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: Holly Goodhead on April 25, 2020, 08:05:21 AM
-
Hi Holly,
I generally hold Scott Lomax in low regard but he does get the silencer evidence right. JB had two excellent, experienced QCs and Roger Wilkes wrote of how they steered him away from conspiracy theories for a very good reason. ( I believe JBs "it's dangerous to speculate" comment with regards to RBs motives was a phrase they drummed into him)
The blood flake wasn't supposedly found, it was found and grouped to match Sheila's blood type.The remote possibility of an intimate mix was just that, remote, but Bamber had hobsons choice to take it or else allege a dastardly fabrication which would have made him appear more than desperate. Arlidge would have made mincemeat of him.
How could he have been so sure the silencer was not on the gun that night if he wasn't there? How could he know that SC hadn't found the moderator and attached it before returning it to the cupboard? How could he be sure of this when the evidence of the forensic experts had identified human blood inside of it, mimicking back spatter? The cross examination would have been devastating.
He simply could not dispute the expert evidence then or now, and as I believe you have posted before, the moderator remains the single most damaging piece of evidence to his claims of innocence IMO.
-
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:
-
JB was effectively told by Rivlin what line should be followed by the defence at trial. JB in reality had very little say in the matter. The Bar Code of Conduct would not have prevented Rivlin from presenting the possibility of dishonest or criminal conduct on the part of prosecution witnesses since there was a sufficient evidential basis to do that (albeit with care). However Rivlin opposed that strategy because he thought the prosecution case was tenuous and an acquital was anticipated upon the basis of reasonable doubt. He did not want to cloud the issue by basing the defence upon a proposition which required the jury to disbelieve family members and some police officers. With hindisight (and some would say even without the benefit of hindsight) this strategy was wrong.
-
There was opportunity and there were also admissions about the attempt to unscrew the silencer and the use of a razor blade to scrape blood. There was evidence of blood stained clothing removed from the house. There was sufficient to permit cross examination about this and if the possibilities had been explored in cross examination it would have been possible to present this to the jury as a possibility to be considered.
-
You misunderstand the rules of evidence and the Bar Code of Conduct. There was nothing to stop Rivlin going down this route, it was a tactical decision which in my view was wrong. Rivlin did not need to rest his entire defence upon the possibility of deliberate or accidental contamination of the silencer, he only needed to lay the basis for presenting it to the jury as a possibilty. Instead he conceded that that the silencer must have been fitted to the rifle at some stage in the shootings and that concession was extremely damaging to JB.
-
With respect you do misunderstand. There does not need to be any direct evidence to support a defence proposition. The defence are entitled to present whatever arguments they like, however unlikely they may appear. The only limitation on this is that if the defence want to suggest that a prosecution witness has lied or is guilty of interfering with evidence that witness must be given an opportunity to answer the allegation, i.e. defence counsel has an obligation to put the suggestion to the witness in cross examination.
-
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
-
If anyone wishes to read the posts in context of the thread they can do so here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4121.msg169803.html#msg169803
-
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
@)(++(*
Of course they did
-
@)(++(*
Of course they did
Have you reason to believe they didn't?
-
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.
-
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.
Practicing or non-practicing, good, bad, or mediocre, it appears all 'expert' opinions differ regarding this case.
A posy oozing commonsense, Common sense.
-
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.
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.
-
The NPB didn't have sight of all the evidence and neither did he have the benefit of pre trial conference with JB to judge his competence in defending an onslaught he would have brought upon himself.
JBs performance in the witness box, particularly his infamous "that's for you to prove" remark would suggest Rivlin knew he would be fighting fires and thought it better not to throw lit matches into the proceedings.
It's quite natural for career pole lawyers to want to progress to being a judge and onto the Queen's bench and a knighthood- The pressure of becoming and remaining a top QC can be immense. Harry Ogden reveals this candidly in his biography. Others prefer the cut and thrust of advocacy and never want to sit on the bench.
-
Have you reason to believe they didn't?
The Criminal Cases Review Commission wasn’t around in the 70’s Holly
-
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.
-
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
-
Did he lose his appetite having made such a pigs ear of JB's case?
Did you ever ask him this directly Holly?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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/
-
If it's the next step then why is Arlidge still an advocate only?
Personal choice Holly, not everything is down to Bamber.
-
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
-
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!
-
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 .....
-
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.
-
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!
-
But how much reliance can be placed on the so-called scientific evidence that emanated from the FSS lab?
They had the original exhibits, a lot more than something dreamed up 35 years later from individuals who are far from impartial.
-
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.
MF had 13 years experience and the appropriate qualifications plus access and presumably a professional interest in scientific literature to support his opinions, the defence had and still has every right to obtain other expert opinion if advances in science can shed further light. CoA takes a dim view of "expert shopping" though.
The lead test wasn't for firing a gun, it was to determine whether she had loaded the magazine but it's a fair point that a test for GSR doesn't seem to have been carried out to my knowledge.
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!
I shall bow to your superior knowledge here and just take your word for it but it seems to me some expert opinion and explanation on this is required
-
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.
I agree wholeheartedly, CS.
As you obviously know, all barristers are effectively self-employed and if they’re “non-practising”; losing thousands & thousands of pounds; and resorting to posting on a forum — one filled with strangers obsessed over a convicted mass murderer — just to pass the time, one can safely assume they’re never called upon to represent anyone. Which speaks volumes...
As for Jeremy Bamber, he had two excellent QC’s so if they weren’t able to convince the jury that JB wasn’t guilty, it doesn’t bode well almost four decades later trying to leave for appeal yet again, with no new evidence, and that’s after having also lost two previous Appeals, including an appeal at the Court of Human Rights, and having a further Leave to Appeal rejected.
JB and his campaign team have never come up with any solid evidence that he could be innocent. Ever. They rehash the tired old conspiracy theories, but as you say, it simply makes them look desperate. You’ve covered the argument pertaining to the silencer, and it is indeed ludicrous for JB and his team to suggest that maybe RB planted the blood inside. Not even a forensic scientist could have planted Sheila’s blood in that silencer. They’d have need some kind of apparatus to cause blood to spray in exactly the same way Sheila’s did when her back spatter flew deep inside the silencer and then dried into a flake at the bottom. How could RB have razored off a dried flake of blood from somewhere, and then sprayed it into the silencer to produce back spatter and a new dried flake to stick on the eighth baffle plate?
They often suggest RB used Sheila’s watered down menstrual blood where she had some underwear soaking in a bucket. But menstrual blood is totally different to normal blood, and forensics would have spotted it immediately. For one thing it doesn’t clot; it also contains tissue and other fluid from the lining of the uterus; and has other particles that only menstrual blood has. It’s such nonsense that no barrister would dare suggest such a ridiculous suggestion.
Besides the forensic angle which is irrefutable, there’s be no logical reason why Sheila would have put the silencer away. None. Even if the silencer had been found by her side, all the other damning evidence would have still pointed to one person being the murderer — Jeremy 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!
You may be in awe of him for some strange reason, but I can assure you that you’re very much in the minority.
No QC would throw in their career on account of losing the case of a psychopathic murderer who rightly got his just desserts. Someone has to defend these freaks of nature, and he may have had reason to have a stab at it: it’s not every day you get to defend a monster who will go down in history for one of the most evil crimes of the century.
-
Holly always says the flake was “supposedly “ found, despite a full team of forensics and police watching as they silencer was taken apart, and they all saw the blood flake.
She likes to suggest they were all wrong, or they all set JB up.
-
You put Jeremy Bamber on a pedestal!
You may be in awe of him for some strange reason, but I can assure you that you’re very much in the minority.
No QC would throw in their career on account of losing the case of a psychopathic murderer who rightly got his just desserts. Someone has to defend these freaks of nature, and he may have had reason to have a stab at it: it’s not every day you get to defend a monster who will go down in history for one of the most evil crimes of the century.
A third appeal will prove to be a slam dunk and hopefully led by William Clegg QC who has a huge amount of experience in the appeal courts:
https://www.2bedfordrow.co.uk/barrister/william-clegg-qc/
At the time of JB's last appeal Michael Turner was very inexperienced.
https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barristers/michael-turner-qc
You will note MT QC took silk in 2002 and I believe JB's case was his first. What sort of profession would allow a QC to take on such a complex high profile case having just qualified? Ridiculous. WC QC took silk in 1991.
-
A third appeal will prove to be a slam dunk and hopefully led by William Clegg QC who has a huge amount of experience in the appeal courts:
https://www.2bedfordrow.co.uk/barrister/william-clegg-qc/
At the time of JB's last appeal Michael Turner was very inexperienced.
https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barristers/michael-turner-qc
You will note MT QC took silk in 2002 and I believe JB's case was his first. What sort of profession would allow a QC to take on such a complex high profile case having just qualified? Ridiculous. WC QC took silk in 1991.
How come none of these tests you keep talking about have even been done yet and it's some two years (maybe more) since you first mentioned it?
-
A third appeal will prove to be a slam dunk and hopefully led by William Clegg QC who has a huge amount of experience in the appeal courts:
https://www.2bedfordrow.co.uk/barrister/william-clegg-qc/
At the time of JB's last appeal Michael Turner was very inexperienced.
https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barristers/michael-turner-qc
You will note MT QC took silk in 2002 and I believe JB's case was his first. What sort of profession would allow a QC to take on such a complex high profile case having just qualified? Ridiculous. WC QC took silk in 1991.
I agree that the 2002 appeal was a shambles from Bambers point of view but I would bet the blame for that lies with JB rather than Turner, not to mention the very weak and faulty grounds the CCRC saw fit to refer the case with.
You don't get to be a QC without first being an accomplished barrister. Even I know why Bamber wouldn't want to bring the bible or David Boutflour's evidence of JBs hands being scratched into his trial and I have no legal training whatsoever.
From all I hear about JB, I can imagine every lawyer has difficulty with him.
-
I agree that the 2002 appeal was a shambles from Bambers point of view but I would bet the blame for that lies with JB rather than Turner, not to mention the very weak and faulty grounds the CCRC saw fit to refer the case with.
You don't get to be a QC without first being an accomplished barrister. Even I know why Bamber wouldn't want to bring the bible or David Boutflour's evidence of JBs hands being scratched into his trial and I have no legal training whatsoever.
From all I hear about JB, I can imagine every lawyer has difficulty with him.
That would be my own conclusion, CS. i think the would be a charm offensive -big time- for women, but my impression is that behind the arrogant mask, when it comes to dealing with lawyers/men with powerful careers? there may reside a very insecure boy. Lawyers, however, would only experience an arrogant, imperious, and difficult client.
-
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!
SNIP
You need a source for you last paragraph.
Attached
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
A third appeal will prove to be a slam dunk and hopefully led by William Clegg QC who has a huge amount of experience in the appeal courts:
https://www.2bedfordrow.co.uk/barrister/william-clegg-qc/
At the time of JB's last appeal Michael Turner was very inexperienced.
https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barristers/michael-turner-qc
You will note MT QC took silk in 2002 and I believe JB's case was his first. What sort of profession would allow a QC to take on such a complex high profile case having just qualified? Ridiculous. WC QC took silk in 1991.
I guarantee William Clegg QC wouldn’t go anywhere near JB’s attempt for a leave to appeal. He only takes on cases he believes he can win...he’d be embarrassed to represent Jeremy Bamber — it would be detrimental to his reputation and career.
The reason JB was only able to find one newly qualified QC was that no other QC would represent him. They know he’s guilty. The QC who took the case on possibly thought it would be good training, not to mention he’d get paid handsomely. He never expected to clear JB — it was more of a training exercise. However, for you to say it was “ridiculous” for his legal team to instruct a newly qualified QC to represent him, shows how grandiose you are, Holly. All QC’s have to start somewhere when they’re at the bottom of the ladder, and where better than to act for someone who’s of no significance; no loss to their reputation in terms of losing the appeal when Bamber’s lost every other appeal; and is akin to flogging a dead horse.
-
The Criminal Cases Review Commission wasn’t around in the 70’s Holly
https://ccrc.gov.uk/about-us/our-history/
-
When asked in 1993
You believe that she committed those crimes using the silencer ?
Bamber replied,
(Pauses) “My own personal belief, I believe that that’s a complete red herring. I don’t have evidence one way or the other on that. Not hard evidence. I believe that she didn’t use the silencer.”
-
It doesn't matter whether you as a lay person agree whether MF was appropriately qualified or not and I think you would find getting that passed muster would be impossible given that the man has 13 years of practical experience and his knowledge far outweighs your own. You criticise others for questioning expert opinion yet you have no qualms about doing so yourself.
The gunshot residue wasn't in the case due to the fact that Bamber staged the scene leading officers to the wrong conclusion. Why test for gun shot residue when you have a body almost holding the smoking gun? I believe the recent BS about Stand Jones claiming there is a suicide note - is actually a reference to the crime scene itself. The scene read like a suicide note, not that a written one was found at the scene. The body strewn with the rife was tantamount to saying 'I have just killed myself'. Would a test for gunshot residue have exonerated Sheila in the absence of a test from Bamber? I very much doubt it!
You need a source for you last paragraph.
Actually, thinking about it, maybe they decided a test for GSR would be useless as she had been shot and was found with the rifle on her nightdress, her hand resting on it? It would be expected to be there.
I believe that as well as the tests for lead, her nightdress was inspected visually and chemically for residues of the wax coating from the shells and none were found but were present on the garment used for test firings.
-
Actually, thinking about it, maybe they decided a test for GSR would be useless as she had been shot and was found with the rifle on her nightdress, her hand resting on it? It would be expected to be there.
I believe that as well as the tests for lead, her nightdress was inspected visually and chemically for residues of the wax coating from the shells and none were found but were present on the garment used for test firings.
They did test Sheila’s hands, body and nightdress for GSR, CS.
And tests proved there wasn’t any on her that should have been had she fired the gun.
-
They had the original exhibits, a lot more than something dreamed up 35 years later from individuals who are far from impartial.
And had those exhibits been retained they could now be retested using 21st century forensic science which in all probability wouls seal JB's fate or exonerate him.
The exhibits were destroyed against all protocols.
-
And had those exhibits been retained they could now be retested using 21st century forensic science which in all probability wouls seal JB's fate or exonerate him.
The exhibits were destroyed against all protocols.
I do think the police should have been hauled over the coals for this.
Not only might advances in science settled the case once and for all, the destruction of the exhibits has only fueled the conspiracy fantasies that Bamber relies on.
-
They did test Sheila’s hands, body and nightdress for GSR, CS.
And tests proved there wasn’t any on her that should have been had she fired the gun.
AFAIK the test conducted for her having fired the gun was for wax particles which came up negative against the control, as did the test for lead and other metals that proved she hadn't loaded 18 rounds either - there was enough evidence to prove that she didn't fire the gun.
A test for GSR would have been pretty useless in determining anything.
https://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/understanding-gunshot-residue.html
The limitations of GSR analysis have ramifications for individuals associated with a crime scene, specifically victims. Generally, kits should not be collected from victims, whether the incident is a homicide, assault, or suicide. Based on the experience of the forensic community, between 10-20% of suicide GSR kits test negative for GSR. Additionally, our experience demonstrates that homicide or assault victims shot by someone else can test positive for GSR. One test, for example, demonstrated that GSR can travel in the direction of the bullet as far as 18 feet. Finding GSR on a shooting victim's hands does not differentiate between a self-inflicted wound or a homicide. Likewise, a negative GSR result from a suspected suicide does not mean that someone else fired the weapon.
Because GSR kits cannot demonstrate whether a shooting was self-inflicted or not, the MSHP lab will no longer routinely analyze kits taken from shooting victims after September 1, 2008.
-
And had those exhibits been retained they could now be retested using 21st century forensic science which in all probability wouls seal JB's fate or exonerate him.
