Author Topic: Guardian article  (Read 808 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tbl


Offline Myster

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2715
  • Total likes: 108
  • Look at that brilliant post, Meg!!!
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2018, 07:57:53 AM »
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/21/scientists-report-casts-doubt-on-jeremy-bamber-trial-evidence

Is there anything new here?
In the liberal lefty Gordion?!... no, not much... especially when written by Bamber aficionados.  8((()*/
Ranz des Vaches (Call to the Cows), followed by a rip-roaring stampede... https://youtu.be/S5Pk9CCkkvk?t=319

Offline adam

Re: Guardian article
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2018, 08:26:22 AM »
Most of the article is giving a history of what happened from 1985. Which most people interested enough to read the article, will already know.

The article says 'Both silencers are believed to contain blood that could belong to either Caffell or Boutflour.'

Not sure why the relatives & police would hand in two silencers with Sheila's/Boutflour's blood in. They only needed to hand in one.

There is no mention of a CCRC application, just the repeated requests for mysterious withheld documents to be released.

It says Bamber had written to the Guardian. He would know Eric Allison may write (another) article.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2018, 08:45:38 AM by adam »

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6400
  • Total likes: 128
  • "They think it's all over"....
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2018, 11:38:11 AM »
I lose the will to live with JB and those who claim to represent him lay and professional.   %#&%4%

If any of you read the forum may I ask do you actually read any of the case related material?  Imo the lot of you are either bone idle and/or thick.

Dr Lincoln (defense expert) wrote to the defense on 27th May '86 stating:

"About 8% of unrelated white British people would be expected to have this combination of groups."  (Attached below).  Ie not statistically individualizing. 

As a result of the above and the fact the relatives found the silencer the defense asked all relatives to provide a blood sample which they agreed to do.  Unsurprisingly, based on the statistics, one of the relatives shared the blood groups matching the sample supposedly found in the silencer (and SC's blood groups) Robert Boutflour (RB).  This is all covered in Roger Wilkes' book based on original documents which JB's defense were made aware of pre trial.  There was more than enough for Geoffrey Rivlin QC to put to the jury accidental or deliberate contamination.  Instead he made the decision to adopt the sole strategy of SC using the silencer to murder her adoptive parents and twin sons before removing and returning to the gun cupboard and then taking her own life.

Geoffrey Rivlin under estimated jurors' ability to see through this ill though out strategy which relied on the blood sample supposedly found inside the silencer pertaining to an "intimate mix" of NB and June's blood despite the fact neither sustained any wound which was likely to result in blood ending up inside the silencer.  Moreover if it did work out this way why would SC have removed the silencer returning it to the gun cupboard before taking her own life?  Rivlin's strategy required jurors to drift off into la la land and as we know they operate on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. 

Afaik it is not now possible for an appellant to challenge the above based on the notion of accidental or deliberate contamination when the opportunity to do so existed pre trial.

I have no idea whether more than one silencer was involved.  If more than one I can see the courts simply waving this away on the basis of the one exhibited at trial said to contain blood, paint and a hair!

« Last Edit: September 23, 2018, 11:40:41 AM by Holly Goodhead »
Justice 4 Sheila and Jeremy: victims of poorly arranged 'Baby Scoop Era' adoptions.  Australia has apologised
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg time for UK to do the same https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/04/baby-adoption-practices-of-past-demand-inquiry-say-law-firms

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6400
  • Total likes: 128
  • "They think it's all over"....
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2018, 11:44:55 AM »
The above was covered in posts on Blue some 5 years ago by KNGB and Naughty Nun:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4121.msg169803.html#msg169803

Justice 4 Sheila and Jeremy: victims of poorly arranged 'Baby Scoop Era' adoptions.  Australia has apologised
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg time for UK to do the same https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/04/baby-adoption-practices-of-past-demand-inquiry-say-law-firms

Offline adam

Re: Guardian article
« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2018, 08:16:38 PM »
Not sure how there could be an 'accidential contamination' of human blood into the silencer.

Either RB knew he had a similar blood type to Sheila & had the blood/paint idea which the relatives went with. Although none of them knew whether dozens of other factors fell into place to ensure a successful frame. 

Or the police decided to put Sheila's blood into a silencer then asked the relatives to pretend they found it. Although not sure why the police would want to frame Bamber, & then want the relatives involved.

Even Mike has not gone with David's suggestion that the relatives put diluted blood from a bucket of water into the silencer.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2018, 08:23:15 PM by adam »

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6400
  • Total likes: 128
  • "They think it's all over"....
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2018, 08:51:37 AM »
Not sure how there could be an 'accidential contamination' of human blood into the silencer.

