Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence

[Caroline]

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.

The problem with that is any test will be replicated using different equipment, it wouldn't be in the same circumstances either and so would simply be an experiment that provided a different result - IF in deed it did.

[Common sense]

The problem with that is any test will be replicated using different equipment, it wouldn't be in the same circumstances either and so would simply be an experiment that provided a different result - IF in deed it did.

I think what such a test might help with is an expert opinion on how someone with a non scientific background and without a laboratory full of equipment might achieve deliberately contaminating the moderator in a way it could be passed off as genuine.

Personally I think it's doubtful.

[Holly Goodhead]

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 blood/silencer evidence is by far the strongest against JB evidenced by the fact the CCRC referred it to CoA on the back of this.

[Holly Goodhead]

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.

Even when handed over to DS Jones he recorded it in the wrong property book meaning it didn't undergo the sort of scrutiny such a find would normally undergo.

[Holly Goodhead]

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

If the blood/silencer was fabricated it begs the question why if other aspects of the case were strong. 

[Holly Goodhead]

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?

MF told the court it was "virtually certain" blood from SC's contact wounds would enter the silencer and if the silencer wasn't fitted then he would have expected to find blood in the rifles barrel.  This contradicts Dr Maoi's findings. MF conceded his opinion was based on deduction rather then scientific conclusion.

I agree it is unlikely blood would enter the silencer from a non-gsw given the tiny aperture but there's no evidence the 'drawback' phenemenon is capable of forcing blood back as deep as the 7/8 baffle.

PGM breaking down quickly outside the body came from another poster and was before contact with the forensic serologist.  NB, June and SC shared the same PGM group so there was nothing distinguishable here. 

[Holly Goodhead]

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

Please explain?

[Holly Goodhead]

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

I think you have misunderstood the 3500 figure:

490. Samples obtained from Sheila Caffell's natural mother and from other sources enabled the scientists to say with confidence that the major component did not come from Sheila Caffell. Because the blood sample of June Bamber no longer exists, it has not been possible to do a direct comparison between her DNA and that of the major component. However, it has been possible to obtain a sample from June Bamber's sister, Pamela Boutflour, which because closely related relatives are statistically more likely to have shared components than unrelated individuals, has enabled conclusions to be drawn. That evidence shows that it is about 3,500 times more likely that the major source of DNA was from a full sister of Pamela Boutflour, i.e. June Bamber, compared to it being from an unrelated female. Both Mr Clayton and Miss Tomlinson, the DNA experts from whom we have heard, assessed this as strong evidenced that the major component therefore comes from June Bamber.

Re whether SC's DNA was in the silencer or not the 17/20 bands are meaningless and do not mean a near match:

495. Some of the components detected did not match the profile of Sheila Caffell or the Caffell twins.

496. In the interpretation of the results, Dr Clayton called on behalf of the appellant and Miss Groombridge, called on behalf of the prosecution disagreed to a limited extent. Both agreed that Sheila Caffell could have contributed to this mixture of DNA but Miss Groombridge was prepared to go further and say that the findings provided support for the proposition that she had contributed to the mixture. She was, however, unable to determine the level of support provided. In her evidence to the court she explained her reasoning. Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided some support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator. However, Miss Groombridge was unable to perform any sort of statistical evaluation of the likelihood of this happening and hence unable to assess the strength of the support. Dr Clayton, whilst acknowledging the respect that he had for Miss Groombridge's views and whilst recognising the possible validity of the point that she made, felt that it was unsafe to draw any such conclusion. Whilst we recognise that there may very well be merit in Miss Groombridge's evidence in this regard, we doubt very much whether a jury would have been prepared to place any significant reliance upon it so that it might have altered any view which they otherwise would have reached.

497. We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:

i) June Bamber's DNA was in the sound moderator at the time of the DNA examination;

ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other whether it was; and

iii) there was evidence of DNA from at least one male

Given the DNA tests were based on LCN which works of samples as small as 1/1,000,0000 the size of a grain of salt, its not unreasonable to expect SC's DNA to be found in the silencer if it ever been in there in the first place which I don't believe it was for all the reasons I've given.

[Holly Goodhead]

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.

How did the blood come to be trapped under the baffles in the first instance?

With a contact wound sans silencer the hot discharge gases are unable to dissipate in the atmosphere so are forced into the wound and in some instances blood is forced back into the barrel.

A silencer would change the above in that the hot discharge gases cool and expand in the silencers chamber and then release slowly through a series of baffle plates.  There's no evidence anywhere drawback is possible with a silencer other than this case which I don't buy into at all. 

[Holly Goodhead]

The problem with that is any test will be replicated using different equipment, it wouldn't be in the same circumstances either and so would simply be an experiment that provided a different result - IF in deed it did.

What equipment did Michael Harris use in his experiment.

[Holly Goodhead]

I think what such a test might help with is an expert opinion on how someone with a non scientific background and without a laboratory full of equipment might achieve deliberately contaminating the moderator in a way it could be passed off as genuine.

Personally I think it's doubtful.

What do you think the logistics were in actually carry out tests on the blood?

[Nicholas]

The blood/silencer evidence is by far the strongest against JB evidenced by the fact the CCRC referred it to CoA on the back of this.

That’s bonkers Holly

Suggest you look at some of the other cases the CCRC has referred to the CoA and which were also dismissed

What have you come up with to refute 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?

[Holly Goodhead]

That’s bonkers Holly

Suggest you look at some of the other cases the CCRC has referred to the CoA and which were also dismissed

What have you come up with to refute 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?

Nothing "bonkers" about it all.  The trial judge told the jury:

The summing up 153. When Drake J. summed up to the jury, he suggested that there were three "crucial questions". The first, and he made clear that they were not in any order of importance, was whether they believed Julie Mugford? If they were sure that she had told the truth it meant the appellant had planned and carried out the killings. The second was whether they were sure that Sheila Caffell did not kill the members of her family and then commit suicide? The third was whether there was a telephone call in the middle of the night from Nevill Bamber to his son? If there was no such call then it inevitably undermined the whole of the appellant's story and he could have had no reason to have invented it, save to cover up his responsibility for the murders.

154. In dealing with the second question, whether Sheila Caffell may have killed the others and then committed suicide, the judge made clear that answering this question involved a number of different considerations. He suggested that one was "clearly of paramount importance", namely whether the second and fatal shot to Sheila Caffell was fired with the silencer on. If it was, she could not have fired that shot. He made clear that there were other considerations and the jury could come to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell did not carry out the killings "even without reference to the sound moderator".He added that the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, however, "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty.

The case was referred to CoA on the back of the silencer.  If other evidence was strong it would fall back on this and wouldn't have referred.

[Nicholas]

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

What specially lead to the majority of the jury to conclude Bamber was guilty?

[Nicholas]

The case was referred to CoA on the back of the silencer

And was dismissed