I didn't say MOJ's happen all the time. This is what I said:
"You seem oblivious to the fact wrongdoing, incompetence and miscarriage of justices happen all the time, in all walks of life and for a whole variety of reasons".
You only have to look at the UK's financial regulator's fines tables to witness wrongdoing and incompetence on a grand scale:
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/about/press/facts/fines
http://www.fca.org.uk/firms/being-regulated/enforcement/fines
At least in the financial services industry it is regulated and wrongdoing and incompetence are censured and punished and CEO's and others are banned from the industry. When the judicial system fails it largely falls under the radar. And when something goes wrong those responsible refuse to even apologise and are often rewarded for failure as in the Stefan Kiszko case where the QC responsible was made Home Secretary. Worse still those that break the law by way of pejury are let off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
I'm of the opinion the silencer/blood evidence was fabricated as none of it makes sense.
It is the allegations of the blood being planted that make no sense.
Jeremy's claims that the rifle was unable to be stored with the moderator attached make no sense and in fact were obvious lies. His claims that Nevill kept removing the moderator and scope makes no sense and were obvious lies. Jeremy even changed his story during the course of the interrogation. He told Taff Jones that he last used the gun a week to fortnight before the murders. Stan Jones pointed out AP's statements about how the rifle was stored etc and suddenly Jeremy changed his story saying he and Nevill both continuously used it the week leading up to the murders and that sometimes Nevill removed the scope and moderator before putting it away while other times he left them attached. Jeremy said he used the gun however he happened to find it he didn't bother to use the accessories.
Jeremy was not known to grab the weapon to run after vermin so his story of getting the gun to shoot rabbits makes no sense. It makes even less sense when you look at the 3 different tales he told. He claimed he heard the rabbits from the kitchen, saw the rabbits from the kitchen and finally claimed he saw them while walking to the house and decided to get the gun to go pursue them. It makes no sense to think rabbits would still be there minutes later and the normal practice of vermin hunting is to either go around searching them out or simply to keep your weapon with you while working in case one happens to cross your path. If Jeremy had been known to run to get the gun anytime he saw rabbits it would be one thing but he wasn't known to shoot vermin period let alone to go grab the weapon anytime he saw any and hope they were still there. It still gets even worse though. it makes no sense to be in a hurry to load the weapon and instead of loading it in the office to take the gun and place it in the scullery then to go in the kitchen with the bullets and magazine to load it in the kitchen. His claim he always did that is absurd. In any event he claimed he took a full or near full box and dumped it out in the kitchen and loaded the magazine from it. A full box contains 50, 25 shots were fired thus no more than 25 bullets should have remained and yet there were 30 bullets in the kitchen. This makes no sense either. Nor would it make sense for Jeremy to leave the ammo and gun out as he claimed he did, particularly knowing the kids were staying over. It makes no sense for June and Nevill to leave the ammo and gun out either and June used the phone after the bullets were supposedly dumped next to it so would have to see them.
You ignore all these things that make no sense but on the other hand invent the notion that it would make no sense for Jeremy to use the moderator and no sense for any blood to be inside by inventing the notion that Jeremy would know all about drawback.
That same pretense is employed to pretend that the family and police would know all about drawback and be able to plant the blood. The excuses run the gamut from claiming they would have to know because they shot vermin to having to know because of being a registered gun dealer. It is these claims that make no sense.
The only people with the requisite knowledge would be the lab workers and yet there is no evidence at all to support any planting of evidence and suggestions the lab was involved in a fraud fare no better in terms of logic.
You completely flip things on their head.
The information is contradictory. In GH's initial report she refers to three blood stains on the outside of the silencer and confirms they are all KM positive. This corresponds with the findings of the CoA judges in 2002.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1026.0;attach=2053
75. Traces of blood in the form of smears were found in three places on the outside of the moderator: on the flat surface at the muzzle end, in the knurled end and in the ridge at the gun end of the device. The blood on the outside of the moderator was confirmed to be of human origin but there were insufficient quantities to permit grouping analysis.
