Cyanoacrylate (Superglue) Fuming Chamber And The Blood Flake

[Holly Goodhead]

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.

As I said I believe John Hayward was the principal scientist at FSS in terms of biological evidence and had overall responsible for the blood evidence in the WHF case.  It's not clear to me who actually carried out the processing/testing of the flake.  Did he go on the stand because he personally carried out the tests on the flake or he was the person with overall responsibility for the processing and testing of the blood evidence?  He was able to carry out checks and balances internally and answer counsels questions on the stand.

His own hand-written statement refers in general terms to tests being carried out.  No mention of him personally carrying out the tests or any other person by name.  We know Glynis Howard tested blood on the outside of the silencer and yet he does not refer to her by name here:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=260.0;attach=844

Dr Lincoln stated:

It appears from the worksheets which I have seen and from the information given to me, Mr Hayward did not of course perform most if any of the procedures himself.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=935

And yet in the CoA document we have:

461. On 8 September 1986, Dr Lincoln again went to the laboratory and this time met and discussed the matter with Mr Hayward. As a result of this meeting, Dr Lincoln appreciated that the blood tested all came from a single flake trapped under the first or second baffle. In a letter to the defence solicitors, Dr Lincoln said that Mr Hayward "used this single flake to produce a solution from which he was able to determine the groups". He said that this meant that the possible explanation he had earlier suggested as to a combination of more than one persons blood no longer applied.

462. In one respect Dr Lincoln was in error. Whether that error was from something said by Mr Hayward or simply from an assumption made by Dr Lincoln cannot now be ascertained and matters not. The error was to suggest that the whole of the blood flake was dissolved and the resulting solution was used for all the tests. In fact what had happened was that the flake had been divided into a number of parts and each part had then been used for a separate group test. Thus the tests were not done on liquid drawn from the same solution made from the whole flake but on separate solutions each made from distinct parts of the flake. We have no means of knowing whether correction of this error would in any way have altered Dr Lincoln's view.

Make of it what you will Caro....

Like you I don't believe the silencer/blood evidence but at this moment in time I don't have any firm ideas as to exactly what took place.

[Holly Goodhead]

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. 

[Myster]

Could it be that different quantities of solvent (water?) were required for each individual test to achieve the most satisfactory result, rather than having a one concentration fits all approach?

[Myster]

At the time of JB's trial John Hayward was in private practice.  Was this part of his game plan?  Or was he uncomfortable with what went on (if anything) at the lab over the WHF case or in general?  Or was he ousted? 

John Hayward passed away in 2011.  His son, David, now runs the firm Hayward Forensics:

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

I contacted David in January re his firm carrying out some forensic work.  For obvious reasons I would have been wary but didn't have to cross that bridge!  I don't think I'm betraying any confidences in relaying our brief email converations as there's nothing confidential and/or sensitive. 

To David Hayward

Dear David

I am sure you will be familiar with the above case due to your late fathers involvement.  I have studied the case carefully over some 4 years and I am inclined to see JB as a victim of a miscarriage of justice.  As such I guess you would term me a 'supporter'.  I would like to discuss with you the possibility of your firm carrying out some forensic work on a commercial basis.   I have long connections with Cambridge and Huntingdon and as I noticed you are based in St Ives I thought why not.  I guess for various personal and professional reasons you will either welcome the opportunity of getting involved with the case or not want to touch it with a barge pole which I will quite understand.

From David Hayward

Dear Toni

Many thanks for your enquiry.  I have never had any professional involvement in this matter.

My father was always very clear that he did not believe that there had been a miscarriage of justice.  Should I undertake work in relation to this case, then any findings I produce could therefore be interpreted as not coming from a neutral standpoint. I would therefore respectively suggest that you look for assistance from forensic practitioners with no prior connection to the case.

I've not uploaded the original emails as I don't want my email address in the public domain.  Original emails sent to Myster to authenticate.

As I said yesterday Holly, no-one doubts your sincerity and honesty, so there was no need to forward the above emails for to me to verify.

But yes, I can confirm the messages exchanged between you and David Hayward are genuine.

[Holly Goodhead]

Could it be that different quantities of solvent (water?) were required for each individual test to achieve the most satisfactory result, rather than having a one concentration fits all approach?

I don't believe so but I might be wrong.  My understanding is that the "dissolving" involves just enough processing to transform say a flake of blood into a consistency to enable gel electrophoresis to take place.

I did some posts a while back on DNA evidence and gel electrophoresis.  The same method of testing applies to the enzymes and protein in the WHF case.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5861.msg211665#msg211665

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5861.msg211903#msg211903

Conventional serological analysis of blood based on the molecular weight and charge of enzymes and proteins  (used in the WHF case) was the precursor to DNA testing.

[Holly Goodhead]

As I said yesterday Holly, no-one doubts your sincerity and honesty, so there was no need to forward the above emails for to me to verify.

But yes, I can confirm the messages exchanged between you and David Hayward are genuine.

Thanks.  I guess that's what comes from working in an environment where I was responsible for concrete audit trails 

[Caroline]

As I said I believe John Hayward was the principal scientist at FSS in terms of biological evidence and had overall responsible for the blood evidence in the WHF case.  It's not clear to me who actually carried out the processing/testing of the flake.  Did he go on the stand because he personally carried out the tests on the flake or he was the person with overall responsibility for the processing and testing of the blood evidence?  He was able to carry out checks and balances internally and answer counsels questions on the stand.

