Lets review the evidence which convicted Jeremy Bamber.

[John]

I don't know why everyone, pro and anti, can't accept the LCN DNA findings of the scientists and three appeal court judges ie that they were "utterly meaningless".  The reason for this is that in 85/86 LCN DNA was not even envisaged.  As such exhibits were not protected against contamination by those who handled them eg staff at fss, court officials, and jurors who handled the silencer along with other exhibits such as the victims' nightwear.  LCN DNA is so sensitive that a profile can be obtained from only a few cells, which may be as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt, and amount to just a few cells of skin or sweat.

So how exactly could the baffles deep inside a silencer be contaminated with Sheila Caffell's DNA when she never had it open and probably never even handled it as she hated guns.  It doesn't matter how small the tested sample was, it will still return an accurate result.  DNA is a bit like digital TV, you either have it or you don't.  The only part which is unknown is where the DNA came from.  There was not enough of the sample remaining after previous tests to prove it came from blood and what was left was tested to destruction.

[Holly Goodhead]

So how exactly could the baffles deep inside a silencer be contaminated with Sheila Caffell's DNA when she never had it open and probably never even handled it as she hated guns.  It doesn't matter how small the tested sample was, it will still return an accurate result.  DNA is a bit like digital TV, you either have it or you don't.  The only part which is unknown is where the DNA came from.  There was not enough of the sample remaining after previous tests to prove it came from blood and what was left was tested to destruction.

My previous post explains the small (not visible to naked eye) samples required to produce an LCN-DNA reading.  Sheila is unlikely to have ever had any direct contact with the silencer but the fact that others had contact with items that had been in contact with Sheila and then had contact with the silencer could give rise to contamination.

The blood sample found in the silencer did not match June's blood type/group but all agreed ie scientists and 3 x appeal court judges that June's DNA was in the silencer. Again probably from secondary contamination. 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_testing.html

[John]

My previous post explains the small (not visible to naked eye) samples required to produce an LCN-DNA reading.  Sheila is unlikely to have ever had any direct contact with the silencer but the fact that others had contact with items that had been in contact with Sheila and then had contact with the silencer could give rise to contamination.

The blood sample found in the silencer did not match June's blood type/group but all agreed ie scientists and 3 x appeal court judges that June's DNA was in the silencer. Again probably from secondary contamination. 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_testing.html

As I have already indicated Holly, the chances of the DNA not belonging to Sheila are many millions to one.  You cannot corrupt DNA results unless of course you are suggesting that someone planted Sheila's blood in the silencer?

[simong]

Adoption psychology; June's mental illness/depression circa 1959; Adoption reunions

The expert witnesses called at trial made no reference to the above: Dr Ferguson, Dr Bradley, Prof Knight. 

Adoption psychology

http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/about/dbrodzinsky.php

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Psychology-Adoption-David-Brodzinsky/dp/0195082737

June's mental illness/depression circa 1959

See attached pdf

Lack of empathy/attachment disorder potentially caused by June's mental illness/depression/neglect

http://cultureofempathy.com/References/Experts/Simon-Baron-Cohen.htm

Adoption reunions

http://www.videojug.com/interview/nicky-campbell-on-adoption

Nicky Campbell (adoptee) radio and tv presenter and patron of British Association Adoption and Fostering states in his video above re his reunion with his birth parents:

"You have to feel right about it and you've got to protect yourself because it is tough, it can be very, very tough.  You're talking about raw emotional truths that your confront".

How did Sheila cope with the above just weeks before the murders?

Hi Holly,


I have read a lot about how her mental state would have made her capable of killing but rarely does anyone actually explain what she did that night. For someone going crazy, there seems to have been a fair degree of decsion making and panic going on.

I know its a bit maccabre but would you mind possibly explaining what happened that night if Sheila was the killer. I have listed some things below that i would like explained.