The exhibits were destroyed against all protocols.
Then again, they might have incriminated him further.
-
Then again, they might have incriminated him further.
I said the destroyed exhibits had the potential to seal his fate.
How can he be incriminated further when he was found guilty and serving a whole life tarrif?
In the interests of justice the trial exhibits should not have been destroyed against all protocols.
I wonder why he doesn't beat the drum about this in the way he does about claims of non-disclosed docs *%87
-
AFAIK the test conducted for her having fired the gun was for wax particles which came up negative against the control, as did the test for lead and other metals that proved she hadn't loaded 18 rounds either - there was enough evidence to prove that she didn't fire the gun.
A test for GSR would have been pretty useless in determining anything.
https://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/understanding-gunshot-residue.html
The limitations of GSR analysis have ramifications for individuals associated with a crime scene, specifically victims. Generally, kits should not be collected from victims, whether the incident is a homicide, assault, or suicide. Based on the experience of the forensic community, between 10-20% of suicide GSR kits test negative for GSR. Additionally, our experience demonstrates that homicide or assault victims shot by someone else can test positive for GSR. One test, for example, demonstrated that GSR can travel in the direction of the bullet as far as 18 feet. Finding GSR on a shooting victim's hands does not differentiate between a self-inflicted wound or a homicide. Likewise, a negative GSR result from a suspected suicide does not mean that someone else fired the weapon.
Because GSR kits cannot demonstrate whether a shooting was self-inflicted or not, the MSHP lab will no longer routinely analyze kits taken from shooting victims after September 1, 2008.
SC's hands were swabbed for the presence of GSR using a kit designed for this very purpose but apparently EP sent to the lab with an unrelated firearm and on this basis the swabs were rejected on grounds of potential contamination. But even if this hadn't happened the test was flawed for many reasons including what you've stated above.
There are no other reliable tests used to determine whether someone has recently discharged a firearm. Tests for bullet lubricant, which you refer to above as wax, and gun oil are not valid scientific tests. If others disagree please identify one of the many UK forensic service providers who offer such tests.
The above will form additional points for the 3rd appeal.
Please note I said additional and not the main contenders.
-
I said the destroyed exhibits had the potential to seal his fate.
How can he be incriminated further when he was found guilty and serving a whole life tarrif?
In the interests of justice the trial exhibits should not have been destroyed against all protocols.
I wonder why he doesn't beat the drum about this in the way he does about claims of non-disclosed docs *%87
It's mentioned pretty often, with the implication always being it was done to hamper JB. The odd thing is, with such nefarious forces at work, Jb believes that exculpatory evidence still exists and hasn't been shredded.
-
It's mentioned pretty often, with the implication always being it was done to hamper JB. The odd thing is, with such nefarious forces at work, Jb believes that exculpatory evidence still exists and hasn't been shredded.
I've always wondered why, when, allegedly, there is a surfeit of evidence 'proving' Jeremy's innocence, why was it not destroyed along with all the other paperwork of no further use. I mean, who in their right minds is going to keep hold of the evidence of their misdeeds? Even Jeremy wasn't that stupid.
-
SC's hands were swabbed for the presence of GSR using a kit designed for this very purpose but apparently EP sent to the lab with an unrelated firearm and on this basis the swabs were rejected on grounds of potential contamination. But even if this hadn't happened the test was flawed for many reasons including what you've stated above.
There are no other reliable tests used to determine whether someone has recently discharged a firearm. Tests for bullet lubricant, which you refer to above as wax, and gun oil are not valid scientific tests. If others disagree please identify one of the many UK forensic service providers who offer such tests.
The above will form additional points for the 3rd appeal.
Please note I said additional and not the main contenders.
The forensic scientists knew what they were doing Holly.
If you read the article I linked above, a test for GSR is only useful in determining if someone has fired a gun if they are not at the scene as basically GSR goes everywhere. On the shooter, on the victim, on surfaces and it can be easily transferred. Testing JB might have been useful, but not conclusive. It's actually a very limited piece of science.
Yes, the lab first rejected the swabs on the grounds of possible contamination which of course, JB tried to turn into yet another conspiracy. The CoA had to point out that any contamination would have only worked in his favour. The results of these tests showed only low levels of lead which were not consistent with loading the gun.
From the Appeal, point 177:
At trial Brian Elliott, a scientist from the Home Office Forensic Science Laboratory, gave evidence that the item DRH/33 described as "Swabbing Kit – hands of Sheila Caffell" had been received at the laboratory on 13 September 1985. He said that tests had been carried out for the presence of lead and that only "very low levels of lead have been detected on the two hand swabs". He further reported that tests had been carried out on two members of the laboratory staff who had loaded eighteen cartridges, similar to those used to shoot those who died at White House Farm, into the magazine of the rifle, and "significantly higher levels of lead" had been detected. Clearly if this evidence was right it cast doubt upon Sheila Caffell having loaded the cartridges into the gun and thus to her having killed the others and then herself.
Point 187:
"The hands – were swabbed – swabs rejected by the laboratory. Later raised by D/Superintendent Ainsley in conference at the laboratory when the laboratory again stated that it was too costly to do and that it would be expected to show a positive result as the body of Sheila was in a room contaminated by gunfire. D/Superintendent Ainsley made issue that the swabs should be examined and if not done he wished a statement to explain why it had not been done. As a result they were examined and found to be virtually negative of residue, i.e. lead, oil and propellant."
-
The forensic scientists knew what they were doing Holly.
If you read the article I linked above, a test for GSR is only useful in determining if someone has fired a gun if they are not at the scene as basically GSR goes everywhere. On the shooter, on the victim, on surfaces and it can be easily transferred. Testing JB might have been useful, but not conclusive. It's actually a very limited piece of science.
Yes, the lab first rejected the swabs on the grounds of possible contamination which of course, JB tried to turn into yet another conspiracy. The CoA had to point out that any contamination would have only worked in his favour. The results of these tests showed only low levels of lead which were not consistent with loading the gun.
From the Appeal, point 177:
At trial Brian Elliott, a scientist from the Home Office Forensic Science Laboratory, gave evidence that the item DRH/33 described as "Swabbing Kit – hands of Sheila Caffell" had been received at the laboratory on 13 September 1985. He said that tests had been carried out for the presence of lead and that only "very low levels of lead have been detected on the two hand swabs". He further reported that tests had been carried out on two members of the laboratory staff who had loaded eighteen cartridges, similar to those used to shoot those who died at White House Farm, into the magazine of the rifle, and "significantly higher levels of lead" had been detected. Clearly if this evidence was right it cast doubt upon Sheila Caffell having loaded the cartridges into the gun and thus to her having killed the others and then herself.
Point 187:
"The hands – were swabbed – swabs rejected by the laboratory. Later raised by D/Superintendent Ainsley in conference at the laboratory when the laboratory again stated that it was too costly to do and that it would be expected to show a positive result as the body of Sheila was in a room contaminated by gunfire. D/Superintendent Ainsley made issue that the swabs should be examined and if not done he wished a statement to explain why it had not been done. As a result they were examined and found to be virtually negative of residue, i.e. lead, oil and propellant."
Excellent point, CS
Who can explain all that away?
-
They did test Sheila’s hands, body and nightdress for GSR, CS.
And tests proved there wasn’t any on her that should have been had she fired the gun.
SC's hands were swabbed at pm and sent to FSS for gsr analysis but the swabs were rejected on the basis they were sent in with an unrelated firearm with possible contamination issues.
Malcom Fletcher claimed at trial he would have expected to find bullet lubricant and gun oil on SC's nightdress but he was unable to find any. I've no idea why he would expect to find this type of debris which doesn't emit during the normal course of discharging firearms.
The only established and reliable test used to determine whether someone has recently discharged a firearm is a test for GSR and this wasn't used in this case.
Brian Elliot used the swabs to test for the presence of lead but this isn't an established test used to determine whether or not someone has recently discharged a firearm.
If anyone disagrees please identify one of the independent forensic service providers offering such tests:
https://www.justicedirectory.co.uk/directory/forensic-services/
I'm reminded of Parliaments findings relating to quality issues during the 80's at FSS:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm
The above will all be debunked at the the third historic and successful appeal.
-
SC's hands were swabbed at pm and sent to FSS for gsr analysis but the swabs were rejected on the basis they were sent in with an unrelated firearm with possible contamination issues.
Malcom Fletcher claimed at trial he would have expected to find bullet lubricant and gun oil on SC's nightdress but he was unable to find any. I've no idea why he would expect to find this type of debris which doesn't emit during the normal course of discharging firearms.
The only established and reliable test used to determine whether someone has recently discharged a firearm is a test for GSR and this wasn't used in this case.
Brian Elliot used the swabs to test for the presence of lead but this isn't an established test used to determine whether or not someone has recently discharged a firearm.
If anyone disagrees please identify one of the independent forensic service providers offering such tests:
https://www.justicedirectory.co.uk/directory/forensic-services/
I'm reminded of Parliaments findings relating to quality issues during the 80's at FSS:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm
The above will all be debunked at the the third historic and successful appeal.
The best you’re going to be able to prove is that there was zero evidence Sheila fired the gun, so I’m not sure what you are hoping to achieve?
-
The best you’re going to be able to prove is that there was zero evidence Sheila fired the gun, so I’m not sure what you are hoping to achieve?
Not at all.
The prosecution used a lack of lead on SC's hands and lack of debris on her nightdress as evidence she hadn't fired the rifle. When in actual fact a qualified forensic scientist would not expect to find either.
-
Not at all.
The prosecution used a lack of lead on SC's hands and lack of debris on her nightdress as evidence she hadn't fired the rifle. When in actual fact a qualified forensic scientist would not expect to find either.
Are you saying that your hands and clothes do not get covered in lead from gunshot residue when you fire a gun? Cite please. In any case my point stands. There was no evidence she fired a gun.
-
I've always wondered why, when, allegedly, there is a surfeit of evidence 'proving' Jeremy's innocence, why was it not destroyed along with all the other paperwork of no further use. I mean, who in their right minds is going to keep hold of the evidence of their misdeeds? Even Jeremy wasn't that stupid.
It's all in a file entitled "How we stitched Bamber up - Please do not read" @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
It's all in a file entitled "How we stitched Bamber up - Please do not read" @)(++(* @)(++(*
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Are you saying that your hands and clothes do not get covered in lead from gunshot residue when you fire a gun? Cite please. In any case my point stands. There was no evidence she fired a gun.
I'm saying the only reliable test used to determine whether or not someone has recently discharged a firearm is a test for gunshot residue which wasn't carried out in this case.
I've posted up a directory for UK forensic service providers. Please identify one offering tests for lead or oil in connection with the discharge of a firearm:
https://www.justicedirectory.co.uk/directory/forensic-services/
The tests presented at trial are completely bogus.
-
I'm saying the only reliable test used to determine whether or not someone has recently discharged a firearm is a test for gunshot residue which wasn't carried out in this case.
I've posted up a directory for UK forensic service providers. Please identify one offering tests for lead or oil in connection with the discharge of a firearm:
https://www.justicedirectory.co.uk/directory/forensic-services/
The tests presented at trial are completely bogus.
Why are you attempting to send me on a fool’s errand? A list of UK forensic service providers now, together with the services they provide is likely to be quite different to a list of same fro. 35 years ago, so it’s a pointless ask. You appear to be besmirching the integrity of those who presented their test evidence in court, is that your intention?
-
Why are you attempting to send me on a fool’s errand? A list of UK forensic service providers now, together with the services they provide is likely to be quite different to a list of same fro. 35 years ago, so it’s a pointless ask. You appear to be besmirching the integrity of those who presented their test evidence in court, is that your intention?
Of course that is the intention - which is why it will fail together with the fact that as the gun was found on Sheila, and her hand on the trigger a test for GSR would be moot. It would be no surprise to find GSR on Sheila but Bamber escaped being tested due to the initial call of murder/suicide on the crime. The GSR test couldn't tell you who the murderer was or wasn't. Another waste of time.
-
Why are you attempting to send me on a fool’s errand? A list of UK forensic service providers now, together with the services they provide is likely to be quite different to a list of same fro. 35 years ago, so it’s a pointless ask. You appear to be besmirching the integrity of those who presented their test evidence in court, is that your intention?
Please provide a cite for a case anywhere in the world where the sort of tests presented by Elliot and Fletcher at trial were used to support the idea someone didn't handle cartridges and discharge a firearm.
I don't need to besmirch anyone since Parliament has already acknowledged quality issues at FSS during the 80's.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm
@ 3.3.1
FOI 8(0(*
-
Of course that is the intention - which is why it will fail together with the fact that as the gun was found on Sheila, and her hand on the trigger a test for GSR would be moot. It would be no surprise to find GSR on Sheila but Bamber escaped being tested due to the initial call of murder/suicide on the crime. The GSR test couldn't tell you who the murderer was or wasn't. Another waste of time.
A test for GSR wasn't carried out. We're talking about the lead and oil test and what jurors were told at trial.
-
Please provide a cite for a case anywhere in the world where the sort of tests presented by Elliot and Fletcher at trial were used to support the idea someone didn't handle cartridges and discharge a firearm.
I don't need to besmirch anyone since Parliament has already acknowledged quality issues at FSS during the 80's.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm
@ 3.3.1
FOI 8(0(*
That doesn't extend to this case.
-
A test for GSR wasn't carried out. We're talking about the lead and oil test and what jurors were told at trial.
I know, they didn't need to carry out a GSR test, Sheila would have already been contaminated with it from the rifle itself.
-
I'm saying the only reliable test used to determine whether or not someone has recently discharged a firearm is a test for gunshot residue which wasn't carried out in this case.
I've posted up a directory for UK forensic service providers. Please identify one offering tests for lead or oil in connection with the discharge of a firearm:
https://www.justicedirectory.co.uk/directory/forensic-services/
The tests presented at trial are completely bogus.
What on earth do you think GSR is made up of? Lead, propellant and oil? Or is there a magical other substance that those amateur scientists with their bogus degrees failed to look for?
If you think GSR is such a reliable test and that both a shooter and the victim won't be contaminated, why do you refuse to accept the fact that no such substances could be detected on Sheila? This is despite the fact that any issue with contamination would only have INCREASED the levels of anything on the swabs.
The FACT that GSR is NOT reliable on a shooting victim meant that other case specific tests were devised and they also came up negative against the controls.
I thought you might be onto something but having looked into it a bit, it seems you only have your fabled reconstructions. Come over to the light side and we will never mention your folly, I promise
-
Please provide a cite for a case anywhere in the world where the sort of tests presented by Elliot and Fletcher at trial were used to support the idea someone didn't handle cartridges and discharge a firearm.
I don't need to besmirch anyone since Parliament has already acknowledged quality issues at FSS during the 80's.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm
@ 3.3.1
FOI 8(0(*
Another fool’s errand, unfortunately for you I am not a fool, especially as you failed to provide a cite to show that firing a gun usually leaves hands largely free from lead residue.
-
I know, they didn't need to carry out a GSR test, Sheila would have already been contaminated with it from the rifle itself.
They didn't need to but they did at the insistence of the police.
App point 187
"The hands – were swabbed – swabs rejected by the laboratory. Later raised by D/Superintendent Ainsley in conference at the laboratory when the laboratory again stated that it was too costly to do and that it would be expected to show a positive result as the body of Sheila was in a room contaminated by gunfire. D/Superintendent Ainsley made issue that the swabs should be examined and if not done he wished a statement to explain why it had not been done. As a result they were examined and found to be virtually negative of residue, i.e. lead, oil and propellant."
-
What on earth do you think GSR is made up of? Lead, propellant and oil? Or is there a magical other substance that those amateur scientists with their bogus degrees failed to look for?
