Another look at that pesky sound moderator.

[Holly Goodhead]

Scipio's claims on Blue:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7075.msg333646.html#msg333646

"The inside of the opening has a lip.  That lip is threaded and acts as a shelf.  On this "shelf" was the blood she saw.  The "blob" she saw sitting on this shelf was removed by the lab on Aug 13 and used to test whether it was human blood or something else. It was determined to be human blood.  On this same "shelf" Lincoln removed enough blood traces to successfully type test it and he determined it to be group A.  If there was no blood there then the lab would not have gotten a positive test for blood and Lincoln would not have found traces of group A blood there. He said the amount of blood remaining there exceeded the amount on the baffles. That is not at all surprising since physics results in the largest particles of blood traveling not far while the smaller particles of blood would be able to travel several inches deep. This results in the quantity of blood found deep being less.

Since a moderator is open on both sides light can get inside the back while you are looking at the front so long as you hold it in a manner other than looking at the ground. Obviously holding it up to the light or a window with light coming in is the best.  Doing this enabled the family to see the blood inside. They also saw the blood on the face of the moderator when looking at the opening because the face is the aspect containing the opening.  Normally you just see the outside wall".

This being the case I wonder why the silencer was returned to EP by the lab on 13th August and resubmitted circa mid Sept for dismantling and a peep inside when the 'flake' was first  identified and tested  &%+((£

I've lost a contact lens and thought I might have left it in the above post but I cant seem to find it  &%+((£

[scipio_usmc]

I've lost a contact lens and thought I might have left it in the above post but I cant seem to find it  &%+((£

Did you also lose your brain like the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz?

Everyone who knows anything about this case knows that the lab did a limited examination on August 13 so that they would not damage any potential fingerprints and the gun was fingerprinted by Cook before it was finally returned to the lab in September for full analysis.  The COA opinion not only discusses this bu criticizes Cook for taking so long to get it fully examined by the lab. 

 

[Holly Goodhead]

Did you also lose your brain like the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz?

Everyone who knows anything about this case knows that the lab did a limited examination on August 13 so that they would not damage any potential fingerprints and the gun was fingerprinted by Cook before it was finally returned to the lab in September for full analysis.  The COA opinion not only discusses this bu criticizes Cook for taking so long to get it fully examined by the lab.

Yes the silencer was submitted to the lab on 13th Aug for preliminary tests. The blood on the outside incl the paint was analysed.  But you claimed the relatives held the silencer up to the light and observed the blood internally before it was handed to DS Jones on 12th Aug. 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6514.msg285041#msg285041

On 13th Aug  the silencer was handed back to DI Cook.  It was resubmitted to FSS mid Sept where it was dismantled for the first time and hey presto a blood flake was discovered which just so happened to be capable of blood typing and matched SC's blood serology. 

Simple request Scipio.  You claim the CoA doc criticises the above and specifically singles out DI Cook.  Here's the CoA doc please highlight for members and guests the text complete with the point number:

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

[scipio_usmc]

Yes the silencer was submitted to the lab on 13th Aug for preliminary tests. The blood on the outside incl the paint was analysed.  But you claimed the relatives held the silencer up to the light and observed the blood internally before it was handed to DS Jones on 12th Aug. 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6514.msg285041#msg285041

On 13th Aug  the silencer was handed back to DI Cook.  It was resubmitted to FSS mid Sept where it was dismantled for the first time and hey presto a blood flake was discovered which just so happened to be capable of blood typing and matched SC's blood serology. 

Simple request Scipio.  You claim the CoA doc criticises the above and specifically singles out DI Cook.  Here's the CoA doc please highlight for members and guests the text complete with the point number:

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

Sorry I meant the Dickinson report which faulted him for not telling the lab that the murder suicide theory changed when he brought the moderator there and was criticized for not speeding up t he process of bringing it and the rifle there.  Note that they didn't even confirm the Anschutz fired all the shots until September because he was busy repeatedly fingerprinting the weapon and moderator and after finally finishing he took his time in sending these items to the lab.

[Holly Goodhead]

Sorry I meant the Dickinson report which faulted him for not telling the lab that the murder suicide theory changed when he brought the moderator there and was criticized for not speeding up t he process of bringing it and the rifle there.  Note that they didn't even confirm the Anschutz fired all the shots until September because he was busy repeatedly fingerprinting the weapon and moderator and after finally finishing he took his time in sending these items to the lab.

Fair enough but this doesnt explain your assertion that the relatives held the silencer up to the light and observed the blood inside the silencer.  This was surely relayed to DS Jones who in turn relayed it to DI Cook and ultimately the lab?  The Holab forms supposedly detail what tests the police require the lab to carry out.  Do we have the Holab form?  Which should state analyse blood inside and outside or words to this effect?