It doesn't need to be factually correct, and imo it didn't happen, but it was a possibility and could have been put to jurors.  The fact is blood tested by way of serology isn't statistically individualizing unlike DNA tests.  NB was a regular at shoots and known throughout the local community.  For all we know he may have lent his silencer to someone who may have done the decent thing and opened up the silencer for cleaning prior to returning.  Upon cleaning he/she catches skin on the wire cleaning brush with blood depositing which matches the blood found in the silencer and SC's/RB's blood groups.  I'm known to have an active imagination!  This would still leave the paint but coincidences do happen!  It's not impossible that someone within WHF innocently scratched the Aga surround with the silencer.  To my mind all of this is as plausible as Rivlin's strategy above.  Bottom line blood serology tests are not statistically individualizing which opened up numerous possibilities to put to jurors accidental or deliberate contamination.

Either RB knew he had a similar blood type to Sheila & had the blood/paint idea which the relatives went with. Although none of them knew whether dozens of other factors fell into place to ensure a successful frame.

At a max RB might have known he shared the same blood group as SC by way of antigens but extremely unlikely he would know he shared the same enzyme and protein groups.  I think you're looking at a frame through the eyes of someone who has 21st century forensic awareness and has all the info to hand.  Eg you will say how would the relatives know SC sustained a contact wound, unlikely they did, but this wouldn't prevent them accidentally or deliberately contaminating the silencer.  I don't think this happened but there was enough for Rivlin to sow the seeds in minds of jurors!  Remember SC was also in the early stages of menses as per pm a fact AE was aware of from blood stained clothing in bucket, tampon applicator in lounge and box of tampons on bed.  And no I am not going to speculate how all of this might have played out but there was enough for Rivlin to diplomatically put to jurors as a possibility for them to either accept as a possibility or reject as they saw fit.
 
Or the police decided to put Sheila's blood into a silencer then asked the relatives to pretend they found it. Although not sure why the police would want to frame Bamber, & then want the relatives involved.
Possible but unlikely.

Even Mike has not gone with David's suggestion that the relatives put diluted blood from a bucket of water into the silencer.

The typical woman loses between 10ml - 35ml of blood per cycle.  This volume of blood diluted with the volume of water in the bucket would not be able to yield the results.

I have my own theory about the blood flake supposedly found within the silencer but at this stage theories are useless to JB unless they can be proven!
Justice 4 Sheila and Jeremy: victims of poorly arranged 'Baby Scoop Era' adoptions.  Australia has apologised
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg time for UK to do the same https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/04/baby-adoption-practices-of-past-demand-inquiry-say-law-firms

Offline adam

Re: Guardian article
« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2018, 01:18:27 PM »
It doesn't need to be factually correct, and imo it didn't happen, but it was a possibility and could have been put to jurors.  The fact is blood tested by way of serology isn't statistically individualizing unlike DNA tests.  NB was a regular at shoots and known throughout the local community.  For all we know he may have lent his silencer to someone who may have done the decent thing and opened up the silencer for cleaning prior to returning.  Upon cleaning he/she catches skin on the wire cleaning brush with blood depositing which matches the blood found in the silencer and SC's/RB's blood groups.  I'm known to have an active imagination!  This would still leave the paint but coincidences do happen!  It's not impossible that someone within WHF innocently scratched the Aga surround with the silencer.  To my mind all of this is as plausible as Rivlin's strategy above.  Bottom line blood serology tests are not statistically individualizing which opened up numerous possibilities to put to jurors accidental or deliberate contamination.

At a max RB might have known he shared the same blood group as SC by way of antigens but extremely unlikely he would know he shared the same enzyme and protein groups.  I think you're looking at a frame through the eyes of someone who has 21st century forensic awareness and has all the info to hand.  Eg you will say how would the relatives know SC sustained a contact wound, unlikely they did, but this wouldn't prevent them accidentally or deliberately contaminating the silencer.  I don't think this happened but there was enough for Rivlin to sow the seeds in minds of jurors!  Remember SC was also in the early stages of menses as per pm a fact AE was aware of from blood stained clothing in bucket, tampon applicator in lounge and box of tampons on bed.  And no I am not going to speculate how all of this might have played out but there was enough for Rivlin to diplomatically put to jurors as a possibility for them to either accept as a possibility or reject as they saw fit.
  Possible but unlikely.

The typical woman loses between 10ml - 35ml of blood per cycle.  This volume of blood diluted with the volume of water in the bucket would not be able to yield the results.

I have my own theory about the blood flake supposedly found within the silencer but at this stage theories are useless to JB unless they can be proven!

