Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence

[Holly Goodhead]

I can see the point but is it possible a "non practising barrister" isn't practising because he isn't very good?

Rivlin and Lawson were both top QCs and understood that trials are not just about facts and evidence but some theatre too.

As unlikely as it sounds, Sheila finding the silencer, shooting everyone except herself and then putting it back in the cupboard was the only real option for Bamber save for some weak suggestion of accidental contamination.

Otherwise, he is confidently ignoring the expert scientific evidence and alleging serious charges of perverting justice against the Boutflours/police based on a conspiracy theory. He was already claiming a number of others had lied about him, some with motive and some without.

The issues you raised above were explored to the extent they could be; I am a little confused about DBs attempts to unscrew the moderator but AFAIK, that's all that was admitted to, an attempt. Likewise, if they did attempt to scrape blood with a razor blade,  this would be the exact opposite of a frame as they would be destroying evidence.

As for accidental contamination, this was also explored to the bounds of any credible defence.RB denied handling the mod and denied having any cuts. The idea that a bucket containing watered down menstrual blood could have been the source of a dried flake found trapped between the baffle plates is laughable - what would the expert witnesses answer have been? 

As the 2002 appeal judgement makes clear, JB was also keen to avoid any mention of his intention to sell the farms, including the land that NB had secretly purchased and so could not supply a motive for this dastardly and unlikely plot

Did the relatives know SCs blood group? Did they know RB was a group match?

Did they know there were no photos of the underside of the mantel?

The short answer ( brevity isn't my strong suit !) is simply that Arlidge would have ridiculed any serious attempt to raise a conspiracy and left the jury with the impression that Bamber was simply desperate.

But how much reliance can be placed on the so-called scientific evidence that emanated from the FSS lab?

1. Parliament has already acknowledged quality failings during the 80's at 3.3.1:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm

2. I believe at some stage a diagram was drawn depicting the blood supposedly found inside the silencer but what about photographic evidence?

3. The chain of custody from the find of the silencer to its initial examination at the lab on 13th Aug is highly questionable.  However it wasn't until 12th Sep and after the silencer had been placed in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber that we are told a flake of blood was found measuring a 1/4 of an inch.

4.  The tests used at the time to examine blood groups were based on blood serology with 8% of the white British population sharing these groups ie it was impossible to say the blood originated from SC only that the flake matched her blood groups shared by many others including Robert Boutflour although I'm not suggesting he dobbed his own blood in there.

5.  If the blood flake was found inside the silencer as claimed by FSS it doesn't tell us how it came to be in there.  The prosecution alleging it was as a result of SC's contact gsw's doesn't mean it happened this way.

6.  Why was the silencer/flake the only blood stained exhibit capable of generating not only the ABO group but also an enzyme and 2 proteins which was over and above anything other exhibits generated.

7. It is known that blood serology testing requires blood stains of a certain quantity and quality to generate results and that environmental insults by way of heat and humidity can degrade samples rendering them useless for testing.  We have to believe not only was the blood/silencer capable of generating results over and above other exhibits but it was also capable of withstanding hot gases from firearm discharge and humidity from the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber.

8.  The prosecution argued the 'drawback phenomenon' resulted in blood depositing in the silencer ie blood from a contact gsw travelling back against the line of fire.  No other case exists where blood has entered a silencer as opposed to a gun barrel.  The phenemenon is in large part caused by the hot discharge gases entering into the wound as opposed to dissipating in the atmosphere but this is the case with a barrel sans silencer.  With a silencer the hot gases cool and dissipate in the silencers chamber and are slowed through a series of baffle plates.

9.  When the drawback phenemenon does occur it presents with large calibre firearms, high velocity ammo and head shots none of which feature in this case with regards to SC.

10. When blood presents as a result of drawback it usually includes tissue but no tissue was present in this case.

11. When blood presents as a result of drawback it usually involves headshots which NC sustained but his blood groups were not found in the silencer.

