UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: Vertigo Swirl on April 06, 2020, 08:19:16 PM
-
I was told to start a new thread to discuss this so that’s what I’m doing.
-
The blood flake supposedly found inside the silencer did not reveal a gender.
-
The blood flake supposedly found inside the silencer did not reveal a gender.
So there is no official report which states female human blood was found in the silencer?
-
Apart from this
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.
-
Apart from this
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.
Excellent thread from 2012 ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=258.msg4394#msg4394
Animal blood was ruled out from the blood found in the silencer which was found hidden in a house where a mass shooting had taken place. The blood tested was human and DNA was found to have come from multiple contributors including a sample of which contained 20 bands which were a match for Sheila Caffell ... in my opinion logic dictates there can only be one conclusion?
-
The blood flake supposedly found inside the silencer did not reveal a gender.
Holly, the first blood test proved human blood was inside the silencer.
Forensics found blood which suggested was a mixture of June’s and Nevill’s.
But the rare A Neg blood they found, which only a small proportion of people have, belonged to Sheila. In that blood sample they found 13 markers identical to Sheila’s. In court, the doctor said it was almost certainly Sheila’s.
However, when they repeated the same test years later, after science had advanced, they found SEVENTEEN markers of Sheila’s blood in that sample.
The doctor said that the chances of that blood not belonging to Sheila was a TRILLION to one.
I’d say those odds are rather high...wouldn’t you? 😌
-
Holly, the first blood test proved human blood was inside the silencer.
Forensics found blood which suggested was a mixture of June’s and Nevill’s.
But the rare A Neg blood they found, which only a small proportion of people have, belonged to Sheila. In that blood sample they found 13 markers identical to Sheila’s. In court, the doctor said it was almost certainly Sheila’s.
However, when they repeated the same test years later, after science had advanced, they found SEVENTEEN markers of Sheila’s blood in that sample.
The doctor said that the chances of that blood not belonging to Sheila was a TRILLION to one.
I’d say those odds are rather high...wouldn’t you? 😌
So you're saying there's a chance then?
-
So you're saying there's a chance then?
A chance of what, General?
If you’re asking if there’s a chance of the blood not belonging to Sheila, the answer is NO.
Sheila had a rare blood group and 17 DNA markers proved that blood belonged to Sheila and no-one else.
-
A chance of what, General?
If you’re asking if there’s a chance of the blood not belonging to Sheila, the answer is NO.
Sheila had a rare blood group and 17 DNA markers proved that blood belonged to Sheila and no-one else.
It was an attempt at humour. I'll get me coat.
-
So you're saying there's a chance then?
Certainly they are. 1 in a trillion!!!
-
A chance of what, General?
If you’re asking if there’s a chance of the blood not belonging to Sheila, the answer is NO.
Sheila had a rare blood group and 17 DNA markers proved that blood belonged to Sheila and no-one else.
Except that it wasn't possible to say the DNA came from blood, and it definitely wasn't from the 'flake';
501. Thus we think that the CCRC's conclusion that the DNA was likely to have come from "the blood found in the silencer at the time" which was said to be justified "because it was found deep within the silencer" cannot be sustained. The DNA was certainly not from the flake of blood removed for blood grouping purposes and whilst some or all of the DNA that was found within the moderator may have originated from blood, a conclusion that it all did is not one that can be properly drawn.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
Except that it wasn't possible to say the DNA came from blood, and it definitely wasn't from the 'flake';
501. Thus we think that the CCRC's conclusion that the DNA was likely to have come from "the blood found in the silencer at the time" which was said to be justified "because it was found deep within the silencer" cannot be sustained. The DNA was certainly not from the flake of blood removed for blood grouping purposes and whilst some or all of the DNA that was found within the moderator may have originated from blood, a conclusion that it all did is not one that can be properly drawn.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
It was probably there from contamination, they weren't as careful back in 1985 given that DNA wasn't an issue.
-
It was probably there from contamination, they weren't as careful back in 1985 given that DNA wasn't an issue.
True. I'd go so far as saying cross-contamination was probably inadvertently rife.
