Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence

[Holly Goodhead]

Perhaps you can explain the following then:

- The drawback phenemenon is not usually observed with. 22 rifles and low velocity ammo.

- A silencer makes it less likely still.

- When it is observed it usually involves contact gunshot wounds to the head

- When it is observed it usually includes tissue with the blood

- No comparable cases in criminal history where blood inside a silencer underpins a conviction. 

- None of the forensic literature, research, tests include drawback with a silencer

- No tests/modelling have been undertaken to establish whether the drawback phenemenon is possible with the rifle, ammo and silencer.

- The blood flake inside the silencer was the only blood stained exhibit capable of yielding the results claimed. 

- The non-porous blood stained rifle was unable to yield any results beyond human in origin

- Blood analysed by serology requires good quality samples of a certain quantity.  Heat and humidity are known to degrade samples rendering them useless for serological analysis. The blood flake had to withstand heat from firearm discharge, humidity in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber and gunshot residue.

- Victims' blood samples were analysed for:
   -  Antigens - ABO
   -  Haptoglobin - HP -  Protein
   -  Phosphoglucomutase - PGM -  Enzyme
   -  Adenylate Kinase - AK - Enzyme
   -  Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase - EAP - Enzyme
The samples yielded results for all the above.

The blood flake in the silencer was analysed but unable to yield a result for the enzyme PGM.  This contradicts advice. I was given by the Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Research Institute in Californis that PGM is more stable than AK and EAP which begs the question how/why in this case the flake was unable to yield a result for PGM?  This is currently being reviewed by a forensic scientist in private practice along with other 'evidence'.

When the silencer was analysed by way of DNA using Low Copy Number (LCN), which works off samples as small as the millionth the size of a grain of salt, the test was unable to conclude whether SC's DNA was in the silencer or not.

[Holly Goodhead]

Victims' blood samples were analysed for:
   -  Antigens - ABO
   -  Haptoglobin - HP -  Protein
   -  Phosphoglucomutase - PGM -  Enzyme
   -  Adenylate Kinase - AK - Enzyme
   -  Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase - EAP - Enzyme
The samples yielded results for all the above.

The blood flake in the silencer was analysed but unable to yield a result for the enzyme PGM.  This contradicts advice. I was given by the Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Research Institute in Californis that PGM is more stable than AK and EAP which begs the question how/why in this case the flake was unable to yield a result for PGM?  This is currently being reviewed by a forensic scientist in private practice along with other 'evidence'.

[Holly Goodhead]

Victims' blood samples were analysed for:
   -  Antigens - ABO
   -  Haptoglobin - HP -  Protein
   -  Phosphoglucomutase - PGM -  Enzyme
   -  Adenylate Kinase - AK - Enzyme
   -  Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase - EAP - Enzyme
The samples yielded results for all the above.

The blood flake in the silencer was analysed but unable to yield a result for the enzyme PGM.  This contradicts advice. I was given by the Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Research Institute in Californis that PGM is more stable than AK and EAP which begs the question how/why in this case the flake was unable to yield a result for PGM?  This is currently being reviewed by a forensic scientist in private practice along with other 'evidence'.

Or perhaps I should say begs the question if the flake was unable to yield a result for PGM how come the flake was able to yield a result for AK and EAP which according to the Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Institute are less stable than PGM. 

[barrier]

Or perhaps I should say begs the question if the flake was unable to yield a result for PGM how come the flake was able to yield a result for AK and EAP which according to the Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Institute are less stable than PGM.

If the flake from the silencer could be proved to be  definitely  from Sheila would that convince you of JB's guilt?

[Holly Goodhead]

If the flake from the silencer could be proved to be  definitely  from Sheila would that convince you of JB's guilt?

No of course not because it wouldn't prove how it got there.

What would convince me of JB's guilt is showing that the blood inside the silencer came to be there as a result of the 'drawback' phenomenon.

If tests show the 'drawback' phenomenon is impossible with the tifle, ammo and silencer would it convince you of JB's innocence? 

[Holly Goodhead]

The following is an excerpt from a book by Dr Vincent DiMaio, an internationally renowned US pathologist with expertise in gunshot wounds:

Blood may be detected in the barrel even after the weapon has been discharged. In a study of 25 revolvers and 36 pistols, in 40% of revolvers and in 42% of pistols, blood was detected after one test firing. More remarkable was the fact that blood was still detected in 16% of revolvers and 25% of
pistols after a second shot was fired".