Do tell you're theory.

It is a discussion forum & will be discussed.

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6400
  • Total likes: 128
  • "They think it's all over"....
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #8 on: September 25, 2018, 04:19:36 PM »
Do tell you're theory.

It is a discussion forum & will be discussed.

It has all been discussed previously.  I've alluded to it above ie "supposedly" meaning I am skeptical about the labs claim of finding blood inside the silencer. If the lab did find blood inside then I am skeptical about how it deposited there.

Firstly the means by which it is claimed the blood deposited inside ie 'drawback' does not usually feature with a small caliber firearm, low velocity ammo, neck wounds and without the presence of skin tissue.  A silencer makes it less likely still given the whole phenomenon is based on the proposition that firearm discharge gases blast into a wound forcing blood back against the line of fire.  A silencer allows the hot discharge gases to slow and cool within the silencer therefore slowing the rate at which discharge gases will enter the wound.  When blood does present through drawback it usually presents as fine blood droplets resembling high impact blood spatter not a flake said to measure a 1/4".  The lab claim to have found blood as deep as the 5th baffle and maybe deeper up to 8th baffle.  The distance of the 5th baffle from aperture exceeds firearms testing in forensic lit showing shorter distances. 

Secondly the blood flake was analysed by way of blood serology which was the standard method used in a pre dna era.  This type of testing requires samples of a certain quantity and quality.  Samples are easily degraded by way of heat, humidity and light.  Even if the combi of firearm, ammo, wound site and silencer was capable of generating the drawback phenomenon it is unlikely a flake of blood said to measure 1/4" would withstand not only the hot gases from firearm discharge but also the humidity in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber and time spent at ambient temp between and after these events.

The blood flake produced results for ABO, AK, and EAP with an inconclusive result for HP.  It was unable to produce a result for PGM.  And yet arguably the world's expert on blood serology has advised that in dried stains that haven't been environmentally insulted eg heat and humidity, ABO stains are good for approx 2 years, HP and PGM 1 year and AK and EAP 6 months which is the opposite of the blood flake test results ie the flake was unable to yield a result of PGM and a partial/inconclusive result for HP and yet turned up results for AK and EAP which are less stable.

The normal method at that time for analyzing blood was to dissolve the flake whole and use the resultant material for the 5 tests.  In this case the flake was divided into 5 and then each portion dissolved to run the 5 tests.  No explanation has ever been provided why this unorthodox method was chosen along with any advantages/disadvantages.  One reason may have been to circumvent internal systems in generating a required set of results that generate photographic evidence by way of bands.   

Post trial and pre 1989 appeal JB's defence challenged whether the blood would be altered after firearm discharge.  This was in connection with Rivlin's crazy theory that the blood flake represented an "intimate" mix of NB and June's blood.  As a result the FSS claim to have placed blood in a number of silencers and then discharged the rifle 25 times with the blood results remaining unaltered.  The rifle/ammo combi has a muzzle velocity of 1080 ft/s meaning the internal explosion has to be capable of firing a bullet out of the barrel at 1080 feet per sec with hot discharge gases blasting down the barrel and through the silencer/baffles and yet the little blood flake was hardy to enough to withstand beeing environmentally insulted over and over and still able to return a full set of results  8)-)))  Not forgetting all the other blood stained exhibits eg rifle, carpets, nightdress, socks etc were in the main unable to yield any sort of result other than confirmation the blood was human in origin and these had not been environmentally insulted.   

Mark Webster biologist for the defence at 2002 appeal said when he examined the silencer he found soot within which gives some idea of the heat generated.  This is one of the reasons barrels and silencers are cleaned regularly.

This is one of the many reasons I say the lawyers at trial and appeal were grossly incompetent and negligent.  It's not rocket science to be able to read Dr Lincoln's letter to the defense pre trial and spot a significant inconsistency in that the blood flake supposedly found inside the silencer was able to yield significantly more results than any other exhibit and ask why?!

Mid 80's and before forensic science wasn't what it is today.  The staff as FSS were woefully unqualified and the defence were somewhat hampered in that FSS had a monopoly.  Today in the UK we have several forensic service providers eg Cellmark, Key and LGC where FSS findings could be checked and challenged.  The defence at trial relied upon Dr Lincoln for the blood/biology and Major Mead for the rifle/silencer ballistics and it is doubtful the two ever met which again comes back to a poor defence in not managing the case properly.