1. At what point, before, during or after the carnage did she eat the part digested food found in her body?

2. Did Nevills body happen to end up on a chair by chance or was it deliberately placed there?

3. The order of the shootings and the gun reloads.

4. Did she carry ammunition or did she return to the kitchen to reload?

5. At what point during 'Sheila going beserk' did Nevill call Jeremy.

6. Did Nevill pursue Sheila to the kitchen or did she chase him?

7. The lack of Nevills blood from the ferocious beating on her clothing.

8. The trail of Junes blood from her side of the bedroom to Nevills side where Sheilas body was found.

Many thanks

[Holly Goodhead]

As I have already indicated Holly, the chances of the DNA not belonging to Sheila are many millions to one.  You cannot corrupt DNA results unless of course you are suggesting that someone planted Sheila's blood in the silencer?

I don't really see the blood and DNA test results connected.  The blood sample found in the silencer matched Sheila's blood type/group but as we know it also matched Robert Boutflour's.  The blood type/group test results available in 85/86 are not exclusive to individuals.

As we know the CoA ruled that Sheila's DNA may have been in the silencer but they were unable to confirm either way. DNA results can identify a positive match normally to about 0.3% making it pretty damn conclusive. 

Lets assume for argument sake Sheila's DNA was in the silencer it by no means proves that her blood was ever in the silencer due to the potential for contamination.  By contamination I mean that when staff at fss, court officials or jurors handled the silencer they did not take the necessary precautions to prevent contamination as DNA testing was not even envisaged in 85/86.  So it was possible when jurors were handling the silencer along with other exhibits that contained Sheila's dna eg blood, skin etc that the silencer was contaminated.

Confirmation from CoA doc re potential for contamination:

504. Mr Webster then reviewed in detail the history of the handling of the moderator and the various opportunities for contamination. He considered the fact that Dr Lincoln had taken out all the baffles and tested them all. He referred to the fact that both Mr Hayward and Mr Fletcher had handled the moderator in the witness box, a place where other exhibits were produced without any precautions being taken to avoid contact. He pointed to the fact that the judge specifically told the jury that they could "empty the baffles out later" and that it could not be established what use had been made of the moderator by the jury during their deliberations or what other exhibits may have been in their possession. He observed that the judge had told the jury that if they handled any of the clothing, they should put on plastic gloves for their own protection, thus giving rise to the possibility that blood stained items were examined by the jury with no precautions being taken to ensure that if they then went to handle the baffles there was not contamination

End

Futhermore the DNA detected by the LCN-DNA testing did not reflect the distribution of blood found in the silencer in 85/86:

Confirmation from CoA doc re distribution of DNA not reflecting distribution of blood within the silencer

 72. Even given these limitations of LCN profiling, I do consider that the tests were worth attempting. The results obtained would have been of value if the distribution of DNA within the sound moderator detected by the LCN DNA profiling test reflected the distribution of blood within the sound moderator when it was originally tested. Unfortunately they do not.

[Holly Goodhead]

Hi Holly,


I have read a lot about how her mental state would have made her capable of killing but rarely does anyone actually explain what she did that night. For someone going crazy, there seems to have been a fair degree of decsion making and panic going on.

I know its a bit maccabre but would you mind possibly explaining what happened that night if Sheila was the killer. I have listed some things below that i would like explained.

1. At what point, before, during or after the carnage did she eat the part digested food found in her body?

2. Did Nevills body happen to end up on a chair by chance or was it deliberately placed there?

3. The order of the shootings and the gun reloads.

4. Did she carry ammunition or did she return to the kitchen to reload?

5. At what point during 'Sheila going beserk' did Nevill call Jeremy.

6. Did Nevill pursue Sheila to the kitchen or did she chase him?

7. The lack of Nevills blood from the ferocious beating on her clothing.

8. The trail of Junes blood from her side of the bedroom to Nevills side where Sheilas body was found.

Many thanks

Good questions Simong. Hope my answers will be worthy  8-)(--)

1. Yes as per the pathologist's report, Sheila was the only victim to have partially digested food in her stomach meaning she ate later than the other victims but how much later I don't know.  If I had to guess I would say she didn't actually get into bed ie pull the covers.  Rather she laid on top and may have drifted in and out of sleep or not.  I feel she got up around midnight/very early hours had a snack and started to brood on her life/situation and as was the case at Maida Vale, as reported by neighbours, started to get agitated in the early hours.  The SoC photos show the bed made or rather covers pulled right over the bed but to my eye the pillow appears to have an indentation in it. 

