Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence

[Common sense]

Caro, a few days back you asked for the evidence re the lab carrying out tests by firing the rifle to determine the effect on the blood:

Where is the evidence that you say contradicts these findings?

Do they relate to a low powered Anschutz or another weapon?

Do you think this actually shows some effort on the part of the defence to challenge the prosecution evidence?

It seems to me that although you seem to like to imagine naive British scientists thumbing their copies of the ladybird book of junior science while their American counterparts had all the right answers and arcane fancy techniques, this is actually far from what happened.

[Holly Goodhead]

On the face of it, it would seem wrong and possibly misleading to the jury but I wouldn't say that was completely contradictory and it may be that information has evolved over time and was not that which was available to Mr Fletcher in 1986.I'm also assuming the defence expert did not challenge Fletchers evidence in this regard.
 
Those statistics don't include a moderator either, (which, I believe would actually decrease the chances of backspatter entering the weapon) but to repeat my earlier point, dramatically changing the picture the jury were painted would need backspatter eliminated altogether which those stats do not.

Worth also noting that the bloodflake wasn't the only blood in/on the silencer but to the best of my knowledge the rest was in quantities too small to be tested for blood grouping at that time, I believe it was determined that some was animal blood and some human but I'm not sure. 

The jury were not asked to assess the chances of backspatter entering the moderator in isolation, there was human blood present, matched to Sheila and no other likely explanations were put forward.

Well the research from Dr DiMaio shows there is a very high probability of it not happening.  Whereas MF told the court it was "virtually certain".  And the research carried out by Dr DiMaio did not involve silencers which I understand make it less likely.

MF was challenged by the defence who referred to research by two US pathologists - attached.  I'll upload MF's trial testimony in the near future.  A Major Mead was the ballistics expert for the defence but I don't have access to his trial testimony.

Blood on the outside of the silencer was found to be human in origin but the quantity too small for grouping.  There was other blood on the inside as per the table if you can decipher it!

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg315462#msg315462

[Holly Goodhead]

https://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/JOURNALS/FORENSIC/PAGES/JFS11526J.htm

[Holly Goodhead]

Where is the evidence that you say contradicts these findings?

Do they relate to a low powered Anschutz or another weapon?

Do you think this actually shows some effort on the part of the defence to challenge the prosecution evidence?

It seems to me that although you seem to like to imagine naive British scientists thumbing their copies of the ladybird book of junior science while their American counterparts had all the right answers and arcane fancy techniques, this is actually far from what happened.

There's no evidence MF was a scientist.  Unlike other experts who gave evidence and provided the court with details about high level qualifications and membership to professional bodies in addition to experience, MF referred to 13 years experience in the firearms dept and "a small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy".

I have had contact with the Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Research Institute, California.  He advised re the blood:

- ABO is good for about 2 years at ambient temp
- Haptoglobin and PGM about 1 year
- AK and EAP 6 months.
- This is for dried stains that have not been environmentally insulted by temperature or humidity.

The tests carried out as per the attached above are based on blood placed in 5 different silencers and the rifle discharged 25 times on each with the blood then retested which remained unaltered. This seems unlikely imo given the above and all the research shows serological analysis of blood requires good quality samples.  PGM is more stable than AK and EAP but PGM did not produce a result.  None of the other blood stained exhibits were able to produce the sort of results the silencer did and these had not sustained the same sort of environmental insults by way of heat from firearm discharge and humidity from the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber.

[Holly Goodhead]

It was a perfect match, but yes, only to her blood group.

The 2002 appeal did raise some doubts about how the original flake was tested with it being suggested that it should have been ground into a powder to ensure it was mixed before being diluted instead of cut into 5 pieces. Mark Webster argued that Haywoods test could not be guaranteed to detect a mixture as opposed to a single source.

However, Mark Webster and Dr Lincoln agreed that the only way of Nevill and Junes blood being mistaken for Sheila's was the 'incomplete intimate mix' theory which Mr Haywood tried to perform tests to replicate. He theorised that the only mechanism for an incomplete mix was for other blood to mix with some that had already dried which was very unlikely given the lack of heat generated within the moderator and probable lack of drying time between June and Nevill being shot.

There were no examples in forensic literature to support such an event and Haywood performed tests on this theory with negative results. He was merely being careful by saying that there was a remote chance of the bloodflake originating from an incomplete mix.

It may have been a good idea for the defence to have advanced the possibility of contamination at the manufacturers, one would assume the baffles are pressed out by machine but assembled by hand. This possibility might be dismissed if NB or anyone else had cleaned the silencer since it was bought.

It is an interesting thought that Robert Boutflour may have cleaned the moderator with a wire brush but the moderator was quite new and bought with the gun AFAIK, I have no idea how often they would need cleaning or if NB wouldn't have just done this himself. 

In CALs book, there is a short passage that has RB losing his temper when cross examined on whether he had ever touched the moderator when it was found or had cuts on his hands while doing so. I dimly recall that RW also states that the defence was alive to RBs blood group match which is completely contrary to the CT claim that it wasn't known until 2002.  I've never seen a transcript of RBs exam/cross exam so don't know if RB was further questioned about ever disassembling and cleaning the moderator in the past.

