New Forensic Work or Completion of Existing Work

[Holly Goodhead]

Is there any new forensic work or completion of existing work capable of making JB's conviction unsafe?

1.  The work carried out by Peter Sutherst on the scratches to the mantle was, as far as I'm aware, not concluded as opposed to being rejected.  See point 5 below:

http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/forensic-evidence

2.  If JB was the perp then it seems clear he must have committed the murders in quick succession.  25 shots fired in total with a silencer attached is a fair bit of heat inside the silencer (exact temperature inside the silencer unknown).  The purpose of the silencer is to allow the hot gasses to expand in the expansion chamber and slowly release through a series of baffle plates before exiting thus reducing the sound.  Therefore the blood must have been drawn back inside the silencer before the hot gasses had fully exited.  What effect would the temperature and the hot gasses have on the blood:

- None
- Destroy its evidential value by way of blood serology while retaining its appearance
- Destroy its evidential value by way of blood serology while changing its appearance
- Maintain its evidential value by way of blood serology while changing its appearance


46

[scipio_usmc]

Is there any new forensic work or completion of existing work capable of making JB's conviction unsafe?

1.  The work carried out by Peter Sutherst on the scratches to the mantle was, as far as I'm aware, not concluded as opposed to being rejected.  See point 5 below:

http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/forensic-evidence

2.  If JB was the perp then it seems clear he must have committed the murders in quick succession.  25 shots fired in total with a silencer attached is a fair bit of heat inside the silencer (exact temperature inside the silencer unknown).  The purpose of the silencer is to allow the hot gasses to expand in the expansion chamber and slowly release through a series of baffle plates before exiting thus reducing the sound.  Therefore the blood must have been drawn back inside the silencer before the hot gasses had fully exited.  What effect would the temperature and the hot gasses have on the blood:

- None
- Destroy its evidential value by way of blood serology while retaining its appearance
- Destroy its evidential value by way of blood serology while changing its appearance
- Maintain its evidential value by way of blood serology while changing its appearance

The short answer is the heat was not even sufficient to rapidly dry the blood let alone to change anything.  Extreme heat will not change blood it will make results unable to be obtained.  A great number of factors affect how quickly it will break down and results not be obtainable including passage of time.  Had they tested the blood much sooner would they have been able to get a stronger AK1 reading?  There is no way to know for sure it may have.

[Holly Goodhead]

The short answer is the heat was not even sufficient to rapidly dry the blood let alone to change anything.  Extreme heat will not change blood it will make results unable to be obtained.  A great number of factors affect how quickly it will break down and results not be obtainable including passage of time.  Had they tested the blood much sooner would they have been able to get a stronger AK1 reading?  There is no way to know for sure it may have.

http://www.slideshare.net/ProfdrElghamry/forensic-serology-blood-11179461 - see slide 25

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1033.msg208873#msg208873

I am currently in contact with forensic scientists about carrying out tests - see slide 25.

[david1819]

Is there any new forensic work or completion of existing work capable of making JB's conviction unsafe?

What happened about the tests on the shell casings you were talking about?

[adam]

http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/donate

The OS says Jeremy urgently requires £10k. Don't we all.

If the OS says there is 'no' forensic evidence linking Bamber to the crime, I don't know what the point of further forensic tests are. It must show Sheila was the killer, with the conviction being based on circumstantial evidence and the allegation that Bamber manipulated the crime scene to implicate Sheila.

[Caroline]

http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/donate

The OS says Jeremy urgently requires £10k. Don't we all.

If the OS says there is 'no' forensic evidence linking Bamber to the crime, I don't know what the point of further forensic tests are. It must show Sheila was the killer, with the conviction being based on circumstantial evidence and the allegation that Bamber manipulated the crime scene to implicate Sheila.

It's all becoming a bit of a farce.

[Myster]

Holly's gone quiet.  &%+((£   I can smell something fishy!  She's probably doing a fiendish experiment on her AGA...

[Myster]

... such as how to cook kippers without causing a stink.

