I said yesterday Holly, no-one doubts your sincerity and honesty, so there was no need to forward the above emails for to me to verify.
But yes, I can confirm the messages exchanged between you and David Hayward are genuine.
Thanks. I guess that's what comes from working in an environment where I was responsible for concrete audit trails 8)><(
-
As I said I believe John Hayward was the principal scientist at FSS in terms of biological evidence and had overall responsible for the blood evidence in the WHF case. It's not clear to me who actually carried out the processing/testing of the flake. Did he go on the stand because he personally carried out the tests on the flake or he was the person with overall responsibility for the processing and testing of the blood evidence? He was able to carry out checks and balances internally and answer counsels questions on the stand.
His own hand-written statement refers in general terms to tests being carried out. No mention of him personally carrying out the tests or any other person by name. We know Glynis Howard tested blood on the outside of the silencer and yet he does not refer to her by name here:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=260.0;attach=844
Dr Lincoln stated:
It appears from the worksheets which I have seen and from the information given to me, Mr Hayward did not of course perform most if any of the procedures himself.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=935
And yet in the CoA document we have:
461. On 8 September 1986, Dr Lincoln again went to the laboratory and this time met and discussed the matter with Mr Hayward. As a result of this meeting, Dr Lincoln appreciated that the blood tested all came from a single flake trapped under the first or second baffle. In a letter to the defence solicitors, Dr Lincoln said that Mr Hayward "used this single flake to produce a solution from which he was able to determine the groups". He said that this meant that the possible explanation he had earlier suggested as to a combination of more than one persons blood no longer applied.
462. In one respect Dr Lincoln was in error. Whether that error was from something said by Mr Hayward or simply from an assumption made by Dr Lincoln cannot now be ascertained and matters not. The error was to suggest that the whole of the blood flake was dissolved and the resulting solution was used for all the tests. In fact what had happened was that the flake had been divided into a number of parts and each part had then been used for a separate group test. Thus the tests were not done on liquid drawn from the same solution made from the whole flake but on separate solutions each made from distinct parts of the flake. We have no means of knowing whether correction of this error would in any way have altered Dr Lincoln's view.
Make of it what you will Caro....
Like you I don't believe the silencer/blood evidence but at this moment in time I don't have any firm ideas as to exactly what took place.
Perhaps GH wasn't mentioned in his statement, but she did make her own and was a witness in court to discuss her own particular findings. This may be what Lincoln is referring to when he suggests that Hayward didn't carry out all of the tests himself - he didn't test the outside of the silencer GH did and she presented the evidence. Hayward presented the flake evidence because he must have carried out the testing.
-
GH might not have been questioned about testing the blood, but only on the likelihood of SC being able to shoot herself with the moderator fitted...
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/1986/10/14/AS141086009/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1 (http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/1986/10/14/AS141086009/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1)
-
Perhaps GH wasn't mentioned in his statement, but she did make her own and was a witness in court to discuss her own particular findings. This may be what Lincoln is referring to when he suggests that Hayward didn't carry out all of the tests himself - he didn't test the outside of the silencer GH did and she presented the evidence.Hayward presented the flake evidence because he must have carried out the testing.
Do you have any evidence for this?
-
GH might not have been questioned about testing the blood, but only on the likelihood of SC being able to shoot herself with the moderator fitted...
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/1986/10/14/AS141086009/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1 (http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/1986/10/14/AS141086009/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1)
She was asked about the blood on the rifle and the silencer and clearly mentions that the blood she tested was found to be of human origin. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7104.msg334682.html#msg334682
-
Do you have any evidence for this?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,411.msg6218.html#msg6218
-
She was asked about the blood on the rifle and the silencer and clearly mentions that the blood she tested was found to be of human origin. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7104.msg334682.html#msg334682 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7104.msg334682.html#msg334682)
Ah, OK... I can't see that attachment on blue but I assume it was during GH's court testimony, as stated by Mr T.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,411.msg6218.html#msg6218
Yes I appreciate that. It's taken from Dr Lincoln's letter of 19th Sept 1986 to Paul Terzeon:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=929
But the letter also makes reference to John Hayward finding blood on the outside of the moderator (see above link) when in fact this was analysed by Glynis Howard on 13th Aug:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1026.0;attach=2053
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=169.0;attach=307
In the same letter as the excerpts you have posted Dr Lincoln states to Paul Terzeon that John Hayward may not have carried out any tests:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=935
Did John Hayward actually prepare and run the tests?
-
Yes I appreciate that. It's taken from Dr Lincoln's letter of 19th Sept 1986 to Paul Terzeon:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=929
But the letter also makes reference to John Hayward finding blood on the outside of the moderator (see above link) when in fact this was analysed by Glynis Howard on 13th Aug:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1026.0;attach=2053
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=169.0;attach=307
In the same letter as the excerpts you have posted Dr Lincoln states to Paul Terzeon that John Hayward may not have carried out any tests:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=935
Did John Hayward actually prepare and run the tests?
It seems that Dr Lincoln wasn't sure of quite a few things. I very much doubt that Hayward would give evidence of testing the flake if he didn't do so or he would have made it clear that he didn't actually test it and named the person who did (if JUST for the record). GH gave evidence of the part she played as did Cook - and this makes it clear (certainly to me) that Haywood gave evidence of what he did - not of what someone else did. As you know, I don't believe the silencer was used, but I VERY MUCH doubt that blood got inside the silencer at the level of the lab.
-
It seems that Dr Lincoln wasn't sure of quite a few things. I very much doubt that Hayward would give evidence of testing the flake if he didn't do so or he would have made it clear that he didn't actually test it and named the person who did (if JUST for the record). GH gave evidence of the part she played as did Cook - and this makes it clear (certainly to me) that Haywood gave evidence of what he did - not of what someone else did. As you know, I don't believe the silencer was used, but I VERY MUCH doubt that blood got inside the silencer at the level of the lab.
But often the supervisor/manager/overseer call them what you will assumes responsibility regardless of whether or not he or she actually performed some function and others refer to them as such.
In an earlier report dated 25th April 1986 Dr Lincoln actually met with Glynis Howard and DI Cook. Glynis Howard was the person who analysed the blood on the outside of the silencer and yet Dr Lincoln still refers to John Hayward. I believe he does this as he sees John Hayward as the figurehead and person with overall responsibility:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=921
We know Glynis Howard carried out the tests on the outside of the sound moderator. She refers to the KM tests as positive which is Kastle-Meyer a presumptive blood test.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1026.0;attach=2053
John Hayward's handwriting:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=260.0;attach=836
I believe the silencer/blood evidence was fabricated but I don't rule anything in or out as to what happened and who was involved. If we had all the HOLAB forms, lab records etc the picture may be clearer.
-
FSS Huntingdon was a Home Office run lab 8(0(* not an independent firm eg Hayward Associates the firm John Hayward set up and now run by his son David:
http://www.haywardforensics.co.uk/
"Hayward Associates is independent of all Police and other Government Agencies".
Maybe the above statement is telling 8(0(*
-
But often the supervisor/manager/overseer call them what you will assumes responsibility regardless of whether or not he or she actually performed some function and others refer to them as such.
In an earlier report dated 25th April 1986 Dr Lincoln actually met with Glynis Howard and DI Cook. Glynis Howard was the person who analysed the blood on the outside of the silencer and yet Dr Lincoln still refers to John Hayward. I believe he does this as he sees John Hayward as the figurehead and person with overall responsibility:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=921
We know Glynis Howard carried out the tests on the outside of the sound moderator. She refers to the KM tests as positive which is Kastle-Meyer a presumptive blood test.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1026.0;attach=2053
John Hayward's handwriting:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=260.0;attach=836
I believe the silencer/blood evidence was fabricated but I don't rule anything in or out as to what happened and who was involved. If we had all the HOLAB forms, lab records etc the picture may be clearer.
Yes, I understand what you are saying in respect to accepting responsibility however, in this instance, it would be important for the court to establish exactly what was done and by whom. I don't think it would have been acceptable for Hayward to present such evidence as if he had tested the blood, when in fact he had not and if he were speaking for someone else (although I can't think of why he would when both GH and Cook, made it clear that they took part in the silencer tests), he would have said so.
-
FSS Huntingdon was a Home Office run lab 8(0(* not an independent firm eg Hayward Associates the firm John Hayward set up and now run by his son David:
http://www.haywardforensics.co.uk/
"Hayward Associates is independent of all Police and other Government Agencies".
Maybe the above statement is telling 8(0(*
Holl, I'm trying to follow your scientific research, and I'm sure it's brilliant (though I'm not sure how it could be replicated and proven) but what are your thoughts on the first shot to Sheila's throat? It's from the side, and at an angle. Do you think that this explains how Bamber shot her, kneeling down beside her? I don't want to dwell on Sheila's suicide, if that happened, but I doubt that she would have gambled with shooting herself across her neck when she could have placed the gun under her chin and been efficient. I hate the fact that we're discussing this stuff, but the fact that Sheila didn't kill her family, so it could only be Bamber bugs me. And, intelligent people like you, trying to find some let-out clause for Bamber, bugs me more. Why do you do it? It makes me sad. I understand desperados like Troods and Clappy, with their weird agenda. But....why you?
-
Just got to say....Steph!!! You're still doing the same old schitck. Nothing changes, does it?
Move on, Baby. We all know what you do. Angry, lonely, sad. You had your moment in the sun. Move on, nothing to see here.
Grow up.
-
Just got to say....Steph!!! You're still doing the same old schitck. Nothing changes, does it?
Move on, Baby. We all know what you do. Angry, lonely, sad. You had your moment in the sun. Move on, nothing to see here.
Grow up.
Ah, Mrs Shipman. The whole world is against you because you're mental, and you smell of piss and biscuits. Have a pop at me. I couldn't give a f..k.
-
Ah, Mrs Shipman. The whole world is against you because you're mental, and you smell of piss and biscuits. Have a pop at me. I couldn't give a f..k.
Off to bed now, Mrs Shipman. I expect we'll be doing some cudding and kissing. And amazing sex.
Maybe, stop being so spiteful. You're only hurting yourself.
-
FSS Huntingdon was a Home Office run lab 8(0(* not an independent firm eg Hayward Associates the firm John Hayward set up and now run by his son David:
http://www.haywardforensics.co.uk/ (http://www.haywardforensics.co.uk/)
"Hayward Associates is independent of all Police and other Government Agencies".
Maybe the above statement is telling 8(0(*
Nothing telling about it! All it means is that the Government no longer finances its own labs because they were running heavy £2 million+ losses per month with them in the past.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmsctech/610/610we04.htm (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmsctech/610/610we04.htm)
-
Holl, I'm trying to follow your scientific research, and I'm sure it's brilliant (though I'm not sure how it could be replicated and proven) but what are your thoughts on the first shot to Sheila's throat? It's from the side, and at an angle. Do you think that this explains how Bamber shot her, kneeling down beside her? I don't want to dwell on Sheila's suicide, if that happened, but I doubt that she would have gambled with shooting herself across her neck when she could have placed the gun under her chin and been efficient. I hate the fact that we're discussing this stuff, but the fact that Sheila didn't kill her family, so it could only be Bamber bugs me. And, intelligent people like you, trying to find some let-out clause for Bamber, bugs me more. Why do you do it? It makes me sad. I understand desperados like Troods and Clappy, with their weird agenda. But....why you?
Why would Sheila, depressed, drugged up to the eyeballs with sedative and intent on committing suicide, also take out her dad, this rock and calming influence on whom she depended? To believe that she chased him downstairs, then embarked on an almighty life or death struggle is absolute madness, imo.
-
Why would Sheila, depressed, drugged up to the eyeballs with sedative and intent on committing suicide, also take out her dad, this rock and calming influence on whom she depended? To believe that she chased him downstairs, then embarked on an almighty life or death struggle is absolute madness, imo.
Hm. However those who favour psychotic will have us believe that she may have seen the devil standing in front of her rather than Nevill. The problem is that these same people move the goal posts by suggesting that Sheila, over/under dosed, whatever fits their story at the time, might have been pondering this act, therefore making it a calculated decision. I'm not sure how a psychotic episode fits into that scenario.
-
Why would Sheila, depressed, drugged up to the eyeballs with sedative and intent on committing suicide, also take out her dad, this rock and calming influence on whom she depended? To believe that she chased him downstairs, then embarked on an almighty life or death struggle is absolute madness, imo.
I totally agree, it just isn't logical by all the evidence.
-
Holl, I'm trying to follow your scientific research, and I'm sure it's brilliant (though I'm not sure how it could be replicated and proven) but what are your thoughts on the first shot to Sheila's throat? It's from the side, and at an angle. Do you think that this explains how Bamber shot her, kneeling down beside her? I don't want to dwell on Sheila's suicide, if that happened, but I doubt that she would have gambled with shooting herself across her neck when she could have placed the gun under her chin and been efficient. I hate the fact that we're discussing this stuff, but the fact that Sheila didn't kill her family, so it could only be Bamber bugs me. And, intelligent people like you, trying to find some let-out clause for Bamber, bugs me more. Why do you do it? It makes me sad. I understand desperados like Troods and Clappy, with their weird agenda. But....why you?
