Cyanoacrylate (Superglue) Fuming Chamber And The Blood Flake

[Holly Goodhead]

FSS Huntingdon was a Home Office run lab  not an independent firm eg Hayward Associates the firm  John Hayward set up and now run by his son David:

http://www.haywardforensics.co.uk/

"Hayward Associates is independent of all Police and other Government Agencies".

Maybe the above statement is telling 

[Caroline]

But often the supervisor/manager/overseer call them what you will assumes responsibility regardless of whether or not he or she actually performed some function and others refer to them as such.

In an earlier report dated 25th April 1986 Dr Lincoln actually met with Glynis Howard and DI Cook.  Glynis Howard was the person who analysed the blood on the outside of the silencer and yet Dr Lincoln still refers to John Hayward.  I believe he does this as he sees John Hayward as the figurehead and person with overall responsibility:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=921

We know Glynis Howard carried out the tests on the outside of the sound moderator.  She refers to the KM tests as positive which is Kastle-Meyer a presumptive blood test.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1026.0;attach=2053

John Hayward's handwriting:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=260.0;attach=836

I believe the silencer/blood evidence was fabricated but I don't rule anything in or out as to what happened and who was involved.  If we had all the HOLAB forms, lab records etc the picture may be clearer.

Yes, I understand what you are saying in respect to accepting responsibility however, in this instance, it would be important for the court to establish exactly what was done and by whom. I don't think it would have been acceptable for Hayward to present such evidence as if he had tested the blood, when in fact he had not and if he were speaking for someone else (although I can't think of why he would when both GH and Cook, made it clear that they took part in the silencer tests), he would have said so.

[puglove]

FSS Huntingdon was a Home Office run lab  not an independent firm eg Hayward Associates the firm  John Hayward set up and now run by his son David:

http://www.haywardforensics.co.uk/

"Hayward Associates is independent of all Police and other Government Agencies".

Maybe the above statement is telling 

Holl, I'm trying to follow your scientific research, and I'm sure it's brilliant (though I'm not sure how it could be replicated and proven) but what are your thoughts on the first shot to Sheila's throat? It's from the side, and at an angle. Do you think that this explains how Bamber shot her, kneeling down beside her? I don't want to dwell on Sheila's suicide, if that happened, but I doubt that she would have gambled with shooting herself across her neck when she could have placed the gun under her chin and been efficient. I hate the fact that we're discussing this stuff, but the fact that Sheila didn't kill her family, so it could only be Bamber bugs me. And, intelligent people like you, trying to find some let-out clause for Bamber, bugs me more. Why do you do it? It makes me sad. I understand desperados like Troods and Clappy, with their weird agenda. But....why you?

[puglove]

Just got to say....Steph!!!  You're still doing the same old schitck.  Nothing changes, does it?
Move on, Baby. We all know what you do. Angry, lonely, sad. You had your moment in the sun. Move on, nothing to see here.

Grow up.

[puglove]

Just got to say....Steph!!!  You're still doing the same old schitck.  Nothing changes, does it?
Move on, Baby. We all know what you do. Angry, lonely, sad. You had your moment in the sun. Move on, nothing to see here.

Grow up.

Ah, Mrs Shipman. The whole world is against you because you're mental, and you smell of piss and biscuits. Have a pop at me. I couldn't give a f..k.

[puglove]

Ah, Mrs Shipman. The whole world is against you because you're mental, and you smell of piss and biscuits. Have a pop at me. I couldn't give a f..k.

Off to bed now, Mrs Shipman. I expect we'll be doing some cudding and kissing. And amazing sex.

Maybe, stop being so spiteful. You're only hurting yourself.

[Myster]

FSS Huntingdon was a Home Office run lab  not an independent firm eg Hayward Associates the firm  John Hayward set up and now run by his son David:

http://www.haywardforensics.co.uk/

"Hayward Associates is independent of all Police and other Government Agencies".

Maybe the above statement is telling 

Nothing telling about it!  All it means is that the Government no longer finances its own labs because they were running heavy £2 million+ losses per month with them in the past.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmsctech/610/610we04.htm

[Myster]

Holl, I'm trying to follow your scientific research, and I'm sure it's brilliant (though I'm not sure how it could be replicated and proven) but what are your thoughts on the first shot to Sheila's throat? It's from the side, and at an angle. Do you think that this explains how Bamber shot her, kneeling down beside her? I don't want to dwell on Sheila's suicide, if that happened, but I doubt that she would have gambled with shooting herself across her neck when she could have placed the gun under her chin and been efficient. I hate the fact that we're discussing this stuff, but the fact that Sheila didn't kill her family, so it could only be Bamber bugs me. And, intelligent people like you, trying to find some let-out clause for Bamber, bugs me more. Why do you do it? It makes me sad. I understand desperados like Troods and Clappy, with their weird agenda. But....why you?