The above shows how blood was more difficult to detect after every test firing:

After one test firing blood was detected in 40% of revolvers and 42% of pistols.

After a second test firing blood was detected in 16% of revolvers and 25% of pistols.

So if the trajectory continued as above its reasonable to assume after 1 or 2 more test fires it would be impossible to detect blood.  And yet according to Michael Harris at the lab not only was he able to detect blood after 25 test fires but he was also able to remove it for serological analysis and the blood remained unaltered.   

[attachment deleted by admin]

[barrier]

No of course not because it wouldn't prove how it got there.

What would convince me of JB's guilt is showing that the blood inside the silencer came to be there as a result of the 'drawback' phenomenon.

If tests show the 'drawback' phenomenon is impossible with the tifle, ammo and silencer would it convince you of JB's innocence?

If any evidence to contrary of a guilty verdict convinced a appeal court then yes,I'm not an expert posting on an internet forum,merely an observer,let the rule of law decide.

[barrier]

No of course not because it wouldn't prove how it got there.

What would convince me of JB's guilt is showing that the blood inside the silencer came to be there as a result of the 'drawback' phenomenon.

If tests show the 'drawback' phenomenon is impossible with the tifle, ammo and silencer would it convince you of JB's innocence?

I wonder if at the end of the day anything would convince you of his guilt.

[Nicholas]

No of course not because it wouldn't prove how it got there.

What would convince me of JB's guilt is showing that the blood inside the silencer came to be there as a result of the 'drawback' phenomenon.

If tests show the 'drawback' phenomenon is impossible with the tifle, ammo and silencer would it convince you of JB's innocence?

What about JM”s evidence ?

What about Bamber’s pre trial assessment which concluded him to be a psychopath?

And have you found out who the alleged ‘close friend’ was who tipped off Kieron Saunders at the Sun following the murders - suggesting SC used heroin/methadone?

[The General]

No of course not because it wouldn't prove how it got there.

What would convince me of JB's guilt is showing that the blood inside the silencer came to be there as a result of the 'drawback' phenomenon.

If tests show the 'drawback' phenomenon is impossible with the tifle, ammo and silencer would it convince you of JB's innocence?

A far more fundamental test would have to be passed before any forensic / scientific analysis for me. The fact that the silencer was discovered by a third party some time after the murders, with a questionable chain of custody prior to being handed to police, should disqualify it. Or at least be the subject of contention as to the veracity of its admissibility.

[Caroline]

No of course not because it wouldn't prove how it got there.

What would convince me of JB's guilt is showing that the blood inside the silencer came to be there as a result of the 'drawback' phenomenon.

If tests show the 'drawback' phenomenon is impossible with the tifle, ammo and silencer would it convince you of JB's innocence?

Definitely NOT because as you very well know, he could still  be guilty having not used the  silencer.

[Common sense]

Perhaps you can explain the following then:

- The drawback phenemenon is not usually observed with. 22 rifles and low velocity ammo.

- A silencer makes it less likely still.

- When it is observed it usually involves contact gunshot wounds to the head

- When it is observed it usually includes tissue with the blood

- No comparable cases in criminal history where blood inside a silencer underpins a conviction. 

- None of the forensic literature, research, tests include drawback with a silencer

- No tests/modelling have been undertaken to establish whether the drawback phenemenon is possible with the rifle, ammo and silencer.

- The blood flake inside the silencer was the only blood stained exhibit capable of yielding the results claimed. 

- The non-porous blood stained rifle was unable to yield any results beyond human in origin

- Blood analysed by serology requires good quality samples of a certain quantity.  Heat and humidity are known to degrade samples rendering them useless for serological analysis. The blood flake had to withstand heat from firearm discharge, humidity in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber and gunshot residue.

- Victims' blood samples were analysed for:
   -  Antigens - ABO
   -  Haptoglobin - HP -  Protein
   -  Phosphoglucomutase - PGM -  Enzyme
   -  Adenylate Kinase - AK - Enzyme
   -  Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase - EAP - Enzyme
The samples yielded results for all the above.

