Bamber's former lawyer Ewen Smith and the Silencer/DNA evidence.

[John]

Serving CCRC Commissioner Ewen Smith once represented Jeremy Bamber as his lawyer.  In the following excerpt from one of the many ITN news reports broadcast after the trial, Ewen Smith, then acting for Bamber states, "The CCRC's ah examination of the ah DNA in the silencer has revealed that there is no trace in the female DNA matching Sheila Caffell's...at all...not a scintilla appears of a match." He continues stating that there is  every possibility that Sheila Caffell's blood was not in the silencer.

Fast forward to 4.45

The truth however as we now know it is that the DNA recovered from inside the silencer and originating from the baffles returned 17 similar markers with Sheila Caffell and it is accepted that up to 13 could be coincidental rendering it highly likely that the DNA found deep within the sound moderator did come from Sheila Caffell.

It should be noted that by using 15 or 16 markers the chances of two people having the same DNA is estimated to be around 1 in a trillion.  The chances then that the DNA in the silencer just happened to derive from someone other than Sheila Caffell are so infinitesimally small as to be nigh impossible.

I wonder if he has now changed his position?

[Myster]

Serving CCRC Commissioner Ewen Smith once represented Jeremy Bamber as his lawyer.  In the following excerpt from one of the many ITN news reports broadcast after the trial, Ewen Smith, then acting for Bamber states, "The CCRC's ah examination of the ah DNA in the silencer has revealed that there is no trace in the female DNA matching Sheila Caffell's...at all...not a scintilla appears of a match." He continues stating that there is  every possibility that Sheila Caffell's blood was not in the silencer.

Fast forward to 4.45

The truth however as we now know it is that the DNA recovered from inside the silencer and originating from the baffles returned 17 similar markers with Sheila Caffell and it is accepted that up to 13 could be coincidental rendering it highly likely that the DNA found deep within the sound moderator did come from Sheila Caffell.

It should be noted that by using 15 or 16 markers the chances of two people having the same DNA is estimated to be around 1 in a trillion.  The chances then that the DNA in the silencer just happened to derive from someone other than Sheila Caffell are so infinitesimally small as to be nigh impossible.

I wonder if he has now changed his position?

So that's Ewen Smith... nice find John, have you seen the film before?

Just goes to show how wrong one can be... sometimes.

[Angelo222]

I may be wrong in this but wasn't there two attempts to extract DNA which related to Sheila from the sound moderator/silencer?   It is also worth pointing out that the finding of Sheila's DNA does not prove that her blood was in the silencer but it renders it very likely.  It should also be remembered that the original analysis of the blood found on the outside of the silencer found it compatible with Sheila.  It was also proven that this blood could not have derived from animals.

The fact that Sheila was not biologically linked to any members of the family except the twins gives further support to the DNA and blood analysis evidence.

[John]

Patti over on the blue forum offers this gem...

DNA is unique.  Your DNA is like a fingerprint but better... If you took 6 lottery numbers and the winning combination is 23, 27, 32, 40, 43, 50 many people will have two three or four numbers only a limited number of one or two might have the 6 numbers, this making it unique to those that have the lottery numbers

If you only had 5 numbers then this is not unique to you.

The LCN DNA test is less reliable that of the SGM test.

If you compare the test results done in the Madeleine M case her markers were set at 19/20 this was one short of it being unique to her.

If you take Shelia's result at 17/20 then this is less likely to be unique with her.  However, it does not rule out that there was a mixture of DNA in the silencer.  What is does confirm is that the DNA was not unique to Shelia.  If this is the case and, based on this evidence alone then the evidence that was submitted in court in 1996 falls....because the jury that asked questions about Shelia's blood being on the silencer were told that it belonged to Sheila.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3628.msg141805.html#msg141805


For goodness sake Patti, do read up on the science of DNA!   It isn't a lottery where you have to get as many numbers as you can out of 20.  The magic number of 20 is simply the bench mark for criminal prosecutions in the UK, it being much less in places like the USA.

Ask yourself the question?  The sound moderator was relatively new and was only used by Nevill or Jeremy. Neither males had any biological connection with Sheila so the chances of any of them sharing any DNA markers in common was purely chance.  How then did human DNA get into the sound moderator if it has been shown that such DNA didn't belong to Nevill or Jeremy?  Did it actually relate to the twins who were also shot with a rifle fitted with a sound moderator, the same sound moderator which just so happened to find its way back to the gun cupboard?

