Cyanoacrylate (Superglue) Fuming Chamber And The Blood Flake

[Holly Goodhead]

1/4 of an inch was a best guess and the flake of soot theory was basically ridiculed. You must also have read Websters account of how difficult it would be to try and replicate the shooting and achieve similar results?

There are very few similarities between Bamber and Stefan Kiszko. It is clear why they fitted Stefan up, they didn't have anyone else to pin it on and he 'fit the stereotype' - he was a TRUE MOJ, whereas the police had Sheila as a suspect. There was no need to fit up an innocent man, changing from Sheila to Jeremy made them look stupid to boot and resulted in a lot of criticism. The lab certainly had no reason to fit up Jeremy whether they were employed by the Home Office or not, they were still scientists and would have been aware that their methods and findings would come under close scrutiny. At the end of the day, it would be Hayward that would be in the firing line if they had falsified the findings, so unless he had a real personal hatred of Bamber (which he clearly had no reason for), I very much doubt he would stick his neck on the line for EP.

Sounded pretty crazy to me!  But there again what do you make of this from John Hayward?

472. Mr Hayward, in contrast, has we are satisfied taken some steps to satisfy himself that he is right. 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.

    Sounds very scientific!

If a turbulent motion exists in the moderator after discharge of the semi-auto rifle how does this affect accuracy with a number of shots fired in quick succession?

Blood is a non-Newtonian fluid and it depends on the shear rate or shear rate history.  Many branches of science are involved in blood pattern analysis.

This is just a complete joke! 

[Holly Goodhead]

1/4 of an inch was a best guess and the flake of soot theory was basically ridiculed. You must also have read Websters account of how difficult it would be to try and replicate the shooting and achieve similar results?

There are very few similarities between Bamber and Stefan Kiszko. It is clear why they fitted Stefan up, they didn't have anyone else to pin it on and he 'fit the stereotype' - he was a TRUE MOJ, whereas the police had Sheila as a suspect. There was no need to fit up an innocent man, changing from Sheila to Jeremy made them look stupid to boot and resulted in a lot of criticism. The lab certainly had no reason to fit up Jeremy whether they were employed by the Home Office or not, they were still scientists and would have been aware that their methods and findings would come under close scrutiny. At the end of the day, it would be Hayward that would be in the firing line if they had falsified the findings, so unless he had a real personal hatred of Bamber (which he clearly had no reason for), I very much doubt he would stick his neck on the line for EP.

It seems a drawing of the inside of the silencer does exist.  Have you seen sight of this Caro?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=931

No I don't think I've seen this so would be grateful if you could provide.

[Holly Goodhead]

1/4 of an inch was a best guess and the flake of soot theory was basically ridiculed. You must also have read Websters account of how difficult it would be to try and replicate the shooting and achieve similar results?

There are very few similarities between Bamber and Stefan Kiszko. It is clear why they fitted Stefan up, they didn't have anyone else to pin it on and he 'fit the stereotype' - he was a TRUE MOJ, whereas the police had Sheila as a suspect. There was no need to fit up an innocent man, changing from Sheila to Jeremy made them look stupid to boot and resulted in a lot of criticism. The lab certainly had no reason to fit up Jeremy whether they were employed by the Home Office or not, they were still scientists and would have been aware that their methods and findings would come under close scrutiny. At the end of the day, it would be Hayward that would be in the firing line if they had falsified the findings, so unless he had a real personal hatred of Bamber (which he clearly had no reason for), I very much doubt he would stick his neck on the line for EP.

For those of us who believe JB is the victim of a MoJ I think the similarities are all too clear to see. 

If it was clear SK was fitted up why did he remain in jail for 16 years?  Why did his mother contact all manner of people including the Queen, the late PM's Mrs T and James Callaghan and her local MP, the late lardy lump Cyril Smith, only to get the door closed in her face?  SK also had his conviction upheld at a CoA hearing.

Yes I agree SK fit the stereotypical image of a child murderer/criminal: awkward/clumsy in appearance and manner and a non Anglo Saxon name to boot.  You have studied psychology at degree level so you will have covered prejudice. 

With the benefit of hindsight he was a "TRUE MOJ" but if we were discussing the case on the forums pre Campbell Malone's involvement and quashed conviction would we all see him as a "TRUE MOJ"?  I very much doubt it. 