[Nicholas]

Bridget, you are really digging a deeper hole for yourself now.  A reasonable ground can be an inference which may be drawn from the surrounding circumstances.  In this case just dealing with the silencer evidence: i) JB denied being responsible for the murders therefore the defence case was that Sheila had to be responsible, ii) the rifle was discovered by police without the silencer fitted, iii) the silencer was subsequently said to have been found by a relative days later in a box in the cupboard under the stairs, iii) the silencer was removed from WHF, examined and handled by several of the relatives and retained by them for several days, iv) the FSS found blood inside the silencer which was either Sheila's or, less likely, a mixture of Nevill's and June's, v) items of Sheila' bloodstained underwear were removed by a relative from WHF, vi) although possible, the suggestion that Shela had used the rifle with the silencer fitted initially then removed it, placed it in the box in the cupboard and then shot herself, was an unlikely scenario, vi) the only other explanation for the presence of the blood inside the silencer was contamination, either accidental or deliberate.

Against that background Rivlin would have been perfectly entitled to raise the suggestion of contamination, even deliberate contamination, because that was an inference which might be drawn from the evidence.  I would go further and say that if Jeremy had insisted Rivlin would have been under an obligation to put such allegations to witnesses and he would have been in breach of the Code of Conduct if he had refused to do so.

There was a high profile case in the 1970s, an IRA bomb trial at the Old Bailey.  The head of my chambers was appearing for one of the accused.  The evidence against him was that his fingerprints had been discovered on a timer found at the address used by the bombers.  The defendant's instructions were i) that he was not involved in the bombing, ii) that he had never seen the timer and had certainly not touched it and had never been at the address where the timer was found.  There was no doubt that the fingerprints were a perfect match for the defendant.  In the light of those instructions the only basis upon which defence counsel could challenge the prosecution case was by directly alleging that the police had planted the figerprints.  He demonstrated that it was possible to take a lift of a finerprint on a glass using sellotape, then deposit it on another surface.  The deendant was not surprisingly convicted but counsel had done what he was obliged to deo.  The trial judge was the notorious Mr Justice Melford Stephenson.  He was of a similar view to Bridget in that he claimed that defence counsel who had pursued this defence had done so without reasonable grounds.  He directed that their fees be cut and he reported them to the Bar Counsel.  Defence counsel appealed the fees order and sought a ruling from the Bar Counsel.  The Bar Counsel robustly supported the position of defence counsel, in a blistering criticism of the judge.  The fees reduction was also overturned.

The above example is of a case where the evidential basis for the defence presented was far lower than existed in JB's case in relation to the possibilty of contamination of the silencer.

I do know what I am talking about Bridget, trust me! ;D

“Sir Aubrey Melford Steed Stevenson (17 October 1902 – 26 December 1987) was an English barrister and later a High Court judge, whose judicial career was marked by his controversial conduct and outspoken views.

After establishing a legal career in the field of insolvency, Stevenson served during the Second World War as a Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces. He was subsequently Judge Advocate at the 1945 war crimes trial of former personnel of the German submarine U-852 for their actions in what became known as the Peleus affair. In 1954 Stevenson represented the government of British Kenya during Jomo Kenyatta's unsuccessful appeal against his conviction for membership of the rebel organisation Mau Mau. Later that year he represented the litigants in the Crichel Down affair, which led to changes in the law on compulsory purchase. In 1955 he defended Ruth Ellis, the last woman to be executed for murder in the United Kingdom. He was deeply distressed by the execution of Ellis, for whom there had been no defence in law, but who was expected to have been reprieved by Home Secretary Gwilym Lloyd George. Two years later, Stevenson took part in the unsuccessful prosecution of John Bodkin Adams for the murder of Edith Alice Morrell.

Stevenson became a High Court judge in 1957, and acquired a reputation for severity in sentencing. He sentenced the Kray twins to life imprisonment in 1969, with a recommendation that they serve not less than 30 years each. In 1970 Stevenson passed long sentences on eight Cambridge University students who took part in the Garden House riot, and the following year gave Jake Prescott of the Angry Brigade 15 years for conspiracy to cause explosions.

One of his fellow judges, Sir Robin Dunn, described him as "the worst judge since the war".[1] After Dunn's attack, several high-profile legal figures came to Stevenson's defence,[1] among them fellow judge and biographer Lord Roskill, who pointed out that Stevenson could be merciful to those he regarded as victims.[2] Lord Devlin described Stevenson as the "last of the grand eccentrics".[3] Stevenson retired from the bench in 1979 aged 76, and died at St Leonards in East Sussex on 26 December 1987.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melford_Stevenson

[Nicholas]

 
Did he lose his appetite having made such a pigs ear of JB's case?

Did you ever ask him this directly Holly?