2.  I would say NB sought solace in his favourite chair of his own accord. I note that the pathologist states that if the 3 or 4 gunshot wounds received in the kitchen hadn't supervened then the first 4 or 5 received in the bedroom/stairs would have killed him.  EP reported seeing Nevill in his chair through the window pretty much ruling out EP moving him.  I think it would have been impossible for SC to position him in the chair.  Why would either SC or JB place NB in the chair?

3. There appears to be a lot of conflicting reports about how many bullets JB left in the mag and breach ranging from 10 in total to 7.  I think SC was in the kitchen with NB who was on the phone to JB.  SC went upstairs and shot June probably 5 times while in bed.  NB appeared and he was then shot 4 or 5 times.  At this point I believe NB attempted to get downstairs to the phone.  SC followed him and fired the shot down the stairs.  NB arrived in the kitchen and slumped in the chair.  SC may then have bashed NB with the rifle.  SC then reloaded from the kitchen.  I understand as more bullets are pushed into the mag it gets progressively difficult.  I think once Sheila was faced with any difficulty she would have made further shots and then refilled.  Firing another 3 or 4 shots into NB and a further 2 to June and continuing refilling from the kitchen and firing shots with the twins shot last.

4. I think she reloaded from the kitchen as I don't think she was able to carry bullets on her person.

5. If NB called JB then imo it was well before any shots were fired.  Please see 3 above.  I really struggle to believe that NB would have called JB after he was shot. This imo sounds too incredulous in terms of being physically able to do so and it would make no logical sense to phone a family member if a gun was going off.  He would surely call emergency services?

6.  After NB was shot in the bedroom imo he attempted to escape to phone emergency services of flee the property to the nearby cottages to raise the alarm and was followed by SC hence the downward shot around the stairs.

7.  If SC was responsible I feel certain she must have showered, possibly washing her hair, and changing her clothes.  The clothes left to soak in buckets in the kitchen should have been analysed. 

8. Its not clear to me whether June was trying to reason with the shooter or escape for self-preservation and/or to protect the twins.

Obviously the above are just my opinions of what may have happened.

[Holly Goodhead]

Hi Holly, I can only presume that you are playing devils advocate.

The longer this charade goes on, the more ridiculous and desperate it has become.  Believing that Bamber was not guilty beyond absolute forensic proof, is quite different from believing that, on the balance of probability, Shelia was responsible rather than Jeremy. 

I think it's quite telling that after all these years Bamber has failed spectacularly to find anything, that could perhaps suggest his innocence. 

Holly, if you are prepared to put your money where your strongly held belief is, I'll have a £50 Save the Children donation with you, that Bambers conviction is not quashed this year!

https://mydonatetelethonsappeals.bt.com/donate/cin2014/donationAcknowledgedSuccess.html?peid=DYL-50007844&amount=5000&currency=GBP&rc=0

[Holly Goodhead]

https://mydonatetelethonsappeals.bt.com/donate/cin2014/donationAcknowledgedSuccess.html?peid=DYL-50007844&amount=5000&currency=GBP&rc=0

Lets double the original bet for the end of 2015 ie £100?

[John]

I would put your money to better use Holly, the evidence which convicted Jeremy Bamber is unassailable as Simon McKay has recently discovered.  He isn't going anywhere any time soon.

[Holly Goodhead]

I would put your money to better use Holly, the evidence which convicted Jeremy Bamber is unassailable as Simon McKay has recently discovered.  He isn't going anywhere any time soon.

Either way I think the Children in Need appeal is a good use of money?  Actually I see the bet was based on Save the Children but Myster made recent ref to CiN and so I donated to CiN.

As far as I'm aware SM and JB parted on good times.  I have no idea who JB's current legal representatives are.  I think SM was a one man band and perhaps couldn't commit the resources the case requires on a pro bono basis.

I don't see the evidence that convicted JB as unassailable.  I see the verdict as a MoJ based on a very poor defence. 

[John]

Either way I think the Children in Need appeal is a good use of money?  Actually I see the bet was based on Save the Children but Myster made recent ref to CiN and so I donated to CiN.