In short, the chances of the bloodflake not originating from Sheila were remote. We also have no idea what the jury thought of there being human blood inside the silencer in the first place, no matter who it belonged to. Add in the paint and the jury must surely of had the reasonable assumption that the moderator was attached at some point and assessed the chances of Sheila looking for, attaching, using and then replacing the moderator back in the cupboard while in some kind of psychotic state.

What were the advantages/disadvantages in dissolving the flake whole and separating as opposed to cutting it in 5 and dissolving?  Under what circumstances is one used over the other?  How were blood stains on the other exhibits analysed?  The enzymes and proteins are analysed by molecular weight using gel electrophoresis and I believe the norm is to dilute the stain whole and run the tests together.  If this is so it begs the question why the lab chose perhaps an unorthodox method?

I think the whole 'intimate mix' theory was a non-starter given it is unlikely June sustained a contact shot and there's no evidence NB did.  Also the idea SC used the silencer to murder her parents and sons before detaching, returning to the cupboard and then shooting herself is the stuff of la la land imo.

I think it unlikely innocent contamination occurred but not impossible.  If I was a defence lawyer I would try and slide it in because it's plausible and possible.

I thought it was DB that fiddled about with the silencer and RB's blood groups matched SC's.

[Holly Goodhead]

There's no evidence MF was a scientist.  Unlike other experts who gave evidence and provided the court with details about high level qualifications and membership to professional bodies in addition to experience, MF referred to 13 years experience in the firearms dept and "a small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy".

I have had contact with the Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Research Institute, California.  He advised re the blood:

- ABO is good for about 2 years at ambient temp
- Haptoglobin and PGM about 1 year
- AK and EAP 6 months.
- This is for dried stains that have not been environmentally insulted by temperature or humidity.

The tests carried out as per the attached above are based on blood placed in 5 different silencers and the rifle discharged 25 times on each with the blood then retested which remained unaltered. This seems unlikely imo given the above and all the research shows serological analysis of blood requires good quality samples.  PGM is more stable than AK and EAP but PGM did not produce a result.  None of the other blood stained exhibits were able to produce the sort of results the silencer did and these had not sustained the same sort of environmental insults by way of heat from firearm discharge and humidity from the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber.

Dr DiMaio also examined firearms for the presence of blood after they had been discharged and was surprised he was able to produce a dna result on a fairly low % of those tested.  After a second discharge the % was even lower.  I will post the excerpt.  But dna can produce results from degraded blood samples which isn't the case for blood serology tests which require good quality samples of a certain quantity. In JB's case we are told blood remained unaltered after 25 test fires!

[Common sense]

Well the research from Dr DiMaio shows there is a very high probability of it not happening.  Whereas MF told the court it was "virtually certain".  And the research carried out by Dr DiMaio did not involve silencers which I understand make it less likely.

MF was challenged by the defence who referred to research by two US pathologists - attached.  I'll upload MF's trial testimony in the near future.  A Major Mead was the ballistics expert for the defence but I don't have access to his trial testimony.

Blood on the outside of the silencer was found to be human in origin but the quantity too small for grouping.  There was other blood on the inside as per the table if you can decipher it!

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg315462#msg315462

Objection! You are trying to mislead the court!

Dr DiMaio's research would seem to put the odds at roughly 50-50 so the probability is equal but I can't see how that would have made any difference to the jury. The chance of backspatter would have to be close to zero for the jury to lean toward less likely explanations and they no doubt understood that the bloodflake was not the only blood in the silencer ( no matter whose it was ) making accidental or deliberate contamination less likely than BS.

I shall try and digest the tables and other info tomorrow.   

[Holly Goodhead]

Objection! You are trying to mislead the court!

Dr DiMaio's research would seem to put the odds at roughly 50-50 so the probability is equal but I can't see how that would have made any difference to the jury. The chance of backspatter would have to be close to zero for the jury to lean toward less likely explanations and they no doubt understood that the bloodflake was not the only blood in the silencer ( no matter whose it was ) making accidental or deliberate contamination less likely than BS.

I shall try and digest the tables and other info tomorrow.   

Well theories about accidental or deliberate contamination seem to me as plausible and possible as the 'intimate mix' theory presented at trial which also required SC to remove the silencer and return it to the cupboard before shooting herself.

I would like to think that had I been part of the defence team I would have recognised that this was by far the strongest evidence against JB and really needed to go under the microscope so to speak.  What first struck me was how come the blood in the silencer was able to turn up blood groups other exhibits couldn't?  For example the outside of the rifle contained a number of stains, which appear to have been of a similar quantity, also on a non-porous material and yet it was only possible to determine the blood was human in origin.  Blood on the rifle was also arguably of better quality not being subjected to firearm discharge and blood removed and tested before it entered the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber and exposed to humidity.

The defence didn't visit the lab instead relied upon their expert to who reported back via 2 letters all of which seem to have been taken at face value without any questions asked.

[Holly Goodhead]

Just to clarify, at trial the prosecution asserted the blood in the silencer was deposited as a result of 'drawback' rather than 'backspatter'.