[Myster]

It's all becoming a bit of a farce.

I know you think the moderator evidence was a bit dodgy, Caroline... but can you explain why?

The police obviously didn't pay enough attention to the gun cupboard. They'd got their woman culprit before releasing WHF back to the relatives after only a couple of days, so why would they want to frame Jeremy?

Ann Eaton and David Boutflour seemed genuine enough, both in written statements and at trial.

Do you believe that blood was introduced into the moderator on purpose, and these marks on the mantle-shelf were caused deliberately?

[John]

Is there any new forensic work or completion of existing work capable of making JB's conviction unsafe?

1.  The work carried out by Peter Sutherst on the scratches to the mantle was, as far as I'm aware, not concluded as opposed to being rejected.  See point 5 below:

http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/forensic-evidence

2.  If JB was the perp then it seems clear he must have committed the murders in quick succession.  25 shots fired in total with a silencer attached is a fair bit of heat inside the silencer (exact temperature inside the silencer unknown).  The purpose of the silencer is to allow the hot gasses to expand in the expansion chamber and slowly release through a series of baffle plates before exiting thus reducing the sound.  Therefore the blood must have been drawn back inside the silencer before the hot gasses had fully exited.  What effect would the temperature and the hot gasses have on the blood:

- None
- Destroy its evidential value by way of blood serology while retaining its appearance
- Destroy its evidential value by way of blood serology while changing its appearance
- Maintain its evidential value by way of blood serology while changing its appearance

I can't think of anything which can usefully be undertaken now given the passage of time and the destruction of evidence. The problem is that there are innocent reasons why both Jeremy's and Sheila's prints were found on the rifle.  Had there been third party fingerprints found then there might have been something to follow.

The case is basically very easy to follow as are the very sound reasons why Jeremy was involved in the murders.  It matters little whether he did it or directed it, he is still very much guilty and deserves to be where he is today without any hope of parole any time in the foreseeable future.

[Holly Goodhead]

Holly's gone quiet.  &%+((£   I can smell something fishy!  She's probably doing a fiendish experiment on her AGA...

Awww you've missed me    Just had a busy week with other things on.

Scipio has gone quiet too!  I'm surprised tongues haven't been wagging 

[Holly Goodhead]

... such as how to cook kippers without causing a stink.

Soak in cold milk 20 mins before cooking, remove and pat dry with kitchen towel. 

[Holly Goodhead]

The short answer is the heat was not even sufficient to rapidly dry the blood let alone to change anything.  Extreme heat will not change blood it will make results unable to be obtained.  A great number of factors affect how quickly it will break down and results not be obtainable including passage of time.  Had they tested the blood much sooner would they have been able to get a stronger AK1 reading?  There is no way to know for sure it may have.

Yes according to John Hayward's test for the 2002 appeal rapid fire of the rifle did not dry blood that was introduced onto the baffles.  This test was carried out in connection with Mark Webster's theory that John Hayward might have mistaken the flake of blood for a flake of soot splattered with blood from both June and NB which might not have intimately mixed providing a false reading which represented SC's blood type/group.  Statistical likelihood of the following occurring:

Blood finding its way inside the silencer from gunshot wounds sustained by June and NB. 

Blood finding its way inside the silencer from gunshot wounds sustained by June and NB and overlaying a piece of soot.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.0%

Then John Hayward's theory re the mixing:

He started from the proposition clearly supported by evidence that within the sound moderator there would be a very turbulent motion when the rifle was discharged. This by its very nature would produce forces that would tend to mix the blood from the two sources. In addition, the unscrewing of the sound moderator to remove it involved a twisting motion through a number of complete turns, which again would facilitate mixing.

I think I'll stick with pursuing my own testing 

John Hayward clearly didn't assess, pre trial or appeal hearing, the effect of heat from firing the rifle on the flake and the fact it had been kept at ambient temperature for over a month.  And whether or not this would cause it to degrade so much so it wasn't possible to yield any results from it.  He simply assessed whether the heat would cause rapid drying in connection with blood from June and NB splattering a flake of soot.