If you think GSR is such a reliable test and that both a shooter and the victim won't be contaminated, why do you refuse to accept the fact that no such substances could be detected on Sheila? This is despite the fact that any issue with contamination would only have INCREASED the levels of anything on the swabs.
The FACT that GSR is NOT reliable on a shooting victim meant that other case specific tests were devised and they also came up negative against the controls.
I thought you might be onto something but having looked into it a bit, it seems you only have your fabled reconstructions. Come over to the light side and we will never mention your folly, I promise
There are two types of GSR, one is made up pf the compounds found in the primer of the bullet and the other is gunpowder compound. They tested for the primer compound but not the gunpowder.
-
There are two types of GSR, one is made up pf the compounds found in the primer of the bullet and the other is gunpowder compound. They tested for the primer compound but not the gunpowder.
Thanks Caroline, I bow to your superior knowledge.
The gunpowder test then was the useless one as Sheila was in a room where a gun had been fired.
Can you confirm my notion that as well as testing control swabs for lead to indicate loading of the cartridges, a further test was done, firing the rifle 25 times and comparing the levels of residues on the test garment with SCs nightdress?
Holly seems to imagine a bunch of students with a junior chemistry set but I suspect those scientists knew what they were doing!
-
Thanks Caroline, I bow to your superior knowledge.
The gunpowder test then was the useless one as Sheila was in a room where a gun had been fired.
Can you confirm my notion that as well as testing control swabs for lead to indicate loading of the cartridges, a further test was done, firing the rifle 25 times and comparing the levels of residues on the test garment with SCs nightdress?
Holly seems to imagine a bunch of students with a junior chemistry set but I suspect those scientists knew what they were doing!
8((()*/ - you would certainly expect to find it on her - pity they didn't get the chance to swab Bamber because it shouldn't have been on him, said the weapon wasn't fired that evening by him.
-
8((()*/ - you would certainly expect to find it on her - pity they didn't get the chance to swab Bamber because it shouldn't have been on him, said the weapon wasn't fired that evening by him.
Yes, it's a shame. Although from my understanding, an absence wouldn't necessarily have proven anything if he had changed his clothes, had a shower, worn gloves etc - Such an absence might have impressed a jury however so perhaps it's not such a shame after all.
-
Common Sense
I'm just going through the points you raised a few days ago re the David Bain case. I've never been able to find any evidence re blood inside the silencer? When I say evidence I mean references to such in official docs or even unofficial.
-
Common Sense
I'm just going through the points you raised a few days ago re the David Bain case. I've never been able to find any evidence re blood inside the silencer? When I say evidence I mean references to such in official docs or even unofficial.
I've no idea where I read that tbh, maybe this forum? My knowledge of the Bain case is less than I know about Bamber, and that isn't much! - perhaps this is an avenue for you to pursue. Get the gun test fired on some live pigs and see if there is back spatter... was that tried already or was it just powder burns they were looking for? I know the expert said further tests were needed but the CCRC turned their noses up.
Even if you shot 100 pigs and there was no backspatter, I can see the CoA saying that just because the case is unique in that regard, the likelihood of the blood flake originating from Sheila is still strong and the paint still proves the moderator was on the gun during the "struggle" I also wonder if backspatter could have been the only way blood could have entered the moderator and not just the most likely mechanism, the gun was pointed toward her neck where she was already bleeding after the first shot. Could a tiny drop have entered that way and been forced into the baffle by the gasses of the second shot being fired maybe?
In many ways, I would like to see Bamber retried with new experts who could explain all these things but I just can't see it happening.
-
Yes, it's a shame. Although from my understanding, an absence wouldn't necessarily have proven anything if he had changed his clothes, had a shower, worn gloves etc - Such an absence might have impressed a jury however so perhaps it's not such a shame after all.
I mean before he changed his clothes etc. In other words - in an idea world.
-
I mean before he changed his clothes etc. In other words - in an idea world.
In my ideal world, there would be digital phone records which would solve the case once and for all. I like to think they upgraded the exchange the week before and Bamber didn't realise there would be a records of all the calls and non calls.
Alternatively, Julie warns Nevill and he waits in the dark with his shotgun Tony Martin style.
-
I've no idea where I read that tbh, maybe this forum? My knowledge of the Bain case is less than I know about Bamber, and that isn't much! - perhaps this is an avenue for you to pursue. Get the gun test fired on some live pigs and see if there is back spatter... was that tried already or was it just powder burns they were looking for? I know the expert said further tests were needed but the CCRC turned their noses up.
Even if you shot 100 pigs and there was no backspatter, I can see the CoA saying that just because the case is unique in that regard, the likelihood of the blood flake originating from Sheila is still strong and the paint still proves the moderator was on the gun during the "struggle" I also wonder if backspatter could have been the only way blood could have entered the moderator and not just the most likely mechanism, the gun was pointed toward her neck where she was already bleeding after the first shot. Could a tiny drop have entered that way and been forced into the baffle by the gasses of the second shot being fired maybe?
In many ways, I would like to see Bamber retried with new experts who could explain all these things but I just can't see it happening.
I've never been able to find any info about blood inside the silencer.
Some time ago I was on the Injustice Anywhere forum which is US domained and has members from across the globe. One poster from NZ seemed to have been in involved with the DB case and claimed blood was found inside the silencer but when I pushed for evidence nothing was forthcoming.
-
I've no idea where I read that tbh, maybe this forum? My knowledge of the Bain case is less than I know about Bamber, and that isn't much! - perhaps this is an avenue for you to pursue. Get the gun test fired on some live pigs and see if there is back spatter... was that tried already or was it just powder burns they were looking for? I know the expert said further tests were needed but the CCRC turned their noses up.
Even if you shot 100 pigs and there was no backspatter, I can see the CoA saying that just because the case is unique in that regard, the likelihood of the blood flake originating from Sheila is still strong and the paint still proves the moderator was on the gun during the "struggle" I also wonder if backspatter could have been the only way blood could have entered the moderator and not just the most likely mechanism, the gun was pointed toward her neck where she was already bleeding after the first shot. Could a tiny drop have entered that way and been forced into the baffle by the gasses of the second shot being fired maybe?
In many ways, I would like to see Bamber retried with new experts who could explain all these things but I just can't see it happening.
Tests involving pigs have been used by forensic scientists to gauge the way blood behaves from a gunshot wound but I'm not aware of it being used in the Criminal courts?
There are actually far more sophisticated methods to determine whether or not drawback is possible with a given firearm, ammo and silencer.
-
I've never been able to find any info about blood inside the silencer.
Some time ago I was on the Injustice Anywhere forum which is US domained and has members from across the globe. One poster from NZ seemed to have been in involved with the DB case and claimed blood was found inside the silencer but when I pushed for evidence nothing was forthcoming.
Innocence fraud has been exposed in the US for some years now Holly - the UK are slowly catching up
What’s your take on innocence fraud on forensic science here in the UK?
https://csidds.com/2015/05/06/blowbacker-talks-about-over-some-1200-exonerations-as-innocence-fraud-no-surprise-audience-was-130-us-crime-lab-directors/
-
Tests involving pigs have been used by forensic scientists to gauge the way blood behaves from a gunshot wound but I'm not aware of it being used in the Criminal courts?
There are actually far more sophisticated methods to determine whether or not drawback is possible with a given firearm, ammo and silencer.
I'm sure there are but it needs to be demonstrated that no back spatter would ever occur with the Anschutz and that there was no other mechanism that could explain the blood.
It would then need to be shown how a fabrication could have been achieved which I don't believe is as easy as some imagine.
As someone wise has said, even if the moderator was a fabrication it doesn't prove anything other than an attempt to bolster the case against the right man but as this stands, this is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
-
Not at all.
The prosecution used a lack of lead on SC's hands and lack of debris on her nightdress as evidence she hadn't fired the rifle. When in actual fact a qualified forensic scientist would not expect to find either.
So when the EXPERT forensics and ballistics positively concluded that NO residue was on Sheila, are you saying they were all wrong, and 35 years later something’s popped up in your head that shows they were wrong?
Do you thing the courts and appeal courts haven’t been through all that?
-
Common Sense, I'm separating out our posts here so they're easier to respond to and others can join in if they wish.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11431.msg585732#msg585732
8((()*/
From Holly
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.
From Common Sense
So what are you suggesting? 8% of the population didn't handle the moderator and neither were they shot at the scene
-
Tests involving pigs have been used by forensic scientists to gauge the way blood behaves from a gunshot wound but I'm not aware of it being used in the Criminal courts?
There are actually far more sophisticated methods to determine whether or not drawback is possible with a given firearm, ammo and silencer.
I am aware that they have used 'dead pigs' for various experiments but in order to do they above, they would have to use live pigs and I have been unable to find anything. on this.
What sophisticated methods?
-
Common Sense, I'm separating out our posts here so they're easier to respond to and others can join in if they wish.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11431.msg585732#msg585732
8((()*/
From Holly
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.
From Common Sense
So what are you suggesting? 8% of the population didn't handle the moderator and neither were they shot at the scene
There's a strong inference the blood, the lab claimed to have found inside the silencer, originated from the shootings and more likely from SC than a combination of NB and June's blood but its not impossible it came to be there from some other method eg at the manufacturing stage or NB lending the rifle/silencer to a.n.other who unassembled to clean and caught self on wire brush. Unlikely but not impossible.
The courts consider the blood/silencer the strongest aspect of the case. Jurors queried the blood evidence with the judge and it seems they were under the impression the blood was a "perfect match" for SC's.
Page 12 of summing up
"Now I think that does complete the evidence of those experts, so it all comes down to this, does it not? Mr Hayward says, "Well to begin with, merely analysing the blood inside the moderator, it correponds with Sheila Caffell's.
Page 13 of summing up
"then come to Mr Fletcher's evidence: "One of Sheila's wounds clearly was a contact wound", so that is entirely consistent with it being her blood in the end of the moderator".
Page 1, 2nd para of summing up/questions from jury
"We need to hear blood expert's evidence regarding the blood in the silencer, (a) a perfect match of Sheila's blood, (b) what was the chance of the blood group being June and Ralph's mixing together"
-
I am aware that they have used 'dead pigs' for various experiments but in order to do they above, they would have to use live pigs and I have been unable to find anything. on this.
What sophisticated methods?
I think I recall finding something about live pigs used but live or dead how could this replicate an individuals physiology especially in this case when 2 gsw's are involved? It is claimed the blood originated from the second upper fatal contact wound which may well mean the first lower non-fatal contact wound affected the physiology of the second.
-
From Holly
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.
From Common Sense
The firearms expert gave his opinion of how it came to be in there.It was the most likely explanation.
-
I think I recall finding something about live pigs used but live or dead how could this replicate an individuals physiology especially in this case when 2 gsw's are involved? It is claimed the blood originated from the second upper fatal contact wound which may well mean the first lower non-fatal contact wound affected the physiology of the second.
I don't think this was one of the tests I read about in the past but here's one example:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/16/scientists-shot-pigs-in-head-to-study-blood-spatter-patterns
-
What about animals rights Holly?
-
I think I recall finding something about live pigs used but live or dead how could this replicate an individuals physiology especially in this case when 2 gsw's are involved? It is claimed the blood originated from the second upper fatal contact wound which may well mean the first lower non-fatal contact wound affected the physiology of the second.
I think what you might recall is David saying they should be used. This would never be allowed to happen and shouldn't - it would be cruel in the extreme.
It couldn't replicate anyway, the skin on a pig is much tougher.
-
What about animals rights Holly?
I'm not advocating such a test.
-
I think what you might recall is David saying they should be used. This would never be allowed to happen and shouldn't - it would be cruel in the extreme.
It couldn't replicate anyway, the skin on a pig is much tougher.
No I read about live pig experiments before David emerged on the scene.
I've just posted one example but I don't think it was the one I read about which I think from memory involved a European country, maybe Germany or Italy.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/16/scientists-shot-pigs-in-head-to-study-blood-spatter-patterns
Anyway as I posted earlier I don't think it is capable of replicating SC's gsw's.
-
From Holly
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.
From Common Sense
The firearms expert gave his opinion of how it came to be in there.It was the most likely explanation.
457. Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, gave evidence to explain how blood got into the moderator if it was attached, or into the barrel if there was no moderator attached. He said that the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated. However, the expanding gas when the bullet left the muzzle was under normal circumstances distributed into the atmosphere. However with a contact shot there was no opportunity for this escape and the gas would follow the bullet into the wound as it expanded. Back pressure would then build up forcing the gas back out of the wound taking with it blood and tissue which would in effect be blasted back into the barrel if there was no moderator or into the moderator if one was attached. He said that even without direct contact, the same effect might occur but only if the gap between the end of the barrel, or the moderator if attached, and the skin was less than one millimetre. He said that the likelihood of such an occurrence was to an extent dependent on the part of the body to which the shot was delivered and the amount of blood present at that point.
458. If the shot to Shelia Caffell, which was a contact shot to the throat, had been fired without the moderator in place, he would have expected to find blood in the barrel of the gun. If the moderator was attached it was "virtually certain" that Sheila Caffell's blood would get into the moderator. There was, he said "a very slight possibility of it not happening, but very slight".
But the above contradicts with an internationally renowned expert in the pathology of gunshot wound, Dr Vincent Di Maio whose research in a book he authored is as follows:
Blood is more often detected on the outside of the muzzle than inside the barrel. In a study of 653 revolvers, 242 pistols, 181 shotguns, and 124 rifles used in suicides, blood was detected on the barrel 74% of the time for revolvers, 76% for pistols, 85% for shotguns, and 81% for rifles.' In contrast, blood was detected inside the barrel in 53% of the revolvers, 57% of pistols, 72% of shotguns, and 58% of rifles. The presence of blood inside the barrel of a gun indicates that the weapon was within a few inches of the body at the time of discharge. Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound. Thus, no blood was found on either the outside or inside of the barrel in 24% of the suicides using a revolver and 23% using a pistol
-
There's a strong inference the blood, the lab claimed to have found inside the silencer, originated from the shootings and more likely from SC than a combination of NB and June's blood but its not impossible it came to be there from some other method eg at the manufacturing stage or NB lending the rifle/silencer to a.n.other who unassembled to clean and caught self on wire brush. Unlikely but not impossible.
The courts consider the blood/silencer the strongest aspect of the case. Jurors queried the blood evidence with the judge and it seems they were under the impression the blood was a "perfect match" for SC's.
Page 12 of summing up
"Now I think that does complete the evidence of those experts, so it all comes down to this, does it not? Mr Hayward says, "Well to begin with, merely analysing the blood inside the moderator, it correponds with Sheila Caffell's.
Page 13 of summing up
"then come to Mr Fletcher's evidence: "One of Sheila's wounds clearly was a contact wound", so that is entirely consistent with it being her blood in the end of the moderator".
Page 1, 2nd para of summing up/questions from jury
"We need to hear blood expert's evidence regarding the blood in the silencer, (a) a perfect match of Sheila's blood, (b) what was the chance of the blood group being June and Ralph's mixing together"
It was a perfect match, but yes, only to her blood group.
The 2002 appeal did raise some doubts about how the original flake was tested with it being suggested that it should have been ground into a powder to ensure it was mixed before being diluted instead of cut into 5 pieces. Mark Webster argued that Haywoods test could not be guaranteed to detect a mixture as opposed to a single source.
However, Mark Webster and Dr Lincoln agreed that the only way of Nevill and Junes blood being mistaken for Sheila's was the 'incomplete intimate mix' theory which Mr Haywood tried to perform tests to replicate. He theorised that the only mechanism for an incomplete mix was for other blood to mix with some that had already dried which was very unlikely given the lack of heat generated within the moderator and probable lack of drying time between June and Nevill being shot.
There were no examples in forensic literature to support such an event and Haywood performed tests on this theory with negative results. He was merely being careful by saying that there was a remote chance of the bloodflake originating from an incomplete mix.