Dr Vanezis has always made it clear he was/is unable to confirm murder or suicide.
There will never be any "let-out clause" capable of overturning JB's conviction only new forensic evidence potentially compelling enough for 3 appeal court judges to quash JB's conviction.
Because I believe JB is the victim of a MoJ and evidence was fabricated to secure a conviction. And that makes me angry and sad. If the case against JB was strong then why the need to fabricate evidence? Imo 'noble cause corruption' can never be justified. Its wrong legally and morally.
-
Nothing telling about it! All it means is that the Government no longer finances its own labs because they were running heavy £2 million+ losses per month with them in the past.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmsctech/610/610we04.htm (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmsctech/610/610we04.htm)
Thanks for the link. I'll read it thoroughly later but its dated 2013 some 27 years after JB's trial?
The Hayward Forensics/Associates webiste not only makes it clear that they are independent of all Police and other Government Agencies but also emphasises that they work predominantly for the defence:
http://www.haywardforensics.co.uk/
I think you have Wilkes book? I posted the following excerpt from the book on Blue before the Nun was killed off 8)><( I don't have access to the book right now but if I remember rightly it was in the last few chapters covering the silencer/blood evidence. There's a few diagrams. I think it might be around chapter 45.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3628.msg141963.html?PHPSESSID=df0fcd37f22ff5d7c3484e8af6f6bc5a#msg141963
"The Home Office forensic science laboratory at Huntingdon was opened two years before the Bamber case in May 1983 by the then Home Secreatary, William Whitelaw. The new laboratory cost £4million and was built to serve ten police forces in the east of England, from East Anglia to Leicester, Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire. When it opened, it employed nearly seventy experts in all brances of forensic science, including biology, chemistry, toxicology, blood sereology and the examination of firearms. In theory, the service provided at Huntingdon is equally available to prosecution and defence teams in a criminal case. But in practice, because of the structural and informal links with the police, the service at Huntingdon (as at the five other regional Home Office laboratories) is identified almost exclusively with the prosecution. Defence lawyers trying to gain access to laboratory resources often find themselves thwarted at every turn. Even obtaining samples for independent testing can be very difficult."
Roger Wilkes also stated that various problems had been identified in these Government run labs.
-
John Hayward must have carried out the tests because he was the one on the stand, had he not, then whoever did would have been in court to give evidence. In respect to the blood on the outside of the moderator, I believe it couldn't be grouped simply because there was insufficient available.
In the old days the person ultimately overseeing everything who handled the actual results usually took the stand. The person who examined the results and assessed the results as opposed to the person who simply did the legwork but were unsure what the results of their work was.
There have been efforts over the years to expand who can be questioned. A US Supreme Court ruling allows all minor people involved to be questioned at trial as part of the right to confront accusers. They drastically expanded the definition of accusers. I don't know if the UK has gone as far as them.
Hayward had helpers doing some of the work but he was overall in charge of them and the one who took the results and analyzed/interpreted them so would be the logical one to testify.
He was not involved at the point in time when Howard did her examination. She handled both testing and analysis of her findings. As such she testified to the earlier blood testing.
-
Also I'm not understanding the flake cut into five for the five tests but this may be down to my limited understanding of conventional serological analysis of blood and gel electrophoresis.
The testing of the antigens (ABO) uses a different method from the enzymes and protein: EAP, HP, AK and PGM. The latter are based on molecular weight using gel electrophesis. Gel electrophesis is also used for DNA profiling. DNA profiling is based on one sample eg blood and compared with another sample ie the sample is not cut up to test for all manner of genes. Therefore I don't get the cutting up of the flake to carry out individual tests for the enzymes and protein. Dr Lincoln's understanding was that the whole flake was dissolved to carry out the tests.
Only select tests could be done the same time on the same sample. Some chose to do multiple tests at once while others thought it preferable to do single tests. If they would do multiple tests they still would need to break it up into 2-3 pieces depending on which tests since some could not be done together. They decided to do all individually not any together and as such broke it into 5 parts not 2-3. The default was doing it individually as they did. A minority of scientists opted for battery testing which was a fad which started then faded. No sources explain why the fad failed to take root and become the default so whether it was because of some problem/difficulty that emerged is unclear.
-
But often the supervisor/manager/overseer call them what you will assumes responsibility regardless of whether or not he or she actually performed some function and others refer to them as such.
In an earlier report dated 25th April 1986 Dr Lincoln actually met with Glynis Howard and DI Cook. Glynis Howard was the person who analysed the blood on the outside of the silencer and yet Dr Lincoln still refers to John Hayward. I believe he does this as he sees John Hayward as the figurehead and person with overall responsibility:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=921
We know Glynis Howard carried out the tests on the outside of the sound moderator. She refers to the KM tests as positive which is Kastle-Meyer a presumptive blood test.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1026.0;attach=2053
John Hayward's handwriting:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=260.0;attach=836
I believe the silencer/blood evidence was fabricated but I don't rule anything in or out as to what happened and who was involved. If we had all the HOLAB forms, lab records etc the picture may be clearer.
You admit you have no evidence to establish it was fabricated but have decided it was because you have arbitrarily decided Jeremy is innocent and as such choose to discount the evidence though you had no basis to do so.
You want to go on a fishing expedition to see who you would have to accuse base don who signed what. That won't reveal who else was in the room watching/supervising etc so would be of limited utility anyway.
The notion the lab took some blood, tested it and made up that it found this blood in the moderator is absurd.
you keep ignoring the evidence I presented proving that Howard found blood inside the moderator. Her 8/13/86 examination record details blood found inside the bore, records prove police were notified 8/14/86 that blood was found inside the moderator, her subsequent statements state she found blood inside the bore and even her trial testimony stated such.
Moreover, Lincoln detected blood right inside the opening which he determined was group A and he also detected blood on the first 8 baffles.
Blood was definitely inside the moderator. No one simply pretended they found blood inside.
If you want to allege planting you need to establish:
1) that someone planted blood inside the opening
2) that someone deposited blood on the first 8 baffles
3) that someone deposited the blood that formed into the flake
4) that someone removed blood that was inside the rifle and concealed its finding
Since Howard found the blood inside the opening on 8/13/85 you have to establish it was planted prior to this unless you want to accuse her of depositing the blood and later in the day removing it though she didn't have it in her possession for long because Cook took it back to HQ in order to subject it to fingerprinting.
The flake and blood on the baffles quite clearly had to be present by the time the lab opened it up and tested it unless again you want to accuse a lab worker of depositing the blood, waiting for it to dry and then removing and testing it. If they tested it shortly after depositing it though they would have had stronger results.
People who choose to believe the moderator evidence was fabricated do not believe this because there is any evidence to suggest it happened but rather simply have decided in their mind to not believe it and look for ways to try to justify/rationalize such.
-
Only select tests could be done the same time on the same sample. Some chose to do multiple tests at once while others thought it preferable to do single tests. If they would do multiple tests they still would need to break it up into 2-3 pieces depending on which tests since some could not be done together. They decided to do all individually not any together and as such broke it into 5 parts not 2-3. The default was doing it individually as they did. A minority of scientists opted for battery testing which was a fad which started then faded. No sources explain why the fad failed to take root and become the default so whether it was because of some problem/difficulty that emerged is unclear.
As I said previously conventional serological analysis of proteins and enzymes (AK, EAP, HP, PGM) uses the same procedure as DNA testing that is gel electrophoresis. However unlike DNA evidence which aims to provide one complete profile, conventional serological analysis of blood analyses and compares certain enzymes and proteins so it seems to me that individual tests would need to be run. But I still don't see the advantages of cutting the flake of blood to run the individual tests vs dissolving the whole flake and then drawing off sufficient liquid to run the individual tests? Dr Lincoln for the defence was certainly under the impression the latter took place. It was only at JB's CoA hearing in 2002 that it became apparent that the former took place. I don't believe scientists just amble along using methods willy-nilly. I want to know why the flake was cut. Before any test are run I will be covering off all of this with the female scientist 8(>(( with a very fine toothcomb ?>)()<
-
As I said previously conventional serological analysis of proteins and enzymes (AK, EAP, HP, PGM) uses the same procedure as DNA testing that is gel electrophoresis. However unlike DNA evidence which aims to provide one complete profile, conventional serological analysis of blood analyses and compares certain enzymes and proteins so it seems to me that individual tests would need to be run. But I still don't see the advantages of cutting the flake of blood to run the individual tests vs dissolving the whole flake and then drawing off sufficient liquid to run the individual tests? Dr Lincoln for the defence was certainly under the impression the latter took place. It was only at JB's CoA hearing in 2002 that it became apparent that the former took place. I don't believe scientists just amble along using methods willy-nilly. I want to know why the flake was cut. Before any test are run I will be covering off all of this with the female scientist 8(>(( with a very fine toothcomb ?>)()<
There is no difference scientifically. It is a matter of taste. one person can feel it is easier to cut a flake into even portions while someone else can feel it is easier to decide a solution. Neither has some significant advantage in terms of the results, they get to the same place ultimately.
-
There is no difference scientifically. It is a matter of taste. one person can feel it is easier to cut a flake into even portions while someone else can feel it is easier to decide a solution. Neither has some significant advantage in terms of the results, they get to the same place ultimately.
According to the CoA hearing 2002 John Hayward should have taken steps to ensure the flake was dissolved whole or pulverized before testing. Point 494:
vi) Whilst he accepted that the method of testing was the standard approach to blood grouping at the time, it was only applicable to "a run of the mill" case where it was known that each bloodstain was from a single individual. When there was a risk that it might be from more than one blood source, as here, Mr Hayward should have taken steps to ensure that the different group tests were carried out on the same material. This could have been achieved either by dissolving the whole flake and forming a single solution or by crushing the flake and pulverising it to ensure that all parts were completely mixed.
Also when the blood evidence is small ie a flake measuring a 1/4 of an inch it surely stands to reason that cutting will reduce the amount of blood for testing, even if only tiny fragments are lost on the implement used for cutting, whereas dissolving will capture all the blood?
Anyway I think I will wait to hear from an appropriately qualified person who practices in the 21st century 8((()*/
-
According to the CoA hearing 2002 John Hayward should have taken steps to ensure the flake was dissolved whole or pulverized before testing. Point 494:
vi) Whilst he accepted that the method of testing was the standard approach to blood grouping at the time, it was only applicable to "a run of the mill" case where it was known that each bloodstain was from a single individual. When there was a risk that it might be from more than one blood source, as here, Mr Hayward should have taken steps to ensure that the different group tests were carried out on the same material. This could have been achieved either by dissolving the whole flake and forming a single solution or by crushing the flake and pulverising it to ensure that all parts were completely mixed.
Also when the blood evidence is small ie a flake measuring a 1/4 of an inch it surely stands to reason that cutting will reduce the amount of blood for testing, even if only tiny fragments are lost on the implement used for cutting, whereas dissolving will capture all the blood?
Anyway I think I will wait to hear from an appropriately qualified person who practices in the 21st century 8((()*/
Wait for what?
Lincoln said because the blood was a single flake he felt this means it came from the same source.
Other experts said if there was blood of more than one person it would have intimately mixed and thus be detected. the only way for there to be an undetected mixture would be if blood failed to intimately mix and there was no way for that to happen with victims killed during the same episode.
Yet other experts said it would not be possible for the blood of any victim to get that far inside except Sheila because she was the only one who suffered a contact wound that would result in drawback.
This effectively rules out the possibility of a mix.
In addition to being ruled out scientifically most people including you reject that if Sheila had committed the crime that she would have gotten the moderator out, used it then put it away before killing herself.
Since you find such absurd why would you bother trying to find a scientific way to say it is possible? The defense already tried that and failed so it is a waste of time anyway but especially when you say you don't buy it and attacked the defense for approaching it from that angle and said they should have accused someone of planting the blood.
Basically you just did the same thing as them. You have no evidence to establish the blood was planted so revert to the argument they made that maybe the blood was a mixture.
-
You admit you have no evidence to establish it was fabricatedbut have decided it was because you have arbitrarily decided Jeremy is innocent and as such choose to discount the evidence though you had no basis to do so.
Yet! I haven't arbitrarily decided anything. Some who believe JB guilty also believe the silencer/blood evidence was fabricated.
You want to go on a fishing expedition to see who you would have to accuse base don who signed what. That won't reveal who else was in the room watching/supervising etc so would be of limited utility anyway.
The notion the lab took some blood, tested it and made up that it found this blood in the moderator is absurd.