DI Cook claims the single grey hair found attached to the silencer had disappered by the time he submitted it to the lab.  He surely must have documented this on the HOLAB form?  And the lab would take a peep inside to look for the lost hair and at the same time observe the blood.  Scientists are usually curious by nature? 

[scipio_usmc]

Fair enough but this doesnt explain your assertion that the relatives held the silencer up to the light and observed the blood inside the silencer.  This was surely relayed to DS Jones who in turn relayed it to DI Cook and ultimately the lab?  The Holab forms supposedly detail what tests the police require the lab to carry out.  Do we have the Holab form?  Which should state analyse blood inside and outside or words to this effect?

DI Cook claims the single grey hair found attached to the silencer had disappered by the time he submitted it to the lab.  He surely must have documented this on the HOLAB form?  And the lab would take a peep inside to look for the lost hair and at the same time observe the blood.  Scientists are usually curious by nature?

The family members who saw blood inside noted such in their statements.  That is how we know they saw blood inside. 

Why would Cook note blood and evidence on the form?  The job of the lab is to assess what evidence is on it. He admitted the hair was lost by the time he got it to the lab.  He didn't even think about the hair.  After the family mentioned the hair an inquiry took place and he admitted it was lost by him before he turned it in to the lab.  Since the hair would not have told anything important no one ended up caring about the error but in a future case it could hurt losing evidence like this so was a lesson learned.   

The closet was Nevill's the house was Nevill's there potentially was Nevill's hair in the closet and other places so it could be picked up anytime the moderator was being taken to the closet or even put in the closet.  So if it was Nevill's hair, as is surely the case, does that help prove the killer? No. Hair in closet in box, moderator put away touches hair and it sticks- big deal...

 

[Holly Goodhead]

The family members who saw blood inside noted such in their statements.  That is how we know they saw blood inside. 

Why would Cook note blood and evidence on the form?  The job of the lab is to assess what evidence is on it. He admitted the hair was lost by the time he got it to the lab.  He didn't even think about the hair.  After the family mentioned the hair an inquiry took place and he admitted it was lost by him before he turned it in to the lab.  Since the hair would not have told anything important no one ended up caring about the error but in a future case it could hurt losing evidence like this so was a lesson learned.   

The closet was Nevill's the house was Nevill's there potentially was Nevill's hair in the closet and other places so it could be picked up anytime the moderator was being taken to the closet or even put in the closet.  So if it was Nevill's hair, as is surely the case, does that help prove the killer? No. Hair in closet in box, moderator put away touches hair and it sticks- big deal...

Please provide the relevant W/S's showing the relatives observed the blood in the silencer before handing it over to EP. 

According to DS Davidson, COLP inquiry, the whole purpose of the HOLAB form is for the police to inform the lab what tests they require carrying out:

"It is a list of exhibits and a brief background of the incident, with a request in plain English what we want the lab  to do for us".

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=178.0;attach=445;image

[scipio_usmc]

Please provide the relevant W/S's showing the relatives observed the blood in the silencer before handing it over to EP. 

According to DS Davidson, COLP inquiry, the whole purpose of the HOLAB form is for the police to inform the lab what tests they require carrying out:

"It is a list of exhibits and a brief background of the incident, with a request in plain English what we want the lab  to do for us".

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=178.0;attach=445;image

Read Ann Eaton's statements yourself.  I know they are long but too bad I am not going to spare you the same pain the rest of us had to go through in reading them.


Here is the HOLAB form read it yourself (ps note how it says blood on butt of the rifle):

[Holly Goodhead]

Read Ann Eaton's statements yourself.  I know they are long but too bad I am not going to spare you the same pain the rest of us had to go through in reading them.

What exactly did you do while on blue besides stump for Jeremy did you ever read any of the evidence in this case?


Here is the HOLAB form read it yourself (ps note how it says blood on butt of the rifle):

I accept there may have been blood on the stock but what does this prove or disprove?

[scipio_usmc]

I accept there may have been blood on the stock but what does this prove or disprove?

1) There was spatter that "splashed" the left side of the stock- this proves Nevill was beaten with the stock because as he got hit with the stock the blood splashed onto it.  There was very limited spatter on the mechanism and barrel but it was still there.  The spatter gets on the person wielding the bludgeoning instrument not merely the weapon.  It didn't reach the barrel and yet not hit the killer.  This means if Sheila had been the killer she should have had spatter on her clothing and body particularly the back of the hand that was holding the stock.   

2) It tells us the killer was wearing gloves or the killer's hands would have had blood spatter on the outside and on the inside of the weapon there would have been prints of some sort even if partials only left in the blood.

3) There was blood transfers to the area where the piece broke off as well as the stock area below the trigger.  This means the hands of the killer had blood on it and transferred it to the gun. This confirms the observation the killer was wearing gloves since the transfers didn't involve any prints whatsoever.  The killer's gloves had blood on them that transferred to the weapon.  Was the blood from spatter? From punching the victim in the face as he was bleeding or something else such as touching the victim to re-position him?  Who knows all that matters is that the killer had blood from the victim on the gloves.   