[Common sense]

But how much reliance can be placed on the so-called scientific evidence that emanated from the FSS lab?

1. Parliament has already acknowledged quality failings during the 80's at 3.3.1:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm

So why haven't all convictions from that era been overturned.

2. I believe at some stage a diagram was drawn depicting the blood supposedly found inside the silencer but what about photographic evidence?

What do you mean supposedly found? Are you accusing the forensic scientists of being part of a deliberate frame?

3. The chain of custody from the find of the silencer to its initial examination at the lab on 13th Aug is highly questionable.  However it wasn't until 12th Sep and after the silencer had been placed in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber that we are told a flake of blood was found measuring a 1/4 of an inch.

Can't argue with that

4.  The tests used at the time to examine blood groups were based on blood serology with 8% of the white British population sharing these groups ie it was impossible to say the blood originated from SC only that the flake matched her blood groups shared by many others including Robert Boutflour although I'm not suggesting he dobbed his own blood in there.

So what are you suggesting? 8% of the population didn't handle the moderator and neither were they shot at the scene

5.  If the blood flake was found inside the silencer as claimed by FSS it doesn't tell us how it came to be in there.  The prosecution alleging it was as a result of SC's contact gsw's doesn't mean it happened this way.

The firearms expert gave his opinion of how it came to be in there.It was the most likely explanation.

6.  Why was the silencer/flake the only blood stained exhibit capable of generating not only the ABO group but also an enzyme and 2 proteins which was over and above anything other exhibits generated.

No idea, I'm not a forensic scientist but we do know there was other blood in/on the silencer that was not or could not be tested so possible contamination from other bloods

7. It is known that blood serology testing requires blood stains of a certain quantity and quality to generate results and that environmental insults by way of heat and humidity can degrade samples rendering them useless for testing.  We have to believe not only was the blood/silencer capable of generating results over and above other exhibits but it was also capable of withstanding hot gases from firearm discharge and humidity from the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber.

Why didn't the defence expert bring any of this up?

8.  The prosecution argued the 'drawback phenomenon' resulted in blood depositing in the silencer ie blood from a contact gsw travelling back against the line of fire.  No other case exists where blood has entered a silencer as opposed to a gun barrel.  The phenemenon is in large part caused by the hot discharge gases entering into the wound as opposed to dissipating in the atmosphere but this is the case with a barrel sans silencer.  With a silencer the hot gases cool and dissipate in the silencers chamber and are slowed through a series of baffle plates.

I believe there was back spatter in the silencer used in the Bain family murders but can't be bothered to find out. That's what defence experts are for

9.  When the drawback phenemenon does occur it presents with large calibre firearms, high velocity ammo and head shots none of which feature in this case with regards to SC.

See Bain family murders, also a 2.2 rifle I believe

10. When blood presents as a result of drawback it usually includes tissue but no tissue was present in this case.

Usually or always?

11. When blood presents as a result of drawback it usually involves headshots which NC sustained but his blood groups were not found in the silencer.

Usually or always? If NC had been shot first, could any material have been ejected by the rifle firing another 20 rounds?

[Nicholas]

The non-practising criminal barrister left to pursue business interests.  Afaik he has a law degree from King's and was a pupil under Sir Stephen Seddon so no reason to believe he wasn't at least as competent as Geoffrey Rivlin and the late ED Lawson.  Interestingly Rivlin quit advocacy shortly after JB's case to take up the role of judge.  Did he lose his appetite having made such a pigs ear of JB's case? Conversely Anthony Arlidge QC, the prosecutor, is I believe still in the game today despite his advanced years.

This also suggests you’ve been taken in by what Bamber’s written to Mike T here (p2) http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=211.msg2289#msg2289 ?

Does Bamber have copies of the letters he sent?

[Caroline]

The non-practising criminal barrister left to pursue business interests.  Afaik he has a law degree from King's and was a pupil under Sir Stephen Seddon so no reason to believe he wasn't at least as competent as Geoffrey Rivlin and the late ED Lawson.  Interestingly Rivlin quit advocacy shortly after JB's case to take up the role of judge.  Did he lose his appetite having made such a pigs ear of JB's case?  Conversely Anthony Arlidge QC, the prosecutor, is I believe still in the game today despite his advanced years.

Why wouldn't he take up a judges role - it's the next step.

[Holly Goodhead]

Why wouldn't he take up a judges role - it's the next step.