As far as I'm aware SM and JB parted on good times.  I have no idea who JB's current legal representatives are.  I think SM was a one man band and perhaps couldn't commit the resources the case requires on a pro bono basis.

I don't see the evidence that convicted JB as unassailable.  I see the verdict as a MoJ based on a very poor defence.

The best defence in the world wouldn't have made any difference and had the jury had access to DNA testing back in 1986 the verdict would have been unanimous.

[Holly Goodhead]

The best defence in the world wouldn't have made any difference and had the jury had access to DNA testing back in 1986 the verdict would have been unanimous.

We will have to agree to disagree.  Had GR decided upon a different strategy with the silencer the verdict may have been entirely different.  GR decided to go with SC using the silencer and returning it to the gun cupboard before turning the gun on herself.  The blood in the silencer being an intimate mix of NB's and June's.  This to my mind just doesn't sound credible at all.  Had GR have presented the jury with the potential for contamination the verdict may have been entirely different.

As far as I am aware we have no way of measuring a barrister's competence either on a particular case or generally.  A year or two after JB's trial GR became a judge.  Perhaps he realised advocacy wasn't for him!?

If the trial was conducted today the soc and exhibits would be properly protected against contamination and it would be possible to use SGM Plus DNA testing instead of LCN DNA testing on the blood found in the silencer.  This would have concluded whether or not the blood found in the silencer belonged to SC.  However it wouldn't necessarily be capable of proving how the blood came to be there.  If the police and/or others wanted to fabricate evidence they might have been able to if they had access to SC's blood which EP did as the pathologist handed the samples to EP for forwarding to FSS.

[John]

I don't see the silencer having a major part in the conviction in any event Holly, rather, it is the other circumstantial evidence taken together which convicted him.  There isn't a shred of evidence to support his innocence even after all these years, what does that tell you?

Don't you think Collins would have hung around had he thought him innocent of the murders?

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't see the silencer having a major part in the conviction in any event Holly, rather, it is the other circumstantial evidence taken together which convicted him.  There isn't a shred of evidence to support his innocence even after all these years, what does that tell you?

Don't you think Collins would have hung around had he thought him innocent of the murders?

It appears from the judge's summing up, jury's deliberations and questions for the judge that the silencer played a pivotal role in the jury's verdict.  The way in which the silencer was presented to the jury might be considered 'direct evidence' along with JM's testimony. The rest eg phone calls, bike, window, dislike of family, motivation etc was circumstantial/indirect evidence.  We don't really know what weight the jury gave to the various elements.

Our legal system is adversarial.  The defendant is either found guilty beyond reasonable doubt or not guilty.  Innocence doesn't really come into it.  This tells me it is a system, like any other, that is fallible and as such capable of producing long running MoJ's as evidenced by those that we have witnessed over the years. 

The prosecution and defence agreed that either JB or SC were responsible and no one else.  Only JB went on trial. 

Brett Collins supported JB throughout his trial.  He simply returned home to New Zealand post trial.

[John]

It appears from the judge's summing up, jury's deliberations and questions for the judge that the silencer played a pivotal role in the jury's verdict.  The way in which the silencer was presented to the jury might be considered 'direct evidence' along with JM's testimony. The rest eg phone calls, bike, window, dislike of family, motivation etc was circumstantial/indirect evidence.  We don't really know what weight the jury gave to the various elements.

Our legal system is adversarial.  The defendant is either found guilty beyond reasonable doubt or not guilty.  Innocence doesn't really come into it.  This tells me it is a system, like any other, that is fallible and as such capable of producing long running MoJ's as evidenced by those that we have witnessed over the years. 

The prosecution and defence agreed that either JB or SC were responsible and no one else.  Only JB went on trial. 

Brett Collins supported JB throughout his trial.  He simply returned home to New Zealand post trial.

You have missed the important evidence yet again.  We know that the killer had to be Jeremy or Sheila, nobody else could gain access to the property.  The substantial evidence provided by Sheila rules her out leaving only one other person. 

It is unnecessary to prove Jeremy did it, all we have to prove is that Sheila most certainly didn't do it!