- As far as I'm aware it's well established that blood starts to dry within 3 to 5 minutes of exposure to air.  In any event this is unimportant in connection with what I plan to test.   

- I haven't seen any diagrams and/or photos of the flake only a vague description measuring a 1/4 of an inch.  I understand a greater quantity is required for serological analysis.

- I understand any exposure to heat will cause degradation.

- The norm is for blood found at soc to be sent to lab asap.  In the case of the silencer the norm would be for blood on a non-porous item to be scraped and sent to lab asap and/or kept refridgerated. 

- Under no circumstances should blood be placed in the boot (trunk to you) of a car due to potential exposure to heat.  I believe something like this happened in the OJ Simpson case.  AE's WS confirms she placed silencer in boot and transported to Oak Farm.  Unlikely to be any mileage in this as no way of knowing whether her car was parked in shade and/or whether she had windows open etc.  Could probably establish the temp that day.

- No other exhibit was capable of serological results by way of ABO grouping, Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase, Adenylate Kinase and Haptoglobin.  Why?  The blood on the rifle was incapable of grouping and could only be confirmed as human in origin.  I want to know why?  Why?  Why?  Why? 

[Holly Goodhead]

The short answer is the heat was not even sufficient to rapidly dry the blood let alone to change anything.  Extreme heat will not change blood it will make results unable to be obtained.  A great number of factors affect how quickly it will break down and results not be obtainable including passage of time.  Had they tested the blood much sooner would they have been able to get a stronger AK1 reading?  There is no way to know for sure it may have.

I forgot to say I'm not sure what you mean by "stronger AK1 reading"?  Are the "readings"/results on a scale of strength? 

Silencer:  A, EAP BA, AK1, HP2-1

SC        :  A, EAP BA, AK1, HP2-1

June     :  A, EAP BA, AK2-1, HP2-1

NB        :  O, EAP BA, AK1, HP2-1

If the blood from NB and June became "intimately mixed" this would mean June's A grouping dominated NB's O grouping and NB's AK1 enzyme dominated June's AK2-1.  How were they intimately mixed?  I have thought for a long time John Hayward's trial testimony might well end up the same way as that of Prof Roy Meadows in the case of Sally Clark.

Forensic scientist George Schiro:

http://www.forensicscienceresources.com/georgecv.htm

with some 30 years experience states:

"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".

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

But the CoA doc states:

"464. Mr Webster made a number of points:

i) He suggested that the flake, which was a quarter of an inch across, might not have been a flake of blood but a flake of soot splattered with blood that had been mistaken by Mr Hayward for a flake of blood. His one basis for this rather surprising suggestion was that he had noted a flake of soot on one of the baffles".

"Large" sample quarter size

= diameter = 24.26mm
= width = 1.75mm

Flake

= 1/4 inch = 6.35mm

 &%+((£

Too many anomalies for my liking:

- Size
- Condition eg exposed to heat and prolonged ambient temperature (above from George Schiro states need "good condition" and don't expose to heat)
- Only exhibit capable of conventional serological analysis.  Why the silencer and not the rifle?  Especially when the rifle was tested within the first week and the 'flake' in the silencer one month plus later.

[Holly Goodhead]

I was just trying to get straight in my own mind what forensic testing has been done to date:

- DNA - Mark Webster - 2002 CoA

- Photo(shop) 'wet' blood on SC - Profs Meloni and Cavali -

- Scratches on mantle - Peter Sutherst - CCRC App

- SC's GSW's to neck - Dr Fowler - abrasion rings/dirt collars caused by barrel end of rifle not silencer - CCRC app

- NB's burns to neck - Dr Caruso - caused by barrel end of rifle not silencer - CCRC app

Have I missed any?

All made formal submission to CoA or CCRC other than the 'wet' blood photo and all rejected other than Peter Sutherst's scratches which needs further work to advance?