Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence

[Holly Goodhead]

Brian Elliot who has a Btec in Analytical Chemistry was responsible for analysing the paint on the moderator on 25th Sept along with a paint sample taken from the Aga on 14th Aug.

- Why did GH not observe/record the paint on 13th Aug?

- Why was the paint not removed on 13th Aug before it went into the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber on 15th Aug?

- DI Cook removed a paint sample from the Aga on 14th Aug because it was thought the paint on the silencer may have matched.

- Why did DI Cook take the silencer to the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber on 15th Aug before the paint was removed?

- Why wait until 25th Sep to pass the silencer to Brian Elliot for forensic examination of the paint? 

[The General]

Brian Elliot who has a Btec in Analytical Chemistry was responsible for analysing the paint on the moderator on 25th Sept along with a paint sample taken from the Aga on 14th Aug.

- Why did GH not observe/record the paint on 13th Aug?

- Why was the paint not removed on 13th Aug before it went into the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber on 15th Aug?

- DI Cook removed a paint sample from the Aga on 14th Aug because it was thought the paint on the silencer may have matched.

- Why did DI Cook take the silencer to the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber on 15th Aug before the paint was removed?

- Why wait until 25th Sep to pass the silencer to Brian Elliot for forensic examination of the paint?

Is that true? A BTec? Like they gave kids for turning up at a motor pool one day a week and changing a spark plug?

[Holly Goodhead]

Is that true? A BTec? Like they gave kids for turning up at a motor pool one day a week and changing a spark plug?

Yes it is true according to his trial testimony. It appears he was better qualified than the ballistics 'expert' who was only able to tell the court about experience which included a small amount with an air rifle as a small boy.

[Holly Goodhead]

Yes it is true according to his trial testimony. It appears he was better qualified than the ballistics 'expert' who was only able to tell the court about experience which included a small amount with an air rifle as a small boy.

Is it any wonder the FSS experienced high profile quality failures in the 80's when it was employing under qualified 'experts'?

@ 3.3.1

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

[Robittybob1]

I thought it had been in "White House Farm Murders"? Perhaps not. I think it probably came from Colin, in his book. He'd have had greater insight -than others- to Sheila's relationship with her parents.

OK, when I listen to that again I'll keep an ear out for it.

[Myster]

At trial Glynis Howard told the court she has a BSc but she doesn't say in what.  Anyway she was responsible for the first forensic examination of the silencer which resulted in a diagram showing small blood stains on the outside but surely if she observed paint she would make a note of it which she doesn't.  Nor does she she refer to the paint in her trial testimony. 

Her examination of the silencer on 13th Aug revealed blood staining inside the bore to the extent she inserted cotton threads to remove for analysis and yet did not think to open it up then and there to see if the blood extended to the inside? 

So despite this forensic examination of the silencer on 13th Aug it appears the paint on the outside and the blood on the inside was overlooked?  DI Cook waited for GH to complete her examination and took away with him the rifle and silencer for fingerprinting in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber on 15th Aug.

I guess the reason the silencer went to the lab first was to remove any forensic evidence which might be adversely
affected by going in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber?

Why wasnt this other forensic evidence removed on 13th Aug?  Imo it wasn't removed because it didn't exist!

The blood embedded in the knurling of the end cap is mentioned on both those moderator diagrams you posted!

Sorry the PAINT.

[Caroline]

Brian Elliot who has a Btec in Analytical Chemistry was responsible for analysing the paint on the moderator on 25th Sept along with a paint sample taken from the Aga on 14th Aug.

- Why did GH not observe/record the paint on 13th Aug?

- Why was the paint not removed on 13th Aug before it went into the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber on 15th Aug?

- DI Cook removed a paint sample from the Aga on 14th Aug because it was thought the paint on the silencer may have matched.

- Why did DI Cook take the silencer to the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber on 15th Aug before the paint was removed?

- Why wait until 25th Sep to pass the silencer to Brian Elliot for forensic examination of the paint?

What is it with you and qualifications? I know lots of people that are qualified on paper but I wouldn't trust them to load my dish washer!

[The General]

What is it with you and qualifications? I know lots of people that are qualified on paper but I wouldn't trust them to load my dish washer!

There's probably a B-Tec in dishwashing.

[Admin]

What is it with you and qualifications? I know lots of people that are qualified on paper but I wouldn't trust them to load my dish washer!

Or to put it another way, a degree is not a indication of honesty.

[Myster]

Seems like a bona-fide qualification to me...

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Applied_Science_BTEC_Nationals/Practical_Chemical_Analysis

[Caroline]

I think the diagram (if you can call it that) was produced by defense expert Dr Lincoln as the date on it, 29th Apr '86, coincides with when he visited the lab.

Did those who claim to have found/observed the blood inside the silencer: Malcolm Fletcher, ballistics - responsible for unassembling the silencer and John Hayward, biologist, responsible for grouping the blood, produce diagrams and/or photos?  If not why not when we know this is the usual process as evidenced by the rifle and external silencer:

I'm sure they did but once again, as a bunch on amateur detectives, we don't have access to all of the case material and nor do  we have the  right to access it.

[G-Unit]

What is it with you and qualifications? I know lots of people that are qualified on paper but I wouldn't trust them to load my dish washer!

You believe and propogate what a journalist said about an unnamed psychiatrist's opinion on Jeremy Bamber's mental state.

[APRIL]

You believe and propogate what a journalist said about an unnamed psychiatrist's opinion on Jeremy Bamber's mental state.

Are you saying this, or any person, who is unnamed, makes them factually wrong, and are you dismissing the fact that a named person can be wrong?

[Caroline]

You believe and propogate what a journalist said about an unnamed psychiatrist's opinion on Jeremy Bamber's mental state.

Completely.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I really don't think you should be disseminating untruths by contradicting the rulings of the Appeal Court;

The Court said;

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...

500. In these circumstances we find it impossible to conclude that any particular finding of DNA necessarily came from blood.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

I’m not spreading untruths.

I’ve cited an extract from the official court documents.

The forensic scientist said she was certain it was Sheila’s blood: the defence (obviously) tried to refute it by saying it didn’t show EVERY marker. But 17 out of 20 — and of a RARE blood group at that — was enough to convince the judges the blood was Sheila’s, even though for legal reasons they were obliged to say it wasn’t “fully proven” — but they all knew it was really 😌