The blood flake in the silencer was analysed but unable to yield a result for the enzyme PGM.  This contradicts advice. I was given by the Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Research Institute in Californis that PGM is more stable than AK and EAP which begs the question how/why in this case the flake was unable to yield a result for PGM?  This is currently being reviewed by a forensic scientist in private practice along with other 'evidence'.

Malcolm Fletcher wasn't giving his opinion of whether drawback would cause blood to enter the silencer of any gun, but based his opinion on the location of the blood found and the expert evidence of who did or might have received contact wounds that matched the blood types found.

Other methods of blood entering the moderator were discussed including a bloody area being struck at force and blood simply dripping or dropping into the end. Neither were completely ruled out but it was MFs opinion that if this had occurred, blood would not have travelled as far as the 5th and possibly 7th baffle.

The bloodflake was only a quarter of an inch in size, perhaps it was too small for 1985 serology to detect PGM no matter how stable it was. No PGM was detected in any other samples but AK was. You actually state in your own blood tables post that PGM "Breaks down quickly outside the body hence blood in silencer was unable to produce a reading" so which is it? Is PGM more stable than AK and is The Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Research Institute talking about 1985 methods used in serology or more modern ones that would be better at detecting PGM?

[Caroline]

Malcolm Fletcher wasn't giving his opinion of whether drawback would cause blood to enter the silencer of any gun, but based his opinion on the location of the blood found and the expert evidence of who did or might have received contact wounds that matched the blood types found.

Other methods of blood entering the moderator were discussed including a bloody area being struck at force and blood simply dripping or dropping into the end. Neither were completely ruled out but it was MFs opinion that if this had occurred, blood would not have travelled as far as the 5th and possibly 7th baffle.

The bloodflake was only a quarter of an inch in size, perhaps it was too small for 1985 serology to detect PGM no matter how stable it was. No PGM was detected in any other samples but AK was. You actually state in your own blood tables post that PGM "Breaks down quickly outside the body hence blood in silencer was unable to produce a reading" so which is it? Is PGM more stable than AK and is The Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Research Institute talking about 1985 methods used in serology or more modern ones that would be better at detecting PGM?

Referring to your last paragraph, this being the case, it wouldn't help Bamber for obvious reasons.

[Common sense]

When the silencer was analysed by way of DNA using Low Copy Number (LCN), which works off samples as small as the millionth the size of a grain of salt, the test was unable to conclude whether SC's DNA was in the silencer or not.

17 out of 20 bands for Sheila were detected which made it 3500 times more likely for it to be Sheila's DNA than not.

The crown expert felt that it was safe to conclude that Sheila's DNA was present. JBs expert disagreed on that point.

It's irrelevant anyway as you know full and well, the LCN DNA testing could not detect if the origin of the DNA was blood and none of the samples gathered matched the areas of where blood was originally found.

Contamination was a real probability due to the way it was handled by all and sundry, the jury were even invited to disassemble the moderator and inspect the baffle plates, possibly putting them back in the wrong order.

Those 2002 tests were useless except to tell us that further DNA testing would also be useless unless there is a new breakthrough in LCN DNA testing

[Common sense]

The following is an excerpt from a book by Dr Vincent DiMaio, an internationally renowned US pathologist with expertise in gunshot wounds:

Blood may be detected in the barrel even after the weapon has been discharged. In a study of 25 revolvers and 36 pistols, in 40% of revolvers and in 42% of pistols, blood was detected after one test firing. More remarkable was the fact that blood was still detected in 16% of revolvers and 25% of
pistols after a second shot was fired".

The above shows how blood was more difficult to detect after every test firing:

After one test firing blood was detected in 40% of revolvers and 42% of pistols.

After a second test firing blood was detected in 16% of revolvers and 25% of pistols.

So if the trajectory continued as above its reasonable to assume after 1 or 2 more test fires it would be impossible to detect blood.  And yet according to Michael Harris at the lab not only was he able to detect blood after 25 test fires but he was also able to remove it for serological analysis and the blood remained unaltered.   

As you know, the inside of a gun barrel is quite different to a moderator where the blood flake was found trapped between the baffle plates and presumably protected somewhat from the escaping gases. I think you are comparing apples and oranges.

It seems to me that you need to replicate Harris' tests.