Blood found in car and on towel returns inconclusive results.

[goatboy]

John, where does it state that blood was found on a towel and bathrobe in his house? And why didn't the police use this as evidence against him?

[insider]

John, where does it state that blood was found on a towel and bathrobe in his house? And why didn't the police use this as evidence against him?

Good morning people.  If I may goatboy I can answer that particular question.  Small amounts of blood were found in two articles in Jeremy Bambers bathroom and also on the passenger seat of the Citroen car.  Unfortunately the amount found was too small to establish who it belonged to.  Going by memory this is referred to in a forensic report.

[goatboy]

John, where does it state that blood was found on a towel and bathrobe in his house? And why didn't the police use this as evidence against him?

Good morning people.  If I may goatboy I can answer that particular question.  Small amounts of blood were found in two articles in Jeremy Bambers bathroom and also on the passenger seat of the Citroen car.  Unfortunately the amount found was too small to establish who it belonged to.  Going by memory this is referred to in a forensic report.

Thanks Insider, actually I do remember the mention of blood in the car not the towel so I must have seen this document at some point. The blue forum do tend to go on about no forensic samples linking Jeremy to the scene, it sounds like this might be evidence to the contrary. And evidence like this wasn't even needed to convict him anyway.

[steve_trousers]

And while someone mentioned blood, blood was found on the passenger seat of the Citroen and on a bathroom towel in Jeremy Bambers cottage.

I did a search on this to find out more and I stumbled across the blue site. I came away feeling very disoriented by all the fog
I presume it was inconclusive exactly who's it was or when it got there, and so was not used at the trial. But compelling circumstantial evidence all the same if it was on the fresh side.. was it? is there a reliable thread on here

Edit, I know now, its because it was too small in quantity to test for group in mid 80's
Did EP destroy this blood or was it tested again much later

[scipio_usmc]

I did a search on this to find out more and I stumbled across the blue site. I came away feeling very disoriented by all the fog
I presume it was inconclusive exactly who's it was or when it got there, and so was not used at the trial. But compelling circumstantial evidence all the same if it was on the fresh side.. was it? is there a reliable thread on here

Unless there is a substantial amount of blood the only value is if you know who blood belongs to.  You can get a cut shaving your face. If it is obvious you were washing a substantial amount of blood off your hands around the time of a murder that is different naturally. You need a viable innocent reason for that blood.  If the blood belongs to victims then you are up the creek whether a lot or a small amount.  I don't think either of the blood stains consisted of enough blood to make it clear it was related to the murder nor could it be determined whose blood it was so they are basically of no value evidence wise.   

[John]

This is a relaunched thread.