You seem oblivious to the fact wrongdoing, incompetence and miscarriage of justices happen all the time, in all walks of life and for a whole variety of reasons.
you keep ignoring the evidence I presented proving that Howard found blood inside the moderator. Her 8/13/86 examination record details blood found inside the bore, records prove police were notified 8/14/86 that blood was found inside the moderator, her subsequent statements state she found blood inside the bore and even her trial testimony stated such.
Moreover, Lincoln detected blood right inside the opening which he determined was group A and he also detected blood on the first 8 baffles.
Blood was definitely inside the moderator. No one simply pretended they found blood inside.
If you want to allege planting you need to establish:
1) that someone planted blood inside the opening
2) that someone deposited blood on the first 8 baffles
3) that someone deposited the blood that formed into the flake
4) that someone removed blood that was inside the rifle and concealed its finding
Since Howard found the blood inside the opening on 8/13/85 you have to establish it was planted prior to this unless you want to accuse her of depositing the blood and later in the day removing it though she didn't have it in her possession for long because Cook took it back to HQ in order to subject it to fingerprinting.
The flake and blood on the baffles quite clearly had to be present by the time the lab opened it up and tested it unless again you want to accuse a lab worker of depositing the blood, waiting for it to dry and then removing and testing it. If they tested it shortly after depositing it though they would have had stronger results.
People who choose to believe the moderator evidence was fabricated do not believe this because there is any evidence to suggest it happened but rather simply have decided in their mind to not believe it and look for ways to try to justify/rationalize such.
There's no evidence Glynis Howard found any blood inside the silencer on 13th Aug. You seem to want to refer to the "scattered fragments" of paint as blood.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1026.0;attach=2053
Do you have Glynis Howard's trial testimony?
A WS drawn up by EP on behalf of Glynis Howard states blood was found inside the silencer but this is unsigned. If it isn't signed by the witness it means diddly-squat.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=169.0;attach=305
With regard to Dr Lincoln I don't know what you mean by "right inside the opening"? If you mean the bore that's visible from the outside no he didn't. He found blood in the end piece that was only visible internally and the threaded end but all of this was during 1986:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=929
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=931
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=921
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=923
-
In the old days the person ultimately overseeing everything who handled the actual results usually took the stand. The person who examined the results and assessed the results as opposed to the person who simply did the legwork but were unsure what the results of their work was.
There have been efforts over the years to expand who can be questioned. A US Supreme Court ruling allows all minor people involved to be questioned at trial as part of the right to confront accusers. They drastically expanded the definition of accusers. I don't know if the UK has gone as far as them.
Hayward had helpers doing some of the work but he was overall in charge of them and the one who took the results and analyzed/interpreted them so would be the logical one to testify.
He was not involved at the point in time when Howard did her examination. She handled both testing and analysis of her findings. As such she testified to the earlier blood testing.
Which is what I said.
-
Yet! I haven't arbitrarily decided anything. Some who believe JB guilty also believe the silencer/blood evidence was fabricated.
You seem oblivious to the fact wrongdoing, incompetence and miscarriage of justices happen all the time, in all walks of life and for a whole variety of reasons.
Saying MOJs happen all the time is greatly inflating the number. In any event to suggest evidence was planted because it happened in other cases is simply arbitrary and not evaluating on the basis of evidence in this case. The number who think he is guilty and yet that evidence was planted is small and their basis of belief is just as arbitrary and unsupported as your opinion.
You have put the cart before the horse. You decided it was planted and seek out evidence to support this view instead of following the evidence where it leads. Only if evidence leads to the conclusion it was planted is the view supported.
There's no evidence Glynis Howard found any blood inside the silencer on 13th Aug. You seem to want to refer to the "scattered fragments" of paint as blood.
I already listed the evidence. The document in question that notes scattered fragments has a line showing they were collected from inside the hole not on the outer surface and also indicated it is KM positive. That alone should clue you in that it was from inside. But if there is any doubt that is erased when you look at the fact that COLP said there was documented proof the lab notified police on 8/14/85 that blood was found inside the moderator. Why would the lab lie to police and state such if Howard had not found any blood inside? Furthermore Howard's statement says she removed blood from inside:
(http://s14.postimg.org/u4zsrjmlt/howardstatementbloodinsideandout.jpg)
Then you have the fact that right inside the opening Lincoln removed blood and typed it as group A.
I don't make things up. I cited the facts. If you want to claim someone planted it for her to find or that she planted it then removed it be my guest but denying she found any blood inside in order to avoid having to dela with it fails.
Do you have Glynis Howard's trial testimony?
Do you think I made the quote up? Luckily I saved some snips I posted on blue.
Not only did she discuss it in her testimony in chief but also was cross examined about it
(http://s11.postimg.org/am4un3mwj/howardbloodtestimonymod.jpg)
(http://s18.postimg.org/nsv2wktmx/howardbloodtestimonymodcross.jpg)
I'm not Mike I don't make things up.
A WS drawn up by EP on behalf of Glynis Howard states blood was found inside the silencer but this is unsigned. If it isn't signed by the witness it means diddly-squat.
You didn't pay attention to her COLP statement at all. They had signed originals from her, the only difference is the signed originals refer to the moderator as DB/1. They re-typed it with the only change from her signed version being the new one referred to the moderator as DRB/1. She said she would have signed the new one if they asked her to do so. The signed versions say blood was found inside and out.
With regard to Dr Lincoln I don't know what you mean by "right inside the opening"? If you mean the bore that's visible from the outside no he didn't. He found blood in the end piece that was only visible internally and the threaded end but all of this was during 1986
Lincoln removed the blood from inside the bore, that is what he called the end. He said he found it in the end that was threaded. He meant the end piece after it was removed.
That is also where Howard removed the blood from. He said there was no blood visible to the naked eye but enough was present to be able to test it and it was group A. The fact this blood was there for him to remove in 1986 means there was actually blood there inside.
This shows you the tip (End) removed from the moderator. The end screws into the tube. In order to be able to be screwed in the tube the end had to be threaded. This is threading Lincoln refers to where he found the blood. He found it not in the outside threading of this piece but inside the bore. He called it a threaded end because that when you hold this end piece on its own you see threads.
The end piece is on the right end of the photo that is the knurled piece removed.
(http://www.gennlab.com/3_PARKER_SILENCER2_PARTS.jpg)
-
Saying MOJs happen all the time is greatly inflating the number. In any event to suggest evidence was planted because it happened in other cases is simply arbitrary and not evaluating on the basis of evidence in this case. The number who think he is guilty and yet that evidence was planted is small and their basis of belief is just as arbitrary and unsupported as your opinion.
I didn't say MOJ's happen all the time. This is what I said:
"You seem oblivious to the fact wrongdoing, incompetence and miscarriage of justices happen all the time, in all walks of life and for a whole variety of reasons".
You only have to look at the UK's financial regulator's fines tables to witness wrongdoing and incompetence on a grand scale:
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/about/press/facts/fines
http://www.fca.org.uk/firms/being-regulated/enforcement/fines
At least in the financial services industry it is regulated and wrongdoing and incompetence are censured and punished and CEO's and others are banned from the industry. When the judicial system fails it largely falls under the radar. And when something goes wrong those responsible refuse to even apologise and are often rewarded for failure as in the Stefan Kiszko case where the QC responsible was made Home Secretary. Worse still those that break the law by way of pejury are let off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
You have put the cart before the horse. You decided it was planted and seek out evidence to support this view instead of following the evidence where it leads. Only if evidence leads to the conclusion it was planted is the view supported.
I'm of the opinion the silencer/blood evidence was fabricated as none of it makes sense.
I already listed the evidence. The document in question that notes scattered fragments has a line showing they were collected from inside the hole not on the outer surface and also indicated it is KM positive. That alone should clue you in that it was from inside. But if there is any doubt that is erased when you look at the fact that COLP said there was documented proof the lab notified police on 8/14/85 that blood was found inside the moderator. Why would the lab lie to police and state such if Howard had not found any blood inside? Furthermore Howard's statement says she removed blood from inside:
(http://s14.postimg.org/u4zsrjmlt/howardstatementbloodinsideandout.jpg)
Then you have the fact that right inside the opening Lincoln removed blood and typed it as group A.
I don't make things up. I cited the facts. If you want to claim someone planted it for her to find or that she planted it then removed it be my guest but denying she found any blood inside in order to avoid having to dela with it fails.
Do you think I made the quote up? Luckily I saved some snips I posted on blue.
Not only did she discuss it in her testimony in chief but also was cross examined about it
(http://s11.postimg.org/am4un3mwj/howardbloodtestimonymod.jpg)
(http://s18.postimg.org/nsv2wktmx/howardbloodtestimonymodcross.jpg)
I'm not Mike I don't make things up.
You didn't pay attention to her COLP statement at all. They had signed originals from her, the only difference is the signed originals refer to the moderator as DB/1. They re-typed it with the only change from her signed version being the new one referred to the moderator as DRB/1. She said she would have signed the new one if they asked her to do so. The signed versions say blood was found inside and out.
Lincoln removed the blood from inside the bore, that is what he called the end. He said he found it in the end that was threaded. He meant the end piece after it was removed.
That is also where Howard removed the blood from. He said there was no blood visible to the naked eye but enough was present to be able to test it and it was group A. The fact this blood was there for him to remove in 1986 means there was actually blood there inside.
This shows you the tip (End) removed from the moderator. The end screws into the tube. In order to be able to be screwed in the tube the end had to be threaded. This is threading Lincoln refers to where he found the blood. He found it not in the outside threading of this piece but inside the bore. He called it a threaded end because that when you hold this end piece on its own you see threads.
The end piece is on the right end of the photo that is the knurled piece removed.
(http://www.gennlab.com/3_PARKER_SILENCER2_PARTS.jpg)
The information is contradictory. In GH's initial report she refers to three blood stains on the outside of the silencer and confirms they are all KM positive. This corresponds with the findings of the CoA judges in 2002.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1026.0;attach=2053
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.
On the flat surface (bore end) GH refers to a stain and indicates it is KM positive. She also marks up "scattered fragments". Throughout the case I have only seen the blood referred to as "stains", "splashes" and "smears". My interpretation of the "scattered fragments" is that this refers to paint. However, even if I am wrong and GH did identify blood within the bore, as claimed at trial, it still doesn't make sense to me that JH found a "considerable amount" inside and yet the amount around the bore was of such small quantity that it required a microscope and cotton threads to be recovered. It also begs the question why GH didn't take it upon herself to see if the blood went beyond the bore and inside the actual silencer and/or take it up with others eg Malcolm Fletcher ballistics and/or John Hayward who it appears was her supervisor/manager? The fact the blood inside the actual silencer was not identified until a month later and after the silencer had left the lab and was then returned just doesn't sit right with me.
Dr Lincoln did not examine the silencer until 1986. The fact he found evidence of blood doesn't prove the blood was there as a result of SC's gunshot wounds/drawback
In the absence of high quality photographs or accurate drawings it is not clear what people are referring to. You say Dr Lincoln meant this that or the other but how do you know what he meant? How can any of this fill you with confidence about these people when the documents are of such poor quality that they are so open to interpretation? I could pick out numerous documents and find all sorts of inconsistencies and contradictions but what does it prove?
Blood pattern analysis should have played a part in the silencer/blood evidence but it didn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodstain_pattern_analysis
Dr Lincoln was an expert in blood serology not blood pattern analysis.
You have stated on numerous occasions that draw-back/back spatter results in high velocity spatter which presents as a fine mist like spray so how does this equate with a flake of blood measuring a 1/4 of an inch?
-
Saying MOJs happen all the time is greatly inflating the number. In any event to suggest evidence was planted because it happened in other cases is simply arbitrary and not evaluating on the basis of evidence in this case. The number who think he is guilty and yet that evidence was planted is small and their basis of belief is just as arbitrary and unsupported as your opinion.
You have put the cart before the horse. You decided it was planted and seek out evidence to support this view instead of following the evidence where it leads. Only if evidence leads to the conclusion it was planted is the view supported.
I already listed the evidence. The document in question that notes scattered fragments has a line showing they were collected from inside the hole not on the outer surface and also indicated it is KM positive. That alone should clue you in that it was from inside. But if there is any doubt that is erased when you look at the fact that COLP said there was documented proof the lab notified police on 8/14/85 that blood was found inside the moderator. Why would the lab lie to police and state such if Howard had not found any blood inside? Furthermore Howard's statement says she removed blood from inside:
(http://s14.postimg.org/u4zsrjmlt/howardstatementbloodinsideandout.jpg)
Then you have the fact that right inside the opening Lincoln removed blood and typed it as group A.
I don't make things up. I cited the facts. If you want to claim someone planted it for her to find or that she planted it then removed it be my guest but denying she found any blood inside in order to avoid having to dela with it fails.
Do you think I made the quote up? Luckily I saved some snips I posted on blue.
Not only did she discuss it in her testimony in chief but also was cross examined about it
(http://s11.postimg.org/am4un3mwj/howardbloodtestimonymod.jpg)
(http://s18.postimg.org/nsv2wktmx/howardbloodtestimonymodcross.jpg)
I'm not Mike I don't make things up.
