Author Topic: Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence  (Read 61607 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ISpyWithMyEye

Re: Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence
« Reply #615 on: May 25, 2020, 01:16:20 AM »
I never said otherwise.


But you implied it, Holly

That’s what you do frequently — you try and cast doubt when none exists

Because you’re desperate to try and suggest Jeremy Bamber is innocent

You refuse to accept facts, which is why people pour scorn on your arguments
Seeking Justice for June & Nevill Bamber, Sheila Caffell & her two six-year-old twin boys who were shot dead in their heads by Psychopath, JEREMY BAMBER who must NEVER be released.

Offline ISpyWithMyEye

Re: Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence
« Reply #616 on: May 25, 2020, 01:19:58 AM »
The judges, jury and witnesses did their best, IMO.

Whether or not they got it right, I'm not sure.

Don’t worry your pretty little head about it, MrsWah...The Judges, jury and witnesses wouldn’t have needed your guidance, you can be sure of that
Seeking Justice for June & Nevill Bamber, Sheila Caffell & her two six-year-old twin boys who were shot dead in their heads by Psychopath, JEREMY BAMBER who must NEVER be released.

Brancher

  • Guest
Re: Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence
« Reply #617 on: May 25, 2020, 01:22:39 AM »
I think JB's defence at trial was very poor.  The QC's may have been experienced but what experience did they have with cases involving firearms?  They certainly didn't have experience of a mass shooting as WHF is the only unwitnessed case during peacetime.

I disagree that the strategy at trial was the right one.  JB said he used the rifle on the eve of the murders sans silencer.  The silencer was found on SC's body sans silencer, so why would anyone think it a good idea and attempt to choreograph a correlation between the silencer and crime instead of repudiating it?

Admin on Blue, a non-practising criminal barrister, had this to say about it:

I am of the view that, like Julie Mugford's evidence, the moderator should have been excluded from the trial.

The problems with the moderator evidence were fatal and I would summarise them as follows:

1. It was found in the vicinity of the crime in a place that the police had already searched.

2. Point 1 could be excused if the police investigation had been diverted to a 'murder-suicide', but it wasn't.  Not exactly.  Stan Jones suspected Jeremy Bamber from the start.  And why were the police conducting a search, if not to find evidence of this kind?

3. Even if we dismiss the concern in 1 and 2 above, the moderator was claimed to be found by individuals who were personally vested in Bamber being convicted and imprisoned.  That doesn't mean they were trying to frame him.  They may have made a genuine find.  The real question is whether there is evidence that the moderator was used in the killings.  There is, but it is weak and inconclusive and not enough to establish the matter.

4. The moderator was tampered with and forensic traces were removed by those individuals who found it before it was handed over to the police. 

5. The moderator was collected and passed to the police with insufficient care.  First, it was taken away from the location of the crime to a completely different property some miles away without any regard for forensic integrity.  Then, it was then handed to a drunk officer who transported it in a cardboard tube [I'm almost laughing as I type this] back to the investigation team to be examined.

6. The grey hair reported to be on the moderator was lost before it could be forensically examined.

7. Blood was found in the interior baffles of the moderator, but no photographic or diagrammatic record was made of this blood patterning.

8. The blood was grouped as type 'A' and Sheila was blood type 'A', but grouping does not prove that the blood was Sheila's. 

9. Post-trial, Low Copy Number ('LCN') DNA testing of forensic traces revealed results that are highly-probable to be Sheila's, but the 2002 appellate judges dismissed these results as meaningless.  The LCN method does not tell us the source of the relevant traces that formed the sample for testing purposes and the risk of cross-contamination and accidental contamination pre- and post-trial is very high.

10. Even if we take a leap of faith and assume that the blood was Sheila's, this still does not prove that the moderator was used in the killings.  To prove that, we would need to hear evidence about blood patterning, suppressor blowback, and wound ballistics, and attempts to find evidence along those lines have proved inconclusive.

I think, however, there is one important weakness in the points I make.

Point 8.  It's easy to dismiss the grouped blood finding, but we need to explain why the blood was there.  There was a quantity of it, I am given to understand.  It wasn't just one speck found following a careful examination, it was quite an amount of blood, and the 1990s defence expert in this matter has outlined why the blood was probably human blood.