His own hand-written statement refers in general terms to tests being carried out.  No mention of him personally carrying out the tests or any other person by name.  We know Glynis Howard tested blood on the outside of the silencer and yet he does not refer to her by name here:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=260.0;attach=844

Dr Lincoln stated:

It appears from the worksheets which I have seen and from the information given to me, Mr Hayward did not of course perform most if any of the procedures himself.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=935

And yet in the CoA document we have:

461. On 8 September 1986, Dr Lincoln again went to the laboratory and this time met and discussed the matter with Mr Hayward. As a result of this meeting, Dr Lincoln appreciated that the blood tested all came from a single flake trapped under the first or second baffle. In a letter to the defence solicitors, Dr Lincoln said that Mr Hayward "used this single flake to produce a solution from which he was able to determine the groups". He said that this meant that the possible explanation he had earlier suggested as to a combination of more than one persons blood no longer applied.

462. In one respect Dr Lincoln was in error. Whether that error was from something said by Mr Hayward or simply from an assumption made by Dr Lincoln cannot now be ascertained and matters not. The error was to suggest that the whole of the blood flake was dissolved and the resulting solution was used for all the tests. In fact what had happened was that the flake had been divided into a number of parts and each part had then been used for a separate group test. Thus the tests were not done on liquid drawn from the same solution made from the whole flake but on separate solutions each made from distinct parts of the flake. We have no means of knowing whether correction of this error would in any way have altered Dr Lincoln's view.

Make of it what you will Caro....

Like you I don't believe the silencer/blood evidence but at this moment in time I don't have any firm ideas as to exactly what took place.

Perhaps GH wasn't mentioned in his statement, but she did make her own and was a witness in court to discuss her own particular findings. This may be what Lincoln is referring to when he suggests that Hayward didn't carry out all of the tests himself - he didn't test the outside of the silencer GH did and she presented the evidence. Hayward presented the flake evidence because he must have carried out the testing.

[Myster]

GH might not have been questioned about testing the blood, but only on the likelihood of SC being able to shoot herself with the moderator fitted...

http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/1986/10/14/AS141086009/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1

[Holly Goodhead]

Perhaps GH wasn't mentioned in his statement, but she did make her own and was a witness in court to discuss her own particular findings. This may be what Lincoln is referring to when he suggests that Hayward didn't carry out all of the tests himself - he didn't test the outside of the silencer GH did and she presented the evidence.Hayward presented the flake evidence because he must have carried out the testing.

Do you have any evidence for this?

[Caroline]

GH might not have been questioned about testing the blood, but only on the likelihood of SC being able to shoot herself with the moderator fitted...

http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/1986/10/14/AS141086009/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1

She was asked about the blood on the rifle and the silencer and clearly mentions that the blood she tested was found to be of human origin. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7104.msg334682.html#msg334682

[Caroline]

Do you have any evidence for this?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,411.msg6218.html#msg6218

[Myster]

She was asked about the blood on the rifle and the silencer and clearly mentions that the blood she tested was found to be of human origin. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7104.msg334682.html#msg334682

Ah, OK... I can't see that attachment on blue but I assume it was during GH's court testimony, as stated by Mr T.

[Holly Goodhead]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,411.msg6218.html#msg6218

Yes I appreciate that.  It's taken from Dr Lincoln's letter of 19th Sept 1986 to Paul Terzeon:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=929

But the letter also makes reference to John Hayward finding blood on the outside of the moderator (see above link) when in fact this was analysed by Glynis Howard on 13th Aug:

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

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=169.0;attach=307

In the same letter as the excerpts you have posted Dr Lincoln states to Paul Terzeon that John Hayward may not have carried out any tests:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=935

Did John Hayward actually prepare and run the tests?

[Caroline]

Yes I appreciate that.  It's taken from Dr Lincoln's letter of 19th Sept 1986 to Paul Terzeon:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=929

But the letter also makes reference to John Hayward finding blood on the outside of the moderator (see above link) when in fact this was analysed by Glynis Howard on 13th Aug:

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

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=169.0;attach=307

In the same letter as the excerpts you have posted Dr Lincoln states to Paul Terzeon that John Hayward may not have carried out any tests:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=935

Did John Hayward actually prepare and run the tests?

It seems that Dr Lincoln wasn't sure of quite a few things. I very much doubt that Hayward would give evidence of testing the flake if he didn't do so or he would have made it clear that he didn't actually test it and named the person who did (if JUST for the record). GH gave evidence of the part she played as did Cook - and this makes it clear (certainly to me) that Haywood gave evidence of what he did - not of what someone else did. As you know, I don't believe the silencer was used, but I VERY MUCH doubt that blood got inside the silencer at the level of the lab.

[Holly Goodhead]

It seems that Dr Lincoln wasn't sure of quite a few things. I very much doubt that Hayward would give evidence of testing the flake if he didn't do so or he would have made it clear that he didn't actually test it and named the person who did (if JUST for the record). GH gave evidence of the part she played as did Cook - and this makes it clear (certainly to me) that Haywood gave evidence of what he did - not of what someone else did. As you know, I don't believe the silencer was used, but I VERY MUCH doubt that blood got inside the silencer at the level of the lab.

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.