It may have been a good idea for the defence to have advanced the possibility of contamination at the manufacturers, one would assume the baffles are pressed out by machine but assembled by hand. This possibility might be dismissed if NB or anyone else had cleaned the silencer since it was bought.
It is an interesting thought that Robert Boutflour may have cleaned the moderator with a wire brush but the moderator was quite new and bought with the gun AFAIK, I have no idea how often they would need cleaning or if NB wouldn't have just done this himself.
In CALs book, there is a short passage that has RB losing his temper when cross examined on whether he had ever touched the moderator when it was found or had cuts on his hands while doing so. I dimly recall that RW also states that the defence was alive to RBs blood group match which is completely contrary to the CT claim that it wasn't known until 2002. I've never seen a transcript of RBs exam/cross exam so don't know if RB was further questioned about ever disassembling and cleaning the moderator in the past.
In short, the chances of the bloodflake not originating from Sheila were remote. We also have no idea what the jury thought of there being human blood inside the silencer in the first place, no matter who it belonged to. Add in the paint and the jury must surely of had the reasonable assumption that the moderator was attached at some point and assessed the chances of Sheila looking for, attaching, using and then replacing the moderator back in the cupboard while in some kind of psychotic state.
-
SC Lomax
@SCLomax
Whose DNA was in the sound moderator? Sheila's wasn't but close female relative of Pamela Boutflour's was. 1/2
9:08 AM · May 2, 2020·Twitter for iPad
SC Lomax
@SCLomax
May 2
Replying to
@SCLomax
if Jeremy was guilty, Sheila's DNA should have been present. It wasn't. Appeal never considered DNA could be Ann Eaton's.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SCLomax/status/1256495762936127488
-
Caro, a few days back you asked for the evidence re the lab carrying out tests by firing the rifle to determine the effect on the blood:
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
SC Lomax
@SCLomax
Whose DNA was in the sound moderator? Sheila's wasn't but close female relative of Pamela Boutflour's was. 1/2
9:08 AM · May 2, 2020·Twitter for iPad
SC Lomax
@SCLomax
May 2
Replying to
@SCLomax
if Jeremy was guilty, Sheila's DNA should have been present. It wasn't. Appeal never considered DNA could be Ann Eaton's.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SCLomax/status/1256495762936127488
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.
-
No I read about live pig experiments before David emerged on the scene.
I've just posted one example but I don't think it was the one I read about which I think from memory involved a European country, maybe Germany or Italy.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/16/scientists-shot-pigs-in-head-to-study-blood-spatter-patterns (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/16/scientists-shot-pigs-in-head-to-study-blood-spatter-patterns)
Anyway as I posted earlier I don't think it is capable of replicating SC's gsw's.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279990681_Simulating_backspatter_of_blood_from_cranial_gunshot_wounds_using_pig_models (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279990681_Simulating_backspatter_of_blood_from_cranial_gunshot_wounds_using_pig_models)
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.994.3860&rep=rep1&type=pdf (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.994.3860&rep=rep1&type=pdf)
Backspatter from a live pig's head, p.91 and 92...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
457. Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, gave evidence to explain how blood got into the moderator if it was attached, or into the barrel if there was no moderator attached. He said that the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated. However, the expanding gas when the bullet left the muzzle was under normal circumstances distributed into the atmosphere. However with a contact shot there was no opportunity for this escape and the gas would follow the bullet into the wound as it expanded. Back pressure would then build up forcing the gas back out of the wound taking with it blood and tissue which would in effect be blasted back into the barrel if there was no moderator or into the moderator if one was attached. He said that even without direct contact, the same effect might occur but only if the gap between the end of the barrel, or the moderator if attached, and the skin was less than one millimetre. He said that the likelihood of such an occurrence was to an extent dependent on the part of the body to which the shot was delivered and the amount of blood present at that point.
458. If the shot to Shelia Caffell, which was a contact shot to the throat, had been fired without the moderator in place, he would have expected to find blood in the barrel of the gun. If the moderator was attached it was "virtually certain" that Sheila Caffell's blood would get into the moderator. There was, he said "a very slight possibility of it not happening, but very slight".
But the above contradicts with an internationally renowned expert in the pathology of gunshot wound, Dr Vincent Di Maio whose research in a book he authored is as follows:
Blood is more often detected on the outside of the muzzle than inside the barrel. In a study of 653 revolvers, 242 pistols, 181 shotguns, and 124 rifles used in suicides, blood was detected on the barrel 74% of the time for revolvers, 76% for pistols, 85% for shotguns, and 81% for rifles.' In contrast, blood was detected inside the barrel in 53% of the revolvers, 57% of pistols, 72% of shotguns, and 58% of rifles. The presence of blood inside the barrel of a gun indicates that the weapon was within a few inches of the body at the time of discharge. Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound. Thus, no blood was found on either the outside or inside of the barrel in 24% of the suicides using a revolver and 23% using a pistol
On the face of it, it would seem wrong and possibly misleading to the jury but I wouldn't say that was completely contradictory and it may be that information has evolved over time and was not that which was available to Mr Fletcher in 1986.I'm also assuming the defence expert did not challenge Fletchers evidence in this regard.
Those statistics don't include a moderator either, (which, I believe would actually decrease the chances of backspatter entering the weapon) but to repeat my earlier point, dramatically changing the picture the jury were painted would need backspatter eliminated altogether which those stats do not.
Worth also noting that the bloodflake wasn't the only blood in/on the silencer but to the best of my knowledge the rest was in quantities too small to be tested for blood grouping at that time, I believe it was determined that some was animal blood and some human but I'm not sure.
The jury were not asked to assess the chances of backspatter entering the moderator in isolation, there was human blood present, matched to Sheila and no other likely explanations were put forward.
-
SC Lomax
@SCLomax
Whose DNA was in the sound moderator? Sheila's wasn't but close female relative of Pamela Boutflour's was. 1/2
9:08 AM · May 2, 2020·Twitter for iPad
SC Lomax
@SCLomax
May 2
Replying to
@SCLomax
if Jeremy was guilty, Sheila's DNA should have been present. It wasn't. Appeal never considered DNA could be Ann Eaton's.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SCLomax/status/1256495762936127488
That man is either a blatant liar or just not very bright. He slags off the CT but then acts as though he is part of them, appealing to those who find a conspiracy fantasy more interesting and believable than the actual evidence.
Ann Eaton was alive and well and I'm sure would have given her DNA for the process of elimination, just as she gave a piece of SCs nail found in her jewellery box. The close relative of PB was June, 17 out of 20 bands for Sheila were found and anyway, Bamber is still furious with Mark Webster for being honest with the court about the DNA tests being useless.
I'm going with liar, but not a very bright one.
-
That man is either a blatant liar or just not very bright. He slags off the CT but then acts as though he is part of them, appealing to those who find a conspiracy fantasy more interesting and believable than the actual evidence.
Ann Eaton was alive and well and I'm sure would have given her DNA for the process of elimination, just as she gave a piece of SCs nail found in her jewellery box. The close relative of PB was June, 17 out of 20 bands for Sheila were found and anyway, Bamber is still furious with Mark Webster for being honest with the court about the DNA tests being useless.
I'm going with liar, but not a very bright one.
Scott Lomax used to work with the CT, but has not done so since 2011.
-
Caro, a few days back you asked for the evidence re the lab carrying out tests by firing the rifle to determine the effect on the blood:
Cheers but I can#t remember why I asked now @)(++(*
-
Scott Lomax used to work with the CT, but has not done so since 2011.
It was actually a copy of his book that brought me back to a case that I had more or less forgotten since having the murder casebook magazine and a couple of reads of Roger Wilkes over 20 years ago.
I think I paid £1.50 for it and still felt ripped off.
-
Caro, a few days back you asked for the evidence re the lab carrying out tests by firing the rifle to determine the effect on the blood:
Where is the evidence that you say contradicts these findings?
Do they relate to a low powered Anschutz or another weapon?
Do you think this actually shows some effort on the part of the defence to challenge the prosecution evidence?
It seems to me that although you seem to like to imagine naive British scientists thumbing their copies of the ladybird book of junior science while their American counterparts had all the right answers and arcane fancy techniques, this is actually far from what happened.
-
On the face of it, it would seem wrong and possibly misleading to the jury but I wouldn't say that was completely contradictory and it may be that information has evolved over time and was not that which was available to Mr Fletcher in 1986.I'm also assuming the defence expert did not challenge Fletchers evidence in this regard.
Those statistics don't include a moderator either, (which, I believe would actually decrease the chances of backspatter entering the weapon) but to repeat my earlier point, dramatically changing the picture the jury were painted would need backspatter eliminated altogether which those stats do not.
Worth also noting that the bloodflake wasn't the only blood in/on the silencer but to the best of my knowledge the rest was in quantities too small to be tested for blood grouping at that time, I believe it was determined that some was animal blood and some human but I'm not sure.
The jury were not asked to assess the chances of backspatter entering the moderator in isolation, there was human blood present, matched to Sheila and no other likely explanations were put forward.
Well the research from Dr DiMaio shows there is a very high probability of it not happening. Whereas MF told the court it was "virtually certain". And the research carried out by Dr DiMaio did not involve silencers which I understand make it less likely.
MF was challenged by the defence who referred to research by two US pathologists - attached. I'll upload MF's trial testimony in the near future. A Major Mead was the ballistics expert for the defence but I don't have access to his trial testimony.
Blood on the outside of the silencer was found to be human in origin but the quantity too small for grouping. There was other blood on the inside as per the table if you can decipher it!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg315462#msg315462
-
https://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/JOURNALS/FORENSIC/PAGES/JFS11526J.htm
-
Where is the evidence that you say contradicts these findings?
Do they relate to a low powered Anschutz or another weapon?
Do you think this actually shows some effort on the part of the defence to challenge the prosecution evidence?
It seems to me that although you seem to like to imagine naive British scientists thumbing their copies of the ladybird book of junior science while their American counterparts had all the right answers and arcane fancy techniques, this is actually far from what happened.
There's no evidence MF was a scientist. Unlike other experts who gave evidence and provided the court with details about high level qualifications and membership to professional bodies in addition to experience, MF referred to 13 years experience in the firearms dept and "a small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy".
I have had contact with the Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Research Institute, California. He advised re the blood:
- ABO is good for about 2 years at ambient temp
- Haptoglobin and PGM about 1 year
- AK and EAP 6 months.
- This is for dried stains that have not been environmentally insulted by temperature or humidity.
The tests carried out as per the attached above are based on blood placed in 5 different silencers and the rifle discharged 25 times on each with the blood then retested which remained unaltered. This seems unlikely imo given the above and all the research shows serological analysis of blood requires good quality samples. PGM is more stable than AK and EAP but PGM did not produce a result. None of the other blood stained exhibits were able to produce the sort of results the silencer did and these had not sustained the same sort of environmental insults by way of heat from firearm discharge and humidity from the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber.
-
It was a perfect match, but yes, only to her blood group.
The 2002 appeal did raise some doubts about how the original flake was tested with it being suggested that it should have been ground into a powder to ensure it was mixed before being diluted instead of cut into 5 pieces. Mark Webster argued that Haywoods test could not be guaranteed to detect a mixture as opposed to a single source.
However, Mark Webster and Dr Lincoln agreed that the only way of Nevill and Junes blood being mistaken for Sheila's was the 'incomplete intimate mix' theory which Mr Haywood tried to perform tests to replicate. He theorised that the only mechanism for an incomplete mix was for other blood to mix with some that had already dried which was very unlikely given the lack of heat generated within the moderator and probable lack of drying time between June and Nevill being shot.
There were no examples in forensic literature to support such an event and Haywood performed tests on this theory with negative results. He was merely being careful by saying that there was a remote chance of the bloodflake originating from an incomplete mix.
It may have been a good idea for the defence to have advanced the possibility of contamination at the manufacturers, one would assume the baffles are pressed out by machine but assembled by hand. This possibility might be dismissed if NB or anyone else had cleaned the silencer since it was bought.
It is an interesting thought that Robert Boutflour may have cleaned the moderator with a wire brush but the moderator was quite new and bought with the gun AFAIK, I have no idea how often they would need cleaning or if NB wouldn't have just done this himself.
In CALs book, there is a short passage that has RB losing his temper when cross examined on whether he had ever touched the moderator when it was found or had cuts on his hands while doing so. I dimly recall that RW also states that the defence was alive to RBs blood group match which is completely contrary to the CT claim that it wasn't known until 2002. I've never seen a transcript of RBs exam/cross exam so don't know if RB was further questioned about ever disassembling and cleaning the moderator in the past.
In short, the chances of the bloodflake not originating from Sheila were remote. We also have no idea what the jury thought of there being human blood inside the silencer in the first place, no matter who it belonged to. Add in the paint and the jury must surely of had the reasonable assumption that the moderator was attached at some point and assessed the chances of Sheila looking for, attaching, using and then replacing the moderator back in the cupboard while in some kind of psychotic state.
What were the advantages/disadvantages in dissolving the flake whole and separating as opposed to cutting it in 5 and dissolving? Under what circumstances is one used over the other? How were blood stains on the other exhibits analysed? The enzymes and proteins are analysed by molecular weight using gel electrophoresis and I believe the norm is to dilute the stain whole and run the tests together. If this is so it begs the question why the lab chose perhaps an unorthodox method?
I think the whole 'intimate mix' theory was a non-starter given it is unlikely June sustained a contact shot and there's no evidence NB did. Also the idea SC used the silencer to murder her parents and sons before detaching, returning to the cupboard and then shooting herself is the stuff of la la land imo.
I think it unlikely innocent contamination occurred but not impossible. If I was a defence lawyer I would try and slide it in because it's plausible and possible.
I thought it was DB that fiddled about with the silencer and RB's blood groups matched SC's.
-
There's no evidence MF was a scientist. Unlike other experts who gave evidence and provided the court with details about high level qualifications and membership to professional bodies in addition to experience, MF referred to 13 years experience in the firearms dept and "a small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy".
I have had contact with the Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Research Institute, California. He advised re the blood:
- ABO is good for about 2 years at ambient temp
- Haptoglobin and PGM about 1 year
- AK and EAP 6 months.
- This is for dried stains that have not been environmentally insulted by temperature or humidity.
The tests carried out as per the attached above are based on blood placed in 5 different silencers and the rifle discharged 25 times on each with the blood then retested which remained unaltered. This seems unlikely imo given the above and all the research shows serological analysis of blood requires good quality samples. PGM is more stable than AK and EAP but PGM did not produce a result. None of the other blood stained exhibits were able to produce the sort of results the silencer did and these had not sustained the same sort of environmental insults by way of heat from firearm discharge and humidity from the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber.
Dr DiMaio also examined firearms for the presence of blood after they had been discharged and was surprised he was able to produce a dna result on a fairly low % of those tested. After a second discharge the % was even lower. I will post the excerpt. But dna can produce results from degraded blood samples which isn't the case for blood serology tests which require good quality samples of a certain quantity. In JB's case we are told blood remained unaltered after 25 test fires!
-
Well the research from Dr DiMaio shows there is a very high probability of it not happening. Whereas MF told the court it was "virtually certain". And the research carried out by Dr DiMaio did not involve silencers which I understand make it less likely.
MF was challenged by the defence who referred to research by two US pathologists - attached. I'll upload MF's trial testimony in the near future. A Major Mead was the ballistics expert for the defence but I don't have access to his trial testimony.
Blood on the outside of the silencer was found to be human in origin but the quantity too small for grouping. There was other blood on the inside as per the table if you can decipher it!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg315462#msg315462
Objection! You are trying to mislead the court!