-
It was an attempt at humour. I'll get me coat.
Sorry, I lost my sense of a humour for a moment there...🤪
I’m blaming lockdown cabin fever.
I’ve been stuck on this forum slowly driving myself nuts... *%87
-
Sorry, I lost my sense of a humour for a moment there...🤪
I’m blaming lockdown cabin fever.
I’ve been stuck on this forum slowly driving myself nuts... *%87
We've been here for years - it's gets no better @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Excellent thread from 2012 ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=258.msg4394#msg4394
Animal blood was ruled out from the blood found in the silencer which was found hidden in a house where a mass shooting had taken place. The blood tested was human and DNA was found to have come from multiple contributors including a sample of which contained 20 bands which were a match for Sheila Caffell ... in my opinion logic dictates there can only be one conclusion?
We have recently covered this on another thread; the court of appeal concluded the following:
497. We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:
i) June Bamber's DNA was in the sound moderator at the time of the DNA examination;
ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other whether it was; and
iii) there was evidence of DNA from at least one male.
Overall conclusion:
506. We have no doubt at all that if this evidence had been placed before a jury, they would have concluded, as we do, that in accordance with the emphasised part of Mr Webster's report quoted above, the DNA testing results were rendered "completely meaningless".
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
Apart from this
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.
Please refer to the post above.
The DNA tests from the 2002 appeal were a waste of time as any blood present in 1985 had been used for the blood serology tests carried out in 1985. As such the scientists used LCN DNA (which you will no doubt recall from the MM case) as you probably know this type of testing works off invisible to the naked eye samples and amplifies them. It's not possible to identify the biological source. As DNA evidence hadn't even been envisaged in 1985/6 exhibits were not protected from contamination eg jurors were able to handle blood stained exhibits and disassemble the silencer at the same time. June's nightdress was heavily blood stained so it could be that a bloodstained fibre entered the silencer which would account for her dna in the silencer.
The defence case at trial was that the blood flake supposedly found inside the silencer represented an intimate mix of June and NB's blood (which combined represented SC's blood groups) and SC used the silencer to carry out the murders but removed it, returning it to the downstairs gun cupboard, before taking her own life upstairs. So instead of repudiating the silencer the defence actually incorporated it!
-
Please refer to the post above.
The DNA tests from the 2002 appeal were a waste of time as any blood present in 1985 had been used for the blood serology tests carried out in 1985. As such the scientists used LCN DNA (which you will no doubt recall from the MM case) as you probably know this type of testing works off invisible to the naked eye samples and amplifies them. It's not possible to identify the biological source. As DNA evidence hadn't even been envisaged in 1985/6 exhibits were not protected from contamination eg jurors were able to handle blood stained exhibits and disassemble the silencer at the same time. June's nightdress was heavily blood stained so it could be that a bloodstained fibre entered the silencer which would account for her dna in the silencer.
The defence case at trial was that the blood flake supposedly found inside the silencer represented an intimate mix of June and NB's blood (which combined represented SC's blood groups) and SC used the silencer to carry out the murders but removed it, returning it to the downstairs gun cupboard, before taking her own life upstairs. So instead of repudiating the silencer the defence actually incorporated it!
I’m not replying to all this complete nonsense right now, I shall explain more tomorrow.
But meanwhile, I’ll ask you this, Holly:
You claim that DNA evidence hadn’t been envisaged (wrong word, BTW) in 1985
Well, you’re wrong.
You then contradict yourself and claim that the blood in the silencer was a combination of June’s and Nevill’s.
Two fairytales : both contradicting each other 😂
And you’re STILL saying “the blood flake SUPPOSEDLY found in the silencer....”
Are you still suggesting that police, forensics, ballistics, scientists, lawyers, jury and judge were all hallucinating? Are you saying the blood flake was a figment of everyone imagination? Are you saying EVERYONE is lying?
Honestly, Holly...I don’t know you, buy I’m actually concerned for you
-
The blood flake supposedly found inside the silencer did not reveal a gender.
Had it been Jeremy’s there could be a reason for that...