You didn't pay attention to her COLP statement at all. They had signed originals from her, the only difference is the signed originals refer to the moderator as DB/1. They re-typed it with the only change from her signed version being the new one referred to the moderator as DRB/1. She said she would have signed the new one if they asked her to do so. The signed versions say blood was found inside and out.
Lincoln removed the blood from inside the bore, that is what he called the end. He said he found it in the end that was threaded. He meant the end piece after it was removed.
That is also where Howard removed the blood from. He said there was no blood visible to the naked eye but enough was present to be able to test it and it was group A. The fact this blood was there for him to remove in 1986 means there was actually blood there inside.
This shows you the tip (End) removed from the moderator. The end screws into the tube. In order to be able to be screwed in the tube the end had to be threaded. This is threading Lincoln refers to where he found the blood. He found it not in the outside threading of this piece but inside the bore. He called it a threaded end because that when you hold this end piece on its own you see threads.
The end piece is on the right end of the photo that is the knurled piece removed.
(http://www.gennlab.com/3_PARKER_SILENCER2_PARTS.jpg)
Where does Lincoln state that he was able to test the blood successfully for type A? The 2002 appeal doc states that the first eight plates gave a very weak positive reaction for blood but nothing about it being type A?
-
Where does Lincoln state that he was able to test the blood successfully for type A? The 2002 appeal doc states that the first eight plates gave a very weak positive reaction for blood but nothing about it being type A?
Scipio is referring to the thread end but imo it's all hopelessly unreliable with one document contradicting another and/or so much ambiguity you might as well not even bother reading them.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=923
-
I didn't say MOJ's happen all the time. This is what I said:
"You seem oblivious to the fact wrongdoing, incompetence and miscarriage of justices happen all the time, in all walks of life and for a whole variety of reasons".
You only have to look at the UK's financial regulator's fines tables to witness wrongdoing and incompetence on a grand scale:
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/about/press/facts/fines
http://www.fca.org.uk/firms/being-regulated/enforcement/fines
At least in the financial services industry it is regulated and wrongdoing and incompetence are censured and punished and CEO's and others are banned from the industry. When the judicial system fails it largely falls under the radar. And when something goes wrong those responsible refuse to even apologise and are often rewarded for failure as in the Stefan Kiszko case where the QC responsible was made Home Secretary. Worse still those that break the law by way of pejury are let off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
I'm of the opinion the silencer/blood evidence was fabricated as none of it makes sense.
It is the allegations of the blood being planted that make no sense.
Jeremy's claims that the rifle was unable to be stored with the moderator attached make no sense and in fact were obvious lies. His claims that Nevill kept removing the moderator and scope makes no sense and were obvious lies. Jeremy even changed his story during the course of the interrogation. He told Taff Jones that he last used the gun a week to fortnight before the murders. Stan Jones pointed out AP's statements about how the rifle was stored etc and suddenly Jeremy changed his story saying he and Nevill both continuously used it the week leading up to the murders and that sometimes Nevill removed the scope and moderator before putting it away while other times he left them attached. Jeremy said he used the gun however he happened to find it he didn't bother to use the accessories.
Jeremy was not known to grab the weapon to run after vermin so his story of getting the gun to shoot rabbits makes no sense. It makes even less sense when you look at the 3 different tales he told. He claimed he heard the rabbits from the kitchen, saw the rabbits from the kitchen and finally claimed he saw them while walking to the house and decided to get the gun to go pursue them. It makes no sense to think rabbits would still be there minutes later and the normal practice of vermin hunting is to either go around searching them out or simply to keep your weapon with you while working in case one happens to cross your path. If Jeremy had been known to run to get the gun anytime he saw rabbits it would be one thing but he wasn't known to shoot vermin period let alone to go grab the weapon anytime he saw any and hope they were still there. It still gets even worse though. it makes no sense to be in a hurry to load the weapon and instead of loading it in the office to take the gun and place it in the scullery then to go in the kitchen with the bullets and magazine to load it in the kitchen. His claim he always did that is absurd. In any event he claimed he took a full or near full box and dumped it out in the kitchen and loaded the magazine from it. A full box contains 50, 25 shots were fired thus no more than 25 bullets should have remained and yet there were 30 bullets in the kitchen. This makes no sense either. Nor would it make sense for Jeremy to leave the ammo and gun out as he claimed he did, particularly knowing the kids were staying over. It makes no sense for June and Nevill to leave the ammo and gun out either and June used the phone after the bullets were supposedly dumped next to it so would have to see them.
You ignore all these things that make no sense but on the other hand invent the notion that it would make no sense for Jeremy to use the moderator and no sense for any blood to be inside by inventing the notion that Jeremy would know all about drawback.
That same pretense is employed to pretend that the family and police would know all about drawback and be able to plant the blood. The excuses run the gamut from claiming they would have to know because they shot vermin to having to know because of being a registered gun dealer. It is these claims that make no sense.
The only people with the requisite knowledge would be the lab workers and yet there is no evidence at all to support any planting of evidence and suggestions the lab was involved in a fraud fare no better in terms of logic.
You completely flip things on their head.
The information is contradictory. In GH's initial report she refers to three blood stains on the outside of the silencer and confirms they are all KM positive. This corresponds with the findings of the CoA judges in 2002.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1026.0;attach=2053
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.
On the flat surface (bore end) GH refers to a stain and indicates it is KM positive. She also marks up "scattered fragments". Throughout the case I have only seen the blood referred to as "stains", "splashes" and "smears". My interpretation of the "scattered fragments" is that this refers to paint. However, even if I am wrong and GH did identify blood within the bore, as claimed at trial, it still doesn't make sense to me that JH found a "considerable amount" inside and yet the amount around the bore was of such small quantity that it required a microscope and cotton threads to be recovered. It also begs the question why GH didn't take it upon herself to see if the blood went beyond the bore and inside the actual silencer and/or take it up with others eg Malcolm Fletcher ballistics and/or John Hayward who it appears was her supervisor/manager? The fact the blood inside the actual silencer was not identified until a month later and after the silencer had left the lab and was then returned just doesn't sit right with me.
It doesn't sit right with you because of your bias. Your bias causes you to ignore that the drawing points to inside the bore and refers to blood being removed from the bore. Your bias causes you to ignore the evidence that proves police were told on 8/14/85 that blood had been found inside the moderator. Your biases causes you to assert that because the COA opinion failed to discuss Howard finding blood inside that such means she didn't even though she testified to such. You ignore that the blood she removed was not relevant to the appeal thus not mentioned and pretend that since it wasn't discussed that means it didn't exist. Your bias made you say that
her statement posted her and on blue was fraudulent because it was not signed though her COLP testimony explained why this particular copy was not signed and detailed that there were in fact signed copies with the same exact wording save the exhibit number of the moderator. Upon it being proven that she did in fact sign the statement and testify she found blood inside your bias makes you suggest Howard lied in her statement and on the stand about finding blood inside even though there is contemporaneous documentary evidence noting it and there is no reason for her to lie.
In her testimony she stated that she tried to unscrew the moderator but the end was too tight and that she didn't want to destroy potential fingerprint evidence by manhandling it so it was decided to first fingerprint it and then afterwards to do more thorough testing of the moderator by taking it apart. This makes perfect sense though your bias prevents you from admitting it. She went on sick leave in September that is why the case was handed over to Hayward in September, that makes sense too. Upon her return in November she gave her statement regarding the work she did.
Jeremy removed the scope because it would inhibit accurate aiming of the weapon at close quarters. This is the only reason to remove the scope that makes sense.
Jeremy didn't want victims in other rooms to wake up thus used the moderator, this makes perfect sense.
Sheila suffered a wound that would result in drawback and thus her blood got inside the moderator but not the rifle. This makes perfect sense.
Tiny amounts of high velocity backspatter got on the outside of the moderator, this makes perfect sense in a close quarter shooting.
When trying to stage the weapon on Sheila Jeremy realized it was too long with the moderator attached for Sheila to kill herself so he removed it, this makes perfect sense.
Jeremy didn't want police to know the moderator had been used because Sheila using it would be inconsistent with going crazy and it would be easier for Nevill to disarm her with it attached so he put it away in the closet hiding it. He didn't know anything about drawback so had no idea her blood would be inside and didn't see the 3 tiny blood stains so failed to clean those 3 stains off. He made up a story of leaving the gun out without the moderator attached and figured police would not go look for the moderator and he was right they didn't.
It is your bias not anything objective that causes you to say things do not make sense and to disbelieve the evidence. What you choose to believe is meaningless what you can prove is what matters and you can't prove a thing.
It does not bode well for you though to suggest that months later Howard lied about finding blood inside the moderator. Ignoring that her diagram shows blood found inside the bore and that police were notified of blood found inside on 8/14/85 and trying to pretend that months later she made the claim up makes you look like a dishonest hack. If you want to accuse her of planting blood and fabricating evidence then accuse her of doing so on 8/13 don't try to pretend she made up the blood months later when there is documentary evidence proving police were notified on 8/14 that blood was found in the bore and that her diagram shows it. You have no evidence she planted blood period but if you want to make accusations at least make ones around the evidence instead of simply ignoring the evidence and pretending evidence that is unfavorable doesn't exist.
Dr Lincoln did not examine the silencer until 1986. The fact he found evidence of blood doesn't prove the blood was there as a result of SC's gunshot wounds/drawback
It proves there really was group A blood right inside the bore where Howard said she found blood and that there really was blood on the first 8 baffles. Alleging that the lab made up finding blood is futile. If you want to accuse the of wrongdoing you have to allege they planted the blood and then removed it as opposed to claiming they simple made up that they found blood inside and did testing on material that was from a vile.
In the absence of high quality photographs or accurate drawings it is not clear what people are referring to. You say Dr Lincoln meant this that or the other but how do you know what he meant? How can any of this fill you with confidence about these people when the documents are of such poor quality that they are so open to interpretation? I could pick out numerous documents and find all sorts of inconsistencies and contradictions but what does it prove?
Blood pattern analysis should have played a part in the silencer/blood evidence but it didn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodstain_pattern_analysis
Dr Lincoln was an expert in blood serology not blood pattern analysis.
You have stated on numerous occasions that draw-back/back spatter results in high velocity spatter which presents as a fine mist like spray so how does this equate with a flake of blood measuring a 1/4 of an inch?
You claim her drawing is not accurate because of your bias, Howard says it is accurate.
I know what Lincoln meant because he was not insane. He explained which parts he tested, "Whilst at the Home Office Laboratory I examined the various components of the moderator for traces of blood...the end piece, the adjacent ring collar and 17 baffle plates."
The end piece means the piece the bore hole that unscrews to open the moderator up. He wrote, "I obtained the strongest positive reactions indicating the presence of blood on the screw thread on the inside at the end of the moderator, Weak of very weak positive reactions which could have indicated the presence of blood were detectable on the collar ring and the first 8 baffle plates. These reactions were all weak."
So he broke down what he found on each of the 3 sections. He first detailed blood found on the end piece with the bore then discussed the collar ring and finally the baffles. On the end piece with the bore he found the largest presence of blood. He said he found it INSIDE not outside. Only an insane person would think that blood would be in the outside threads as opposed to inside the bore of the end cap so even if he had not specified he found it inside the logical assumption would be he only tested the inside. The nuts at Justice For All chose to ignore such common sense and his own words of the blood being found inside and engaged in insane speculation that maybe Lincoln found the blood on the outside threads which the blood would have no way to get on until after the tip is unscrewed. Lincoln had no reason to test the outside threads but if he did so and found blood there he would not be insane and hold it out as evidence to support the prosecution. He would have claimed it was proof blood contaminated the threads at some point while it was apart. The fact Lincoln didn't make that claim is enough to say he wasn't claiming such but Justice For All investigated that anyway and it went no where. Anyone possessing reading comprehension skills and common sense understands that Lincoln found the blood inside the bore of the end piece not on the outside of the end piece.
Blood pattern analysis doesn't apply in the least to drawback. The characteristics of drawback is blood getting inside a weapon at depths greater than 5mm but no more than several inches. The blood will spray inside and thus go inside at different angles. In a barrel it often will get inside the rifling grooving. The quantity of blood will decrease as you get further inside. This is because the smaller blood particles travel further than the larger ones. The main difference with a moderators compared to barrels is that it is wider and instead of rifling it has obstructions. The same pattern will be observed of the largest blood particles near the front and fewer and fewer particles on each successive baffle. That is in fact what Hayward said he observed. Blood dries in flakes a flake a quarter of an inch in diameter is not very big. There was a substantial amount of blood available to go inside the weapon so this is not at all surprising. The moderator is not of a material that absorbs blood so what would happen to blood that falls to the bottom and pools? It would form into a flake. The experts do not find such odd you do only because of your bias not because of there is anything actually wrong with it.
