Could fingerprints still be identified from the casings?

[Holly Goodhead]

The Anschutz and magazine probably exist, (was the original, or a similar one used in the US tests?), so maybe the casings do as well... on display, polished up like new in EP's "Black Museum". ; - )

The CERA device could also be used on the moderator, but more likely to find every other Bob, Dave and Stan's fingerprints on it as well.

Apparently, cyanoacrylate fuming doesn't affect underlying corrosion, so there could be a better chance of lifting readable prints with the CERA.  If it works successfully, this discovery/invention is up there with DNA "fingerprinting" in advancing crime detection.

The CA fuming method, just for info...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkdlRN0jU7U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0e8WXkFA64

What about the inside of the silencer and/or the baffles?  I guess if there was any deliberate contamination the perp(s) would have worn gloves.  The lab staff would surely wear gloves as a matter of course.  At trial the judge told jurors they could disassemble the silencer so could have the fingerprints of 12 jurors on!

Why does CERA appear to be limited to cylindrical objects?  Surely the techonology, highlighting the corrosion, could be applied to any object eg rifle?  If more fingerprints could be recovered from the rifle it could rule in or out JB if his fingerprints overlayed SC's or vice-versa?

I also posted about another new technology on paper.  I was thinking about the bible.  Where JB and SC could have innocently handled items it would need to show one's fingerprints significantly overlayed the other?  If that's possible ie a fingerprint expert is able to determine whose prints overlay whose. 

[John]

It would be interesting to know which exhibits Essex Police destroyed in their wisdom?

[Holly Goodhead]

Well hopefully we will have the definitive answer we all seek thanks to CERA LT.  If the casings have been destroyed then it appears the only way forward will be a retrial. 

Meanwhile we have Trudi's vlog to look forward to tomorrow   

[david1819]

Well hopefully we will have the definitive answer we all seek thanks to CERA LT.  If the casings have been destroyed then it appears the only way forward will be a retrial. 

Meanwhile we have Trudi's vlog to look forward to tomorrow 

Retrial after 30 years? wont happen. First of all the COA will have to quash the conviction before a retrial is ordered.

COA will either uphold or acquit, Ordering a retrial will be pointless because A) Three decades have passed B) The evidence is a joke by todays standards C) Most the senior witnesses are dead or not far from it.

The best option for the COA is to uphold

[scipio_usmc]

Retrial after 30 years? wont happen. First of all the COA will have to quash the conviction before a retrial is ordered.

COA will either uphold or acquit, Ordering a retrial will be pointless because A) Three decades have passed B) The evidence is a joke by todays standards C) Most the senior witnesses are dead or not far from it.

The best option for the COA is to uphold

Knowing the government would not likely be able to retry the case doesn't mean the COA would acquit him if persuaded the conviction was unsafe.  It simply means the COA is going to not find it safe unless there is strong evidence to establish it as unsafe as opposed to relying on BS arguments but that is how they are supposed to act anyway. 

The only thing powerful enough to overcome the conviction in the legal sense would be for Julie to recant or there to be proof that the police concealed finding blood in the rifle and planted it in the moderator.  No other arguments would be legally sufficient.  This is not because of how much time has passed this is because of that is what legally would be sufficient.  MAYBE because so much time has passed they would ignore Julie if she did recant because they feel the other evidence was sufficient to convict and still refuse to release him knowing the state would have a problem retrying him. That's the only way the time consideration would come into the mix and in a sense would be improper because if a major leg of a case is undermined then they should vacate the conviction.  There were 2 major planks offered for conviction and no way to know whether the jury accepted both or only 1 and if one which one. So in the pure objective legal setting the conviction should be vacated if either is undone and then the prosecution has to present the sole one to jurors if they can. If they cannot then too bad for the.

Since there is less of a chance of Julie recanting than Jeremy confessing there is no reason to worry about whether the COA would do their duty or not if she recanted.

If there were solid evidence to establish blood was planted in the moderator the COA would have no choice but to vacate the conviction unless they want to look like complete clowns.

[Holly Goodhead]

Retrial after 30 years? wont happen. First of all the COA will have to quash the conviction before a retrial is ordered.

COA will either uphold or acquit, Ordering a retrial will be pointless because A) Three decades have passed B) The evidence is a joke by todays standards C) Most the senior witnesses are dead or not far from it.

The best option for the COA is to uphold

What's the alternative if the casings have been destroyed? 

From the CPS website:

General Guidance: After Production In Court

Once an exhibit is produced in court, or treated as being produced in accordance with section 5B(5) Magistrates Courts Act 1980 (Archbold 10-16), the court has a responsibility to preserve or retain it. Normally the court entrusts the exhibits to the prosecution, usually the police.