That's a weakness, but it's not enough to assail the objections.  To me, the moderator is a dead duck.  That doesn't mean Bamber is innocent, far from it, but it weakens the case against him quite considerably - which is worrying, when you consider that he may be a mass murderer.

It is possible (I only say possible) that the relatives at the time had similar concerns, as well as legitimate concerns about Bamber's attitude to their business and financial interests, and realising that Essex Constabulary were diving well below snorkel depth, in desperation they manufactured the evidence.

I see one problem with that theory, though.  How would they know the correct grouping of the blood for the silencer?  This, in turn, gives me a disturbing thought, which is that one way they could have found out was by speaking to a police officer.

To be clear, I am not alleging this.  I do not believe the moderator was used in the killings, and I personally take the view that the relatives introduced this evidence innocently.

Offline ISpyWithMyEye

Re: Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence
« Reply #618 on: May 25, 2020, 01:23:12 AM »
People who are “guilters” do n’t dispute the official, accepted narrative so where does the misguided bit come into it?



I think it’s rather refreshing that Mrs Wah can finally admit she realises she’s been misguided 😌


“Quote from: mrswah on May 19, 2020, 05:23:01 PM
There are supporters and supporters.

There are "guilters" and "guilters".

And, there are people like me who honestly don't know.

Any of us can be very misguided.”
Seeking Justice for June & Nevill Bamber, Sheila Caffell & her two six-year-old twin boys who were shot dead in their heads by Psychopath, JEREMY BAMBER who must NEVER be released.

Brancher

  • Guest
Re: Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence
« Reply #619 on: May 25, 2020, 12:57:00 PM »
I am of the view that, like Julie Mugford's evidence, the moderator should have been excluded from the trial.

The problems with the moderator evidence were fatal and I would summarise them as follows:

1. It was found in the vicinity of the crime in a place that the police had already searched.

2. Point 1 could be excused if the police investigation had been diverted to a 'murder-suicide', but it wasn't.  Not exactly.  Stan Jones suspected Jeremy Bamber from the start.  And why were the police conducting a search, if not to find evidence of this kind?

3. Even if we dismiss the concern in 1 and 2 above, the moderator was claimed to be found by individuals who were personally vested in Bamber being convicted and imprisoned.  That doesn't mean they were trying to frame him.  They may have made a genuine find.  The real question is whether there is evidence that the moderator was used in the killings.  There is, but it is weak and inconclusive and not enough to establish the matter.

4. The moderator was tampered with and forensic traces were removed by those individuals who found it before it was handed over to the police. 

5. The moderator was collected and passed to the police with insufficient care.  First, it was taken away from the location of the crime to a completely different property some miles away without any regard for forensic integrity.  Then, it was then handed to a drunk officer who transported it in a cardboard tube [I'm almost laughing as I type this] back to the investigation team to be examined.

6. The grey hair reported to be on the moderator was lost before it could be forensically examined.

7. Blood was found in the interior baffles of the moderator, but no photographic or diagrammatic record was made of this blood patterning.

8. The blood was grouped as type 'A' and Sheila was blood type 'A', but grouping does not prove that the blood was Sheila's. 

9. Post-trial, Low Copy Number ('LCN') DNA testing of forensic traces revealed results that are highly-probable to be Sheila's, but the 2002 appellate judges dismissed these results as meaningless.  The LCN method does not tell us the source of the relevant traces that formed the sample for testing purposes and the risk of cross-contamination and accidental contamination pre- and post-trial is very high.

10. Even if we take a leap of faith and assume that the blood was Sheila's, this still does not prove that the moderator was used in the killings.  To prove that, we would need to hear evidence about blood patterning, suppressor blowback, and wound ballistics, and attempts to find evidence along those lines have proved inconclusive.

I think, however, there is one important weakness in the points I make.

Point 8.  It's easy to dismiss the grouped blood finding, but we need to explain why the blood was there.  There was a quantity of it, I am given to understand.  It wasn't just one speck found following a careful examination, it was quite an amount of blood, and the 1990s defence expert in this matter has outlined why the blood was probably human blood.