The probability of two individuals having the same 17 markers in common must be about 1 in a zillion or something.  The chances of those two people both being at White House Farm and leaving their DNA in a sound moderator which wasn't used by anyone outside the family must be about a zillion zillion to 1!

In such circumstances Patti, anything over a 13 is a hit!

The DNA didn't relate to anyone else in the family so we are left with only the one possibility...it was Sheila's.

[Wicked]

477. The CCRC recorded the information available to it as:

"10.2 The silencer had been submitted by the Commission to the FSS for examination in order to establish whether there was more than one person's DNA inside it. On the 6 March 2000, the Commission was informed that the tests had identified the DNA of at least two people inside the silencer and that there was both male and female DNA present. The female DNA was stronger than the male DNA and was present all the way through the inside of the silencer. They were not able to say that the DNA readings were derived from blood, and they were not able to identify from whom the DNA had originated.

[Wicked]

"10.10 Whilst it might be arguable that the recent DNA tests do not establish that the source of the female DNA was blood, the Commission believes, as a matter of probability, that it is from blood because it was found deep within the silencer. Given the record of handling of the silencer by the scientists, the Commission does not believe that any possible contamination from them is likely to have been found that far down inside. Also, given that it is an accepted fact that blood was in the silencer in 1985, the Commission considers that it is much more likely that the DNA is from the blood found in the silencer at the time. Considering the length of time that has past and the fact that much of the blood was swabbed out for blood grouping, the Commission does not consider that the negative KM result strengthens the possibility that the DNA does not originate from blood. In any event, the Commission considers that the absence of Sheila Caffell's DNA is significant.

[John]

Oh why stop there, lets have the full story?

493.  Since the CCRC referred this case to the court, further DNA testing has taken place of other parts of the moderator. Seven swabbings have been taken from internal parts of the moderator apart from the baffles. All seven results indicated that DNA from more than one person was present. The results were complex and incomplete and it was not possible to determine how many people had contributed to the DNA from the mixture. The predominant contribution appeared to have come from a female or females.

494. When comparisons were possible, components matching Sheila Caffell's DNA profile were detected in five of these seven results. The other two results also contained components which matched those of Sheila Caffell, but not at all of the ten areas of DNA tested where information was available for comparison.

496. In the interpretation of the results, Dr Clayton called on behalf of the appellant and Miss Groombridge, called on behalf of the prosecution disagreed to a limited extent. Both agreed that Sheila Caffell could have contributed to this mixture of DNA but Miss Groombridge was prepared to go further and say that the findings provided support for the proposition that she had contributed to the mixture. She was, however, unable to determine the level of support provided. In her evidence to the court she explained her reasoning. Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided some support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator.


http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html


It should be noted that the benchmark for prosecutions in the UK is set at the relatively high figure of 20 markers.  This is what the Forensic Science Service and the judges were and and currently tied to.  It has to be accepted however that the chances of anyone else having a match of 17 markers in such a situation as we have here is virtually impossible.

It can only be inferred therefore that if DNA was indeed collected from within the sound moderator, that at least some of it related to Sheila Caffell.  Blood found within the sound moderator was also determined to be the same group as that of Sheila Caffell.

This can only lead to one logical conclusion!

[John]

I may be wrong in this but wasn't there two attempts to extract DNA which related to Sheila from the sound moderator/silencer?   It is also worth pointing out that the finding of Sheila's DNA does not prove that her blood was in the silencer but it renders it very likely.  It should also be remembered that the original analysis of the blood found on the outside of the silencer found it compatible with Sheila.  It was also proven that this blood could not have derived from animals.

The fact that Sheila was not biologically linked to any members of the family except the twins gives further support to the DNA and blood analysis evidence.

You are spot on Dave, in fact there were more than two attempts.

Wicked quotes from results which were received by the CCRC in March 2000.  These results recorded that they were unable to find any DNA attributable to Sheila Caffell within the sound moderator.

However, after the CCRC referred the case to the court of appeal further testing took place and it was as a consequence of that further testing that DNA was found which had 17 markers in common with Sheila Caffell.