-
Where does Lincoln state that he was able to test the blood successfully for type A? The 2002 appeal doc states that the first eight plates gave a very weak positive reaction for blood but nothing about it being type A?
In his report. "I have been able to perform tests for the ABO blood groups on material which I collected from the screw thread at the end of the moderator. I selected this material for testing because it produced the strongest positive reactions when I performed the screening tests for the presence of blood. The results obtained in these grouping tests demonstrated the presence of blood group A activity. This is consistent with the ABO grouping result obtained by Mr. Howard on blood from inside the moderator."
As just noted to Holly in my previous post Lincoln identified 3 different parts of the moderator he tested for the presence of blood 1) inside the end piece, 2) the collar ring and 3) the baffles. He said he got weak reactions on the collar ring and first 8 baffles but the strongest reaction on the blood he removed from the inside of the end piece.
He called it the threaded end piece because when it is apart you see the threads on the outside but he specified he found the blood inside. The logical place to look is inside the bore not on the outside threads which was hidden when it is on the moderator.
The appeal was only concerned with Lincoln's tests of the baffles because the issue before the court was DNA found on the baffles it is such DNA that the defense argued was June's mixed with Nevill's. The DNA in 5 other areas was Sheila's so the defense wanted to ignore that. In fact, that is one of the reasons why defense expert Webster presented all his theories on contamination. Obviously that undercut the defense as well though.
-
It is the allegations of the blood being planted that make no sense.
Jeremy's claims that the rifle was unable to be stored with the moderator attached make no sense and in fact were obvious lies. His claims that Nevill kept removing the moderator and scope makes no sense and were obvious lies. Jeremy even changed his story during the course of the interrogation. He told Taff Jones that he last used the gun a week to fortnight before the murders. Stan Jones pointed out AP's statements about how the rifle was stored etc and suddenly Jeremy changed his story saying he and Nevill both continuously used it the week leading up to the murders and that sometimes Nevill removed the scope and moderator before putting it away while other times he left them attached. Jeremy said he used the gun however he happened to find it he didn't bother to use the accessories.
Jeremy was not known to grab the weapon to run after vermin so his story of getting the gun to shoot rabbits makes no sense. It makes even less sense when you look at the 3 different tales he told. He claimed he heard the rabbits from the kitchen, saw the rabbits from the kitchen and finally claimed he saw them while walking to the house and decided to get the gun to go pursue them. It makes no sense to think rabbits would still be there minutes later and the normal practice of vermin hunting is to either go around searching them out or simply to keep your weapon with you while working in case one happens to cross your path. If Jeremy had been known to run to get the gun anytime he saw rabbits it would be one thing but he wasn't known to shoot vermin period let alone to go grab the weapon anytime he saw any and hope they were still there. It still gets even worse though. it makes no sense to be in a hurry to load the weapon and instead of loading it in the office to take the gun and place it in the scullery then to go in the kitchen with the bullets and magazine to load it in the kitchen. His claim he always did that is absurd. In any event he claimed he took a full or near full box and dumped it out in the kitchen and loaded the magazine from it. A full box contains 50, 25 shots were fired thus no more than 25 bullets should have remained and yet there were 30 bullets in the kitchen. This makes no sense either. Nor would it make sense for Jeremy to leave the ammo and gun out as he claimed he did, particularly knowing the kids were staying over. It makes no sense for June and Nevill to leave the ammo and gun out either and June used the phone after the bullets were supposedly dumped next to it so would have to see them.
You ignore all these things that make no sense but on the other hand invent the notion that it would make no sense for Jeremy to use the moderator and no sense for any blood to be inside by inventing the notion that Jeremy would know all about drawback.
That same pretense is employed to pretend that the family and police would know all about drawback and be able to plant the blood. The excuses run the gamut from claiming they would have to know because they shot vermin to having to know because of being a registered gun dealer. It is these claims that make no sense.
The only people with the requisite knowledge would be the lab workers and yet there is no evidence at all to support any planting of evidence and suggestions the lab was involved in a fraud fare no better in terms of logic.
You completely flip things on their head.
It doesn't sit right with you because of your bias. Your bias causes you to ignore that the drawing points to inside the bore and refers to blood being removed from the bore. Your bias causes you to ignore the evidence that proves police were told on 8/14/85 that blood had been found inside the moderator. Your biases causes you to assert that because the COA opinion failed to discuss Howard finding blood inside that such means she didn't even though she testified to such. You ignore that the blood she removed was not relevant to the appeal thus not mentioned and pretend that since it wasn't discussed that means it didn't exist. Your bias made you say that
her statement posted her and on blue was fraudulent because it was not signed though her COLP testimony explained why this particular copy was not signed and detailed that there were in fact signed copies with the same exact wording save the exhibit number of the moderator. Upon it being proven that she did in fact sign the statement and testify she found blood inside your bias makes you suggest Howard lied in her statement and on the stand about finding blood inside even though there is contemporaneous documentary evidence noting it and there is no reason for her to lie.
In her testimony she stated that she tried to unscrew the moderator but the end was too tight and that she didn't want to destroy potential fingerprint evidence by manhandling it so it was decided to first fingerprint it and then afterwards to do more thorough testing of the moderator by taking it apart. This makes perfect sense though your bias prevents you from admitting it. She went on sick leave in September that is why the case was handed over to Hayward in September, that makes sense too. Upon her return in November she gave her statement regarding the work she did.
Jeremy removed the scope because it would inhibit accurate aiming of the weapon at close quarters. This is the only reason to remove the scope that makes sense.
Jeremy didn't want victims in other rooms to wake up thus used the moderator, this makes perfect sense.
Sheila suffered a wound that would result in drawback and thus her blood got inside the moderator but not the rifle. This makes perfect sense.
Tiny amounts of high velocity backspatter got on the outside of the moderator, this makes perfect sense in a close quarter shooting.
When trying to stage the weapon on Sheila Jeremy realized it was too long with the moderator attached for Sheila to kill herself so he removed it, this makes perfect sense.
Jeremy didn't want police to know the moderator had been used because Sheila using it would be inconsistent with going crazy and it would be easier for Nevill to disarm her with it attached so he put it away in the closet hiding it. He didn't know anything about drawback so had no idea her blood would be inside and didn't see the 3 tiny blood stains so failed to clean those 3 stains off. He made up a story of leaving the gun out without the moderator attached and figured police would not go look for the moderator and he was right they didn't.
It is your bias not anything objective that causes you to say things do not make sense and to disbelieve the evidence. What you choose to believe is meaningless what you can prove is what matters and you can't prove a thing.
It does not bode well for you though to suggest that months later Howard lied about finding blood inside the moderator. Ignoring that her diagram shows blood found inside the bore and that police were notified of blood found inside on 8/14/85 and trying to pretend that months later she made the claim up makes you look like a dishonest hack. If you want to accuse her of planting blood and fabricating evidence then accuse her of doing so on 8/13 don't try to pretend she made up the blood months later when there is documentary evidence proving police were notified on 8/14 that blood was found in the bore and that her diagram shows it. You have no evidence she planted blood period but if you want to make accusations at least make ones around the evidence instead of simply ignoring the evidence and pretending evidence that is unfavorable doesn't exist.
It proves there really was group A blood right inside the bore where Howard said she found blood and that there really was blood on the first 8 baffles. Alleging that the lab made up finding blood is futile. If you want to accuse the of wrongdoing you have to allege they planted the blood and then removed it as opposed to claiming they simple made up that they found blood inside and did testing on material that was from a vile.
You claim her drawing is not accurate because of your bias, Howard says it is accurate.
I know what Lincoln meant because he was not insane. He explained which parts he tested, "Whilst at the Home Office Laboratory I examined the various components of the moderator for traces of blood...the end piece, the adjacent ring collar and 17 baffle plates."
The end piece means the piece the bore hole that unscrews to open the moderator up. He wrote, "I obtained the strongest positive reactions indicating the presence of blood on the screw thread on the inside at the end of the moderator, Weak of very weak positive reactions which could have indicated the presence of blood were detectable on the collar ring and the first 8 baffle plates. These reactions were all weak."
So he broke down what he found on each of the 3 sections. He first detailed blood found on the end piece with the bore then discussed the collar ring and finally the baffles. On the end piece with the bore he found the largest presence of blood. He said he found it INSIDE not outside. Only an insane person would think that blood would be in the outside threads as opposed to inside the bore of the end cap so even if he had not specified he found it inside the logical assumption would be he only tested the inside. The nuts at Justice For All chose to ignore such common sense and his own words of the blood being found inside and engaged in insane speculation that maybe Lincoln found the blood on the outside threads which the blood would have no way to get on until after the tip is unscrewed. Lincoln had no reason to test the outside threads but if he did so and found blood there he would not be insane and hold it out as evidence to support the prosecution. He would have claimed it was proof blood contaminated the threads at some point while it was apart. The fact Lincoln didn't make that claim is enough to say he wasn't claiming such but Justice For All investigated that anyway and it went no where. Anyone possessing reading comprehension skills and common sense understands that Lincoln found the blood inside the bore of the end piece not on the outside of the end piece.
Blood pattern analysis doesn't apply in the least to drawback. The characteristics of drawback is blood getting inside a weapon at depths greater than 5mm but no more than several inches. The blood will spray inside and thus go inside at different angles. In a barrel it often will get inside the rifling grooving. The quantity of blood will decrease as you get further inside. This is because the smaller blood particles travel further than the larger ones. The main difference with a moderators compared to barrels is that it is wider and instead of rifling it has obstructions. The same pattern will be observed of the largest blood particles near the front and fewer and fewer particles on each successive baffle. That is in fact what Hayward said he observed. Blood dries in flakes a flake a quarter of an inch in diameter is not very big. There was a substantial amount of blood available to go inside the weapon so this is not at all surprising. The moderator is not of a material that absorbs blood so what would happen to blood that falls to the bottom and pools? It would form into a flake. The experts do not find such odd you do only because of your bias not because of there is anything actually wrong with it.
Thank you for taking the time to provide a detailed response 8((()*/
I'm not convinced by a lot of subjectivity about rabbits and whether or not someone took a scope off or not etc, etc. I'm convinced by hard indisputable scientific facts. Science shows that dried blood stains recovered from a scene of crime require careful collection and preservation in order to yield blood test results. The silencer and flake of blood were not carefully collected and preserved; in fact anything but. Futhermore the size of the flake measuring 1/4 of an inch was way too small to yield the sort of results claimed.
http://www.helena.com/Literature/Book%20C3Rev6.pdf
(See Page 5)
"III.
Sample Extraction and Storage
To preserve enzymatic activity, any materials containing dried blood stains should be frozen. At the time of testing, cut a 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm piece of stained material from the original sample and place in a well with 2 to 3 drops of solvent".
You will note the 0.5cm x 0.5cm refers to each individual enzyme/protein test using gel electrophoresis.
http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/print/blood-print.html
(a little way down)
"Conventional serological analysis
Analysis of the proteins, enzymes, and antigens present in the blood. These substances are more susceptible to degradation than DNA and this type of testing usually requires a "large" sample (quarter size) in good condition for optimal results. This type of testing is rarely statistically individualizing".
Quarter size = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarter_%28United_States_coin%29
You seem to think that quality and quantity are irrelevant. They are not and in the fullness of time this will be demonstrated. The silencer/blood flake was fabricated period.
-
Thank you for taking the time to provide a detailed response 8((()*/
I'm not convinced by a lot of subjectivity about rabbits and whether or not someone took a scope off or not etc, etc. I'm convinced by hard indisputable scientific facts. Science shows that dried blood stains recovered from a scene of crime require careful collection and preservation in order to yield blood test results. The silencer and flake of blood were not carefully collected and preserved; in fact anything but. Futhermore the size of the flake measuring 1/4 of an inch was way too small to yield the sort of results claimed.
http://www.helena.com/Literature/Book%20C3Rev6.pdf
(See Page 5)
"III.
Sample Extraction and Storage
To preserve enzymatic activity, any materials containing dried blood stains should be frozen. At the time of testing, cut a 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm piece of stained material from the original sample and place in a well with 2 to 3 drops of solvent".
You will note the 0.5cm x 0.5cm refers to each individual enzyme/protein test using gel electrophoresis.
http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/print/blood-print.html
(a little way down)
"Conventional serological analysis
Analysis of the proteins, enzymes, and antigens present in the blood. These substances are more susceptible to degradation than DNA and this type of testing usually requires a "large" sample (quarter size) in good condition for optimal results. This type of testing is rarely statistically individualizing".
Quarter size = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarter_%28United_States_coin%29
You seem to think that quality and quantity are irrelevant. They are not and in the fullness of time this will be demonstrated. The silencer/blood flake was fabricated period.
I really don't believe that claim would stand up given that there is nothing to say how big it was - just a best guess. Hayward testified to having obtained results so you would have to accuse him and or his team of lying. This is yet more people to include in the conspiracy - for what reason would they fabricate the blood evidence?