If it's the next step then why is Arlidge still an advocate only?

[Common sense]

If it's the next step then why is Arlidge still an advocate only?

Perhaps he simply likes being an advocate.

My aunt was offered a lot of money to move into management several times but chose to stay as a nurse working with patients until she retired.

[Common sense]

He seems to have been enjoying himself too

Alex Aldridge
By Alex Aldridge
on Aug 9 2012 7:26am
45
On Tuesday, we relayed the extraordinary news that 18 Red Lion Court veteran Anthony Arlidge QC, 75, had left his partner of 12 years, judge and barrister Constance Briscoe, for a 27 year-old wannabe barrister called ‘Heather’.


https://www.legalcheek.com/2012/08/named-the-bar-graduate-27-who-anthony-arlidge-qc-75-has-dumped-constance-briscoe-for/

[Caroline]

If it's the next step then why is Arlidge still an advocate only?

Personal choice Holly, not everything is down to Bamber.

[Nicholas]

He seems to have been enjoying himself too

Alex Aldridge
By Alex Aldridge
on Aug 9 2012 7:26am
45
On Tuesday, we relayed the extraordinary news that 18 Red Lion Court veteran Anthony Arlidge QC, 75, had left his partner of 12 years, judge and barrister Constance Briscoe, for a 27 year-old wannabe barrister called ‘Heather’.


https://www.legalcheek.com/2012/08/named-the-bar-graduate-27-who-anthony-arlidge-qc-75-has-dumped-constance-briscoe-for/

Have you ever read ‘Ugly’ ?

“Yesterday Arlidge’s “astonished” ex-partner Briscoe, 55, who is known for her 2008 memoir Ugly, told The Telegraph that she thought “the whole thing was a bit ridiculous”.
She added: “Tony is too old for a midlife crisis. It is hilarious. I don’t know what she wants or what she is trying to do but good luck to them. Tony was giving a speech at my daughter’s birthday party. He told me just before we left to go there that he had fallen in love with this girl. I was very upset … but that’s life.”

‘Barrister, 76, with girlfriend, 25, says: Her mother approves
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9465586/Barrister-76-with-girlfriend-25-says-Her-mother-approves.html

[Holly Goodhead]

Personal choice Holly, not everything is down to Bamber.

I didn't say it was.  But according to NGB he said the defence anticipated an acquittal based on reasonable doubt so given the verdict was a 10/2 majority I guess it might have taken the wind out of his sail!

[Caroline]

I didn't say it was.  But according to NGB he said the defence anticipated an acquittal based on reasonable doubt so given the verdict was a 10/2 majority I guess it might have taken the wind out of his sail!

Then again .....

[APRIL]

I didn't say it was.  But according to NGB he said the defence anticipated an acquittal based on reasonable doubt so given the verdict was a 10/2 majority I guess it might have taken the wind out of his sail!

I think his defence might have been doing a lot of wishful thinking to have arrived at that conclusion.

[Holly Goodhead]

Common sense, I've answered some of your questions below. I'll answer the rest some other time.

So why haven't all convictions from that era been overturned?

I don't know exactly what the quality issues involved but there's no evidence Malcolm Fletcher was appropriately qualified at the time of trial.  MF's evidence was arguably the most important.  It contradicts with a US expert who has a worldwide reputation in the pathology of gunshot wounds and interestingly the British Gov instructed to advise on the Bloody Sunday investigation.

The lead test undertaken by Brian Elliot is not offered by any of the independent forensic service providers. I believe the only reliable test used to determine whether someone has discharged a firearm is a test for gunshot residue and this wasn't used in this case. 

What do you mean supposedly found?  Are you accusing the forensic scientists of being part of a deliberate frame?

The silencer was examined on 13th Aug and returned to the police.  It wasn't until 12th Sep that it was reexamined and the blood flake found inside.  It seems unlikely for all the reasons I've given above.  I wouldn't want to speculate about who did what and when because I don't know.  I think there was some wrongdoing at the lab because post trial the appeals process swung into action which resulted in the defence asking the lab to place blood inside the silencer and fire the rifle 26 times to ascertain what affect this had on the blood test results.  The lab claimed the results remained unaltered.  This contradicts with tests carried out by other experts and begs the question why other blood stained exhibits were incapable of yielding the sort of results produced by the silencer yet again!