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

[G-Unit]

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?

In the late 1990's when DNA testing became available they were unable to compare the results with samples from the victims because they were destroyed in 1996 by Essex Police (EP)

[Robittybob1]

In the late 1990's when DNA testing became available they were unable to compare the results with samples from the victims because they were destroyed in 1996 by Essex Police (EP)

But they still had DNA from Sheila's biological mother.  If the blood in the silencer was Sheila's 50% of the markers would match that obtained from the mother.  I don't know if any matched at all.  If it was as different as that then they could easily say “The results of these tests were that…the DNA in the silencer could
not have come from Sheila Caffell”.
Do we have access to the actual results?

[G-Unit]

But they still had DNA from Sheila's biological mother.  If the blood in the silencer was Sheila's 50% of the markers would match that obtained from the mother.  I don't know if any matched at all.  If it was as different as that then they could easily say “The results of these tests were that…the DNA in the silencer could
not have come from Sheila Caffell”.
Do we have access to the actual results?

I haven't seen actual results, but they had samples from Sheila's mother, her husband and her children.

[Robittybob1]

I haven't seen actual results, but they had samples from Sheila's mother, her husband and her children.

Yes you were right, they ground up Collin's collection of milk teeth from his kids to run DNA tests.  I'm looking forward to see if that has assisted in any way.  Surely it only supports the previous finding that the blood in the silencer was not Sheila's.
The DNA results from her husband could only make the situation worse if it was ever found that Colin wasn't the actual biological father. 

[Robittybob1]

This is what the Wikipedia Article on the Whitehouse Farm murder says:
"New silencer evidence

Bamber's appeal at the Royal Courts of Justice was dismissed in December 2002.
Although all the grounds (except 11) were reviewed by the court, the reason for the referral to the Court of Appeal was ground 15, the discovery of DNA on the silencer, the result of a test not available in 1986. The silencer evidence during the original trial had come from a Mr. Hayward, a biologist in private practice, formerly of the Forensic Science Laboratory. He had found a "considerable amount of blood" inside the silencer; he had stated that it was human blood and that the blood group was consistent with it having come from Sheila. He said there was a "remote possibility" that it was a mixture of blood from Nevill and June.[190]

Mark Webster, an expert instructed by Bamber's defence team, argued that Hayward's tests had been inadequate, and that there was a real possibility, not a remote one, that the blood had come from Nevill and June.[191] This was a critical point, because the prosecution case rested on the silencer having been on the gun when Sheila was shot, something she could not have done herself because of the length of her arms. If she was shot with the silencer on the gun, it meant that someone else had shot her. If her blood was inside the silencer, it supported the prosecution's position that she had been shot by another party, but if the blood inside the silencer belonged to someone else, that part of the prosecution case collapsed.[192]

The defence argued that new tests comparing DNA in the silencer to a sample from Sheila's biological mother suggested that the "major component" of the DNA in the silencer had not come from Sheila.[192] A DNA sample from June's sister suggested that the major component had come from June, the defence argued. The court concluded that June's DNA was in the silencer, that Sheila's DNA may have been in the silencer, and that there was evidence of DNA from at least one male. The judges' conclusion was that the results were complex, incomplete, and also meaningless because they did not establish how June's DNA came to be in the silencer years after the trial, did not establish that Sheila's was not in it, and did not lead to a conclusion that Bamber's conviction was unsafe."

yet the Appeal notes state:
"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”.

[Brietta]

Do you think I haven't pored over this with a magnifying glass?! 

It wasn't "virtually certain" at all that blood would deposit in/on the barrel if the silencer wasn't attached.

From a book authored by Dr Vincent DiMaio - The Pathology Of Gunshot Wounds:

Page 326

"Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound".

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

Brie my challenge to you: find a case, test fire, forensic research, absolutely anything, where blood is found inside a silencer as a result of the 'drawback' phenomenon. I'll give you a clue the physics behind the whole proposition make it impossible.

You seem determined to reinterpret the forensic evidence to suit yourself.
Snip
What Malcolm Fletcher has failed to take into account is that by using a silencer most of the gases are discharged in the silencer making it extremely unlikely that draw-back would occur.

It is possible to set up a reconstruction to confirm one way or the other.  Even if draw-back takes place it will determine whether blood could be drawn back as far as the 8th baffle and whether it would have distributed the way in which it is claimed it was found.   I have been in email contact with Dr Nordby.   A letter is winging its way to JB for his approval to undertake a reconstruction.  I have financial backers and the world's press are waiting in the wings
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6061.msg223553#msg223553


How did that pan out?  Did the world's press miss out on something?

[Caroline]

Do you think I haven't pored over this with a magnifying glass?! 

It wasn't "virtually certain" at all that blood would deposit in/on the barrel if the silencer wasn't attached.

From a book authored by Dr Vincent DiMaio - The Pathology Of Gunshot Wounds:

Page 326

"Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound".