Parliament has already acknowledged high profile quality failings at FSS mid 80's:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm

The above is currently being reviewed by forensic scientists.  If new info comes to light which could assist JB's case it will be forwarded to a lawyer to be dealt with appropriately. 
« Last Edit: September 25, 2018, 04:28:17 PM by Holly Goodhead »
Justice 4 Sheila and Jeremy: victims of poorly arranged 'Baby Scoop Era' adoptions.  Australia has apologised
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg time for UK to do the same https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/04/baby-adoption-practices-of-past-demand-inquiry-say-law-firms

Offline Myster

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2715
  • Total likes: 108
  • Look at that brilliant post, Meg!!!
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2018, 05:18:35 PM »
Adam throws a snowball and gets an avalanche.  8(8-))
Ranz des Vaches (Call to the Cows), followed by a rip-roaring stampede... https://youtu.be/S5Pk9CCkkvk?t=319

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6400
  • Total likes: 128
  • "They think it's all over"....
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2018, 08:29:22 AM »
Adam throws a snowball and gets an avalanche.  8(8-))

The avalanche will soon melt away to nothing unless it can be underpinned by forensic evidence capable of withstanding scrutiny by 3 appeal court judges  8((()*/
Justice 4 Sheila and Jeremy: victims of poorly arranged 'Baby Scoop Era' adoptions.  Australia has apologised
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg time for UK to do the same https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/04/baby-adoption-practices-of-past-demand-inquiry-say-law-firms

Online John

Re: Guardian article
« Reply #11 on: September 26, 2018, 12:31:18 PM »
The avalanche will soon melt away to nothing unless it can be underpinned by forensic evidence capable of withstanding scrutiny by 3 appeal court judges  8((()*/

I don't agree Holly, forensics was not always an exact science and especially so back in the late eighties. I ignored the forensic evidence relating to blood and the sound moderators long ago. AFAIAC the crucial evidence is what occurred prior to the murders, the logistics of the murders and what occurred afterwards.

Taking everything into account it was nigh impossible for an outsider to have carried out these murders so it had to be someone inside or someone with a special knowledge of how to get inside when all the doors were locked. That ultimately leaves only two persons who in theory could have done it and one of them can be ruled out by other factors.

Regardless of whether a sound moderator was used or not, only Jeremy Bamber ticks all the boxes.

« Last Edit: September 26, 2018, 12:33:35 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6400
  • Total likes: 128
  • "They think it's all over"....
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #12 on: September 27, 2018, 11:42:08 AM »
I don't agree Holly, forensics was not always an exact science and especially so back in the late eighties. I ignored the forensic evidence relating to blood and the sound moderators long ago. AFAIAC the crucial evidence is what occurred prior to the murders, the logistics of the murders and what occurred afterwards.

Taking everything into account it was nigh impossible for an outsider to have carried out these murders so it had to be someone inside or someone with a special knowledge of how to get inside when all the doors were locked. That ultimately leaves only two persons who in theory could have done it and one of them can be ruled out by other factors.

Regardless of whether a sound moderator was used or not, only Jeremy Bamber ticks all the boxes.

I don't really understand what you mean by forensics was not always an exact science?  Experts provide testimony at trial which jurors and judge rely upon.  If at some later stage expert testimony is found to be wrong then the appeals process will swing into action. 

You and others might have decided to ignore the blood/silencer evidence but this wasn't so for the trial judge and jurors.  In the judges summing up he told jurors:

"He added that the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, however, "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty".

We know the silencer loomed large in the minds of jurors based on their questions to the judge:

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

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

We know the CCRC view the blood/silencer as pivotal to the case given this was the sole reason for referral to CoA in 2002.  Albeit the DNA results inside the silencer turned out to be meaningless:

Grounds 14 and 15 blood in the sound moderator 452. Grounds 14 and 15 each relate to different aspects of the evidence relating to the blood in the sound moderator. They are distinct matters but clearly need to be considered together because they relate to the same important aspect of the prosecution case. Ground 14 is an attack upon the blood testing evidence called at trial based upon fresh evidence which it is suggested would have cast doubt upon the prosecution evidence in this regard if it had been available to the jury. Ground 15 is the sole ground upon which this case was referred to the Court by the CCRC. It is based upon the testing of the sound moderator for DNA, a technique that was not available at trial.

If new forensic evidence emerges which undermines the blood/silencer evidence presented at trial then undoubtedly the case will be referred back to CoA.  In fact I would go further and say such evidence might be capable of fast-tracking the case to CPS/DPP for bail pending a full CoA hearing.  A referral to CoA will also pave the way for many other aspects of the case to be challenged which alone or collectively might not be sufficient for a referral but added to the blood/silencer have the potential to demolish the entire prosecution case.