The court can impose restrictions on the prosecution. Where it imposes no restrictions, it is for the prosecution to deal with the exhibits in whatever way appears best for the purposes of justice. If the prosecution has doubts as to how to deal with an exhibit it may, but is not obliged to, apply to the court for directions (R v Stipendiary Magistrates at Lambeth and Another, ex p McComb 1983) All ER 321).

The CoA took a dim view when exhibits had been destroyed at JB's last CoA hearing:

165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.

490. Samples obtained from Sheila Caffell's natural mother and from other sources enabled the scientists to say with confidence that the major component did not come from Sheila Caffell. Because the blood sample of June Bamber no longer exists, it has not been possible to do a direct comparison between her DNA and that of the major component. However, it has been possible to obtain a sample from June Bamber's sister, Pamela Boutflour, which because closely related relatives are statistically more likely to have shared components than unrelated individuals, has enabled conclusions to be drawn. That evidence shows that it is about 3,500 times more likely that the major source of DNA was from a full sister of Pamela Boutflour, i.e. June Bamber, compared to it being from an unrelated female. Both Mr Clayton and Miss Tomlinson, the DNA experts from whom we have heard, assessed this as strong evidenced that the major component therefore comes from June Bamber.

491. A part of this ground of appeal relates to the destruction of June Bamber's blood sample. It is not suggested that that can be used as a free standing ground of appeal but it is combined with the DNA evidence to suggest that the appellant may have been deprived of the chance of advancing even stronger evidence that the DNA was from June Bamber. On the evidence of the two scientists, we would feel that the only safe course for us to take is to conclude that the major component of the DNA on the baffles did originate from June Bamber. When we made clear to Mr Turner that this would be our approach and queried whether in such circumstances the destruction of the samples from June Bamber could be said to prejudice the appellant, Mr Turner recognised the force in the point and after taking specific instructions from the appellant decided not to pursue that aspect further. We have therefore not considered the circumstances in which the blood samples were destroyed since they have no bearing upon any other aspect of this case.

David you can see from the points above (CoA hearing doc 2002) that the appeal court judges conceded June's blood was in the silencer based on the statistical data provided by the scientists when it wasn't an absolute.  However as we know due to the fact LCN DNA is unable to identify the source eg blood, skin cells etc and the fact contamination could not be ruled out it was not capable of being advanced so ended up being unimportant.

However CERA LT is capable of identifying fingerprints on casings.  How can the CoA judges make a concession as they did above?  What is the alternative to a retrial?  JB will claim had the casings not been destoyed he would be in a position to prove his innocence.  They might still exist but I believe a lot of exhibits were destroyed.

[Myster]

Those elusive cartridge cases heard about your crafty scheming and have gone on the run...

[Holly Goodhead]

Those elusive cartridge cases heard about your crafty scheming and have gone on the run...

I think you must have known about Trudi's disclosures in the Vlog  &%+((£

[Holly Goodhead]

So based on Trudi's vlog it seems the only exhibits still available are the rifle and silencer    No chance of the conclusive evidence I was hoping for as a result of CERA LT   

No idea what the way forward is now or even if one exists!  &%+((£  Perhaps judicial review  &%+((£  Judicial review as I understand it is concerned with process rather than outcomes.  If EP didn't follow due processes with regards to the preservation of court exhibits maybe there's some scope here (for a retrial)?  No idea.  I will discuss with 'my Pete' but he deals in litigation and in any event you can never get a straight answer from any of these people!

(Just previewed and the post is not displaying emoticons?)

[Myster]

So based on Trudi's vlog it seems the only exhibits still available are the rifle and silencer    No chance of the conclusive evidence I was hoping for as a result of CERA LT 

No idea what the way forward is now or even if one exists!  &%+((£  Perhaps judicial review  &%+((£  Judicial review as I understand it is concerned with process rather than outcomes.  If EP didn't follow due processes with regards to the preservation of court exhibits maybe there's some scope here (for a retrial)?  No idea.  I will discuss with 'my Pete' but he deals in litigation and in any event you can never get a straight answer from any of these people!

(Just previewed and the post is not displaying emoticons?)

That's saved them raising twenty-seven grand for a CERA LT.

Videos and emoticons make strange bedfellows.

Here Pete!... Come on, that's a good boy!   Sit!... now tell me.......

[Holly Goodhead]

Oh dear, Oh dear, Oh dear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh dear, Oh dear, Oh dear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what?  You do appreciate that CPS clearly state it's the prosecutions responsibility to preserve court exhibits post trial?

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/exhibits/

General Guidance: After Production In Court

Once an exhibit is produced in court, or treated as being produced in accordance with section 5B(5) Magistrates Courts Act 1980 (Archbold 10-16), the court has a responsibility to preserve or retain it. Normally the court entrusts the exhibits to the prosecution, usually the police.

