So what can Cadaver and CSI dogs tell us?

[Jean-Pierre]

I have just been sent this link jp.

"we sent it (JAR/6) to the carbon dating lab in oxford. Not only did they cock that process up, (as per the collagen e mails)  but they unlawfully and without authority sent the exhibit to at least two other people without even a proper tracking audit. This rendered the exhibit inadmissible and unusable in court as we could not prove it was the same item we found and sent to them."

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/no-body-remains.html

Its a dilemma - the findings of an official report by Wiltshire Police versus an internet blog 

http://www.gov.je/Government/Pages/StatesReports.aspx?ReportID=561

But the question remains- on what basis did you reach the conclusion that the sample had been exposed to heat prior to testing? 

[stephen25000]

Its a dilemma - the findings of an official report by Wiltshire Police versus an internet blog 

http://www.gov.je/Government/Pages/StatesReports.aspx?ReportID=561

But the question remains- on what basis did you reach the conclusion that the sample had been exposed to heat prior to testing?

....and do the police always always report the actual facts ?  %£&)**# &%&£(+

Perhaps we should ascertain if the sample of jar6 would be inadmissible. 

As to the samples collected, I was under the impression, many had been exposed to heat damage. If wrong, I stand corrected.

[Jean-Pierre]

....and do the police always always report the actual facts ?  %£&)**# &%&£(+

Perhaps we should ascertain if the sample of jar6 would be inadmissible. 

As to the samples collected, I was under the impression, many had been exposed to heat damage. If wrong, I stand corrected.

I thought you said you were good at this analysis lark.  Even I know that before you can analyse you need to get your facts straight. 

(sorry  - but you were "leading with your chin"). 

[stephen25000]

I thought you said you were good at this analysis lark.  Even I know that before you can analyse you need to get your facts straight. 

(sorry  - but you were "leading with your chin").

At least I had the good grace to admit that point.

I do not have the time to research every little detail.

Meanwhile what exactly do you mean by a 'degraded sample' ?


Now jp, are the contents of jar6 legally admissible if taken to court ?

and try to follow forum rules and not attack posters personally.

P.S. If the contents were transferred to another party or parties and the correct protocol not followed then the contents of jar6 are of no use or value whatsoever.

[Mr Gray]

At least I had the good grace to admit that point.

I do not have the time to research every little detail.

Meanwhile what exactly do you mean by a 'degraded sample' ?


Now jp, are the contents of jp legally admissible if taken to court ?

and try to follow forum rules and not attack posters personally.

P.S. If the contents were transferred to another party or parties and the correct protocol not followed then the contents of jar6 are of no use or value whatsoever.

what evidence do you have protocols were not followed ...some anonymous blogger

[stephen25000]

what evidence do you have protocols were not followed ...some anonymous blogger

So shall we find out the truth ?

Wouldn't that be a good idea ?

Since if the protocols weren't followed, then jar6 is irrelevant.

[Mr Gray]

'ferryman' has been the fairest by far in this debate, amongst those who would pour scorn on the finding of collagen in a skull at Haut la Garenne. Thank you for a good summation above (apart from your first sentence).

Here, for the benefit of davel and others who accuse me of posting 'misinformation', is Lenny Harper's detailed account of how the Oxford laboratory DID find 1.6% collagen in a degraded child's skull found at Hay la Garenne (a place Jimmy Savile frequented btw):

From about 3 mins 20 seconds onwards >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbNv-kkKnQM

Now look, if anyone else falsely accuses me of posting 'misinformation', I'm jolly well going to report you to Admin     

then we have this one


The Oxford lab did not find 1.6% collagen in the childs skull...there was no skull....more untrue statements from blonk

[Mr Gray]

as can be seen in cross section the coconut shell resembles wood and not bone...no microscope required

[stephen25000]

as can be seen in cross section the coconut shell resembles wood and not bone...no microscope required

   

Need I remind you dave, IF the sample has been incorrectly handled, it has no use whatsoever.

[Mr Gray]

   

Need I remind you dave, IF the sample has been incorrectly handled, it has no use whatsoever.

it is patently obvious whatever the handling the structure would be completely different between the two

[stephen25000]

it is patently obvious whatever the handling the structure would be completely different between the two

Actually dave, what is patently and legally obvious is that if the sample in jar6 was incorrectly handled it cannot be relied on for reliability or evidence.

No bluster from you can change that.

[ferryman]

I have just been sent this link jp.

'So it changed in colour, texture and weight? How could  this happen? Which is a question I put the Former SIO Lenny Harper. I wanted to know if there was any chance that this piece of evidence could have been switched? And this is what he told me.'

"we sent it (JAR/6) to the carbon dating lab in oxford. Not only did they cock that process up, (as per the collagen e mails)  but they unlawfully and without authority sent the exhibit to at least two other people without even a proper tracking audit. This rendered the exhibit inadmissible and unusable in court as we could not prove it was the same item we found and sent to them."

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/no-body-remains.html

Good grief.

Same as the FSS cocked up the forensic results

(Or so we are told in certain quarters).

The hoops some people will leap through to get a dog off the hook of the fact that it alerted to a coconut or a piece of wood ....

[Jean-Pierre]

At least I had the good grace to admit that point.

I do not have the time to research every little detail.

Meanwhile what exactly do you mean by a 'degraded sample' ?


Now jp, are the contents of jar6 legally admissible if taken to court ?

and try to follow forum rules and not attack posters personally.

P.S. If the contents were transferred to another party or parties and the correct protocol not followed then the contents of jar6 are of no use or value whatsoever.

"Degraded sample" - exactly how is not specified, but other in the case of other samples there were references to "burnt" whereas sample JAR/6 was described as degraded.  Possibly this means that it had been buried in soil?   

Would it be admissible in court?  Impossible to say on the facts presented.  It would depend on whether the chain of evidence and the provenance could be proved to the courts satisfaction.  It would be up to one side to apply to produce it, and the other side to challenge its production, and then its whoever convinces the court that will win that particular argument.  This would usually be settled during discovery.

As far as your comment "and try to follow forum rules and not attack posters personally" is concerned - 

Who was it who said

"I would be interested in seeing the results as I do have knowledge of analytical techniques." and "My analysis would only be of relevance to those that have a good grounding/knowledge in Chemistry and Biology.

Do you have that jp, or are you like many your fellows, just a googler ?

I will look at the report."

Pot calling kettle black.................. 

[Carana]

For those interested, there's quite a bit of information about coconut gate here:

http://www.stopthemyths.info/viewtopic.php?f=149&t=7966

[Eleanor]

For those interested, there's quite a bit of information about coconut gate here:

http://www.stopthemyths.info/viewtopic.php?f=149&t=7966

Goncalo Amaral, Truth of The Lie.  Chapter 16.

Does that not say that Martin Grime retired in July 2007?