That's a weakness, but it's not enough to assail the objections.  To me, the moderator is a dead duck.  That doesn't mean Bamber is innocent, far from it, but it weakens the case against him quite considerably - which is worrying, when you consider that he may be a mass murderer.

It is possible (I only say possible) that the relatives at the time had similar concerns, as well as legitimate concerns about Bamber's attitude to their business and financial interests, and realising that Essex Constabulary were diving well below snorkel depth, in desperation they manufactured the evidence.

I see one problem with that theory, though.  How would they know the correct grouping of the blood for the silencer?  This, in turn, gives me a disturbing thought, which is that one way they could have found out was by speaking to a police officer.

To be clear, I am not alleging this.  I do not believe the moderator was used in the killings, and I personally take the view that the relatives introduced this evidence innocently.

An additional point I forgot to mention is the paint found on the moderator. 

I don't consider that very strong evidence, since the paint and corresponding scratch marks could have got there innocently.  The rifles were not stored in a shed or outhouse, but in the living areas, and it's quite possible somebody like Jeremy could have got the paint on there through accidental use.

Offline The General

Re: Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence
« Reply #620 on: February 21, 2022, 08:32:01 AM »
Not one to dredge up an old topic, but it's probably the easiest way to get an answer to my question, which is this:
Why didn't Jeremy dispose of the silencer completely? Is it because he knew it would be missing, so it had to be squirreled away somewhere semi-hidden, probably in the hope that the police would find it?
The 2nd Youngest Member of the Forum

Offline colsville

Re: Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence
« Reply #621 on: February 21, 2022, 10:14:55 AM »
Not one to dredge up an old topic, but it's probably the easiest way to get an answer to my question, which is this:
Why didn't Jeremy dispose of the silencer completely? Is it because he knew it would be missing, so it had to be squirreled away somewhere semi-hidden, probably in the hope that the police would find it?

Nobody in his situation at that time would have had the ability to think straight.

Jeremy Bamber would have been high as a kite on adrenaline and other natural chemicals that get released at a time of extreme stress.

His brain would have been on fire, his heart rate would have been through the roof, at some point panic may have set in, and he was completely on his own.  That's not a good situation for thinking straight.

On top of that, loads of things had gone wrong, like the fight in the kitchen.

Then Sheila didn't die first time. 

Then he realised that the gun was too long with the silencer on.

He must have been screaming to himself at all the things that had gone wrong.

Putting the silencer back in the gun cupboard does have a logic to it, as -  in Bamber's heightened, adrenaline fuelled state - it would 'prove' that Sheila shot everyone with the silencer off, and then shot herself with the silencer off.  Bamber would probably have had no idea that there was blood inside the silencer.

Offline The General

Re: Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence
« Reply #622 on: February 21, 2022, 11:16:44 AM »
Nobody in his situation at that time would have had the ability to think straight.

Jeremy Bamber would have been high as a kite on adrenaline and other natural chemicals that get released at a time of extreme stress.

His brain would have been on fire, his heart rate would have been through the roof, at some point panic may have set in, and he was completely on his own.  That's not a good situation for thinking straight.

On top of that, loads of things had gone wrong, like the fight in the kitchen.

Then Sheila didn't die first time. 

Then he realised that the gun was too long with the silencer on.

He must have been screaming to himself at all the things that had gone wrong.

Putting the silencer back in the gun cupboard does have a logic to it, as -  in Bamber's heightened, adrenaline fuelled state - it would 'prove' that Sheila shot everyone with the silencer off, and then shot herself with the silencer off.  Bamber would probably have had no idea that there was blood inside the silencer.
Why not dispose of the thing completely? Bearing in mind I bet he could think of 100 places it would never be found.
The 2nd Youngest Member of the Forum

Offline colsville

Re: Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence
« Reply #623 on: February 21, 2022, 11:40:06 AM »
Why not dispose of the thing completely? Bearing in mind I bet he could think of 100 places it would never be found.

Partly because his blood would have been 50 percent adrenaline at that stage.  His heart rate would have been double or triple it's usual rate.  He had no one to take advice from, and he hadn't considered this problem beforehand. But he had to do something.