The court can impose restrictions on the prosecution. Where it imposes no restrictions, it is for the prosecution to deal with the exhibits in whatever way appears best for the purposes of justice. If the prosecution has doubts as to how to deal with an exhibit it may, but is not obliged to, apply to the court for directions (R v Stipendiary Magistrates at Lambeth and Another, ex p McComb 1983) All ER 321).

It strikes me that at least Trudi is aware of the importance of material exhibits and forensic evidence in criminal trials.  With respect April you have recently stated forensics are not your thing:   

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7129.msg337738.html#msg337738

[Holly Goodhead]

That's saved them raising twenty-seven grand for a CERA LT.

Videos and emoticons make strange bedfellows.

Here Pete!... Come on, that's a good boy!   Sit!... now tell me.......

I thought it was 25k?  Anyway I am sure it would not have been necessary to buy the complete kit to test a few casings.  Its the end of the road in terms of CERA and casings but it might open up other possibilities if the courts decide JB was deprived of potentially forwarding fresh evidence as EP didn't follow due processes. 

There's only one thing that annoys me about 'my Pete' and that's when he raises his eyes to the ceiling and sighs AT ME   It infuriates me. 

[APRIL]

Oh dear, Oh dear, Oh dear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what?  You do appreciate that CPS clearly state it's the prosecutions responsibility to preserve court exhibits post trial?

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/exhibits/

General Guidance: After Production In Court

Once an exhibit is produced in court, or treated as being produced in accordance with section 5B(5) Magistrates Courts Act 1980 (Archbold 10-16), the court has a responsibility to preserve or retain it. Normally the court entrusts the exhibits to the prosecution, usually the police.

The court can impose restrictions on the prosecution. Where it imposes no restrictions, it is for the prosecution to deal with the exhibits in whatever way appears best for the purposes of justice. If the prosecution has doubts as to how to deal with an exhibit it may, but is not obliged to, apply to the court for directions (R v Stipendiary Magistrates at Lambeth and Another, ex p McComb 1983) All ER 321).

It strikes me that at least Trudi is aware of the importance of material exhibits and forensic evidence in criminal trials.  With respect April you have recently stated forensics are not your thing:   

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7129.msg337738.html#msg337738

You are perfectly correct, Holly. I did, indeed, state that forensics were not my thing. However, it wasn't forensics to which I was referring, rather her delivery which was, at the same time, both gabbled and hesitant, as if she couldn't wait for it to be over. The more important the message, the more slowly it needs to be delivered. I found it made for uncomfortable listening.

[Myster]

I thought it was 25k?  Anyway I am sure it would not have been necessary to buy the complete kit to test a few casings.  Its the end of the road in terms of CERA and casings but it might open up other possibilities if the courts decide JB was deprived of potentially forwarding fresh evidence as EP didn't follow due processes. 

There's only one thing that annoys me about 'my Pete' and that's when he raises his eyes to the ceiling and sighs AT ME   It infuriates me.

I was wrong!  It costs 39,760$ in the US, i.e. about £28,000.  Maybe cheaper than that in the UK, but Leicester University Forensic Science Institute where CERA originated will have one or two available for use, no doubt.

http://store.medtechforensics.com/index.php/cera-lt.html

You mean Pete does a ?  I don't blame him.

[scipio_usmc]

However CERA LT is capable of identifying fingerprints on casings.  How can the CoA judges make a concession as they did above?  What is the alternative to a retrial?  JB will claim had the casings not been destoyed he would be in a position to prove his innocence.  They might still exist but I believe a lot of exhibits were destroyed.

There is no concession that can be made, there is no alternative way to get evidence as there is to get mitochondrial DNA.

You keep ignoring though that her prints being on the casings would not be able to establish she loaded them into the weapon at most such would establish she touched some while on the phone.  Actually loading them would have left evidence on her person and such evidences were missing.  There was evidence that Jeremy attempted to plan her prints as well and it can be argued he did such.

Finding her prints on the casings would not render it possible for her to have killed herself which is what the defense needs to establish to get the conviction vacated. This is little more than a red herring in the eyes of the law.  Only a few arguments would be legally significant in terms of warranting vacating the conviction: 1) undermining the evidence that proves Sheila didn't kill herself; 2) Julie changing her testimony.  Nothing else anyone argues holds any legal significance at all.

The judge told the jury that they could convict if they believed Julie or if they believed the evidence that proves Sheila could not have killed herself. Undermining at least one of these is the only way to get the conviction vacated. Anything that fails to address 1 of these 2 things is simply a red herring that holds no legal significance.