First Forensic Examination Of The Silencer - 13th Aug '85

[Holly Goodhead]

I will be deleting any further off-topic posts.

[Robittybob1]

I will be deleting any further off-topic posts.

were my last two comments off-topic?

[Holly Goodhead]

were my last two comments off-topic?

There's a tenuous link but the thread is discussing the forensic examination.

[Robittybob1]

There's a tenuous link but the thread is discussing the forensic examination.

The Eatons and Boutflours had to get the silencer out of the house first before they handed it to the police for forensic examination.   How do we know it was ever at the house on or after the 7th August?  To me the chain of evidence is broken when they picked it up.

[Holly Goodhead]

The Eatons and Boutflours had to get the silencer out of the house first before they handed it to the police for forensic examination.   How do we know it was ever at the house on or after the 7th August?  To me the chain of evidence is broken when they picked it up.

Where do you it was between 7th Aug and 9th Aug when the relatives claim to have found it? 

[The General]

The Eatons and Boutflours had to get the silencer out of the house first before they handed it to the police for forensic examination.   How do we know it was ever at the house on or after the 7th August?  To me the chain of evidence is broken when they picked it up.

This is one of the main tenets of the prosecution, so yes, I agree. Evidence, however, does get discovered in all sorts of ways (i.e. the sweatshirt in the trial of Russell Bishop) and it's continuity needs to be maintained.
The chain of custody may have been rigorous post it's discovery (aside from sticking it in a bog roll tube) but its provenance is in question.

[Holly Goodhead]

This is one of the main tenets of the prosecution, so yes, I agree. Evidence, however, does get discovered in all sorts of ways (i.e. the sweatshirt in the trial of Russell Bishop) and it's continuity needs to be maintained.
The chain of custody may have been rigorous post it's discovery (aside from sticking it in a bog roll tube) but its provenance is in question.

The trial judge asked Rivlin QC if there was any dispute about the 'transmission' (think that was the word) over blood stained exhibits he answered no!  I will find the trial testimony.

[The General]

The trial judge asked Rivlin QC if there was any dispute about the 'transmission' (think that was the word) over blood stained exhibits he answered no!  I will find the trial testimony.

That would just about amount to dereliction of duty; to reuse the opportunity to pick apart one of the two main prosecution elements of evidence is negligent if that's the case.
Bamber still did it though (for the baying masses)

[Holly Goodhead]

That would just about amount to dereliction of duty; to reuse the opportunity to pick apart one of the two main prosecution elements of evidence is negligent if that's the case.
Bamber still did it though (for the baying masses)

From John Hayward's testimony (responsible for analysing blood stained exhibits).

Mr Justice Drake

Now, Mr Rivlin, the witness is going to be asked about a large number of items which later on he is going to tell us about, is there any dispute that they were transmitted properly to him, or where they were found?

Mr Rivlin

No, my Lord

[The General]

From John Hayward's testimony (responsible for analysing blood stained exhibits).

Mr Justice Drake

Now, Mr Rivlin, the witness is going to be asked about a large number of items which later on he is going to tell us about, is there any dispute that they were transmitted properly to him, or where they were found?

Mr Rivlin

No, my Lord

So does this mean that their existence were explained to him, i.e. they were about to be brought up in evidence, and not pertaining to the concepts of the chain of custody or provenance?

[Holly Goodhead]

So does this mean that their existence were explained to him, i.e. they were about to be brought up in evidence, and not pertaining to the concepts of the chain of custody or provenance?

DS Jones entered the silencer into the incorrect property book meaning it didn't undergo the sort of scrutiny such an exhibit would normally undergo.  Scrutinised by whom?  Police, FSS, defence, CPS, trial judge?

My interpretation of the above is that it was Rivlin's opportunity to beat the drum about chain of custody but he chose not to as it didn't fit with his strategy of SC using the silencer to murder her parents and children and returning it to the cupboard before shooting herself.  The blood representing an intimate mix of June and NB's.

[The General]

DS Jones entered the silencer into the incorrect property book meaning it didn't undergo the sort of scrutiny such an exhibit would normally undergo.  Scrutinised by whom?  Police, FSS, defence, CPS, trial judge?

My interpretation of the above is that it was Rivlin's opportunity to beat the drum about chain of custody but he chose not to as it didn't fit with his strategy of SC using the silencer to murder her parents and children and returning it to the cupboard before shooting herself.  The blood representing an intimate mix of June and NB's.

Got it. Yes, clearly it would be counter-productive to pick the bones out of it, and the negative connotations would outweigh the positives derived from establishing slipshod evidence handling, presumably, despite the temptation.
So the established and agreed upon narrative was purely predicated on the apparent lack of mode of entry by persons unknown?

[Robittybob1]

Where do you it was between 7th Aug and 9th Aug when the relatives claim to have found it?

They might have had it all the time.

[Robittybob1]

478. On this information the CCRC decided that “the DNA results as they stood began to support
the theory put forward by the defence at trial”. They decided to take steps to see whether
the female DNA found within the moderator came from Sheila Caffell. To this end they
located Sheila Caffell’s natural mother and obtained a sample of her DNA. The evidence of
the testing of this sample was recorded as:
“The results of these tests were that…the DNA in the silencer could
not have come from Sheila Caffell”.

If the DNA did not come from Sheila Caffell neither did the blood.  The blood group analysis showed it could be SC's but also the same result could be from a mixture of June and Nevill Bamber's blood.

So was the DNA matching  June and Nevill Bamber?  Or are there just no reference samples of their DNA to compare silencer results to?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Where do you it was between 7th Aug and 9th Aug when the relatives claim to have found it?

It was kept safe and separate from anything at the Eatons.

They called the police AS SOON as they discovered it, but the inept police didn’t pass the message onto the investigation team for two days. Everyone knows that: in fact, that came up in the police review when Parliament were aghast at how EP, particularly Taff Jones, handled the case.

Incidentally, you’re wrong about the back spatter, Holly

A bullet fires at the same speed whether a moderator is attached to a rifle or not.

When a bullet hits a target e.g. a human, the colossal impact creates back spatter regardless of whether a moderator is used or not. That’s plain PHYSICS.

Flesh and blood doesn’t know the bullet has travelled through a silencer, so where do you think that back spatter goes? In the opposite direction? Don’t be silly, Holly...