-
I really don't believe that claim would stand up given that there is nothing to say how big it was - just a best guess. Hayward testified to having obtained results so you would have to accuse him and or his team of lying. This is yet more people to include in the conspiracy - for what reason would they fabricate the blood evidence?
Believe what you want to believe and let the science tell the truth.
464. Mr Webster made a number of points:
i) He suggested that the flake, which was a quarter of an inch across, might not have been a flake of blood but a flake of soot splattered with blood that had been mistaken by Mr Hayward for a flake of blood.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
I see a lot of parallels between the cases of Stefan Kiszko and JB.
- Four prosecution witnesses lied
- Detective superintendent and forensic scientist deliberately suppressed scientific tests which would have cleared Stefan Kiszko.
- Poor defence
- An unsuccessful COA
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
Prejudice based on what the lab were told about the case by the police and 'obedience to authority' are probably the most likely reasons. Remember the police and lab staff were both employed by the Home Office.
-
I see a lot of parallels here between Jeremy Bamber and Stephen Seddon - they're both greedy, scheming murderers who were determined to get their hands on their parents' wealth at any cost!
-
Believe what you want to believe and let the science tell the truth.
464. Mr Webster made a number of points:
i) He suggested that the flake, which was a quarter of an inch across, might not have been a flake of blood but a flake of soot splattered with blood that had been mistaken by Mr Hayward for a flake of blood.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
I see a lot of parallels between the cases of Stefan Kiszko and JB.
- Four prosecution witnesses lied
- Detective superintendent and forensic scientist deliberately suppressed scientific tests which would have cleared Stefan Kiszko.
- Poor defence
- An unsuccessful COA
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
Prejudice based on what the lab were told about the case by the police and 'obedience to authority' are probably the most likely reasons. Remember the police and lab staff were both employed by the Home Office.
1/4 of an inch was a best guess and the flake of soot theory was basically ridiculed. You must also have read Websters account of how difficult it would be to try and replicate the shooting and achieve similar results?
There are very few similarities between Bamber and Stefan Kiszko. It is clear why they fitted Stefan up, they didn't have anyone else to pin it on and he 'fit the stereotype' - he was a TRUE MOJ, whereas the police had Sheila as a suspect. There was no need to fit up an innocent man, changing from Sheila to Jeremy made them look stupid to boot and resulted in a lot of criticism. The lab certainly had no reason to fit up Jeremy whether they were employed by the Home Office or not, they were still scientists and would have been aware that their methods and findings would come under close scrutiny. At the end of the day, it would be Hayward that would be in the firing line if they had falsified the findings, so unless he had a real personal hatred of Bamber (which he clearly had no reason for), I very much doubt he would stick his neck on the line for EP.
-
Thank you for taking the time to provide a detailed response 8((()*/
I'm not convinced by a lot of subjectivity about rabbits and whether or not someone took a scope off or not etc, etc. I'm convinced by hard indisputable scientific facts. Science shows that dried blood stains recovered from a scene of crime require careful collection and preservation in order to yield blood test results. The silencer and flake of blood were not carefully collected and preserved; in fact anything but. Futhermore the size of the flake measuring 1/4 of an inch was way too small to yield the sort of results claimed.
http://www.helena.com/Literature/Book%20C3Rev6.pdf
(See Page 5)
"III.
Sample Extraction and Storage
To preserve enzymatic activity, any materials containing dried blood stains should be frozen. At the time of testing, cut a 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm piece of stained material from the original sample and place in a well with 2 to 3 drops of solvent".
You will note the 0.5cm x 0.5cm refers to each individual enzyme/protein test using gel electrophoresis.
http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/print/blood-print.html
(a little way down)
"Conventional serological analysis
Analysis of the proteins, enzymes, and antigens present in the blood. These substances are more susceptible to degradation than DNA and this type of testing usually requires a "large" sample (quarter size) in good condition for optimal results. This type of testing is rarely statistically individualizing".
Quarter size = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarter_%28United_States_coin%29
You seem to think that quality and quantity are irrelevant. They are not and in the fullness of time this will be demonstrated. The silencer/blood flake was fabricated period.
You have some desire to believe Jeremy was framed and thus the evidence was fabricated. You claim you are following science but in fact you simply are making up claims that the evidence could not have survived and could not have been present in order to find a way to pretend there is proof that the evidence was fabricated.
You make up hard rules that blood and enzymes can't possibly have survived though there are documented cases where evidence was tested months later successfully. Blood experts would have told the defense in 1986 that it was impossible if that were actually the case. You are not being driven by the evidence but rather decided what you want to believe and try to find some way to justify it.
Your claim that the blood evidence was fabricated period is simply wishful thinking on your part. You have zilch to establish it.
Here is what is required for the moderator evidence to have been fabricated:
1) By 8/13/85 someone planting tiny amounts of blood on the face of the moderator, inside the moderator bore, inside the knurled portion as well as on the tube.
2) someone deciding to also plant red paint in the knurled portion by 8/13/85
3) someone planting blood so it formed into the flake as well as blood on the first 8 baffles in diminishing quantity to mimic drawback
4) removing blood from the rifle muzzle and concealing that it had been found
Analysis:
A) Why would someone bother planting paint if they had planted blood?
B) Only someone who knew a lot about about the concept of drawback and also knew that Sheila had a wound that result in drawback would plant blood inside.
C) The person would thus also know about serology and have to find out Sheila's blood attributes and find a source of blood containing such attributes otherwise use her own blood
D) The blood on the baffles and flake in between the baffles would have to have been planted by 8/13/85 as well because how could someone be sure that Howard would choose not to open it up? If someone planted the blood found by Howard and then weeks later decided to plant more blood the person would have to have direct knowledge that Howard didn't open it up or Howard would be able to say it was not there when she looked at it and thus expose it as having been planted.
Since you suggest the blood was added later you are effectively arguing 3 different plantings:
I. very early on planting the blood that Howard removed
II. very early on planting red paint
III. Subsequent to the superglue fuming planting the flake and blood on the baffles
IV. In addition blood had to have been found in the rifle but the finding concealed
You have no evidence of 1 planting let alone 3 and it makes no sense to plant both paint and blood. You have no evidence anyone knew anything about the concept of drawback other than the lab and no evidence that anyone other than lab personnel figured out that drawback would result from Sheila's fatal wound. Not even Vanezis explored the issue until after the lab raised it.
You invent notions where any gun dealer or person who shoots would know about drawback though this is nonsense. There is not a single document where police posit drawback. Nothing where police asked Vanezis about the possibility of drawback occurring and if either would would result in drawback. Nothing where Vanzesis told police anything about drawback or even contemplated it yet kept it to himself. The police did not press the lab to do their blood work right away. Rather the police took their time to get it back to the lab after the superglue fuming had been done and the lab took weeks to then process it. It was the lab personnel who assessed Sheila had a wound that would result in drawback, that there would have been blood in the muzzle had it been used without the moderator but inside the moderator if it had been used, tested the rifle and found the muzzle free of blood, tested the moderator and discovered drawback was in fact present inside.
At most you can accuse the family or police of planting paint or the blood on the outside. They would have lacked the knowledge to plant it on the inside. Accusing them with no proof though means nothing.
You have to try to blame the lab of planing blood on the inside or soliciting others to do so and orchestrating the affair. Again accusing them with no proof amounts to nothing.
Why would the lab do so? The only way to accuse 1 person would be to say a lab worker planted it all right away on 8/13/85 before it was turned over to Howard and then Howard removed some but could not get it open so and left the rest or Howard planted it and for some odd reason left the blood she planted inside for a later date. That's the only way to say 1 person planted it all. Not one person knew on 8/13 though that Sheila suffered a wound that would result in drawback not even Howard.
It is extremely hard to believe one person did multiple plantings at different times let alone that multiple people decided to do multiple plantings.
Insisting this happened doesn't make it so. It is just what you want to believe despite there being no evidence to establish it happened. You want to believe it so badly you have convinced yourself that there is some scientific way to prove the blood could not have survived and been tested successfully and the fact it was tested successfully proves it was planted. You can believe this fallacy all you wish but it will not be able to sway others- especially not a court so at most its utility is to offer you solace so you can pretend to yourself that your support of Jeremy is scientific not for some subjective bias. Beyond that it is of no value.
Telling me just you wait and see is no better than Linus telling Charlie Brown just you wait till next year the Great Pumpkin surely will come. He wanted to believe in the Great Pumpkin no matter what and that was that. You are free to believe as you wish but I prefer facing reality.
-
1/4 of an inch was a best guess and the flake of soot theory was basically ridiculed. You must also have read Websters account of how difficult it would be to try and replicate the shooting and achieve similar results?
There are very few similarities between Bamber and Stefan Kiszko. It is clear why they fitted Stefan up, they didn't have anyone else to pin it on and he 'fit the stereotype' - he was a TRUE MOJ, whereas the police had Sheila as a suspect. There was no need to fit up an innocent man, changing from Sheila to Jeremy made them look stupid to boot and resulted in a lot of criticism. The lab certainly had no reason to fit up Jeremy whether they were employed by the Home Office or not, they were still scientists and would have been aware that their methods and findings would come under close scrutiny. At the end of the day, it would be Hayward that would be in the firing line if they had falsified the findings, so unless he had a real personal hatred of Bamber (which he clearly had no reason for), I very much doubt he would stick his neck on the line for EP.
Really? How did the appeal court judges arrive at a 1/4 inch then?
-
Really? How did the appeal court judges arrive at a 1/4 inch then?
Because that was Hayward's guess as to the size. Quite obviously it was neither a perfectly round flake nor square so the size was not uniform from every measurement angle. This was just an approximate to give some frame of reference. He also guessed on the number of baffles that had blood, he failed to write down how many had blood. He guessed 5-7 but Lincoln proved it was actually 8. Was he as far off on the size? Who knows...
-
Because that was Hayward's guess as to the size. Quite obviously it was neither a perfectly round flake nor square so the size was not uniform from every measurement angle. This was just an approximate to give some frame of reference. He also guessed on the number of baffles that had blood, he failed to write down how many had blood. He guessed 5-7 but Lincoln proved it was actually 8. Was he as far off on the size? Who knows...
So no photographs then? What about a drawing?
-
Caroline/Scipio
You have both said the size of the flake apparently found inside the silencer is unknown/guessed at. So unlike Glynis who made a drawing of the outside of the silencer with an indication of the size of blood stains along with their location no one drew the inside of the silencer with similar information? Is that correct? Is that what you're saying?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg317631#msg317631
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg318033#msg318033
-
Caroline/Scipio
You have both said the size of the flake apparently found inside the silencer is unknown/guessed at. So unlike Glynis who made a drawing of the outside of the silencer with an indication of the size of blood stains along with their location no one drew the inside of the silencer with similar information? Is that correct? Is that what you're saying?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg317631#msg317631
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg318033#msg318033
I'm saying that he didn't carefully measure the flake from every angle to come up with exact dimensions. He either measured one dimension and found it to be about a quarter inch or he simply estimated the size as 1/4 inch and that is what he ran with.
Howard measured the size of stains before she removed any blood. Those measurements no doubt were at the widest point of the stains.
Neither of them took photos before removing blood to test. In that era photos were not taken routinely except when you need to capture something like a finger print or the like because you can blow up and analyze a photo.
The sketch done was to illustrate generally where the blood had been obviously the drawings were not to scale. I draw far worse so am in no position to criticize. Hayward didn't do any sketch and later could not even recall precisely where the flake had been. He simply knew the flake was either under the first or second baffle.
-
I'm saying that he didn't carefully measure the flake from every angle to come up with exact dimensions. He either measured one dimension and found it to be about a quarter inch or he simply estimated the size as 1/4 inch and that is what he ran with.
Howard measured the size of stains before she removed any blood. Those measurements no doubt were at the widest point of the stains.
Neither of them took photos before removing blood to test. In that era photos were not taken routinely except when you need to capture something like a finger print or the like because you can blow up and analyze a photo.
The sketch done was to illustrate generally where the blood had been obviously the drawings were not to scale. I draw far worse so am in no position to criticize. Hayward didn't do any sketch and later could not even recall precisely where the flake had been. He simply knew the flake was either under the first or second baffle.
Thanks Scipio.
Does Caroline agree?
-
Really? How did the appeal court judges arrive at a 1/4 inch then?
I believe that information was supplied by Webster
19. Q. -- following a visit that you had made to the Huntington Laboratory on 6th
April?
20. A. Yes, that is correct.
21. Q. At that time, were you seeking to understand the way in which Dr
Hayward had examined the blood in the silencer in this case?
22. A. Yes. I had gone on to the laboratory at the request of an organisation
called the Manchester McKenzie Organisation (inaudible) solicitors, to look
at this case. I was interested in the way the flake had been tested and I was
also going to have a look at the actual blood grouping results that had
been obtained.