Dr DiMaio's research would seem to put the odds at roughly 50-50 so the probability is equal but I can't see how that would have made any difference to the jury. The chance of backspatter would have to be close to zero for the jury to lean toward less likely explanations and they no doubt understood that the bloodflake was not the only blood in the silencer ( no matter whose it was ) making accidental or deliberate contamination less likely than BS.
I shall try and digest the tables and other info tomorrow. 8((()*/
-
Objection! You are trying to mislead the court!
Dr DiMaio's research would seem to put the odds at roughly 50-50 so the probability is equal but I can't see how that would have made any difference to the jury. The chance of backspatter would have to be close to zero for the jury to lean toward less likely explanations and they no doubt understood that the bloodflake was not the only blood in the silencer ( no matter whose it was ) making accidental or deliberate contamination less likely than BS.
I shall try and digest the tables and other info tomorrow. 8((()*/
Well theories about accidental or deliberate contamination seem to me as plausible and possible as the 'intimate mix' theory presented at trial which also required SC to remove the silencer and return it to the cupboard before shooting herself.
I would like to think that had I been part of the defence team I would have recognised that this was by far the strongest evidence against JB and really needed to go under the microscope so to speak. What first struck me was how come the blood in the silencer was able to turn up blood groups other exhibits couldn't? For example the outside of the rifle contained a number of stains, which appear to have been of a similar quantity, also on a non-porous material and yet it was only possible to determine the blood was human in origin. Blood on the rifle was also arguably of better quality not being subjected to firearm discharge and blood removed and tested before it entered the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber and exposed to humidity.
The defence didn't visit the lab instead relied upon their expert to who reported back via 2 letters all of which seem to have been taken at face value without any questions asked.
-
Just to clarify, at trial the prosecution asserted the blood in the silencer was deposited as a result of 'drawback' rather than 'backspatter'.
Drawback - involves blood sucked into a barrel from a contact gunshot wound caused by a change in gas pressure
Back spatter - involves blood from a wound travelling against the line of fire and depositing on nearby items. This doesn't necessarily involve contact wounds and unlikely blood in free flight could enter a small aperture.
-
And this from the website of forensic scientist Jon Norby:
The draw-back effect can be observed in contact gunshot wounds but the effect(s) of compensators, suppressors and silencing devices as well as any other intervening items may alter the outcome."
-
Well theories about accidental or deliberate contamination seem to me as plausible and possible as the 'intimate mix' theory presented at trial which also required SC to remove the silencer and return it to the cupboard before shooting herself.
I would like to think that had I been part of the defence team I would have recognised that this was by far the strongest evidence against JB and really needed to go under the microscope so to speak. What first struck me was how come the blood in the silencer was able to turn up blood groups other exhibits couldn't? For example the outside of the rifle contained a number of stains, which appear to have been of a similar quantity, also on a non-porous material and yet it was only possible to determine the blood was human in origin. Blood on the rifle was also arguably of better quality not being subjected to firearm discharge and blood removed and tested before it entered the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber and exposed to humidity.
The defence didn't visit the lab instead relied upon their expert to who reported back via 2 letters all of which seem to have been taken at face value without any questions asked.
Perhaps, as you suggest Nevill deposited a small amount of blood while he was cleaning the moderator and Junes was then added to that when she was shot. Putting aside the issue of NBs blood being older and degrading in quality, this is still a fanciful explanation but it may have caused some doubt about the results in the minds of the jury had the blood been the only evidence.
I don't see how the defence could have explained accidental paint contamination and fresh scratch marks though, what the defence could only have been suggesting to the jury is a deliberate frame meaning that an individual or several people were attempting to pervert the course of justice, an offence so serious it carries a maximum sentence of life. This would seem to apply to scientists who you are accusing of fudging their results, what motivation would they have for this and how could they know that the defence wouldn't be able to replicate their tests and expose their shoddy work?
Sometimes when the prosecution has a strong piece of evidence, the defence will prefer not to put too much weight on it and hope the jury don't either. I think the defence had little option but to take the bone thrown to them by the prosecution or risk looking desperate and give Arlidge extra ammunition for his closing speech.
PS: I'm not a scientist but the other blood stains were on porous materials, could dyes and bleaches in the fabric be responsible for them not yielding the same results? I've no idea.
-
There's no evidence MF was a scientist. Unlike other experts who gave evidence and provided the court with details about high level qualifications and membership to professional bodies in addition to experience, MF referred to 13 years experience in the firearms dept and "a small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy".
Leave MF alone! It seems clear to me that his remark was facetious. I don't think he would work in the firearms department for 13 years without having to fire a few guns and do other gun related stuff. He has surely forgotten more about guns than either of us will ever know. He didn't just make the tea Holly!
-
Leave MF alone! It seems clear to me that his remark was facetious. I don't think he would work in the firearms department for 13 years without having to fire a few guns and do other gun related stuff. He has surely forgotten more about guns than either of us will ever know. He didn't just make the tea Holly!
Totally agree, - 13 years experience is a long time and he was asked to give expert testimony - hence he is was considered an EXPERT!
-
Leave MF alone! It seems clear to me that his remark was facetious. I don't think he would work in the firearms department for 13 years without having to fire a few guns and do other gun related stuff. He has surely forgotten more about guns than either of us will ever know. He didn't just make the tea Holly!
What sort of expert would think it appropriate to make a facetious comment when introducing him/herself at a criminal trial involving 5 deaths? As I said it is a marked contrast with other experts who introduced themselves by referring to high level qualifications and membership of professional bodies in addition to experience.
I'm sure MF was qualified by way of experience to carry out routine ballistics evidence but I don't see the evidence that he was qualified to impart expert evidence to the court about the drawback phenemenon which ventures into the pathology of gunshot wounds.
The UK Gov sought out Dr DiMaio to take part in the Bloody Sunday investigation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio
-
What sort of expert would think it appropriate to make a facetious comment when introducing him/herself at a criminal trial involving 5 deaths? As I said it is a marked contrast with other experts who introduced themselves by referring to high level qualifications and membership of professional bodies in addition to experience.
I'm sure MF was qualified by way of experience to carry out routine ballistics evidence but I don't see the evidence that he was qualified to impart expert evidence to the court about the drawback phenemenon which ventures into the pathology of gunshot wounds.
The UK Gov sought out Dr DiMaio to take part in the Bloody Sunday investigation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio
MF was probably just nervous.
When was Vincent Di Maio's work on drawback/backspatter published? ie; what was the established thought at the time of MFs evidence?
It seems to me that if contrary evidence existed at the time then both MF and the defence were remiss in their work but whether the jury thought there was a 95% probability or 50%, it can't have made much difference to their thinking when considered in context to the whole of the evidence.
-
Perhaps, as you suggest Nevill deposited a small amount of blood while he was cleaning the moderator and Junes was then added to that when she was shot. Putting aside the issue of NBs blood being older and degrading in quality, this is still a fanciful explanation but it may have caused some doubt about the results in the minds of the jury had the blood been the only evidence.
I don't see how the defence could have explained accidental paint contamination and fresh scratch marks though, what the defence could only have been suggesting to the jury is a deliberate frame meaning that an individual or several people were attempting to pervert the course of justice, an offence so serious it carries a maximum sentence of life. This would seem to apply to scientists who you are accusing of fudging their results, what motivation would they have for this and how could they know that the defence wouldn't be able to replicate their tests and expose their shoddy work?
Sometimes when the prosecution has a strong piece of evidence, the defence will prefer not to put too much weight on it and hope the jury don't either. I think the defence had little option but to take the bone thrown to them by the prosecution or risk looking desperate and give Arlidge extra ammunition for his closing speech.
PS: I'm not a scientist but the other blood stains were on porous materials, could dyes and bleaches in the fabric be responsible for them not yielding the same results? I've no idea.
I think theories re innocent contamination are unlikely eg:
1. Anyone who handled the silencer from manufacturing up until 6th Aug accidentally depositing blood inside.
I think theories re deliberate contamination are unlikely eg:
2. Relatives using SC's menstrual stained underwear as a source of blood
3. RWB dobbing his blood inside. How would he know he shared SC's blood groups: enzymes and proteins?
4. Police deliberately contaminating from 1 of 3 vials containing SC's blood passed to the police from Dr V/pm and stored in soc fridge at Chelmsford HQ.
I think the theory put forward by the defence is unlikely:
5. None of NB's gsw's were considered contact and only 1 sustained by June was considered a possible contact but it was thought "unlikely". Given the. 22 rifle, low velocity ammo and silencer make back spatter unlikely this would seem to rule out the 'intimate mix' theory which also required SC to detach the silencer and return to the cupboard before taking her own life.
IMO I think the lab colluded with the police to fabricate the blood/silencer evidence as its the explanation that stacks up.
-
I think theories re innocent contamination are unlikely eg:
1. Anyone who handled the silencer from manufacturing up until 6th Aug accidentally depositing blood inside.
I think theories re deliberate contamination are unlikely eg:
2. Relatives using SC's menstrual stained underwear as a source of blood
3. RWB dobbing his blood inside. How would he know he shared SC's blood groups: enzymes and proteins?
4. Police deliberately contaminating from 1 of 3 vials containing SC's blood passed to the police from Dr V/pm and stored in soc fridge at Chelmsford HQ.
I think the theory put forward by the defence is unlikely:
5. None of NB's gsw's were considered contact and only 1 sustained by June was considered a possible contact but it was thought "unlikely". Given the. 22 rifle, low velocity ammo and silencer make back spatter unlikely this would seem to rule out the 'intimate mix' theory which also required SC to detach the silencer and return to the cupboard before taking her own life.
IMO I think the lab colluded with the police to fabricate the blood/silencer evidence as its the explanation that stacks up.
I certainly don't, that's far too many people to keep the faith.
-
I certainly don't, that's far too many people to keep the faith.
Neither do I
-
I certainly don't, that's far too many people to keep the faith.
I think this is entering CT territory.
-
I certainly don't, that's far too many people to keep the faith.
How many?
You don't believe the blood/silencer evidence so what's your theory?
-
I think this is entering CT territory.
The blood/silencer evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny based on the prosecution theory.
-
The blood/silencer evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny based on the prosecution theory.
Have you ever considered prosecution theories may evolve over time as more evidence emerges ?
Suspect this may be a reason why the Criminal Cases Review Commission hold on to their case reviews for years on end
Interestingly it’s been 7 years apparently in the Ben Geen case
-
I think this is entering CT territory.
8((()*/
-
The blood/silencer evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny based on the prosecution theory.
The silencer should have been discredited immediately due to the total lack of chain of custody.
-
Actually, thinking about it, maybe they decided a test for GSR would be useless as she had been shot and was found with the rifle on her nightdress, her hand resting on it? It would be expected to be there.
I believe that as well as the tests for lead, her nightdress was inspected visually and chemically for residues of the wax coating from the shells and none were found but were present on the garment used for test firings.
That’s interesting, CS
Residues of the wax coating from the shells were found on the garment used for test firings — but none whatsoever on Sheila’s nightdress or body?!😳
How does one explain THAT away?😌
-
Why are you attempting to send me on a fool’s errand? A list of UK forensic service providers now, together with the services they provide is likely to be quite different to a list of same fro. 35 years ago, so it’s a pointless ask. You appear to be besmirching the integrity of those who presented their test evidence in court, is that your intention?
Holly posts all those tediously long links, none of which prove Jeremy Bamber didn’t murder his family
She does it because, unlike her, we don’t have time or motivation to pore through details that are no longer relevant
These were all done and dusted in 1985, 1986, 199?, 2002, plus a few other times...by senior judges at the High Court, EXPERT forensic/ballistic teams, and all were slung out as they simply proved Jeremy was the murderer.
She seems to forget this isn’t a court room; it’s a forum...
-
I think I recall finding something about live pigs used but live or dead how could this replicate an individuals physiology especially in this case when 2 gsw's are involved? It is claimed the blood originated from the second upper fatal contact wound which may well mean the first lower non-fatal contact wound affected the physiology of the second.
The pigs were dead when they tried to replicate the three burn marks Nevill had on his back.
I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think they shot live pigs to see how blood spatter sprays — they already knew that from previous shootings
Besides, dead pigs have no circulation, so there wouldn’t be any blood spatter depending on where they shot the pig, and even then, it wouldn’t replicate the same pattern as blood splattering from a living animal.
-
How many?
You don't believe the blood/silencer evidence so what's your theory?
I don't believe it was a mass conspiracy but I'm not prepared to say what I believe on this; 1. it's just a theory and 2. I don't really want to point fingers at people living or dead.
-
The silencer should have been discredited immediately due to the total lack of chain of custody.
Where was the chain of custody supposedly broken? It could only be after Stan Jones took possession. There is nothing that prevents a member of the public ( or the family ) finding or handing in a piece of evidence.
-
Where was the chain of custody supposedly broken? It could only be after Stan Jones took possession. There is nothing that prevents a member of the public ( or the family ) finding or handing in a piece of evidence.
No, but it should have been left where it was and the police called to collect from WHF.
-
I think this is entering CT territory.
Only my opinion, but I would think the CT has SOME good points!
-
No, but it should have been left where it was and the police called to collect from WHF.
I thought Basil Cock advised family to remove all armaments and ammunition for safekeeping elsewhere? Why risk leaving the moderator where it was found, over the weekend and risk Bamber, on whom they had suspicions, breaking in again to destroy vital evidence.
-
I thought Basil Cock advised family to remove all armaments and ammunition for safekeeping elsewhere? Why risk leaving the moderator where it was found, over the weekend and risk Bamber, on whom they had suspicions, breaking in again to destroy vital evidence.
Which is why I said call the police when they found it - either have them remove it on the day or at least ask advice on what to do with it.
-
I thought Basil Cock advised family to remove all armaments and ammunition for safekeeping elsewhere? Why risk leaving the moderator where it was found, over the weekend and risk Bamber, on whom they had suspicions, breaking in again to destroy vital evidence.
If JB knew it was there, and if he did, he would have known it was vital evidence, I wonder why he didn't return to collect it.
-
No, but it should have been left where it was and the police called to collect from WHF.
Absolutely. It was far from ideal but everyone present when it was found gave statements and evidence under oath. The only real mystery is how it was missed by a police search in the first place but seems reasonable to accept that the police simply didn't see it's significance and left it along with the shells that were in the same box. It was hardly a meticulous investigation worthy of an episode of CSI:Tolleshunt D'Arcy
-
If JB knew it was there, and if he did, he would have known it was vital evidence, I wonder why he didn't return to collect it.
A fair point Mrs W.
I don't see any real evidence for a conspiracy but JB leaving such an incriminating piece of evidence behind at all doesn't sit right. I tend to think that he wasn't planning on Nevill and June waking up and the disruption to his plans and having to improvise rattled him to the extent he wasn't thinking straight. Perhaps he was worried someone would notice the moderator was missing or he was over confident that the police would accept his story and see no need to search the house.
-
If JB knew it was there, and if he did, he would have known it was vital evidence, I wonder why he didn't return to collect it.
Might have thought he'd cleaned it thoroughly enough and that no-one would closely inspect it ever again.
-
Absolutely. It was far from ideal but everyone present when it was found gave statements and evidence under oath. The only real mystery is how it was missed by a police search in the first place but seems reasonable to accept that the police simply didn't see it's significance and left it along with the shells that were in the same box. It was hardly a meticulous investigation worthy of an episode of CSI:Tolleshunt D'Arcy
The family made a big thing of the silencer though, it was part of the reason they went to the police the day before. They thought it had a significance so when they found it, they should have insisted it be picked up. If that had happened, perhaps there would be as many issues surrounding it.
-
The family made a big thing of the silencer though, it was part of the reason they went to the police the day before. They thought it had a significance so when they found it, they should have insisted it be picked up. If that had happened, perhaps there would be as many issues surrounding it.