Drawback - involves blood sucked into a barrel from a contact gunshot wound caused by a change in gas pressure

Back spatter - involves blood from a wound travelling against the line of fire and depositing on nearby items.  This doesn't necessarily involve contact wounds and unlikely blood in free flight could enter a small aperture.

[Holly Goodhead]

And this from the website of forensic scientist Jon Norby:

The draw-back effect can be observed in contact gunshot wounds but the effect(s) of compensators, suppressors and silencing devices as well as any other intervening items may alter the outcome."

[Common sense]

Well theories about accidental or deliberate contamination seem to me as plausible and possible as the 'intimate mix' theory presented at trial which also required SC to remove the silencer and return it to the cupboard before shooting herself.

I would like to think that had I been part of the defence team I would have recognised that this was by far the strongest evidence against JB and really needed to go under the microscope so to speak.  What first struck me was how come the blood in the silencer was able to turn up blood groups other exhibits couldn't?  For example the outside of the rifle contained a number of stains, which appear to have been of a similar quantity, also on a non-porous material and yet it was only possible to determine the blood was human in origin.  Blood on the rifle was also arguably of better quality not being subjected to firearm discharge and blood removed and tested before it entered the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber and exposed to humidity.

The defence didn't visit the lab instead relied upon their expert to who reported back via 2 letters all of which seem to have been taken at face value without any questions asked.

Perhaps, as you suggest Nevill deposited a small amount of blood while he was cleaning the moderator and Junes was then added to that when she was shot. Putting aside the issue of NBs blood being older and degrading in quality, this is still a fanciful explanation but it may have caused some doubt about the results in the minds of the jury had the blood been the only evidence.

I don't see how the defence could have explained accidental paint contamination and fresh scratch marks though, what the defence could only have been suggesting to the jury is a deliberate frame meaning that an individual or several people were attempting to pervert the course of justice, an offence so serious it carries a maximum sentence of life. This would seem to apply to scientists who you are accusing of fudging their results, what motivation would they have for this and how could they know that the defence wouldn't be able to replicate their tests and expose their shoddy work?

Sometimes when the prosecution has a strong piece of evidence, the defence will prefer not to put too much weight on it and hope the jury don't either. I think the defence had little option but to take the bone thrown to them by the prosecution or risk looking desperate and give Arlidge extra ammunition for his closing speech.

PS: I'm not a scientist but the other blood stains were on porous materials, could dyes and bleaches in the fabric be responsible for them not yielding the same results? I've no idea. 

[Common sense]

There's no evidence MF was a scientist.  Unlike other experts who gave evidence and provided the court with details about high level qualifications and membership to professional bodies in addition to experience, MF referred to 13 years experience in the firearms dept and "a small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy".

Leave MF alone! It seems clear to me that his remark was facetious. I don't think he would work in the firearms department for 13 years without having to fire a few guns and do other gun related stuff. He has surely forgotten more about guns than either of us will ever know. He didn't just make the tea Holly!

[Caroline]

Leave MF alone! It seems clear to me that his remark was facetious. I don't think he would work in the firearms department for 13 years without having to fire a few guns and do other gun related stuff. He has surely forgotten more about guns than either of us will ever know. He didn't just make the tea Holly!

Totally agree, - 13 years experience is a long time and he was asked to give expert testimony - hence he is was considered an EXPERT!

[Holly Goodhead]

Leave MF alone! It seems clear to me that his remark was facetious. I don't think he would work in the firearms department for 13 years without having to fire a few guns and do other gun related stuff. He has surely forgotten more about guns than either of us will ever know. He didn't just make the tea Holly!

What sort of expert would think it appropriate to make a facetious comment when introducing him/herself at a criminal trial involving 5 deaths?  As I said it is a marked contrast with other experts who introduced themselves by referring to high level qualifications and membership of professional bodies in addition to experience.

I'm sure MF was qualified by way of experience to carry out routine ballistics evidence but I don't see the evidence that he was qualified to impart expert evidence to the court about the drawback phenemenon which ventures into the pathology of gunshot wounds.

The UK Gov sought out Dr DiMaio to take part in the Bloody Sunday investigation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio

[Common sense]

What sort of expert would think it appropriate to make a facetious comment when introducing him/herself at a criminal trial involving 5 deaths?  As I said it is a marked contrast with other experts who introduced themselves by referring to high level qualifications and membership of professional bodies in addition to experience.

I'm sure MF was qualified by way of experience to carry out routine ballistics evidence but I don't see the evidence that he was qualified to impart expert evidence to the court about the drawback phenemenon which ventures into the pathology of gunshot wounds.

The UK Gov sought out Dr DiMaio to take part in the Bloody Sunday investigation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio

MF was probably just nervous.

When was Vincent Di Maio's work on drawback/backspatter published? ie; what was the established thought at the time of MFs evidence?

It seems to me that if contrary evidence existed at the time then both MF and the defence were remiss in their work but whether the jury thought there was a 95% probability or 50%, it can't have made much difference to their thinking when considered in context to the whole of the evidence.