23. Q. In terms of that visit, did you get information firstly that led you to an
opinion as to the probable size of the flake that was recovered from the
silencer at the time?
24. A. I had an idea of what size of flake would be considered appropriate for
the number of blood grouping tests that had been attempted and I had the
opportunity then to ask questions of Mr Hayward.
25. Q. Did you come away with an impression firstly of the size of the flake?
26. A. Yes, I did. Those two pieces of information lead me to believe that it might
have been a flake of perhaps a quarter of an inch across.
27. MR JUSTICE WRIGHT: How much across?
28. A. About a quarter of an inch across. A flake smaller than that, I do not think
scientists would have attempted the battery of blood grouping tests that
were ultimately attempted. I think you would be looking at a flake that size.
29. MR JUSTICE WRIGHT: So that is a minimum of a quarter of an inch, is it?
30. A. Yes. I think if it was any larger, it would not have come out of the
(inaudible).
31. MR TURNER: For the sake of completeness, was it your understanding
whether any notes taken at the time of Dr Hayward's testing of this flake
were as to the size of the flake?
32. A. I have seen the notes, or rather copies of them. There is no indication as to
the size of the flake.
33. Q. Okay. So that is your impression.
-
I believe that information was supplied by Webster - doc uploaded below.
19. Q. -- following a visit that you had made to the Huntington Laboratory on 6th
April?
20. A. Yes, that is correct.
21. Q. At that time, were you seeking to understand the way in which Dr
Hayward had examined the blood in the silencer in this case?
22. A. Yes. I had gone on to the laboratory at the request of an organisation
called the Manchester McKenzie Organisation (inaudible) solicitors, to look
at this case. I was interested in the way the flake had been tested and I was
also going to have a look at the actual blood grouping results that had
been obtained.
23. Q. In terms of that visit, did you get information firstly that led you to an
opinion as to the probable size of the flake that was recovered from the
silencer at the time?
24. A. I had an idea of what size of flake would be considered appropriate for
the number of blood grouping tests that had been attempted and I had the
opportunity then to ask questions of Mr Hayward.
25. Q. Did you come away with an impression firstly of the size of the flake?
26. A. Yes, I did. Those two pieces of information lead me to believe that it might
have been a flake of perhaps a quarter of an inch across.
27. MR JUSTICE WRIGHT: How much across?
28. A. About a quarter of an inch across. A flake smaller than that, I do not think
scientists would have attempted the battery of blood grouping tests that
were ultimately attempted. I think you would be looking at a flake that size.
29. MR JUSTICE WRIGHT: So that is a minimum of a quarter of an inch, is it?
30. A. Yes. I think if it was any larger, it would not have come out of the
(inaudible).
31. MR TURNER: For the sake of completeness, was it your understanding
whether any notes taken at the time of Dr Hayward's testing of this flake
were as to the size of the flake?
32. A. I have seen the notes, or rather copies of them. There is no indication as to
the size of the flake.
33. Q. Okay. So that is your impression.
-
Caroline/Scipio
You have both said the size of the flake apparently found inside the silencer is unknown/guessed at. So unlike Glynis who made a drawing of the outside of the silencer with an indication of the size of blood stains along with their location no one drew the inside of the silencer with similar information? Is that correct? Is that what you're saying?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg317631#msg317631
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg318033#msg318033
I believe that Hayward did say he did drawings - I've read it recently, will try and find it.
-
I believe that Hayward did say he did drawings - I've read it recently, will try and find it.
On blue very little was posted directly from Hayward. There was a short statement only as far as I remember. Most of his claims had to be pieced together from what Lincoln and others reported that he told them. I once asked Mike to post his testimony but Mike never posts what people ask for...
-
On blue very little was posted directly from Hayward. There was a short statement only as far as I remember. Most of his claims had to be pieced together from what Lincoln and others reported that he told them. I once asked Mike to post his testimony but Mike never posts what people ask for...
Don't think I read it on the forum Scip. Hopefully I have saved it somewhere.
-
Don't think I read it on the forum Scip. Hopefully I have saved it somewhere.
Thanks for looking Caro. Do lets us know if it turns up.
-
1/4 of an inch was a best guess and the flake of soot theory was basically ridiculed. You must also have read Websters account of how difficult it would be to try and replicate the shooting and achieve similar results?
There are very few similarities between Bamber and Stefan Kiszko. It is clear why they fitted Stefan up, they didn't have anyone else to pin it on and he 'fit the stereotype' - he was a TRUE MOJ, whereas the police had Sheila as a suspect. There was no need to fit up an innocent man, changing from Sheila to Jeremy made them look stupid to boot and resulted in a lot of criticism. The lab certainly had no reason to fit up Jeremy whether they were employed by the Home Office or not, they were still scientists and would have been aware that their methods and findings would come under close scrutiny. At the end of the day, it would be Hayward that would be in the firing line if they had falsified the findings, so unless he had a real personal hatred of Bamber (which he clearly had no reason for), I very much doubt he would stick his neck on the line for EP.
Sounded pretty crazy to me! But there again what do you make of this from John Hayward?
472. Mr Hayward, in contrast, has we are satisfied taken some steps to satisfy himself that he is right. He started from the proposition clearly supported by evidence that within the sound moderator there would be a very turbulent motion when the rifle was discharged. This by its very nature would produce forces that would tend to mix the blood from the two sources. In addition, the unscrewing of the sound moderator to remove it involved a twisting motion through a number of complete turns, which again would facilitate mixing.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* Sounds very scientific!
If a turbulent motion exists in the moderator after discharge of the semi-auto rifle how does this affect accuracy with a number of shots fired in quick succession?
Blood is a non-Newtonian fluid and it depends on the shear rate or shear rate history. Many branches of science are involved in blood pattern analysis.
This is just a complete joke!
-
1/4 of an inch was a best guess and the flake of soot theory was basically ridiculed. You must also have read Websters account of how difficult it would be to try and replicate the shooting and achieve similar results?
There are very few similarities between Bamber and Stefan Kiszko. It is clear why they fitted Stefan up, they didn't have anyone else to pin it on and he 'fit the stereotype' - he was a TRUE MOJ, whereas the police had Sheila as a suspect. There was no need to fit up an innocent man, changing from Sheila to Jeremy made them look stupid to boot and resulted in a lot of criticism. The lab certainly had no reason to fit up Jeremy whether they were employed by the Home Office or not, they were still scientists and would have been aware that their methods and findings would come under close scrutiny. At the end of the day, it would be Hayward that would be in the firing line if they had falsified the findings, so unless he had a real personal hatred of Bamber (which he clearly had no reason for), I very much doubt he would stick his neck on the line for EP.
It seems a drawing of the inside of the silencer does exist. Have you seen sight of this Caro?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=931
No I don't think I've seen this so would be grateful if you could provide.
-
1/4 of an inch was a best guess and the flake of soot theory was basically ridiculed. You must also have read Websters account of how difficult it would be to try and replicate the shooting and achieve similar results?
There are very few similarities between Bamber and Stefan Kiszko. It is clear why they fitted Stefan up, they didn't have anyone else to pin it on and he 'fit the stereotype' - he was a TRUE MOJ, whereas the police had Sheila as a suspect. There was no need to fit up an innocent man, changing from Sheila to Jeremy made them look stupid to boot and resulted in a lot of criticism. The lab certainly had no reason to fit up Jeremy whether they were employed by the Home Office or not, they were still scientists and would have been aware that their methods and findings would come under close scrutiny. At the end of the day, it would be Hayward that would be in the firing line if they had falsified the findings, so unless he had a real personal hatred of Bamber (which he clearly had no reason for), I very much doubt he would stick his neck on the line for EP.
For those of us who believe JB is the victim of a MoJ I think the similarities are all too clear to see.
If it was clear SK was fitted up why did he remain in jail for 16 years? Why did his mother contact all manner of people including the Queen, the late PM's Mrs T and James Callaghan and her local MP, the late lardy lump Cyril Smith, only to get the door closed in her face? SK also had his conviction upheld at a CoA hearing.
Yes I agree SK fit the stereotypical image of a child murderer/criminal: awkward/clumsy in appearance and manner and a non Anglo Saxon name to boot. You have studied psychology at degree level so you will have covered prejudice.
With the benefit of hindsight he was a "TRUE MOJ" but if we were discussing the case on the forums pre Campbell Malone's involvement and quashed conviction would we all see him as a "TRUE MOJ"? I very much doubt it.
Yes the police initially proceded with the WHF case on the basis of four murders one suicide with SC responsible. But this is often the case with criminal cases. It takes time to process the Soc etc and in the interim suspects are questioned and held. EP were unable to hold and question SC for obvious reasons. The relatives did a sterling job in convincing EP SC could not have been responsible ergo JB was placed firmly in the frame. Both siblings had a legitimate right to be at WHF and handle the contents including the rifle. In 1985/6 forensic science wasn't what it is today so in the absence of any forensic/scientific evidence, rumour, innuendo, prejudice and subjectivity filled the void along with a bit of noble cause corruption ie the silencer/blood evidence to seal JB's fate.
-
For those of us who believe JB is the victim of a MoJ I think the similarities are all too clear to see.
If it was clear SK was fitted up why did he remain in jail for 16 years? Why did his mother contact all manner of people including the Queen, the late PM's Mrs T and James Callaghan and her local MP, the late lardy lump Cyril Smith, only to get the door closed in her face? SK also had his conviction upheld at a CoA hearing.
Yes I agree SK fit the stereotypical image of a child murderer/criminal: awkward/clumsy in appearance and manner and a non Anglo Saxon name to boot. You have studied psychology at degree level so you will have covered prejudice.
With the benefit of hindsight he was a "TRUE MOJ" but if we were discussing the case on the forums pre Campbell Malone's involvement and quashed conviction would we all see him as a "TRUE MOJ"? I very much doubt it.
Yes the police initially proceded with the WHF case on the basis of four murders one suicide with SC responsible. But this is often the case with criminal cases. It takes time to process the Soc etc and in the interim suspects are questioned and held. EP were unable to hold and question SC for obvious reasons. The relatives did a sterling job in convincing EP SC could not have been responsible ergo JB was placed firmly in the frame. Both siblings had a legitimate right to be at WHF and handle the contents including the rifle. In 1985/6 forensic science wasn't what it is today so in the absence of any forensic/scientific evidence, rumour, innuendo, prejudice and subjectivity filled the void along with a bit of noble cause corruption ie the silencer/blood evidence to seal JB's fate.
Jeremy placed himself in the frame when he said he received a call from Nevill - it was his alibi but ironically, it was also the thing that made him a suspect.
-
It seems a drawing of the inside of the silencer does exist. Have you seen sight of this Caro?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=931
No I don't think I've seen this so would be grateful if you could provide.
You must have missed this post on the previous page? The relevant link it posted at the bottom of the post.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg318075#msg318075
-
Jeremy placed himself in the frame when he said he received a call from Nevill - it was his alibi but ironically, it was also the thing that made him a suspect.
I very much doubt a jury would find guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of whether or not a phone call was made. In the absence of satellite/digital technology proving or disproving the call it's entirely subjective.
I assume when you believed JB innocent you also believed he received a call from NB?
You've stated you don't believe the blood/silencer evidence so I'm assuming you believe this was fabricated? Why would investigators/prosecutors need to fabricate evidence if the case against JB was strong?
-
You must have missed this post on the previous page? The relevant link it posted at the bottom of the post.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg318075#msg318075
Thanks. When you posted "You must also have read Websters account of how difficult it would be to try and replicate the shooting and achieve similar results?" I was expecting something about blood pattern analysis.
-
Thanks. When you posted "You must also have read Websters account of how difficult it would be to try and replicate the shooting and achieve similar results?" I was expecting something about blood pattern analysis.
You're hard to please woman! 8(8-)) @)(++(*
-
Sounded pretty crazy to me! But there again what do you make of this from John Hayward?
472. Mr Hayward, in contrast, has we are satisfied taken some steps to satisfy himself that he is right. He started from the proposition clearly supported by evidence that within the sound moderator there would be a very turbulent motion when the rifle was discharged. This by its very nature would produce forces that would tend to mix the blood from the two sources. In addition, the unscrewing of the sound moderator to remove it involved a twisting motion through a number of complete turns, which again would facilitate mixing.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* Sounds very scientific!
If a turbulent motion exists in the moderator after discharge of the semi-auto rifle how does this affect accuracy with a number of shots fired in quick succession?
Blood is a non-Newtonian fluid and it depends on the shear rate or shear rate history. Many branches of science are involved in blood pattern analysis.
This is just a complete joke!