Why would Sheila, depressed, drugged up to the eyeballs with sedative and intent on committing suicide, also take out her dad, this rock and calming influence on whom she depended? To believe that she chased him downstairs, then embarked on an almighty life or death struggle is absolute madness, imo.

[APRIL]

Why would Sheila, depressed, drugged up to the eyeballs with sedative and intent on committing suicide, also take out her dad, this rock and calming influence on whom she depended? To believe that she chased him downstairs, then embarked on an almighty life or death struggle is absolute madness, imo.

Hm. However those who favour psychotic will have us believe that she may have seen the devil standing in front of her rather than Nevill. The problem is that these same people move the goal posts by suggesting that Sheila, over/under dosed, whatever fits their story at the time, might have been pondering this act, therefore making it a calculated decision. I'm not sure how a psychotic episode fits into that scenario.

[John]

Why would Sheila, depressed, drugged up to the eyeballs with sedative and intent on committing suicide, also take out her dad, this rock and calming influence on whom she depended? To believe that she chased him downstairs, then embarked on an almighty life or death struggle is absolute madness, imo.

I totally agree, it just isn't logical by all the evidence.

[Holly Goodhead]

Holl, I'm trying to follow your scientific research, and I'm sure it's brilliant (though I'm not sure how it could be replicated and proven) but what are your thoughts on the first shot to Sheila's throat? It's from the side, and at an angle. Do you think that this explains how Bamber shot her, kneeling down beside her? I don't want to dwell on Sheila's suicide, if that happened, but I doubt that she would have gambled with shooting herself across her neck when she could have placed the gun under her chin and been efficient. I hate the fact that we're discussing this stuff, but the fact that Sheila didn't kill her family, so it could only be Bamber bugs me. And, intelligent people like you, trying to find some let-out clause for Bamber, bugs me more. Why do you do it? It makes me sad. I understand desperados like Troods and Clappy, with their weird agenda. But....why you?

Dr Vanezis has always made it clear he was/is unable to confirm murder or suicide.

There will never be any "let-out clause" capable of overturning JB's conviction only new forensic evidence potentially compelling enough for 3 appeal court judges to quash JB's conviction.

Because I believe JB is the victim of a MoJ and evidence was fabricated to secure a conviction.  And that makes me angry and sad.  If the case against JB was strong then why the need to fabricate evidence?  Imo 'noble cause corruption' can never be justified.  Its wrong legally and morally.

[Holly Goodhead]

Nothing telling about it!  All it means is that the Government no longer finances its own labs because they were running heavy £2 million+ losses per month with them in the past.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmsctech/610/610we04.htm

Thanks for the link.  I'll read it thoroughly later but its dated 2013 some 27 years after JB's trial?

The Hayward Forensics/Associates webiste not only makes it clear that they are independent of all Police and other Government Agencies but also emphasises that they work predominantly for the defence:

http://www.haywardforensics.co.uk/

I think you have Wilkes book?  I posted the following excerpt from the book on Blue before the Nun was killed off    I don't have access to the book right now but if I remember rightly it was in the last few chapters covering the silencer/blood evidence.  There's a few diagrams.  I think it might be around chapter 45.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3628.msg141963.html?PHPSESSID=df0fcd37f22ff5d7c3484e8af6f6bc5a#msg141963

"The Home Office forensic science laboratory at Huntingdon was opened two years before the Bamber case in May 1983 by the then Home Secreatary, William Whitelaw.  The new laboratory cost £4million and was built to serve ten police forces in the east of England, from East Anglia to Leicester, Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire.  When it opened, it employed nearly seventy experts in all brances of forensic science, including biology, chemistry, toxicology, blood sereology and the examination of firearms.  In theory, the service provided at Huntingdon is equally available to prosecution and defence teams in a criminal case.  But in practice, because of the structural and informal links with the police, the service at Huntingdon (as at the five other regional Home Office laboratories) is identified almost exclusively with the prosecution.  Defence lawyers trying to gain access to laboratory resources often find themselves thwarted at every turn.  Even obtaining samples for independent testing can be very difficult."

Roger Wilkes also stated that various problems had been identified in these Government run labs. 

[scipio_usmc]

John Hayward must have carried out the tests because he was the one on the stand, had he not, then whoever did would have been in court to give evidence. In respect to the blood on the outside of the moderator, I believe it couldn't be grouped simply because there was insufficient available.