I do agree with you the perp was either JB or SC.  Many who believe JB innocent say there's no forensic evidence against him which isn't true.  The blood/silencer evidence taken at face value is very strong evidence against him. 
Justice 4 Sheila and Jeremy: victims of poorly arranged 'Baby Scoop Era' adoptions.  Australia has apologised
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg time for UK to do the same https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/04/baby-adoption-practices-of-past-demand-inquiry-say-law-firms

Offline Caroline

Re: Guardian article
« Reply #13 on: September 27, 2018, 12:35:44 PM »
I don't really understand what you mean by forensics was not always an exact science?  Experts provide testimony at trial which jurors and judge rely upon.  If at some later stage expert testimony is found to be wrong then the appeals process will swing into action. 

You and others might have decided to ignore the blood/silencer evidence but this wasn't so for the trial judge and jurors.  In the judges summing up he told jurors:

"He added that the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, however, "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty".

We know the silencer loomed large in the minds of jurors based on their questions to the judge:

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

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

We know the CCRC view the blood/silencer as pivotal to the case given this was the sole reason for referral to CoA in 2002.  Albeit the DNA results inside the silencer turned out to be meaningless:

Grounds 14 and 15 blood in the sound moderator 452. Grounds 14 and 15 each relate to different aspects of the evidence relating to the blood in the sound moderator. They are distinct matters but clearly need to be considered together because they relate to the same important aspect of the prosecution case. Ground 14 is an attack upon the blood testing evidence called at trial based upon fresh evidence which it is suggested would have cast doubt upon the prosecution evidence in this regard if it had been available to the jury. Ground 15 is the sole ground upon which this case was referred to the Court by the CCRC. It is based upon the testing of the sound moderator for DNA, a technique that was not available at trial.

If new forensic evidence emerges which undermines the blood/silencer evidence presented at trial then undoubtedly the case will be referred back to CoA.  In fact I would go further and say such evidence might be capable of fast-tracking the case to CPS/DPP for bail pending a full CoA hearing.  A referral to CoA will also pave the way for many other aspects of the case to be challenged which alone or collectively might not be sufficient for a referral but added to the blood/silencer have the potential to demolish the entire prosecution case.

I do agree with you the perp was either JB or SC.  Many who believe JB innocent say there's no forensic evidence against him which isn't true.  The blood/silencer evidence taken at face value is very strong evidence against him.

Advances are made all of the time - the sceince doesn't have to be wrong but not as accurate by todays standards.

As a side issue, according to David, it's accepted that the silencer wasn't used ........

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6400
  • Total likes: 128
  • "They think it's all over"....
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #14 on: September 28, 2018, 09:03:52 AM »
Advances are made all of the time - the sceince doesn't have to be wrong but not as accurate by todays standards.

As a side issue, according to David, it's accepted that the silencer wasn't used ........

Yes advances are made all of the time and JB has been deprived of the opportunity to carry out further tests eg fingerprinting technique known as CERA LT (fingerprints from cartridges) since all exhibits excl rifle and silencer have been destroyed against all protocols.  Conversely if JB is guilty we could end the whole circus and seal his fate using 21st century technology.  Anyway shall we agree on undermine?

I believe David has misunderstood the CCRC/Judicial Appeal judgement from circa 2012.  David has interpreted the CCRC's decision on the basis it has accepted the evidence of Dr Caruso (marks (burns?) to NB's back) and Dr Fowler SC's abrasion rings inconsistent with a silencer but rejected overall on the basis this evidence doesn't overcome the paint/scratches.   This is not my interpretation.  My interpretation is that the CCRC highlighted the brevity of Dr Caruso's evidence which by his own admission required further testing.  In respect of Dr Fowler's evidence the CCRC relied upon the lack of residue found in the rifle and the blood flake found in the silencer.  The judges at judicial review were prepared to accept there may have been a problem with the blood flake but in reaching their overall decision relied upon the lack of residue in the rifle (not sure what they mean by residue (blood?) and the paint/scratches.  The judges refer to evidence at trial provided by Malcolm Fletcher and Dr Vanezis.  I think they are referring to Malcolm Fletcher's testimony where he told the court that he would expect to find blood inside the barrel if a silencer had not been used.  In any event the CCRC application/judicial review did not result in any concessions about the blood/silencer which can assist JB going forward.   
« Last Edit: September 28, 2018, 09:13:08 AM by Holly Goodhead »
Justice 4 Sheila and Jeremy: victims of poorly arranged 'Baby Scoop Era' adoptions.  Australia has apologised
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg time for UK to do the same https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/04/baby-adoption-practices-of-past-demand-inquiry-say-law-firms