I'm not sure of the exact circumstances, did RB claim to have contacted the police straight away but the police denied this?
But yes, I agree. The inference that the family must have fabricated the silencer evidence is something JB trades off to this day. I agree with Holly that if there was a conspiracy, it was someone in the police that fabricated it and planted it for the relatives to submit into evidence.
I just can't see that anyone would risk their careers and a prison sentence to do such a complicated thing.
-
A fair point Mrs W.
I don't see any real evidence for a conspiracy but JB leaving such an incriminating piece of evidence behind at all doesn't sit right. I tend to think that he wasn't planning on Nevill and June waking up and the disruption to his plans and having to improvise rattled him to the extent he wasn't thinking straight. Perhaps he was worried someone would notice the moderator was missing or he was over confident that the police would accept his story and see no need to search the house.
But why hand the keys over to the relatives?
-
But why hand the keys over to the relatives?
Also a fair point.
-
Might have thought he'd cleaned it thoroughly enough and that no-one would closely inspect it ever again.
From where it was placed, it wasn't intended that it would be found "ever again".
-
Might have thought he'd cleaned it thoroughly enough and that no-one would closely inspect it ever again.
The circular blood mark on the carpet, partially covered by the bible - could that be where he first wiped it?
-
I'm not sure of the exact circumstances, did RB claim to have contacted the police straight away but the police denied this?
But yes, I agree. The inference that the family must have fabricated the silencer evidence is something JB trades off to this day. I agree with Holly that if there was a conspiracy, it was someone in the police that fabricated it and planted it for the relatives to submit into evidence.
I just can't see that anyone would risk their careers and a prison sentence to do such a complicated thing.
There is total confusion as to who called the police when or even where, but they didn't call from WHF. By the way, I don't think the family were responsible.
-
I think this is entering CT territory.
Perhaps you can explain the following then:
- The drawback phenemenon is not usually observed with. 22 rifles and low velocity ammo.
- A silencer makes it less likely still.
- When it is observed it usually involves contact gunshot wounds to the head
- When it is observed it usually includes tissue with the blood
- No comparable cases in criminal history where blood inside a silencer underpins a conviction.
- None of the forensic literature, research, tests include drawback with a silencer
- No tests/modelling have been undertaken to establish whether the drawback phenemenon is possible with the rifle, ammo and silencer.
- The blood flake inside the silencer was the only blood stained exhibit capable of yielding the results claimed.
- The non-porous blood stained rifle was unable to yield any results beyond human in origin
- Blood analysed by serology requires good quality samples of a certain quantity. Heat and humidity are known to degrade samples rendering them useless for serological analysis. The blood flake had to withstand heat from firearm discharge, humidity in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber and gunshot residue.
- Victims' blood samples were analysed for:
- Antigens - ABO
- Haptoglobin - HP - Protein
- Phosphoglucomutase - PGM - Enzyme
- Adenylate Kinase - AK - Enzyme
- Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase - EAP - Enzyme
The samples yielded results for all the above.
The blood flake in the silencer was analysed but unable to yield a result for the enzyme PGM. This contradicts advice. I was given by the Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Research Institute in Californis that PGM is more stable than AK and EAP which begs the question how/why in this case the flake was unable to yield a result for PGM? This is currently being reviewed by a forensic scientist in private practice along with other 'evidence'.
-
Perhaps you can explain the following then:
- The drawback phenemenon is not usually observed with. 22 rifles and low velocity ammo.
- A silencer makes it less likely still.
- When it is observed it usually involves contact gunshot wounds to the head
- When it is observed it usually includes tissue with the blood
- No comparable cases in criminal history where blood inside a silencer underpins a conviction.
- None of the forensic literature, research, tests include drawback with a silencer
- No tests/modelling have been undertaken to establish whether the drawback phenemenon is possible with the rifle, ammo and silencer.
- The blood flake inside the silencer was the only blood stained exhibit capable of yielding the results claimed.
- The non-porous blood stained rifle was unable to yield any results beyond human in origin
- Blood analysed by serology requires good quality samples of a certain quantity. Heat and humidity are known to degrade samples rendering them useless for serological analysis. The blood flake had to withstand heat from firearm discharge, humidity in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber and gunshot residue.
- Victims' blood samples were analysed for:
- Antigens - ABO
- Haptoglobin - HP - Protein
- Phosphoglucomutase - PGM - Enzyme
- Adenylate Kinase - AK - Enzyme
- Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase - EAP - Enzyme
The samples yielded results for all the above.
The blood flake in the silencer was analysed but unable to yield a result for the enzyme PGM. This contradicts advice. I was given by the Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Research Institute in Californis that PGM is more stable than AK and EAP which begs the question how/why in this case the flake was unable to yield a result for PGM? This is currently being reviewed by a forensic scientist in private practice along with other 'evidence'.
When the silencer was analysed by way of DNA using Low Copy Number (LCN), which works off samples as small as the millionth the size of a grain of salt, the test was unable to conclude whether SC's DNA was in the silencer or not.
-
Victims' blood samples were analysed for:
- Antigens - ABO
- Haptoglobin - HP - Protein
- Phosphoglucomutase - PGM - Enzyme
- Adenylate Kinase - AK - Enzyme
- Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase - EAP - Enzyme
The samples yielded results for all the above.
The blood flake in the silencer was analysed but unable to yield a result for the enzyme PGM. This contradicts advice. I was given by the Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Research Institute in Californis that PGM is more stable than AK and EAP which begs the question how/why in this case the flake was unable to yield a result for PGM? This is currently being reviewed by a forensic scientist in private practice along with other 'evidence'.
-
Victims' blood samples were analysed for:
- Antigens - ABO
- Haptoglobin - HP - Protein
- Phosphoglucomutase - PGM - Enzyme
- Adenylate Kinase - AK - Enzyme
- Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase - EAP - Enzyme
The samples yielded results for all the above.
The blood flake in the silencer was analysed but unable to yield a result for the enzyme PGM. This contradicts advice. I was given by the Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Research Institute in Californis that PGM is more stable than AK and EAP which begs the question how/why in this case the flake was unable to yield a result for PGM? This is currently being reviewed by a forensic scientist in private practice along with other 'evidence'.
Or perhaps I should say begs the question if the flake was unable to yield a result for PGM how come the flake was able to yield a result for AK and EAP which according to the Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Institute are less stable than PGM.
-
Or perhaps I should say begs the question if the flake was unable to yield a result for PGM how come the flake was able to yield a result for AK and EAP which according to the Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Institute are less stable than PGM.
If the flake from the silencer could be proved to be definitely from Sheila would that convince you of JB's guilt?
-
If the flake from the silencer could be proved to be definitely from Sheila would that convince you of JB's guilt?
No of course not because it wouldn't prove how it got there.
What would convince me of JB's guilt is showing that the blood inside the silencer came to be there as a result of the 'drawback' phenomenon.
If tests show the 'drawback' phenomenon is impossible with the tifle, ammo and silencer would it convince you of JB's innocence?
-
The following is an excerpt from a book by Dr Vincent DiMaio, an internationally renowned US pathologist with expertise in gunshot wounds:
Blood may be detected in the barrel even after the weapon has been discharged. In a study of 25 revolvers and 36 pistols, in 40% of revolvers and in 42% of pistols, blood was detected after one test firing. More remarkable was the fact that blood was still detected in 16% of revolvers and 25% of
pistols after a second shot was fired".
The above shows how blood was more difficult to detect after every test firing:
After one test firing blood was detected in 40% of revolvers and 42% of pistols.
After a second test firing blood was detected in 16% of revolvers and 25% of pistols.
So if the trajectory continued as above its reasonable to assume after 1 or 2 more test fires it would be impossible to detect blood. And yet according to Michael Harris at the lab not only was he able to detect blood after 25 test fires but he was also able to remove it for serological analysis and the blood remained unaltered. &%%6
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
No of course not because it wouldn't prove how it got there.
What would convince me of JB's guilt is showing that the blood inside the silencer came to be there as a result of the 'drawback' phenomenon.
If tests show the 'drawback' phenomenon is impossible with the tifle, ammo and silencer would it convince you of JB's innocence?
If any evidence to contrary of a guilty verdict convinced a appeal court then yes,I'm not an expert posting on an internet forum,merely an observer,let the rule of law decide.
-
No of course not because it wouldn't prove how it got there.
What would convince me of JB's guilt is showing that the blood inside the silencer came to be there as a result of the 'drawback' phenomenon.
If tests show the 'drawback' phenomenon is impossible with the tifle, ammo and silencer would it convince you of JB's innocence?
I wonder if at the end of the day anything would convince you of his guilt.
-
No of course not because it wouldn't prove how it got there.
What would convince me of JB's guilt is showing that the blood inside the silencer came to be there as a result of the 'drawback' phenomenon.
If tests show the 'drawback' phenomenon is impossible with the tifle, ammo and silencer would it convince you of JB's innocence?
What about JM”s evidence ?
What about Bamber’s pre trial assessment which concluded him to be a psychopath?
And have you found out who the alleged ‘close friend’ was who tipped off Kieron Saunders at the Sun following the murders - suggesting SC used heroin/methadone?
-
No of course not because it wouldn't prove how it got there.
What would convince me of JB's guilt is showing that the blood inside the silencer came to be there as a result of the 'drawback' phenomenon.
If tests show the 'drawback' phenomenon is impossible with the tifle, ammo and silencer would it convince you of JB's innocence?
A far more fundamental test would have to be passed before any forensic / scientific analysis for me. The fact that the silencer was discovered by a third party some time after the murders, with a questionable chain of custody prior to being handed to police, should disqualify it. Or at least be the subject of contention as to the veracity of its admissibility.
-
No of course not because it wouldn't prove how it got there.
What would convince me of JB's guilt is showing that the blood inside the silencer came to be there as a result of the 'drawback' phenomenon.
If tests show the 'drawback' phenomenon is impossible with the tifle, ammo and silencer would it convince you of JB's innocence?
Definitely NOT because as you very well know, he could still be guilty having not used the silencer.
-
Perhaps you can explain the following then:
- The drawback phenemenon is not usually observed with. 22 rifles and low velocity ammo.
- A silencer makes it less likely still.
- When it is observed it usually involves contact gunshot wounds to the head
- When it is observed it usually includes tissue with the blood
- No comparable cases in criminal history where blood inside a silencer underpins a conviction.
- None of the forensic literature, research, tests include drawback with a silencer
- No tests/modelling have been undertaken to establish whether the drawback phenemenon is possible with the rifle, ammo and silencer.
- The blood flake inside the silencer was the only blood stained exhibit capable of yielding the results claimed.
- The non-porous blood stained rifle was unable to yield any results beyond human in origin
- Blood analysed by serology requires good quality samples of a certain quantity. Heat and humidity are known to degrade samples rendering them useless for serological analysis. The blood flake had to withstand heat from firearm discharge, humidity in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber and gunshot residue.
- Victims' blood samples were analysed for:
- Antigens - ABO
- Haptoglobin - HP - Protein
- Phosphoglucomutase - PGM - Enzyme
- Adenylate Kinase - AK - Enzyme
- Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase - EAP - Enzyme
The samples yielded results for all the above.
The blood flake in the silencer was analysed but unable to yield a result for the enzyme PGM. This contradicts advice. I was given by the Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Research Institute in Californis that PGM is more stable than AK and EAP which begs the question how/why in this case the flake was unable to yield a result for PGM? This is currently being reviewed by a forensic scientist in private practice along with other 'evidence'.
Malcolm Fletcher wasn't giving his opinion of whether drawback would cause blood to enter the silencer of any gun, but based his opinion on the location of the blood found and the expert evidence of who did or might have received contact wounds that matched the blood types found.
Other methods of blood entering the moderator were discussed including a bloody area being struck at force and blood simply dripping or dropping into the end. Neither were completely ruled out but it was MFs opinion that if this had occurred, blood would not have travelled as far as the 5th and possibly 7th baffle.
The bloodflake was only a quarter of an inch in size, perhaps it was too small for 1985 serology to detect PGM no matter how stable it was. No PGM was detected in any other samples but AK was. You actually state in your own blood tables post that PGM "Breaks down quickly outside the body hence blood in silencer was unable to produce a reading" so which is it? Is PGM more stable than AK and is The Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Research Institute talking about 1985 methods used in serology or more modern ones that would be better at detecting PGM?
-
Malcolm Fletcher wasn't giving his opinion of whether drawback would cause blood to enter the silencer of any gun, but based his opinion on the location of the blood found and the expert evidence of who did or might have received contact wounds that matched the blood types found.
Other methods of blood entering the moderator were discussed including a bloody area being struck at force and blood simply dripping or dropping into the end. Neither were completely ruled out but it was MFs opinion that if this had occurred, blood would not have travelled as far as the 5th and possibly 7th baffle.
The bloodflake was only a quarter of an inch in size, perhaps it was too small for 1985 serology to detect PGM no matter how stable it was. No PGM was detected in any other samples but AK was. You actually state in your own blood tables post that PGM "Breaks down quickly outside the body hence blood in silencer was unable to produce a reading" so which is it? Is PGM more stable than AK and is The Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Research Institute talking about 1985 methods used in serology or more modern ones that would be better at detecting PGM?
Referring to your last paragraph, this being the case, it wouldn't help Bamber for obvious reasons.
-
When the silencer was analysed by way of DNA using Low Copy Number (LCN), which works off samples as small as the millionth the size of a grain of salt, the test was unable to conclude whether SC's DNA was in the silencer or not.
17 out of 20 bands for Sheila were detected which made it 3500 times more likely for it to be Sheila's DNA than not.
The crown expert felt that it was safe to conclude that Sheila's DNA was present. JBs expert disagreed on that point.
It's irrelevant anyway as you know full and well, the LCN DNA testing could not detect if the origin of the DNA was blood and none of the samples gathered matched the areas of where blood was originally found.
Contamination was a real probability due to the way it was handled by all and sundry, the jury were even invited to disassemble the moderator and inspect the baffle plates, possibly putting them back in the wrong order.
Those 2002 tests were useless except to tell us that further DNA testing would also be useless unless there is a new breakthrough in LCN DNA testing
-
The following is an excerpt from a book by Dr Vincent DiMaio, an internationally renowned US pathologist with expertise in gunshot wounds:
Blood may be detected in the barrel even after the weapon has been discharged. In a study of 25 revolvers and 36 pistols, in 40% of revolvers and in 42% of pistols, blood was detected after one test firing. More remarkable was the fact that blood was still detected in 16% of revolvers and 25% of
pistols after a second shot was fired".
The above shows how blood was more difficult to detect after every test firing:
After one test firing blood was detected in 40% of revolvers and 42% of pistols.
After a second test firing blood was detected in 16% of revolvers and 25% of pistols.
So if the trajectory continued as above its reasonable to assume after 1 or 2 more test fires it would be impossible to detect blood. And yet according to Michael Harris at the lab not only was he able to detect blood after 25 test fires but he was also able to remove it for serological analysis and the blood remained unaltered. &%%6
As you know, the inside of a gun barrel is quite different to a moderator where the blood flake was found trapped between the baffle plates and presumably protected somewhat from the escaping gases. I think you are comparing apples and oranges.
It seems to me that you need to replicate Harris' tests.
-
As you know, the inside of a gun barrel is quite different to a moderator where the blood flake was found trapped between the baffle plates and presumably protected somewhat from the escaping gases. I think you are comparing apples and oranges.
It seems to me that you need to replicate Harris' tests.
The problem with that is any test will be replicated using different equipment, it wouldn't be in the same circumstances either and so would simply be an experiment that provided a different result - IF in deed it did.
-
The problem with that is any test will be replicated using different equipment, it wouldn't be in the same circumstances either and so would simply be an experiment that provided a different result - IF in deed it did.