On the flat surface (bore end) GH refers to a stain and indicates it is KM positive. She also marks up "scattered fragments". Throughout the case I have only seen the blood referred to as "stains", "splashes" and "smears". My interpretation of the "scattered fragments" is that this refers to paint. However, even if I am wrong and GH did identify blood within the bore, as claimed at trial, it still doesn't make sense to me that JH found a "considerable amount" inside and yet the amount around the bore was of such small quantity that it required a microscope and cotton threads to be recovered. It also begs the question why GH didn't take it upon herself to see if the blood went beyond the bore and inside the actual silencer and/or take it up with others eg Malcolm Fletcher ballistics and/or John Hayward who it appears was her supervisor/manager? The fact the blood inside the actual silencer was not identified until a month later and after the silencer had left the lab and was then returned just doesn't sit right with me.
It doesn't sit right with you because of your bias. Your bias causes you to ignore that the drawing points to inside the bore and refers to blood being removed from the bore. Your bias causes you to ignore the evidence that proves police were told on 8/14/85 that blood had been found inside the moderator. Your biases causes you to assert that because the COA opinion failed to discuss Howard finding blood inside that such means she didn't even though she testified to such. You ignore that the blood she removed was not relevant to the appeal thus not mentioned and pretend that since it wasn't discussed that means it didn't exist. Your bias made you say that
her statement posted her and on blue was fraudulent because it was not signed though her COLP testimony explained why this particular copy was not signed and detailed that there were in fact signed copies with the same exact wording save the exhibit number of the moderator. Upon it being proven that she did in fact sign the statement and testify she found blood inside your bias makes you suggest Howard lied in her statement and on the stand about finding blood inside even though there is contemporaneous documentary evidence noting it and there is no reason for her to lie.
In her testimony she stated that she tried to unscrew the moderator but the end was too tight and that she didn't want to destroy potential fingerprint evidence by manhandling it so it was decided to first fingerprint it and then afterwards to do more thorough testing of the moderator by taking it apart. This makes perfect sense though your bias prevents you from admitting it. She went on sick leave in September that is why the case was handed over to Hayward in September, that makes sense too. Upon her return in November she gave her statement regarding the work she did.
Jeremy removed the scope because it would inhibit accurate aiming of the weapon at close quarters. This is the only reason to remove the scope that makes sense.
Jeremy didn't want victims in other rooms to wake up thus used the moderator, this makes perfect sense.
Sheila suffered a wound that would result in drawback and thus her blood got inside the moderator but not the rifle. This makes perfect sense.
Tiny amounts of high velocity backspatter got on the outside of the moderator, this makes perfect sense in a close quarter shooting.
When trying to stage the weapon on Sheila Jeremy realized it was too long with the moderator attached for Sheila to kill herself so he removed it, this makes perfect sense.
Jeremy didn't want police to know the moderator had been used because Sheila using it would be inconsistent with going crazy and it would be easier for Nevill to disarm her with it attached so he put it away in the closet hiding it. He didn't know anything about drawback so had no idea her blood would be inside and didn't see the 3 tiny blood stains so failed to clean those 3 stains off. He made up a story of leaving the gun out without the moderator attached and figured police would not go look for the moderator and he was right they didn't.
It is your bias not anything objective that causes you to say things do not make sense and to disbelieve the evidence. What you choose to believe is meaningless what you can prove is what matters and you can't prove a thing.
It does not bode well for you though to suggest that months later Howard lied about finding blood inside the moderator. Ignoring that her diagram shows blood found inside the bore and that police were notified of blood found inside on 8/14/85 and trying to pretend that months later she made the claim up makes you look like a dishonest hack. If you want to accuse her of planting blood and fabricating evidence then accuse her of doing so on 8/13 don't try to pretend she made up the blood months later when there is documentary evidence proving police were notified on 8/14 that blood was found in the bore and that her diagram shows it. You have no evidence she planted blood period but if you want to make accusations at least make ones around the evidence instead of simply ignoring the evidence and pretending evidence that is unfavorable doesn't exist.