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

Brie my challenge to you: find a case, test fire, forensic research, absolutely anything, where blood is found inside a silencer as a result of the 'drawback' phenomenon. I'll give you a clue the physics behind the whole proposition make it impossible.

So, just to be clear, you're saying that blood or tissue would never find its way inside a silencer and that physics proves it to be impossible?

Holly, can  you PLEASE answer this question? You set a challenge and if I don't have clarity I can't attempt to take it on. You previously said you weren't saying it  was impossible but now you're saying that it's beyond physics?

[Robittybob1]

So, just to be clear, you're saying that blood or tissue would never find it's way inside the silencer and that physics proves it to be impossible?

If a silencer was pressed up against a bleeding wound I could imagine blood entering the end of the silencer.

[Brancher]

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.

Actually, I'm not sure you've got your facts right there.

My understanding of what actually happened is that there was confusion among the relatives, who each thought one of the others had reported the find to the police, when in fact nobody had.  It was only when Robert Boutflour attended at Whitham Police Station to make a general complaint and mentioned the silencer in passing that the police were alerted to the silencer's existence and then arranged to collect it.

My source for this is Colin Caffell's book.  Or perhaps he is mistaken?

There is also a question mark over why the Eatons considered it necessary to remove this evidence from Whitehouse Farm, instead of reporting it immediately to the police and asking them to attend the scene forthwith, which would have been the more proper thing to do.  Why didn't it happen that way?

We will have to trust that the forensic integrity of the evidence was maintained. 

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...

Again, I must beg to differ.

Strictly speaking, it must be true that a bullet fires at the same speed whether the rifle is moderated/suppressed or not, but the velocity of the bullet can be affected by whether there is a moderator fitted.  That being said, the overall effect is probably neutral, or negligible one way or the other, so as a generalisation, what you're getting at is accurate.

Back spatter is not an inevitability and mostly does not happen; it is thought to occur normally under very specific circumstances.  Forward spatter is very common, though even that doesn't always occur as much depends on the situation, the weapon used and bullet velocity.  My understanding is that Holly is referring specifically to traces of back spatter within the gun barrel and moderator itself, as opposed to the general phenomenon of back spatter.  Also, while back spatter is, by definition, spatter of blood in a reverse direction to the line of firing, it does not always go in the exact opposite direction.

Holly isn't being silly.  She is raising good and important points. 

[Brancher]

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.

What a stupid defence.  How could any juror be expected to believe that Sheila would kill everybody and then go back to the gun cupboard to replace the silencer before killing herself? 

What on earth were Jeremy Bamber's barristers thinking?  They could have simply rested on the Crown's burden to prove that the moderator was used in the killings at all. 

[Brietta]

If a silencer was pressed up against a bleeding wound I could imagine blood entering the end of the silencer.

It doesn't work like that, Rob.

[Brancher]

If a silencer was pressed up against a bleeding wound I could imagine blood entering the end of the silencer.

As a simple fact, this is true, but what we have to ask is:

What is the precise location of the blood on and within the moderator?

What is the pattern of blood?

What is the quantity of blood?

Each of these questions raises separate problems. 

To my knowledge, the Crown did not prove a blood pattern within the moderator, but they did establish that it reached so far in (up to such-and-such baffles).

The defence have a problem too, in that there was quite a quantity of blood and I wonder if it is possible to credibly argue that it could have got there by accident or inadvertence, such as the method you describe or through some other contamination?  And the blood was quite far in, to an extent that could be consistent with back spatter on contact.

However...!  None of the gun shot wounds are consistent with the use of a moderator.

We should additionally note that the Crown did not establish it was Sheila's blood, only that it was a blood group analysis corresponding to hers, which is a very different thing.

Some years after the trial, the Crown did come up with a DNA result that is highly-probably linked to Sheila, but the method used does not establish the source of the DNA and contamination is highly-likely.  The 2002 appeal judges rejected the DNA evidence on that basis.

These points need to be weighed up.  To me, it points to either reasonable doubt or exclusion of the evidence altogether.  I would not now quash Jeremy Bamber's convictions on this basis, instead I would throw out the moderator (and the Mugford evidence) and then consider whether the rest of the evidence still sustains the convictions.

[Caroline]

So, just to be clear, you're saying that blood or tissue would never find it's way inside the silencer and that physics proves it to be impossible?

I'd like Holly to answer this for clarity as I thought she had previously stated that she hadn't said it wasn't impossible?

[Robittybob1]

It doesn't work like that, Rob.

There is blowback and direct filling.  Both methods would work.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

What a stupid defence.  How could any juror be expected to believe that Sheila would kill everybody and then go back to the gun cupboard to replace the silencer before killing herself? 

What on earth were Jeremy Bamber's barristers thinking?  They could have simply rested on the Crown's burden to prove that the moderator was used in the killings at all.

And that they did

And it was proven the silencer was used

Next,