508. In our judgement having reviewed the whole of the evidence about the blood, there is nothing to suggest that the evidence of Mr Hayward in this regard is wrong. The evidence did point to the blood being that of Sheila Caffell but he was right to acknowledge the remote possibility that there was a mixture of blood from June Bamber and Nevill Bamber. That possibility could only be overcome by considering the other aspects of the evidence, the lack of any blood in the barrel of the rifle, the finding of the moderator carefully put away in its proper place and all the other unrelated aspects of the case. We can find nothing to suggest that the evidence that was placed before the jury was misleading nor that the jury would not have given careful consideration to this aspect of the case. Accordingly we reject this ground.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html

[John]

In fact nothing has changed since the last appeal with respect to the DNA and blood found on and inside the sound moderator so good luck on Thursday.   

[Matthew Wyse]

In fact nothing has changed since the last appeal with respect to the DNA and blood found on and inside the sound moderator so good luck on Thursday.   

We could sum up the response from the blue forum quite succinctly in one sentence > There's none so blind as those who will not see.   

[Sandy]

Could I clarify this a bit further for the sake of completeness.  It was suggested by Patti over on the blue forum today that the DNA evidence as submitted at the last appeal was inconclusive but I find the fact that 17 markers were found to be very conclusive.  As has already been pointed out the chances of some innocent person having the same 17 markers in common with Sheila Caffell while at the same time having had access to that sound moderator is so ridiculously small so as to never be taken seriously.  Add to that the fact that the recovered DNA originated from a female and that reduces that possibility by yet another 50%.  It may not be conclusive but it can never be overturned.  Bottom line is that it is a million to 1 for sure that some of the blood and DNA found in the silencer belonged to Sheila Caffell.

The only reason that the court of appeal stated that it was inconclusive was because a 20 marker match was not obtained.  So what is the difference between a million to one possibility or a trillion to one possibility in real terms?

Does it matter?

[Mr Justice K]

I tend to agree with you and that is where the Law is somewhat of an ass if I may be so bold.

There are rules which must be followed in any judgements and followed to the letter otherwise some eloquent young lawyer with a reputation to repair and a string of IVA's to pay off would be able to pick holes in them.  The appeal court will be well aware of the significance of the latest DNA results as will be the CCRC consequently the refusal to make a referral.  I am quite sure that there will not be any change to this on Thursday.

[Wicked]

It is not fair and not true to say that the Low Count Numbers DNA were from Sheila.  The final conclusion from the  CCRC was this...

497. We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:

ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other. 

That is the top and bottom of it....

If you believe that 19/20 markers that were found in the MM case were not that of M then how can you justify that 17/20 belonged to SC.......Just asking  >@@(*&)

[Matthew Wyse]

It is not fair and not true to say that the Low Count Numbers DNA were from Sheila.  The final conclusion from the  CCRC was this...

497. We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:

ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other. 

That is the top and bottom of it....

If you believe that 19/20 markers that were found in the MM case were not that of M then how can you justify that 17/20 belonged to SC.......Just asking  >@@(*&)

What has Madeleine McCann to do with it?

[John]

Patti will always attempt to claim that black is white when we all know that black is in fact black.  She has now introduced the old contamination chestnut and claims that the tests somehow proved that Sheila's DNA wasn't in the sound moderator when science has shown the opposite to be true.

She apparently doesn't understand the science behind DNA analysis and actually attributes it to a lottery.  Quite pathetic if I may say so but there you go...deluded as ever.

The truth about the DNA is really quite simple, the chances of two people having 17 DNA markers in common is as already pointed out well over 1 in a million.  The chances of two people having 17 DNA markers in common who also both had access to the sound moderator owned by Nevill Bamber must be infinitesimally small.

You cannot have contamination of DNA, you either have it or you don't have it, there is no middle ground.  The chances that DNA collected from the baffles within the sound moderator would match with any citizen within the UK is again millions to one.  To use Patti's simplistic analogy, you would have more chance of winning the National Lottery jackpot than you would of having the same 17 marker DNA as that collected from Nevill's sound moderator.  That puts the whole thing into perspective.

To conclude, the odds that the DNA obtained from the sound moderator were millions to one yet Sheila Caffell came up with a match on 17 markers.  To have done so randomly would have required odds in excess of several million to one.  The forensic lab boffins must have been jumping for joy the day those results were obtained because they knew that regardless of the Law and the 20 marker rule that the DNA came from Sheila Caffell.

The fact that blood collected from the sound moderator and tested some years earlier was of the same group as that of Sheila Caffell also lends support to the contention that the DNA actually came from blood.  It is a logical progression when both blood and DNA are found within the same object.