To be honest, placing the silencer back in the gun cupboard shows quite an impressive presence of mind to me.

If I was Jeremy Bambers accomplice, and he phoned me in a panic asking what to do with the silencer, I'd have told him to put it back where it normally would be.  That way he could always say that he took it off prior to hunting down the rabbits earlier that evening, or that he took it off because it made it easier to put it in the gun cupboard.

If its missing altogether, then a properly conducted investigation would have noted this, and that would have aroused suspicion.  How do you explain a missing silencer altogether?  One scenario then would be that the killer disposed of it, and that would cast doubt on the Sheila scenario.

Offline The General

Re: Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence
« Reply #624 on: February 21, 2022, 12:18:59 PM »
Partly because his blood would have been 50 percent adrenaline at that stage.  His heart rate would have been double or triple it's usual rate.  He had no one to take advice from, and he hadn't considered this problem beforehand. But he had to do something.

To be honest, placing the silencer back in the gun cupboard shows quite an impressive presence of mind to me.

If I was Jeremy Bambers accomplice, and he phoned me in a panic asking what to do with the silencer, I'd have told him to put it back where it normally would be.  That way he could always say that he took it off prior to hunting down the rabbits earlier that evening, or that he took it off because it made it easier to put it in the gun cupboard.

If its missing altogether, then a properly conducted investigation would have noted this, and that would have aroused suspicion.  How do you explain a missing silencer altogether?  One scenario then would be that the killer disposed of it, and that would cast doubt on the Sheila scenario.
So he didn't know that he couldn't physically pose Sheila with the silencer attached, which says to me that he hadn't planned this eventuality in any great detail and that most of the shots were fired with it in place - except for the two to kill Sheila.
It also shows a certain amount of clear thinking on his part, as he's thought through the notion that the silencer must be discovered by someone at some point to corroborate his tail.
The 2nd Youngest Member of the Forum

Offline adam

Re: Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence
« Reply #625 on: February 21, 2022, 02:59:13 PM »
Not one to dredge up an old topic, but it's probably the easiest way to get an answer to my question, which is this:
Why didn't Jeremy dispose of the silencer completely? Is it because he knew it would be missing, so it had to be squirreled away somewhere semi-hidden, probably in the hope that the police would find it?

He was not aware of back spatter or the aga paint.

Offline colsville

Re: Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence
« Reply #626 on: February 21, 2022, 08:39:45 PM »
So he didn't know that he couldn't physically pose Sheila with the silencer attached, which says to me that he hadn't planned this eventuality in any great detail and that most of the shots were fired with it in place - except for the two to kill Sheila.
It also shows a certain amount of clear thinking on his part, as he's thought through the notion that the silencer must be discovered by someone at some point to corroborate his tail.

There was blood inside the silencer which tested positive for Sheila Caffell.  Assuming that the test was correct and the blood was from Sheila Caffell, it means she must have been shot with the silencer on, rather than off.

One of Sheilas wounds was almost certainly a non-contact wound, so the end of the rifle was not touching her skin, but was very close, and the second wound was either touching her skin very lightly, or was no more than one millimetre away.

Neither wound was from the gun pushing into the skin.

So I don't think its possible from the actual wounds themselves, to tell if the silencer was on or off, because there was no pressure applied to the gun into her neck, which you would need to make an imprint.

Jeremy Bamber may have had the presence of mind to put the silencer back in the gun cupboard, but there must have been some unclear thinking because he didn't think to clean the silencer thoroughly.  He may have just given the silencer a cursory glance, and missed the blood inside the end.