I think what such a test might help with is an expert opinion on how someone with a non scientific background and without a laboratory full of equipment might achieve deliberately contaminating the moderator in a way it could be passed off as genuine.
Personally I think it's doubtful.
-
What about JM”s evidence ?
What about Bamber’s pre trial assessment which concluded him to be a psychopath?
And have you found out who the alleged ‘close friend’ was who tipped off Kieron Saunders at the Sun following the murders - suggesting SC used heroin/methadone?
The blood/silencer evidence is by far the strongest against JB evidenced by the fact the CCRC referred it to CoA on the back of this.
-
A far more fundamental test would have to be passed before any forensic / scientific analysis for me. The fact that the silencer was discovered by a third party some time after the murders, with a questionable chain of custody prior to being handed to police, should disqualify it. Or at least be the subject of contention as to the veracity of its admissibility.
Even when handed over to DS Jones he recorded it in the wrong property book meaning it didn't undergo the sort of scrutiny such a find would normally undergo.
-
Definitely NOT because as you very well know, he could still be guilty having not used the silencer.
If the blood/silencer was fabricated it begs the question why if other aspects of the case were strong.
-
Malcolm Fletcher wasn't giving his opinion of whether drawback would cause blood to enter the silencer of any gun, but based his opinion on the location of the blood found and the expert evidence of who did or might have received contact wounds that matched the blood types found.
Other methods of blood entering the moderator were discussed including a bloody area being struck at force and blood simply dripping or dropping into the end. Neither were completely ruled out but it was MFs opinion that if this had occurred, blood would not have travelled as far as the 5th and possibly 7th baffle.
The bloodflake was only a quarter of an inch in size, perhaps it was too small for 1985 serology to detect PGM no matter how stable it was. No PGM was detected in any other samples but AK was. You actually state in your own blood tables post that PGM "Breaks down quickly outside the body hence blood in silencer was unable to produce a reading" so which is it? Is PGM more stable than AK and is The Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Research Institute talking about 1985 methods used in serology or more modern ones that would be better at detecting PGM?
MF told the court it was "virtually certain" blood from SC's contact wounds would enter the silencer and if the silencer wasn't fitted then he would have expected to find blood in the rifles barrel. This contradicts Dr Maoi's findings. MF conceded his opinion was based on deduction rather then scientific conclusion.
I agree it is unlikely blood would enter the silencer from a non-gsw given the tiny aperture but there's no evidence the 'drawback' phenemenon is capable of forcing blood back as deep as the 7/8 baffle.
PGM breaking down quickly outside the body came from another poster and was before contact with the forensic serologist. NB, June and SC shared the same PGM group so there was nothing distinguishable here.
-
Referring to your last paragraph, this being the case, it wouldn't help Bamber for obvious reasons.
Please explain?
-
17 out of 20 bands for Sheila were detected which made it 3500 times more likely for it to be Sheila's DNA than not.
The crown expert felt that it was safe to conclude that Sheila's DNA was present. JBs expert disagreed on that point.
It's irrelevant anyway as you know full and well, the LCN DNA testing could not detect if the origin of the DNA was blood and none of the samples gathered matched the areas of where blood was originally found.
Contamination was a real probability due to the way it was handled by all and sundry, the jury were even invited to disassemble the moderator and inspect the baffle plates, possibly putting them back in the wrong order.
Those 2002 tests were useless except to tell us that further DNA testing would also be useless unless there is a new breakthrough in LCN DNA testing
I think you have misunderstood the 3500 figure:
490. Samples obtained from Sheila Caffell's natural mother and from other sources enabled the scientists to say with confidence that the major component did not come from Sheila Caffell. Because the blood sample of June Bamber no longer exists, it has not been possible to do a direct comparison between her DNA and that of the major component. However, it has been possible to obtain a sample from June Bamber's sister, Pamela Boutflour, which because closely related relatives are statistically more likely to have shared components than unrelated individuals, has enabled conclusions to be drawn. That evidence shows that it is about 3,500 times more likely that the major source of DNA was from a full sister of Pamela Boutflour, i.e. June Bamber, compared to it being from an unrelated female. Both Mr Clayton and Miss Tomlinson, the DNA experts from whom we have heard, assessed this as strong evidenced that the major component therefore comes from June Bamber.
Re whether SC's DNA was in the silencer or not the 17/20 bands are meaningless and do not mean a near match:
495. Some of the components detected did not match the profile of Sheila Caffell or the Caffell twins.
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. However, Miss Groombridge was unable to perform any sort of statistical evaluation of the likelihood of this happening and hence unable to assess the strength of the support. Dr Clayton, whilst acknowledging the respect that he had for Miss Groombridge's views and whilst recognising the possible validity of the point that she made, felt that it was unsafe to draw any such conclusion. Whilst we recognise that there may very well be merit in Miss Groombridge's evidence in this regard, we doubt very much whether a jury would have been prepared to place any significant reliance upon it so that it might have altered any view which they otherwise would have reached.
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
Given the DNA tests were based on LCN which works of samples as small as 1/1,000,0000 the size of a grain of salt, its not unreasonable to expect SC's DNA to be found in the silencer if it ever been in there in the first place which I don't believe it was for all the reasons I've given.
-
As you know, the inside of a gun barrel is quite different to a moderator where the blood flake was found trapped between the baffle plates and presumably protected somewhat from the escaping gases. I think you are comparing apples and oranges.
It seems to me that you need to replicate Harris' tests.
How did the blood come to be trapped under the baffles in the first instance?
With a contact wound sans silencer the hot discharge gases are unable to dissipate in the atmosphere so are forced into the wound and in some instances blood is forced back into the barrel.
A silencer would change the above in that the hot discharge gases cool and expand in the silencers chamber and then release slowly through a series of baffle plates. There's no evidence anywhere drawback is possible with a silencer other than this case which I don't buy into at all.
-
The problem with that is any test will be replicated using different equipment, it wouldn't be in the same circumstances either and so would simply be an experiment that provided a different result - IF in deed it did.
What equipment did Michael Harris use in his experiment.
-
I think what such a test might help with is an expert opinion on how someone with a non scientific background and without a laboratory full of equipment might achieve deliberately contaminating the moderator in a way it could be passed off as genuine.
Personally I think it's doubtful.
What do you think the logistics were in actually carry out tests on the blood?
-
The blood/silencer evidence is by far the strongest against JB evidenced by the fact the CCRC referred it to CoA on the back of this.
That’s bonkers Holly
Suggest you look at some of the other cases the CCRC has referred to the CoA and which were also dismissed
What have you come up with to refute JM’s evidence ?
What about Bamber’s pre trial assessment which concluded him to be a psychopath?
And have you found out who the alleged ‘close friend’ was - who tipped off Kieron Saunders at the Sun following the murders - suggesting SC used heroin/methadone?
-
That’s bonkers Holly
Suggest you look at some of the other cases the CCRC has referred to the CoA and which were also dismissed
What have you come up with to refute JM’s evidence ?
What about Bamber’s pre trial assessment which concluded him to be a psychopath?
And have you found out who the alleged ‘close friend’ was - who tipped off Kieron Saunders at the Sun following the murders - suggesting SC used heroin/methadone?
Nothing "bonkers" about it all. The trial judge told the jury:
The summing up 153. When Drake J. summed up to the jury, he suggested that there were three "crucial questions". The first, and he made clear that they were not in any order of importance, was whether they believed Julie Mugford? If they were sure that she had told the truth it meant the appellant had planned and carried out the killings. The second was whether they were sure that Sheila Caffell did not kill the members of her family and then commit suicide? The third was whether there was a telephone call in the middle of the night from Nevill Bamber to his son? If there was no such call then it inevitably undermined the whole of the appellant's story and he could have had no reason to have invented it, save to cover up his responsibility for the murders.
154. In dealing with the second question, whether Sheila Caffell may have killed the others and then committed suicide, the judge made clear that answering this question involved a number of different considerations. He suggested that one was "clearly of paramount importance", namely whether the second and fatal shot to Sheila Caffell was fired with the silencer on. If it was, she could not have fired that shot. He made clear that there were other considerations and the jury could come to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell did not carry out the killings "even without reference to the sound moderator".He added that the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, however, "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty.
The case was referred to CoA on the back of the silencer. If other evidence was strong it would fall back on this and wouldn't have referred.
-
He added that the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, however, "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty.[/i]
What specially lead to the majority of the jury to conclude Bamber was guilty?
-
The case was referred to CoA on the back of the silencer
And was dismissed
-
What specially lead to the majority of the jury to conclude Bamber was guilty?
Well obviously no one was privy to the deliberations but given jurors questioned the blood I guess its not unreasonable to assume it was looming.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=273.0
-
And was dismissed
Yes it was dismissed but it was the sole reason for a referral. If new forensic tests once again undermine the blood/silencer the CCRC will no doubt refer again. If the evidence is so compelling it may even be possible to fast-track it by-passing CCRC.
Grounds 14 and 15 – blood in the sound moderator 452. Grounds 14 and 15 each relate to different aspects of the evidence relating to the blood in the sound moderator. They are distinct matters but clearly need to be considered together because they relate to the same important aspect of the prosecution case. Ground 14 is an attack upon the blood testing evidence called at trial based upon fresh evidence which it is suggested would have cast doubt upon the prosecution evidence in this regard if it had been available to the jury. Ground 15 is the sole ground upon which this case was referred to the Court by the CCRC. It is based upon the testing of the sound moderator for DNA, a technique that was not available at trial.
-
I think you have misunderstood the 3500 figure:
Re whether SC's DNA was in the silencer or not the 17/20 bands are meaningless and do not mean a near match:
Given the DNA tests were based on LCN which works of samples as small as 1/1,000,0000 the size of a grain of salt, its not unreasonable to expect SC's DNA to be found in the silencer if it ever been in there in the first place which I don't believe it was for all the reasons I've given.
Quite right, I did misunderstand that. Or rather I got it mixed up with the figure given for June's familial match.
The 17 bands for Sheila's DNA were much higher than the 13 bands that might be found by chance so it can't be said that her DNA was or wasn't found but due to the issue of contamination, I agree the results are meaningless.
The major contributor of the DNA mix detected was a familial match to June but was itself incomplete so there were no complete DNA profiles obtained.
It's worth remembering why the DNA results were deemed completely meaningless ( which I'll paste in below ) but if you are going with the SCs-DNA-Not-Found line, then how come June's was found if the silencer was never on the gun?
503: Mr Webster the defence expert deals in some detail with the aspect of contamination in his report dated the 22 September 2002 between paragraphs 60 and 110. That passage included:
"66. LCN DNA profiling is extremely sensitive. This can limit the relevance of results obtained by the technique; LCN DNA profiling can detect minute traces of DNA not relevant to the incident in question.
67. LCN DNA profiling can detect traces of DNA originating from individuals involved in the incident in question, but which has been transferred from one location to another after the incident.
68. LCN DNA profiling will often detect DNA completely unrelated to the crime. It sometimes detects DNA originating from people who had dealings with the exhibit before and after the crime and DNA from people involved in the manufacture of reagents and test equipment.
69. These characteristics of LCN DNA profiling often limit the relevance of results obtained when applied to any case. In my opinion, there are specific features of this case that render the results obtained completely meaningless (our emphasis added).
70. There appears to have been opportunity for DNA originating from individuals involved in the incident to be transferred from other sites into the sound moderator, and many opportunities for DNA from other individuals not connected with the incident to be deposited inside the sound moderator because of the way it was handled after the crime.
71. The destruction of reference samples taken from Ralph and June Bamber causes further difficulties. If these were still available, it would be possible to determine whether the DNA found in the sound moderator originated from them or originates from individuals unconnected with the incident.
72. Even given these limitations of LCN profiling, I do consider that the tests were worth attempting. The results obtained would have been of value if the distribution of DNA within the sound moderator detected by the LCN DNA profiling test reflected the distribution of blood within the sound moderator when it was originally tested. Unfortunately they do not.
73. Indications of blood were originally detected on the end cap, the washer, the first eight baffles and the screw threads at the end of the sound moderator. No blood was detected on the remaining nine baffles.
74. Ms Grombridge reports that DNA has been detected throughout the sound moderator and states that some of the DNA within the sound moderator could have originated from Sheila Caffell.
75. Plainly, the distribution of DNA detected does not reflect the distribution of blood originally present within the sound moderator. For example, DNA has been detected on baffles 13-17 where no blood had previously been detected.
76. Therefore, some action not necessarily associated with the deposition of blood must have caused DNA to be transferred to various areas of the sound moderator, including DNA that could possibly have originated from Sheila Caffell.
77. There appears to have been many opportunities for DNA from a variety of sources to be deposited on and in the sound moderator and for DNA to be transferred between different areas of the sound moderator as a result of the way the sound moderator was handled after the incident."
-
The following is a table showing victims' blood groups along with the blood groups of the various exhibits:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg315462#msg315462
The victims samples all produced a PGM result but none of the blood stained exhibits did including the blood within the silencer.
We know the lab tested for PGM as the blood flake was cut into 5 for the 5 separate tests: ABO, AK, EAP, HP and PGM. And yet the flake was unable to produce a result for PGM. But according to the chief forensic serologist at the Serological Institute, California he had this to say about the stain:
ABO is good for about two years at ambient temperatures and is the longest for the series of five markers you listed. Haptoglobin and PGM would be the next at about a year, and AK & EAP are about six months. This is, of course, for dried stains that have not been environmentally insulted by temperature or humidity.
So why was the blood in the silencer able to produce a result for AK and EAP but not PGM?
-
Scott Lomax used to work with the CT, but has not done so since 2011.
Is this accurate mrswah ?
Scott Lomax also used to run a twitter account for Bamber
Jeremy Bamber
@JeremyBamber
@mattarnoldtv
my personal email is sclomax@sclomax.co.uk
3:28 PM · Feb 4, 2011·Social Life by Orange
https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyBamber/status/33547471976267776
His first tweet was on 3rd Jan 2010
The last was on 22nd June 2012 thanking Mark Williams Thomas for his ‘support’ https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyBamber/with_replies
Interestingly 1 of the 168 following Scott Lomax’s Bamber twitter account was George Coombes https://mobile.twitter.com/georgecmbs
-
Is this accurate mrswah ?
Scott Lomax also used to run a twitter account for Bamber
Jeremy Bamber
@JeremyBamber
@mattarnoldtv
my personal email is sclomax@sclomax.co.uk
3:28 PM · Feb 4, 2011·Social Life by Orange
https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyBamber/status/33547471976267776
His first tweet was on 3rd Jan 2010
The last was on 22nd June 2012 thanking Mark Williams Thomas for his ‘support’ https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyBamber/with_replies
Interestingly 1 of the 168 following Scott Lomax’s Bamber twitter account was George Coombes https://mobile.twitter.com/georgecmbs
So he said ! I came across him on another forum, which I joined at the time the TV series was airing (I have since left it).
I specifically asked him if he was involved with the CT. He said that when the CT began to be run by different people , they didn't want to work with him any more. I didn't ask him why. I also don't know when the CT changed its "management", as I don't follow it; nor do I have much to do with Twitter.
I don't know how accurate SL is or isn't in his book, but he seems a tolerant and reasonable man, unlike some "supporters" whom I came across on the same forum!
-
The blood/silencer evidence is by far the strongest against JB evidenced by the fact the CCRC referred it to CoA on the back of this.
Look, this repetitive boring untruth simply pushes people away....
It’s a FORENSIC FACT (which you yourself should know — or can look up), that initially 13 markers of Sheila’s blood were found inside the eighth baffle, splattered EXACTLY as back spatter fires back when someone’s being shot. That pattern is impossible to replicate.
At his appeal years later, when forensics had become more advanced — and which was slung out in less than an hour — they’d established FURTHER forensic EVIDENCE that SEVENTEEN of Sheila’s blood markers were found in that dried splatter of blood.