Yes the police initially proceded with the WHF case on the basis of four murders one suicide with SC responsible.  But this is often the case with criminal cases.  It takes time to process the Soc etc and in the interim suspects are questioned and held.  EP were unable to hold and question SC for obvious reasons.  The relatives did a sterling job in convincing EP SC could not have been responsible ergo JB was placed firmly in the frame.  Both siblings had a legitimate right to be at WHF and handle the contents including the rifle.  In 1985/6 forensic science wasn't what it is today so in the absence of any forensic/scientific evidence, rumour, innuendo, prejudice and subjectivity filled the void along with a bit of noble cause corruption ie the silencer/blood evidence to seal JB's fate. 

[Caroline]

For those of us who believe JB is the victim of a MoJ I think the similarities are all too clear to see. 

If it was clear SK was fitted up why did he remain in jail for 16 years?  Why did his mother contact all manner of people including the Queen, the late PM's Mrs T and James Callaghan and her local MP, the late lardy lump Cyril Smith, only to get the door closed in her face?  SK also had his conviction upheld at a CoA hearing.

Yes I agree SK fit the stereotypical image of a child murderer/criminal: awkward/clumsy in appearance and manner and a non Anglo Saxon name to boot.  You have studied psychology at degree level so you will have covered prejudice. 

With the benefit of hindsight he was a "TRUE MOJ" but if we were discussing the case on the forums pre Campbell Malone's involvement and quashed conviction would we all see him as a "TRUE MOJ"?  I very much doubt it. 

Yes the police initially proceded with the WHF case on the basis of four murders one suicide with SC responsible.  But this is often the case with criminal cases.  It takes time to process the Soc etc and in the interim suspects are questioned and held.  EP were unable to hold and question SC for obvious reasons.  The relatives did a sterling job in convincing EP SC could not have been responsible ergo JB was placed firmly in the frame.  Both siblings had a legitimate right to be at WHF and handle the contents including the rifle.  In 1985/6 forensic science wasn't what it is today so in the absence of any forensic/scientific evidence, rumour, innuendo, prejudice and subjectivity filled the void along with a bit of noble cause corruption ie the silencer/blood evidence to seal JB's fate.

Jeremy placed himself in the frame when he said he received a call from Nevill - it was his alibi but ironically, it was also the thing that made him a suspect.

[Caroline]

It seems a drawing of the inside of the silencer does exist.  Have you seen sight of this Caro?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=931

No I don't think I've seen this so would be grateful if you could provide.

You must have missed this post on the previous page? The relevant link it posted at the bottom of the post.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg318075#msg318075

[Holly Goodhead]

Jeremy placed himself in the frame when he said he received a call from Nevill - it was his alibi but ironically, it was also the thing that made him a suspect.

I very much doubt a jury would find guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of whether or not a phone call was made.  In the absence of satellite/digital technology proving or disproving the call it's entirely subjective. 

I assume when you believed JB innocent you also believed he received a call from NB?   

You've stated you don't believe the blood/silencer evidence so I'm assuming you believe this was fabricated?  Why would investigators/prosecutors need to fabricate evidence if the case against JB was strong?

[Holly Goodhead]

You must have missed this post on the previous page? The relevant link it posted at the bottom of the post.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg318075#msg318075

Thanks.  When you posted "You must also have read Websters account of how difficult it would be to try and replicate the shooting and achieve similar results?" I was expecting something about blood pattern analysis.

[Caroline]

Thanks.  When you posted "You must also have read Websters account of how difficult it would be to try and replicate the shooting and achieve similar results?" I was expecting something about blood pattern analysis.

You're hard to please woman! 

[scipio_usmc]

Sounded pretty crazy to me!  But there again what do you make of this from John Hayward?

472. Mr Hayward, in contrast, has we are satisfied taken some steps to satisfy himself that he is right. 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.

    Sounds very scientific!

If a turbulent motion exists in the moderator after discharge of the semi-auto rifle how does this affect accuracy with a number of shots fired in quick succession?

Blood is a non-Newtonian fluid and it depends on the shear rate or shear rate history.  Many branches of science are involved in blood pattern analysis.

This is just a complete joke!

You have to be aware that the point of impact is different when using a moderator. It has to be taken into account during the aiming process. In general tighter grouping is possible with moderators. This can be because less recoil allows greater accuracy but in addition can be a result of the affects on the ballistics of the bullet. The affects are minor though we are not talking about an ordinary shooter being turned into a marksman.  When a moderator is used the velocity of bullets is much more uniform than without.  There is always some velocity deviation but the deviation is greater when a moderator is not used versus when one is. Any such benefits are quite minor and the real value of a moderator is in protecting a shooter's hearing/keeping targets from being able to know where you are or react before the bullets hit. If sound moderators had no sound benefits and simply resulted in the other attributes no one would bother.  The reduction in recoil etc would not be significant enough to warrant their use. There are other types of moderators including flash suppressors. Military weapons are fitted with flash suppressors to reduce flash so the enemy will not be able to use the flash to identify your position as easily. 