Offline The General

Re: Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence
« Reply #627 on: February 22, 2022, 07:11:30 AM »
He was not aware of back spatter or the aga paint.
So you agree that he put it back in a place where a decent search would discover it?
I would suggest he did know about visible back spatter, given that no blood was found externally, but inside the baffles - suggesting it was wiped. He didn't account for the forces that would project blood back up inside the silencer, but then who would back then? His actions were commensurate contemporaneously.
I believe all shots were fired with the silencer, more for suppressing noise inside than outside, then removed it when he discovered he couldn't pose Sheila with it attached, given that it was impossible for her to reach the trigger with it in place (holding the rifle backwards, with using her thumb to push the trigger as opposed to pulling).
So he wiped it and stashed it somewhere obvious, maybe even let it cool before putting it in the box.
The irony is that it may never have to come to light if David hadn't gone looking for it, as he knew it was missing.
The 2nd Youngest Member of the Forum

Offline Myster

Re: Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence
« Reply #628 on: February 22, 2022, 09:25:19 AM »
So you agree that he put it back in a place where a decent search would discover it?
I would suggest he did know about visible back spatter, given that no blood was found externally, but inside the baffles - suggesting it was wiped. He didn't account for the forces that would project blood back up inside the silencer, but then who would back then? His actions were commensurate contemporaneously.
I believe all shots were fired with the silencer, more for suppressing noise inside than outside, then removed it when he discovered he couldn't pose Sheila with it attached, given that it was impossible for her to reach the trigger with it in place (holding the rifle backwards, with using her thumb to push the trigger as opposed to pulling).
So he wiped it and stashed it somewhere obvious, maybe even let it cool before putting it in the box.
The irony is that it may never have to come to light if David hadn't gone looking for it, as he knew it was missing.
Precisely... the moderator reduced the likelihood of any shots fired being heard by others already asleep in a different bedroom, depending on who was shot initially.... even though an Anschutz is fairly quiet without any fitted. The problem was that although Bamber thought it was cleaned up enough (in haste) he left a tell-tale blob of blood at the opening which David Boutflour had the nous to notice. What still puzzles me is how and why it came to be "Sticky, very sticky... horrible" as DB was wont to say on a couple of occasions.  Maybe JB wiped the outside with thick washing-up liquid readily to hand at the kitchen sink, rather than run it under a tap and get it full of water. Or there's some other explanation.

Anthony Pargeter, a cousin, who visited WHF on Friday 26th July to stay that weekend (approx 13 days before the murders) noticed the Bamber Anschutz standing upright, pristine and complete with moderator and telescopic sight in the gun cupboard whilst looking for his own.  So questions might have been asked as to any missing moderator had Bamber decided to ditch it elsewhere.
It's one of them cases, in'it... one of them f*ckin' cases.

Offline The General

Re: Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence
« Reply #629 on: February 22, 2022, 10:31:54 AM »
Precisely... the moderator reduced the likelihood of any shots fired being heard by others already asleep in a different bedroom, depending on who was shot initially.... even though an Anschutz is fairly quiet without any fitted. The problem was that although Bamber thought it was cleaned up enough (in haste) he left a tell-tale blob of blood at the opening which David Boutflour had the nous to notice. What still puzzles me is how and why it came to be "Sticky, very sticky... horrible" as DB was wont to say on a couple of occasions.  Maybe JB wiped the outside with thick washing-up liquid readily to hand at the kitchen sink, rather than run it under a tap and get it full of water. Or there's some other explanation.

Anthony Pargeter, a cousin, who visited WHF on Friday 26th July to stay that weekend (approx 13 days before the murders) noticed the Bamber Anschutz standing upright, pristine and complete with moderator and telescopic sight in the gun cupboard whilst looking for his own.  So questions might have been asked as to any missing moderator had Bamber decided to ditch it elsewhere.
I agree with all of that, particularly the silencer potentially being conspicuous by its absence, which I actually think demonstrates a clarity of thought in the face of an indescribably horrendous act.
I think the consensus, amongst those of us who consider him guilty, is that he encountered the silencer problem at the time, and had not considered it before hand because, well, how could he know Sheila couldn't reach. He certainly couldn't dispose of it completely, which is probably what he wanted to do and probably considered.
The 'stickiness' may have been sweating gun oil, or as you say, whatever he cleaned it with and reacted as it cooled.
All of this does lead me to wonder if he was fretting about the silencer while he was at liberty and the investigation ongoing, as it was the one piece of evidence that he would ideally want to be discovered, but also, ironically, the item that could potentially make the narrative unravel.

The chain of custody of the thing is an entirely different matter, in my opinion, and one that may be viewed very differently today.
The 2nd Youngest Member of the Forum