In the old days the person ultimately overseeing everything who handled the actual results usually took the stand. The person who examined the results and assessed the results as opposed to the person who simply did the legwork but were unsure what the results of their work was.   

There have been efforts over the years to expand who can be questioned. A US Supreme Court ruling allows all minor people involved to be questioned at trial as part of the right to confront accusers. They drastically expanded the definition of accusers. I don't know if the UK has gone as far as them.

Hayward had helpers doing some of the work but he was overall in charge of them and the one who took the results and analyzed/interpreted them so would be the logical one to testify.

He was not involved at the point in time when Howard did her examination. She handled both testing and analysis of her findings.  As such she testified to the earlier blood testing. 

[scipio_usmc]

Also I'm not understanding the flake cut into five for the five tests but this may be down to my limited understanding of conventional serological analysis of blood and gel electrophoresis.

The testing of the antigens (ABO) uses a different method from the enzymes and protein:  EAP, HP, AK and PGM.  The latter are based on molecular weight using gel electrophesis.  Gel electrophesis is also used for DNA profiling.  DNA profiling is based on one sample eg blood and compared with another sample ie the sample is not cut up to test for all manner of genes.  Therefore I don't get the cutting up of the flake to carry out individual tests for the enzymes and protein.  Dr Lincoln's understanding was that the whole flake was dissolved to carry out the tests.

Only select tests could be done the same time on the same sample.  Some chose to do multiple tests at once while others thought it preferable to do single tests. If they would do multiple tests they still would need to break it up into 2-3 pieces depending on which tests since some could not be done together. They decided to do all individually not any together and as such broke it into 5 parts not 2-3. The default was doing it individually as they did.  A minority of scientists opted for battery testing which was a fad which started then faded.  No sources explain why the fad failed to take root and become the default so whether it was because of some problem/difficulty that emerged is unclear. 

[scipio_usmc]

But often the supervisor/manager/overseer call them what you will assumes responsibility regardless of whether or not he or she actually performed some function and others refer to them as such.

In an earlier report dated 25th April 1986 Dr Lincoln actually met with Glynis Howard and DI Cook.  Glynis Howard was the person who analysed the blood on the outside of the silencer and yet Dr Lincoln still refers to John Hayward.  I believe he does this as he sees John Hayward as the figurehead and person with overall responsibility:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=921

We know Glynis Howard carried out the tests on the outside of the sound moderator.  She refers to the KM tests as positive which is Kastle-Meyer a presumptive blood test.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1026.0;attach=2053

John Hayward's handwriting:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=260.0;attach=836

I believe the silencer/blood evidence was fabricated but I don't rule anything in or out as to what happened and who was involved.  If we had all the HOLAB forms, lab records etc the picture may be clearer.

You admit you have no evidence to establish it was fabricated but have decided it was because you have arbitrarily decided Jeremy is innocent and as such choose to discount the evidence though you had no basis to do so.

You want to go on a fishing expedition to see who you would have to accuse base don who signed what. That won't reveal who else was in the room watching/supervising etc so would be of limited utility anyway.

The notion the lab took some blood, tested it and made up that it found this blood in the moderator is absurd.

you keep ignoring the evidence I presented proving that Howard found blood inside the moderator.  Her 8/13/86 examination record details blood found inside the bore,  records prove police were notified 8/14/86 that blood was found inside the moderator, her subsequent statements state she found blood inside the bore and even her trial testimony stated such.

Moreover, Lincoln detected blood right inside the opening which he determined was group A and he also detected blood on the first 8 baffles.

Blood was definitely inside the moderator.  No one simply pretended they found blood inside.

If you want to allege planting you need to establish:

1) that someone planted blood inside the opening

2) that someone deposited blood on the first 8 baffles

3) that someone deposited the blood that formed into the flake

4) that someone removed blood that was inside the rifle and concealed its finding

Since Howard found the blood inside the opening on 8/13/85 you have to establish it was planted prior to this unless you want to accuse her of depositing the blood and later in the day removing it though she didn't have it in her possession for long because Cook took it back to HQ in order to subject it to fingerprinting. 

The flake and blood on the baffles quite clearly had to be present by the time the lab opened it up and tested it unless again you want to accuse a lab worker of depositing the blood, waiting for it to dry and then removing and testing it.  If they tested it shortly after depositing it though they would have had stronger results.

People who choose to believe the moderator evidence was fabricated do not believe this because there is any evidence to suggest it happened but rather simply have decided in their mind to not believe it and look for ways to try to justify/rationalize such.