Another look at that pesky sound moderator.

[Passer-by]

I can't understand how the evidence of the moderator would be admissible in a modern court?  It wasn't there when the police searched the cupboard (didn't they even photograph it?) but mysteriously appears when a gun dealer returned his own gun to the cupboard after illegally keeping it off-site, contrary to the terms of the license.  One relative says it had 'jam' like stuff in it, then it's described as a 'flake', then it's shoved in a bag by some other things, handled by loads of people without gloves - most of whom benefit from JB going to jail - and was then stored with other items that could cross-contaminate it.  If this is the kingpin of the prosecution it is breathtaking he hasn't had a retrial.

38

[John]

I can't understand how the evidence of the moderator would be admissible in a modern court?  It wasn't there when the police searched the cupboard (didn't they even photograph it?) but mysteriously appears when a gun dealer returned his own gun to the cupboard after illegally keeping it off-site, contrary to the terms of the license.  One relative says it had 'jam' like stuff in it, then it's described as a 'flake', then it's shoved in a bag by some other things, handled by loads of people without gloves - most of whom benefit from JB going to jail - and was then stored with other items that could cross-contaminate it.  If this is the kingpin of the prosecution it is breathtaking he hasn't had a retrial.

He hasn't had a retrial for the simple reason there is no evidence to support one.

[Passer-by]

Isn't that an anomaly of the system, whereby a retrial can only happen if new evidence comes to light, rather than if old evidence is thrown in doubt?

[Holly Goodhead]

Isn't that an anomaly of the system, whereby a retrial can only happen if new evidence comes to light, rather than if old evidence is thrown in doubt?

His CoA hearing in 2001 was based on new evidence throwing doubt on the old evidence if that makes sense! 

It was up to his QC at trial to challenge the silencer.  He was aware how, when, where it was found etc.  CAL's book tells that JB discussed with Goeffrey Rivlin QC deliberate contamination pre trial and he was told it was too far fetched!  The silencer could be challenged but not based on anything that was known at trial.  If for example ballistics testing showed that draw-back would not draw-back blood from a contact shot as far as the 8th baffle I think that would be considered 'new evidence'.  Or show that heat from the silencer would have damaged any blood deposited in the silencer so much so it would not have been possible to produce any results that also might be considered 'new evidence'.

[Angelo222]

Modern day forensics requires that evidence is properly protected from contamination so it is unlikely that the sound moderator evidence would feature in any retrial.  On the bright side however there is plenty of other evidence which would ensure a guilty verdict once more.

[John]

Modern day forensics requires that evidence is properly protected from contamination so it is unlikely that the sound moderator evidence would feature in any retrial.  On the bright side however there is plenty of other evidence which would ensure a guilty verdict once more.

Yes, the chain of custody is even more important these days if anyone is to get a fair trial.  Somehow I don't think the sound moderator would rank too highly in a modern day trial.

[Passer-by]

Thanks for the explanation Holly 

[Angelo222]

His CoA hearing in 2001 was based on new evidence throwing doubt on the old evidence if that makes sense! 

It was up to his QC at trial to challenge the silencer.  He was aware how, when, where it was found etc.  CAL's book tells that JB discussed with Goeffrey Rivlin QC deliberate contamination pre trial and he was told it was too far fetched!  The silencer could be challenged but not based on anything that was known at trial.  If for example ballistics testing showed that draw-back would not draw-back blood from a contact shot as far as the 8th baffle I think that would be considered 'new evidence'.  Or show that heat from the silencer would have damaged any blood deposited in the silencer so much so it would not have been possible to produce any results that also might be considered 'new evidence'.

A silencer does not generate heat and most certainly insufficient to damage blood on or within it to the extent it cannot be tested.

[Holly Goodhead]

A silencer does not generate heat and most certainly insufficient to damage blood on or within it to the extent it cannot be tested.

Not necessarily so.  A silencer generates a huge amount of heat.  It reduces sound by allowing the hot gasses to expand and cool in the silencer's expansion chamber and trapping them in between the baffles.  See the following vid where the guy is testing a suppressor sleeve (silencer, moderator, suppressor are all inter-changeable words and mean the same thing).  After 30 rounds the temp is recorded at 390F.  Water boils at 212F.  I don't think the silencer used at WHF would get to that sort of temperature ie 390F as the bullets are much lower in velocity but they would still generate significant heat to the extent the blood 'found' in the silencer could be destroyed in terms of its ability to yield blood results.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tJ7heDIqXU

The blood tests used in JB's case were based on blood serology which requires a good quality sample and should never be exposed to heat:

Conventional serological analysis

"Analysis of the proteins, enzymes, and antigens present in the blood. These substances are more susceptible to degradation than DNA and this type of testing usually requires a "large" sample (quarter size) in good condition for optimal results. This type of testing is rarely statistically individualizing.

"Blood evidence must never be exposed to excessive heat or humidity. If possible, the bloodstained evidence should be refrigerated until it can be transported to the crime lab. The evidence should also be taken to the lab as soon as possible. The following are guidelines, listed in order of the author's preferences, for collecting and preserving blood evidence"

http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/blood.html


[attachment deleted by admin]

[Holly Goodhead]

PS If you click on the attached pic it will show an animated handgun with and without a silencer.  It shows how in the unsilenced gun the hot gasses dissipate in the atmosphere after ejecting from the gun's muzzle.  With a silencer it shows how the hot gasses largely dissipate in the silencer hence the heat and the need for suppressor sleeves.

[John]

PS If you click on the attached pic it will show an animated handgun with and without a silencer.  It shows how in the unsilenced gun the hot gasses dissipate in the atmosphere after ejecting from the gun's muzzle.  With a silencer it shows how the hot gasses largely dissipate in the silencer hence the heat and the need for suppressor sleeves.

I think what Angelo means is that the heat comes from the bullet and the gases and is not generated by the sound moderator.

[Holly Goodhead]

I think what Angelo means is that the heat comes from the bullet and the gases and is not generated by the sound moderator.

Perhaps I didn't word it very well.  But silencers get very hot as per above.

[Holly Goodhead]

Blood for serological analysis should always be refrigerated hence DS Davidson stored the samples taken from the victims at post mortem in the SoC fridge at Chelmsford police station.  See page 12 and 13 of COLP report:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=178.0;attach=455

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=178.0;attach=457

After they were handed to him by Dr Vanezis:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=204.0;attach=704

[Holly Goodhead]

I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the blood in the silencer at ambient temperature over a week was enough to damage the sample for testing.  It was around a week in total before DS Jones submitted it.  He collected it from the Eatons on the eve of the 12th and submitted to the police station on the 13th. 

Did Malcolm Fletcher and John Hayward have the conversation about heat generated from bullets fired causing the barrel of a rifle and silencer to get hot and the detrimental effect on blood  &%+((£  They would not think in their wildest dreams EP might have deliberately contaminated the silencer to secure a conviction.

[John]

I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the blood in the silencer at ambient temperature over a week was enough to damage the sample for testing.  It was around a week in total before DS Jones submitted it.  He collected it from the Eatons on the eve of the 12th and submitted to the police station on the 13th. 

Did Malcolm Fletcher and John Hayward have the conversation about heat generated from bullets fired causing the barrel of a rifle and silencer to get hot and the detrimental effect on blood  &%+((£  They would not think in their wildest dreams EP might have deliberately contaminated the silencer to secure a conviction.

I understand the original pre DNA testing in 1985 could only rule out suspects whereas the DNA testing in 1999/2000 could have gone much further had the baffle blood samples not been exhausted.