[Holly Goodhead]

You're hard to please woman! 

I went back to read your post and missed the PDF first time around.  Excellent thanks just what I was looking for 

It's so funny Mark Webster trying to explain extremely complex matters to the three appeal court judges who obviously have no idea whatsoever about the subject matter     At times you can sense Mark Webster's frustration.  Michael Turner sounds ineffectual with Victor Temple completely dominating the show 

The document is worthy of a thread in it's own right.

[Holly Goodhead]

You have to be aware that the point of impact is different when using a moderator. It has to be taken into account during the aiming process. In general tighter grouping is possible with moderators. This can be because less recoil allows greater accuracy but in addition can be a result of the affects on the ballistics of the bullet. The affects are minor though we are not talking about an ordinary shooter being turned into a marksman.  When a moderator is used the velocity of bullets is much more uniform than without.  There is always some velocity deviation but the deviation is greater when a moderator is not used versus when one is. Any such benefits are quite minor and the real value of a moderator is in protecting a shooter's hearing/keeping targets from being able to know where you are or react before the bullets hit. If sound moderators had no sound benefits and simply resulted in the other attributes no one would bother.  The reduction in recoil etc would not be significant enough to warrant their use. There are other types of moderators including flash suppressors. Military weapons are fitted with flash suppressors to reduce flash so the enemy will not be able to use the flash to identify your position as easily.

As far as I can see it's not about ballistics per se?  But whether any motion in the silencer from firearm discharge would cause a heterogeneous blood flake to intimately mix.  Imo it's all irrelevant as I don't believe the blood flake represented a mix of NB and June's blood but it does show how incompetent these people are to comment on this.  I'm no expert, far from it, but I know enough to realise that the people at this hearing were not qualified in this area which Mark Webster does actually admit to. 

Mark Webster tells the hearing he is unable to identify any other case of blood drawn into a silencer from a contact gunshot wound and yet the whole hearing is based on the possibility of this happening twice: a gunshot wound to each of NB and June.

Mark Webster is a biologist.  Whether or not a heterogeneous blood flake wound intimately mix in the silencer as a result of any turbulence requires experts in ballistics and  physics. 

What happens when the gasses (Newtonian liquid) from the burning propellant exiting the silencer collide with blood (non-Newtonian liquid) from the gunshot wound entering the silencer?  They completely missed that.  Any mathematical calculations?  Nah. 

What an absolute joke!

Imo it's not a case of whether or not heterogenous blood flake representing a mix of of NB and June's blood would intimately mix as a result of turbelence in the silencer but exploring the following:

1)  Whether draw-back is possible with a silencer, the .22 rifle and subsonic hollow point bullets

2)  How any blood from draw-back would distribute in the silencer

3)  Whether a single blood particle representive of the blood flake from baffle 1/2 (John Hayward said the blood he tested came from a single source ie a flake) as a result of the potential for draw-back  taking place is capable of being blood typed based on the environment in the silencer immediately after discharge of the rifle and later exposure to the fuming chamber along with time at ambient temperature.

Mark Webster wanted FSS to set up experiments but he was "rebuffed".  Now why am I not suprised by this!

It also transpires that the chief scientist at the FSS was a Dr Alan Scaplehorn who is a dentist!

http://www.checkcompany.co.uk/director/10740112/DOCTOR-ALAN-SCAPLEHORN

[scipio_usmc]

I very much doubt a jury would find guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of whether or not a phone call was made.  In the absence of satellite/digital technology proving or disproving the call it's entirely subjective.

If one doesn't believe the call was made then it means Jeremy must be guilty because he would have no way of knowing anything happened period unless he were there and falsely saying he got a call blaming Sheila is proof he was trying to frame her.

Whether one believes his claim he received such call is thus critical.  The indicia of whether he received the call requires looking at his claims and his reactions.  This is one of the things that had the biggest impact in me recognizing his guilt.

1) It seems implausible that Nevill would call Jeremy to disarm Sheila instead of doing it himself
2) It seems implausible that Nevill would get a chance to call Jeremy if Sheila were holding a gun on him.
3) The evidence establishes Nevill and June were attacked in the bedroom where there was no phone, this is where the episode began not in the kitchen.
4) Jeremy's false claim that he immediately called back upon the phone being disconnected
5) Jeremy's false claim that upon being unable to call back he immediately called police when in fact he called Julie.
6) When Jeremy did finally get around to calling police instead of calling 999 like someone w ho actually received the message he claimed would do he wasted time looking up phone numbers. After he found the phones unmanned at the first station he called he looked up another instead of calling 999 at that point even.
7) Not only did he have a lack of urgency before calling police he showed the same lack of urgency at the scene and even lied to police about Sheila's capability with weapons and how many there were scaring the police into inaction. Instead of begging police to do something he waited patiently for hours. He only went to the scene because police asked him to go there. Someone else would have either gone there before calling police or after without being prompted to do so.