Were there any bloody gloves that Sheila could have worn at the scene?  No

Did Sheila have any medium velocity spatter on her clothing (clothing she wore at death or any of her clothing she could have changed out of) that could have been from Nevill?  No

This is why it is significant.  If Sheila had been the one who beat Nevill then there would have been gloves and clothing she wore with his spatter on them. It is further corroboration that the killer fled the scene because no such items were present.

It is part and parcel of the whole issue of what evidence would have been on Sheila's body and clothing if she had killed the others and herself.

Why did the jury reject the defense claims that maybe Sheila changed?  Apart from the fact that it makes no sense for her to wash up and change her clothing she changed out of would still be there.

When you add to that the fact that she can't have cleaned off evidence that would be there if she shot herself and the evidence proving it impossible for her to have shot herself it is a slam dunk even before you add Julie's evidence.

[Holly Goodhead]

1) There was spatter that "splashed" the left side of the stock- this proves Nevill was beaten with the stock because as he got hit with the stock the blood splashed onto it.  There was very limited spatter on the mechanism and barrel but it was still there.  The spatter gets on the person wielding the bludgeoning instrument not merely the weapon.  It didn't reach the barrel and yet not hit the killer.  This means if Sheila had been the killer she should have had spatter on her clothing and body particularly the back of the hand that was holding the stock.   

2) It tells us the killer was wearing gloves or the killer's hands would have had blood spatter on the outside and on the inside of the weapon there would have been prints of some sort even if partials only left in the blood.

3) There was blood transfers to the area where the piece broke off as well as the stock area below the trigger.  This means the hands of the killer had blood on it and transferred it to the gun. This confirms the observation the killer was wearing gloves since the transfers didn't involve any prints whatsoever.  The killer's gloves had blood on them that transferred to the weapon.  Was the blood from spatter? From punching the victim in the face as he was bleeding or something else such as touching the victim to re-position him?  Who knows all that matters is that the killer had blood from the victim on the gloves.   

Were there any bloody gloves that Sheila could have worn at the scene?  No

Did Sheila have any medium velocity spatter on her clothing (clothing she wore at death or any of her clothing she could have changed out of) that could have been from Nevill?  No

This is why it is significant.  If Sheila had been the one who beat Nevill then there would have been gloves and clothing she wore with his spatter on them. It is further corroboration that the killer fled the scene because no such items were present.

It is part and parcel of the whole issue of what evidence would have been on Sheila's body and clothing if she had killed the others and herself.

Why did the jury reject the defense claims that maybe Sheila changed?  Apart from the fact that it makes no sense for her to wash up and change her clothing she changed out of would still be there.

When you add to that the fact that she can't have cleaned off evidence that would be there if she shot herself and the evidence proving it impossible for her to have shot herself it is a slam dunk even before you add Julie's evidence.

The above are in the main your own theories.  When the pathologist was asked about other external injuries NB sustained (other than gunshot) he does not commit to even say they were caused by the rifle let alone individual parts of the rifle.  Yes there was some blood staining to the rifle but of such small quantity that it was not even possible to group.  Therfore it doesn't follow that if SC was the perp she would be covered in medium impact spatter as you claim. 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=205.0;attach=726

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=205.0;attach=728

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=205.0;attach=730 

71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding. On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful. A "pull-through" on the barrel of the rifle was conducted for any traces of blood within the weapon. There were none.

[scipio_usmc]

The above are in the main your own theories.  When the pathologist was asked about other external injuries NB sustained (other than gunshot) he does not commit to even say they were caused by the rifle let alone individual parts of the rifle.  Yes there was some blood staining to the rifle but of such small quantity that it was not even possible to group.  Therfore it doesn't follow that if SC was the perp she would be covered in medium impact spatter as you claim. 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=205.0;attach=726

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=205.0;attach=728

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=205.0;attach=730 

71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding. On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful. A "pull-through" on the barrel of the rifle was conducted for any traces of blood within the weapon. There were none.

You keep referring to Lincoln's Autopsy report written in August.  He didn't know half as much at that time and was unwilling to speculate much.  Big deal he noted the lateral damage which ca't be caused by the barrel and we know the barrel can't cause those roundish abrasions either.  He didn't know about the blood spatter found on the rifle butt or try investigating the typical damage caused by a rifle butt, he chose to leave it to the lab to assess the issue further.  You want to say that because he refused to do testing and assess this it means the lab can't and no one else can offer their superior expertise.  That is laughable.

We know for a fact that the lateral abrasions were caused by the butt scraping along the skin while the roundish ones were caused by the "knob" of the butt digging in.  We know for a fact as he was beaten blood was splashing on the butt and the killer.  We know for a fact the butt broke when Nevill's head was bashed in with it- rendering him unconscious.