You have to be aware that the point of impact is different when using a moderator. It has to be taken into account during the aiming process. In general tighter grouping is possible with moderators. This can be because less recoil allows greater accuracy but in addition can be a result of the affects on the ballistics of the bullet. The affects are minor though we are not talking about an ordinary shooter being turned into a marksman. When a moderator is used the velocity of bullets is much more uniform than without. There is always some velocity deviation but the deviation is greater when a moderator is not used versus when one is. Any such benefits are quite minor and the real value of a moderator is in protecting a shooter's hearing/keeping targets from being able to know where you are or react before the bullets hit. If sound moderators had no sound benefits and simply resulted in the other attributes no one would bother. The reduction in recoil etc would not be significant enough to warrant their use. There are other types of moderators including flash suppressors. Military weapons are fitted with flash suppressors to reduce flash so the enemy will not be able to use the flash to identify your position as easily.
-
You're hard to please woman! 8(8-)) @)(++(*
I went back to read your post and missed the PDF first time around. Excellent thanks just what I was looking for 8((()*/
It's so funny Mark Webster trying to explain extremely complex matters to the three appeal court judges who obviously have no idea whatsoever about the subject matter @)(++(* At times you can sense Mark Webster's frustration. Michael Turner sounds ineffectual with Victor Temple completely dominating the show ?>)()<
The document is worthy of a thread in it's own right.
-
You have to be aware that the point of impact is different when using a moderator. It has to be taken into account during the aiming process. In general tighter grouping is possible with moderators. This can be because less recoil allows greater accuracy but in addition can be a result of the affects on the ballistics of the bullet. The affects are minor though we are not talking about an ordinary shooter being turned into a marksman. When a moderator is used the velocity of bullets is much more uniform than without. There is always some velocity deviation but the deviation is greater when a moderator is not used versus when one is. Any such benefits are quite minor and the real value of a moderator is in protecting a shooter's hearing/keeping targets from being able to know where you are or react before the bullets hit. If sound moderators had no sound benefits and simply resulted in the other attributes no one would bother. The reduction in recoil etc would not be significant enough to warrant their use. There are other types of moderators including flash suppressors. Military weapons are fitted with flash suppressors to reduce flash so the enemy will not be able to use the flash to identify your position as easily.
As far as I can see it's not about ballistics per se? But whether any motion in the silencer from firearm discharge would cause a heterogeneous blood flake to intimately mix. Imo it's all irrelevant as I don't believe the blood flake represented a mix of NB and June's blood but it does show how incompetent these people are to comment on this. I'm no expert, far from it, but I know enough to realise that the people at this hearing were not qualified in this area which Mark Webster does actually admit to.
Mark Webster tells the hearing he is unable to identify any other case of blood drawn into a silencer from a contact gunshot wound and yet the whole hearing is based on the possibility of this happening twice: a gunshot wound to each of NB and June.
Mark Webster is a biologist. Whether or not a heterogeneous blood flake wound intimately mix in the silencer as a result of any turbulence requires experts in ballistics and physics.
What happens when the gasses (Newtonian liquid) from the burning propellant exiting the silencer collide with blood (non-Newtonian liquid) from the gunshot wound entering the silencer? They completely missed that. Any mathematical calculations? Nah.
What an absolute joke!
Imo it's not a case of whether or not heterogenous blood flake representing a mix of of NB and June's blood would intimately mix as a result of turbelence in the silencer but exploring the following:
1) Whether draw-back is possible with a silencer, the .22 rifle and subsonic hollow point bullets
2) How any blood from draw-back would distribute in the silencer
3) Whether a single blood particle representive of the blood flake from baffle 1/2 (John Hayward said the blood he tested came from a single source ie a flake) as a result of the potential for draw-back taking place is capable of being blood typed based on the environment in the silencer immediately after discharge of the rifle and later exposure to the fuming chamber along with time at ambient temperature.
Mark Webster wanted FSS to set up experiments but he was "rebuffed". Now why am I not suprised by this!
It also transpires that the chief scientist at the FSS was a Dr Alan Scaplehorn who is a dentist!
http://www.checkcompany.co.uk/director/10740112/DOCTOR-ALAN-SCAPLEHORN
-
I very much doubt a jury would find guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of whether or not a phone call was made. In the absence of satellite/digital technology proving or disproving the call it's entirely subjective.
If one doesn't believe the call was made then it means Jeremy must be guilty because he would have no way of knowing anything happened period unless he were there and falsely saying he got a call blaming Sheila is proof he was trying to frame her.
Whether one believes his claim he received such call is thus critical. The indicia of whether he received the call requires looking at his claims and his reactions. This is one of the things that had the biggest impact in me recognizing his guilt.
1) It seems implausible that Nevill would call Jeremy to disarm Sheila instead of doing it himself
2) It seems implausible that Nevill would get a chance to call Jeremy if Sheila were holding a gun on him.
3) The evidence establishes Nevill and June were attacked in the bedroom where there was no phone, this is where the episode began not in the kitchen.
4) Jeremy's false claim that he immediately called back upon the phone being disconnected
5) Jeremy's false claim that upon being unable to call back he immediately called police when in fact he called Julie.
6) When Jeremy did finally get around to calling police instead of calling 999 like someone w ho actually received the message he claimed would do he wasted time looking up phone numbers. After he found the phones unmanned at the first station he called he looked up another instead of calling 999 at that point even.
7) Not only did he have a lack of urgency before calling police he showed the same lack of urgency at the scene and even lied to police about Sheila's capability with weapons and how many there were scaring the police into inaction. Instead of begging police to do something he waited patiently for hours. He only went to the scene because police asked him to go there. Someone else would have either gone there before calling police or after without being prompted to do so.
This is without even taking into account that the moderator evidence establishes the call didn't happen and Julie ratting him out. The above is more than sufficient for a juror to believe the call didn't happen. If tha tis what one believes then Jeremy is toast.
-
If one doesn't believe the call was made then it means Jeremy must be guilty because he would have no way of knowing anything happened period unless he were there and falsely saying he got a call blaming Sheila is proof he was trying to frame her.
Whether one believes his claim he received such call is thus critical. The indicia of whether he received the call requires looking at his claims and his reactions. This is one of the things that had the biggest impact in me recognizing his guilt.
1) It seems implausible that Nevill would call Jeremy to disarm Sheila instead of doing it himself
2) It seems implausible that Nevill would get a chance to call Jeremy if Sheila were holding a gun on him.
3) The evidence establishes Nevill and June were attacked in the bedroom where there was no phone, this is where the episode began not in the kitchen.
4) Jeremy's false claim that he immediately called back upon the phone being disconnected
5) Jeremy's false claim that upon being unable to call back he immediately called police when in fact he called Julie.
6) When Jeremy did finally get around to calling police instead of calling 999 like someone w ho actually received the message he claimed would do he wasted time looking up phone numbers. After he found the phones unmanned at the first station he called he looked up another instead of calling 999 at that point even.
7) Not only did he have a lack of urgency before calling police he showed the same lack of urgency at the scene and even lied to police about Sheila's capability with weapons and how many there were scaring the police into inaction. Instead of begging police to do something he waited patiently for hours. He only went to the scene because police asked him to go there. Someone else would have either gone there before calling police or after without being prompted to do so.
This is without even taking into account that the moderator evidence establishes the call didn't happen and Julie ratting him out. The above is more than sufficient for a juror to believe the call didn't happen. If tha tis what one believes then Jeremy is toast.
The phone calls are not capable of being proved one way or the other. On the other hand the silencer and blood evidence can be proved by way of further forensic testing.
-
As far as I can see it's not about ballistics per se? But whether any motion in the silencer from firearm discharge would cause a heterogeneous blood flake to intimately mix. Imo it's all irrelevant as I don't believe the blood flake represented a mix of NB and June's blood but it does show how incompetent these people are to comment on this. I'm no expert, far from it, but I know enough to realise that the people at this hearing were not qualified in this area which Mark Webster does actually admit to.
Mark Webster tells the hearing he is unable to identify any other case of blood drawn into a silencer from a contact gunshot wound and yet the whole hearing is based on the possibility of this happening twice: a gunshot wound to each of NB and June.
Mark Webster is a biologist. Whether or not a heterogeneous blood flake wound intimately mix in the silencer as a result of any turbulence requires experts in ballistics and physics.
What happens when the gasses (Newtonian liquid) from the burning propellant exiting the silencer collide with blood (non-Newtonian liquid) from the gunshot wound entering the silencer? They completely missed that. Any mathematical calculations? Nah.
What an absolute joke!
Imo it's not a case of whether or not heterogenous blood flake representing a mix of of NB and June's blood would intimately mix as a result of turbelence in the silencer but exploring the following:
1) Whether draw-back is possible with a silencer, the .22 rifle and subsonic hollow point bullets
2) How any blood from draw-back would distribute in the silencer
3) Whether a single blood particle representive of the blood flake from baffle 1/2 (John Hayward said the blood he tested came from a single source ie a flake) as a result of the potential for draw-back taking place is capable of being blood typed based on the environment in the silencer immediately after discharge of the rifle and later exposure to the fuming chamber along with time at ambient temperature.
Mark Webster wanted FSS to set up experiments but he was "rebuffed". Now why am I not suprised by this!
It also transpires that the chief scientist at the FSS was a Dr Alan Scaplehorn who is a dentist!
http://www.checkcompany.co.uk/director/10740112/DOCTOR-ALAN-SCAPLEHORN
Here's the PDF for the CoA hearing
-
The phone calls are not capable of being proved one way or the other. On the other hand the silencer and blood evidence can be proved by way of further forensic testing.
No it can't, dearest, because there's no original blood left to put in it!
-
No it can't, dearest, because there's no original blood left to put in it!
We don't need blood from the victims. Blood is blood and behaves in predicatable ways in terms of distribution and ability to be typed. A bit like water from your tap and water from my tap will reach boiling point at the same temp. And if we both fired a water pistol at a window using water from our individual taps the droplets will behave in the same way. It's all to do with continuum mechanics/fluid mechanics/rheology.
There's huge potential here to undermine the silencer/blood evidence. To date testing has been based on attempts to demonstrate the blood in the silencer might have been representative of NB and June's blood (with SC returning the silencer to the gun cupboard). And/or tests in an attempt to prove the silencer wasn't used eg the US tests.
I want to take a different approach and go for an all out attack discrediting the blood and silencer based on fabrication. Imo this is the only way to go as this is what I believe the blood/silencer represents.
-
The phone calls are not capable of being proved one way or the other. On the other hand the silencer and blood evidence can be proved by way of further forensic testing.
Jeremy is the one who needs to prove the phonecall happened. You seem to suffer from the delusion that a jury must accept Jeremy's claims as true unless there is 100% evidence to disprove it. This is patently false. A jury decides whether or not to believe the claims of a witness including a defendant.
I listed the various things that cut against Jeremy's claims being true. In the eyes of the law those reasons are more than sufficient to reject Jeremy's claim that the call happened.
In light of the fact that the shooting commenced in the bedroom with both parents being shot there and June being shot while she was still lying down in the bed it is crystal clear that the phone call didn't happen. Jeremy supporters can't come up with any plausible scenarios to account for June staying in bed and both parents being shot there together if Nevill phoned Jeremy for help. The few suggestions tossed out there were all pitiful.
Even setting aside the logistical issues there is not a plausible scenario where Nevill would call Jeremy to help. There is no reason why Jeremy would be summoned. By Jeremy's own admission he would have made matters worse not better. He had no calming effect over his sister. The only one known to have a calming effect was Nevill. In physical terms Nevill towered over Sheila and was very strong and had no need to ask Jeremy to come to disarm her. If he was panicked then time was of the essence and he would need to disarm her himself not wait for someone to dress and come. If she had the gun then walked out of the kitchen he would do everything in his power to follow and make sure she didn't harm his wife and grandkids. If too scared to follow and confront her without a weapon then upon her leaving he would have taken advantage of that opportunity to arm himself. The notion that right in front of her he grabbed the phone and called Jeremy as she was holding a weapon on him is ludicrous. The notion he called then she returned in the middle of the call and pushed the button down to disconnect the call is not the least bit credible. If she did that then she would have had only 1 hand on the weapon and have been too close to be able to point it at him with her other hand so would have been a prime opportunity to take it away from her. Nor is it credible that she hung up the phone then took it back off the hook and marched him upstairs at gunpoint to shoot them together.
Whether something seems credible or not plays a big role in whether to believe it happened.
There is no way to account for Sheila suddenly having a psychotic episode after going to bed and grabbing the gun and then waking up the family and June staying in her bed leaving the boys in their beds as Nevill tried to talk to her in the kitchen let alone for such to happen and in addition for Nevill to decided to call Jeremy to come to disarm her. It was a bad lie to make up. If Jeremy was known to have a calming effect on her then in that case saying he was called to come calm her down would have at least have been somewhat plausible.
-
Neville had a double advantage with Sheila.
Firstly he knew how to calm her down. If that didn't work, he towered over her. Barbara Wilson saying he could restrain her with one arm.
At the worst Neville would have taken a torso shot from distance, which he knew would not kill him. Then he would have smothered Sheila.
Was June's relationship with Sheila's worse than Bamber's ? If not, she was upstairs, rather than three miles away.