This is without even taking into account that the moderator evidence establishes the call didn't happen and Julie ratting him out. The above is more than sufficient for a juror to believe the call didn't happen. If tha tis what one believes then Jeremy is toast.

[Holly Goodhead]

If one doesn't believe the call was made then it means Jeremy must be guilty because he would have no way of knowing anything happened period unless he were there and falsely saying he got a call blaming Sheila is proof he was trying to frame her.

Whether one believes his claim he received such call is thus critical.  The indicia of whether he received the call requires looking at his claims and his reactions.  This is one of the things that had the biggest impact in me recognizing his guilt.

1) It seems implausible that Nevill would call Jeremy to disarm Sheila instead of doing it himself
2) It seems implausible that Nevill would get a chance to call Jeremy if Sheila were holding a gun on him.
3) The evidence establishes Nevill and June were attacked in the bedroom where there was no phone, this is where the episode began not in the kitchen.
4) Jeremy's false claim that he immediately called back upon the phone being disconnected
5) Jeremy's false claim that upon being unable to call back he immediately called police when in fact he called Julie.
6) When Jeremy did finally get around to calling police instead of calling 999 like someone w ho actually received the message he claimed would do he wasted time looking up phone numbers. After he found the phones unmanned at the first station he called he looked up another instead of calling 999 at that point even.
7) Not only did he have a lack of urgency before calling police he showed the same lack of urgency at the scene and even lied to police about Sheila's capability with weapons and how many there were scaring the police into inaction. Instead of begging police to do something he waited patiently for hours. He only went to the scene because police asked him to go there. Someone else would have either gone there before calling police or after without being prompted to do so.

This is without even taking into account that the moderator evidence establishes the call didn't happen and Julie ratting him out. The above is more than sufficient for a juror to believe the call didn't happen. If tha tis what one believes then Jeremy is toast.

The phone calls are not capable of being proved one way or the other.  On the other hand the silencer and blood evidence can be proved by way of further forensic testing.

[Holly Goodhead]

As far as I can see it's not about ballistics per se?  But whether any motion in the silencer from firearm discharge would cause a heterogeneous blood flake to intimately mix.  Imo it's all irrelevant as I don't believe the blood flake represented a mix of NB and June's blood but it does show how incompetent these people are to comment on this.  I'm no expert, far from it, but I know enough to realise that the people at this hearing were not qualified in this area which Mark Webster does actually admit to. 

Mark Webster tells the hearing he is unable to identify any other case of blood drawn into a silencer from a contact gunshot wound and yet the whole hearing is based on the possibility of this happening twice: a gunshot wound to each of NB and June.

Mark Webster is a biologist.  Whether or not a heterogeneous blood flake wound intimately mix in the silencer as a result of any turbulence requires experts in ballistics and  physics. 

What happens when the gasses (Newtonian liquid) from the burning propellant exiting the silencer collide with blood (non-Newtonian liquid) from the gunshot wound entering the silencer?  They completely missed that.  Any mathematical calculations?  Nah. 

What an absolute joke!

Imo it's not a case of whether or not heterogenous blood flake representing a mix of of NB and June's blood would intimately mix as a result of turbelence in the silencer but exploring the following:

1)  Whether draw-back is possible with a silencer, the .22 rifle and subsonic hollow point bullets

2)  How any blood from draw-back would distribute in the silencer

3)  Whether a single blood particle representive of the blood flake from baffle 1/2 (John Hayward said the blood he tested came from a single source ie a flake) as a result of the potential for draw-back  taking place is capable of being blood typed based on the environment in the silencer immediately after discharge of the rifle and later exposure to the fuming chamber along with time at ambient temperature.

Mark Webster wanted FSS to set up experiments but he was "rebuffed".  Now why am I not suprised by this!

It also transpires that the chief scientist at the FSS was a Dr Alan Scaplehorn who is a dentist!

http://www.checkcompany.co.uk/director/10740112/DOCTOR-ALAN-SCAPLEHORN

Here's the PDF for the CoA hearing

[Myster]

The phone calls are not capable of being proved one way or the other.  On the other hand the silencer and blood evidence can be proved by way of further forensic testing.

No it can't, dearest, because there's no original blood left to put in it!