Dr Lincoln did not examine the silencer until 1986. The fact he found evidence of blood doesn't prove the blood was there as a result of SC's gunshot wounds/drawback
It proves there really was group A blood right inside the bore where Howard said she found blood and that there really was blood on the first 8 baffles. Alleging that the lab made up finding blood is futile. If you want to accuse the of wrongdoing you have to allege they planted the blood and then removed it as opposed to claiming they simple made up that they found blood inside and did testing on material that was from a vile.
In the absence of high quality photographs or accurate drawings it is not clear what people are referring to. You say Dr Lincoln meant this that or the other but how do you know what he meant? How can any of this fill you with confidence about these people when the documents are of such poor quality that they are so open to interpretation? I could pick out numerous documents and find all sorts of inconsistencies and contradictions but what does it prove?
Blood pattern analysis should have played a part in the silencer/blood evidence but it didn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodstain_pattern_analysis
Dr Lincoln was an expert in blood serology not blood pattern analysis.
You have stated on numerous occasions that draw-back/back spatter results in high velocity spatter which presents as a fine mist like spray so how does this equate with a flake of blood measuring a 1/4 of an inch?
You claim her drawing is not accurate because of your bias, Howard says it is accurate.
I know what Lincoln meant because he was not insane. He explained which parts he tested, "Whilst at the Home Office Laboratory I examined the various components of the moderator for traces of blood...the end piece, the adjacent ring collar and 17 baffle plates."
The end piece means the piece the bore hole that unscrews to open the moderator up. He wrote, "I obtained the strongest positive reactions indicating the presence of blood on the screw thread on the inside at the end of the moderator, Weak of very weak positive reactions which could have indicated the presence of blood were detectable on the collar ring and the first 8 baffle plates. These reactions were all weak."
So he broke down what he found on each of the 3 sections. He first detailed blood found on the end piece with the bore then discussed the collar ring and finally the baffles. On the end piece with the bore he found the largest presence of blood. He said he found it INSIDE not outside. Only an insane person would think that blood would be in the outside threads as opposed to inside the bore of the end cap so even if he had not specified he found it inside the logical assumption would be he only tested the inside. The nuts at Justice For All chose to ignore such common sense and his own words of the blood being found inside and engaged in insane speculation that maybe Lincoln found the blood on the outside threads which the blood would have no way to get on until after the tip is unscrewed. Lincoln had no reason to test the outside threads but if he did so and found blood there he would not be insane and hold it out as evidence to support the prosecution. He would have claimed it was proof blood contaminated the threads at some point while it was apart. The fact Lincoln didn't make that claim is enough to say he wasn't claiming such but Justice For All investigated that anyway and it went no where. Anyone possessing reading comprehension skills and common sense understands that Lincoln found the blood inside the bore of the end piece not on the outside of the end piece.
Blood pattern analysis doesn't apply in the least to drawback. The characteristics of drawback is blood getting inside a weapon at depths greater than 5mm but no more than several inches. The blood will spray inside and thus go inside at different angles. In a barrel it often will get inside the rifling grooving. The quantity of blood will decrease as you get further inside. This is because the smaller blood particles travel further than the larger ones. The main difference with a moderators compared to barrels is that it is wider and instead of rifling it has obstructions. The same pattern will be observed of the largest blood particles near the front and fewer and fewer particles on each successive baffle. That is in fact what Hayward said he observed. Blood dries in flakes a flake a quarter of an inch in diameter is not very big. There was a substantial amount of blood available to go inside the weapon so this is not at all surprising. The moderator is not of a material that absorbs blood so what would happen to blood that falls to the bottom and pools? It would form into a flake. The experts do not find such odd you do only because of your bias not because of there is anything actually wrong with it.