There are only 20 markers in one’s blood, and the forensic scientists said that it would be a TRILLION TO ONE if the blood wasn’t Sheila’s.
Really, your tiresome refusal to believe experts does you no favours whatsoever; it’s boring, weary and tedious — so much so that almost everyone seems to bypass your comments on this.
You’ve been banging on for YEARS — all to no avail — and that’s why few people reply to you: they probably don’t bother to read the same, tired, old record you keep on, and on, and on repeating...it isn’t true, it’s all desperate imagination, and has been proven by skilled forensic EXPERTS that you’re WRONG.
You harp on about his appeal 18 years ago, which the courts graciously granted to make sure forensics were correct in their scientific findings — so they were actually HELPING Jeremy in his appeal — but when the judges discovered that the DNA evidence proved even MORE that the blood in the silencer was Sheila’s (they’d later discovered SEVENTEEN markers rather than the 13 they’d found in 1985), that’s when they slung his case out. And that was only one hoop he had to jump through....how can he deny/dispute all the other overwhelming evidence?
Maybe you enjoy flogging dead horses; maybe you’ve got lucky somewhere in the past and see yourself as a kind of saviour to convicts who’ve been found guilty....I’ve no idea, and I’m not interested. But when a woman seems to hope a convicted murderer of children and women is innocent when the evidence is overwhelming , I think that’s time to halt and see a counsellor to try to discover what’s making you so sympathetic to convicted murderers...
-
Look, this repetitive boring untruth simply pushes people away....
It’s a FORENSIC FACT (which you yourself should know — or can look up), that initially 13 markers of Sheila’s blood were found inside the eighth baffle, splattered EXACTLY as back spatter fires back when someone’s being shot. That pattern is impossible to replicate.
At his appeal years later, when forensics had become more advanced — and which was slung out in less than an hour — they’d established FURTHER forensic EVIDENCE that SEVENTEEN of Sheila’s blood markers were found in that dried splatter of blood.
There are only 20 markers in one’s blood, and the forensic scientists said that it would be a TRILLION TO ONE if the blood wasn’t Sheila’s.
Really, your tiresome refusal to believe experts does you no favours whatsoever; it’s boring, weary and tedious — so much so that almost everyone seems to bypass your comments on this.
You’ve been banging on for YEARS — all to no avail — and that’s why few people reply to you: they probably don’t bother to read the same, tired, old record you keep on, and on, and on repeating...it isn’t true, it’s all desperate imagination, and has been proven by skilled forensic EXPERTS that you’re WRONG.
You harp on about his appeal 18 years ago, which the courts graciously granted to make sure forensics were correct in their scientific findings — so they were actually HELPING Jeremy in his appeal — but when the judges discovered that the DNA evidence proved even MORE that the blood in the silencer was Sheila’s (they’d later discovered SEVENTEEN markers rather than the 13 they’d found in 1985), that’s when they slung his case out. And that was only one hoop he had to jump through....how can he deny/dispute all the other overwhelming evidence?
Maybe you enjoy flogging dead horses; maybe you’ve got lucky somewhere in the past and see yourself as a kind of saviour to convicts who’ve been found guilty....I’ve no idea, and I’m not interested. But when a woman seems to hope a convicted murderer of children and women is innocent when the evidence is overwhelming , I think that’s time to halt and see a counsellor to try to discover what’s making you so sympathetic to convicted murderers...
Succinctly put.
-
Look, this repetitive boring untruth simply pushes people away....
It’s a FORENSIC FACT (which you yourself should know — or can look up), that initially 13 markers of Sheila’s blood were found inside the eighth baffle, splattered EXACTLY as back spatter fires back when someone’s being shot. That pattern is impossible to replicate.
At his appeal years later, when forensics had become more advanced — and which was slung out in less than an hour — they’d established FURTHER forensic EVIDENCE that SEVENTEEN of Sheila’s blood markers were found in that dried splatter of blood.
There are only 20 markers in one’s blood, and the forensic scientists said that it would be a TRILLION TO ONE if the blood wasn’t Sheila’s.
Really, your tiresome refusal to believe experts does you no favours whatsoever; it’s boring, weary and tedious — so much so that almost everyone seems to bypass your comments on this.
You’ve been banging on for YEARS — all to no avail — and that’s why few people reply to you: they probably don’t bother to read the same, tired, old record you keep on, and on, and on repeating...it isn’t true, it’s all desperate imagination, and has been proven by skilled forensic EXPERTS that you’re WRONG.
You harp on about his appeal 18 years ago, which the courts graciously granted to make sure forensics were correct in their scientific findings — so they were actually HELPING Jeremy in his appeal — but when the judges discovered that the DNA evidence proved even MORE that the blood in the silencer was Sheila’s (they’d later discovered SEVENTEEN markers rather than the 13 they’d found in 1985), that’s when they slung his case out. And that was only one hoop he had to jump through....how can he deny/dispute all the other overwhelming evidence?
Maybe you enjoy flogging dead horses; maybe you’ve got lucky somewhere in the past and see yourself as a kind of saviour to convicts who’ve been found guilty....I’ve no idea, and I’m not interested. But when a woman seems to hope a convicted murderer of children and women is innocent when the evidence is overwhelming , I think that’s time to halt and see a counsellor to try to discover what’s making you so sympathetic to convicted murderers...
I am certain sure that I am not the only one who reads Holly's Comments.
-
Well obviously no one was privy to the deliberations but given jurors questioned the blood I guess its not unreasonable to assume it was looming.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=273.0
Well, your ASSUMPTION may be right, or it could be wrong...
But whichever one it was the jury decided Jeremy Bamber was Guilty, which shows they too everything into consideration. That’s fair, I’d say 😌
-
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:
So when a top QC Is defending a case, or is representing the prosecution when dealing with a murder trial, say, for example, the defendant has raped and dismembered the victim: chopped them to pieces; dumped their bodies in rivers; burnt them to death whilst still alive; buried them under concrete; fed them to animals on a farm...need I go in? What experience would they they have of that?
None.
So because Jeremy Bamber murdered his family by shooting them with a gun, do you think they wouldn’t have consulted ballistic specialists and forensics just as they would divers who drag dead bodies from water to determine how/why they died? Do you think because someone has been murdered by being shot dead they’d say they couldn’t take the case on?
😌
-
The following is a table showing victims' blood groups along with the blood groups of the various exhibits:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg315462#msg315462
The victims samples all produced a PGM result but none of the blood stained exhibits did including the blood within the silencer.
We know the lab tested for PGM as the blood flake was cut into 5 for the 5 separate tests: ABO, AK, EAP, HP and PGM. And yet the flake was unable to produce a result for PGM. But according to the chief forensic serologist at the Serological Institute, California he had this to say about the stain:
ABO is good for about two years at ambient temperatures and is the longest for the series of five markers you listed. Haptoglobin and PGM would be the next at about a year, and AK & EAP are about six months. This is, of course, for dried stains that have not been environmentally insulted by temperature or humidity.
So why was the blood in the silencer able to produce a result for AK and EAP but not PGM?
I asked earlier in the thread, was it something to do with the small size of the sample and the limitations of 1985 serology? Furthermore, could any contaminants such as soot or gases from the gun affect PGM specifically?
-
I asked earlier in the thread, was it something to do with the small size of the sample and the limitations of 1985 serology? Furthermore, could any contaminants such as soot or gases from the gun affect PGM specifically?
Sorry to jump in, CS, but forensics established the blood could have only been Sheila’s — and that was in 1985
In 2002, when forensics had advanced, they discovered SEVENTEEN of Sheila’s markers in that blood flake.
It’s correct that they also found blood that matched a mixture of both June’s and Nevills’s, but they was to be expected — Jeremy had also shot THEM with the silencer attached. It would have looked odd had they not found theirs too.
As for rabbits blood possibly being present too — Nevill used the rifle to shoot them , so of course that would be found too.
The problem Jeremy had, and still does, is why/how would Nevill’s blood, June’s blood, and Sheila’s blood be deep in the silencer baffles when Nevill never shot himself; June never went shooting, and Sheila had never been anywhere near the gun?
Holly is dragging this out to try and hide aspects of the case that proves his guilt. She copies long, tedious posts from forensics that she possibly doesn’t understand herself in order to try and bamboozle people. But when you read them they all come to the same conclusion: Sheila’s blood was in the silencer,
There’s really no point in discussing this futprther.
-
Sorry to jump in, CS, but forensics established the blood could have only been Sheila’s — and that was in 1985
In 2002, when forensics had advanced, they discovered SEVENTEEN of Sheila’s markers in that blood flake.
It’s correct that they also found blood that matched a mixture of both June’s and Nevills’s, but they was to be expected — Jeremy had also shot THEM with the silencer attached. It would have looked odd had they not found theirs too.
As for rabbits blood possibly being present too — Nevill used the rifle to shoot them , so of course that would be found too.
The problem Jeremy had, and still does, is why/how would Nevill’s blood, June’s blood, and Sheila’s blood be deep in the silencer baffles when Nevill never shot himself; June never went shooting, and Sheila had never been anywhere near the gun?
Holly is dragging this out to try and hide aspects of the case that proves his guilt. She copies long, tedious posts from forensics that she possibly doesn’t understand herself in order to try and bamboozle people. But when you read them they all come to the same conclusion: Sheila’s blood was in the silencer,
There’s really no point in discussing this futprther.
8((()*/
-
Succinctly put.
Succinctly put?
4/8 paras contain nothing but personal comments directed at me and the last concludes with a recommendation I see a counsellor. This poster is already being 'watched' because his/her conduct continually breaks forum rules and yet you as a moderator see fit to condone. Interesting.
Surely you can see the content is factually wrong?
Surely you understand dna evidence is expressed as the statistical possibility % of the biological sample under question coming from a member of the population at large as opposed to the defendant or victim? Eg billion to one. ISpy refers to a trillion to one in capitals! How can it be a trillion to one when the possible pool is limited to the size of the human population ie 7/8 billion?
-
Succinctly put?
4/8 paras contain nothing but personal comments directed at me and the last concludes with a recommendation I see a counsellor. This poster is already being 'watched' because his/her conduct continually breaks forum rules and yet you as a moderator see fit to condone. Interesting.
Surely you can see the content is factually wrong?
Surely you understand dna evidence is expressed as the statistical possibility % of the biological sample under question coming from a member of the population at large as opposed to the defendant or victim? Eg billion to one. ISpy refers to a trillion to one in capitals! How can it be a trillion to one when the possible pool is limited to the size of the human population ie 7/8 billion?
The size of the Earth’s population has got nothing to do with it https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/01/20/how-many-possible-combinations-of-dna-are-there/
-
I shall be Deleting any further rude or insulting personal remarks.
-
The size of the Earth’s population has got nothing to do with it https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/01/20/how-many-possible-combinations-of-dna-are-there/
8((()*/
-
It’s a FORENSIC FACT (which you yourself should know — or can look up), that initially 13 markers of Sheila’s blood were found inside the eighth baffle, splattered EXACTLY as back spatter fires back when someone’s being shot. That pattern is impossible to replicate.
At his appeal years later, when forensics had become more advanced — and which was slung out in less than an hour — they’d established FURTHER forensic EVIDENCE that SEVENTEEN of Sheila’s blood markers were found in that dried splatter of blood.
There are only 20 markers in one’s blood, and the forensic scientists said that it would be a TRILLION TO ONE if the blood wasn’t Sheila’s.
You’ve been banging on for YEARS — all to no avail — and that’s why few people reply to you: they probably don
You harp on about his appeal 18 years ago, which the courts graciously granted to make sure forensics were correct in their scientific findings — so they were actually HELPING Jeremy in his appeal — but when the judges discovered that the DNA evidence proved even MORE that the blood in the silencer was Sheila’s (they’d later discovered SEVENTEEN markers rather than the 13 they’d found in 1985), that’s when they slung his case out. And that was only one hoop he had to jump through....how can he deny/dispute all the other overwhelming evidence?
I have edited your post to remove the personal comments where you concluded that I need to see a counsellor because of my case related views.
If you disagree with the following you will need to provide case related material to support your assertions. If you are unable to and continue to post disinformation I will remove it.
1. At trial all blood stained exhibits were analysed by blood serology which was the precursor to DNA testing unavailable at the time of trial in 1986:
Ground 15 is the sole ground upon which this case was referred to the Court by the CCRC. It is based upon the testing of the sound moderator for DNA, a technique that was not available at trial.
2. You refer to 13 and 20 markers relating to SC. This relates to the DNA testing and is based on bands not markers. The scientists agreed there was no reliable statistical analysis to provide any meaning for the 17/20 bands. Hence the court concluded it wasn't possible to conclude one way or the other whether SC's DNA was in the silencer:
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. However, Miss Groombridge was unable to perform any sort of statistical evaluation of the likelihood of this happening and hence unable to assess the strength of the support. Dr Clayton, whilst acknowledging the respect that he had for Miss Groombridge's views and whilst recognising the possible validity of the point that she made, felt that it was unsafe to draw any such conclusion. Whilst we recognise that there may very well be merit in Miss Groombridge's evidence in this regard, we doubt very much whether a jury would have been prepared to place any significant reliance upon it so that it might have altered any view which they otherwise would have reached.
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.
3. The blood flake that underpins JB's conviction was, we are told, found trapped under baffles 1 and 2:
461. On 8 September 1986, Dr Lincoln again went to the laboratory and this time met and discussed the matter with Mr Hayward. As a result of this meeting, Dr Lincoln appreciated that the blood tested all came from a single flake trapped under the first or second baffle. In a letter to the defence solicitors, Dr Lincoln said that Mr Hayward "used this single flake to produce a solution from which he was able to determine the groups". He said that this meant that the possible explanation he had earlier suggested as to a combination of more than one persons blood no longer applied.
4. Malcom Fletcher who was responsible for unassembling the silencer said he thought blood extended possibly to the 7th baffle.
John Hayward who was responsible for the blood tests thought the blood extended to the 5th baffle.
How can two 'experts' testifying at trial be so vague? Where are the notes, diagrams and photographic evidence?
Contrary to your assertion that blood was found on the 8th baffle neither MF or JH observed it beyond the 7th baffle. And blood stain analysis was not used at trial or the 2002 appeal in an attempt to determine whether the distribution within the silencer corresponded with the drawback phenomenon.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
The size of the Earth’s population has got nothing to do with it https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/01/20/how-many-possible-combinations-of-dna-are-there/
Are you suggesting a person's DNA changes?
-
Are you suggesting a person's DNA changes?
If the DNA evidence presented at court is capable of changing, either biologically or numerically in how it relates to the population at large, then how come it is used to either convict or exonerate decades later?
Surely defence and prosecution lawyers would simply argue the defendant/appellant's dna had changed?
-
Are you suggesting a person's DNA changes?
LOL, no, why? Are you suggesting that there the maximum number of DNA combinations is 7 billion?
-
Succinctly put?
4/8 paras contain nothing but personal comments directed at me and the last concludes with a recommendation I see a counsellor. This poster is already being 'watched' because his/her conduct continually breaks forum rules and yet you as a moderator see fit to condone. Interesting.
Surely you can see the content is factually wrong?
Surely you understand dna evidence is expressed as the statistical possibility % of the biological sample under question coming from a member of the population at large as opposed to the defendant or victim? Eg billion to one. ISpy refers to a trillion to one in capitals! How can it be a trillion to one when the possible pool is limited to the size of the human population ie 7/8 billion?
I’ve actually got the link somewhere...I’ll look later 🙄
I’m about to cook Sunday dinner so certainly shan't hunt for it now....zzzz
I’m sure you’ve read it yourself, anyway...you do this all the time when you don’t like a fact: you ask for proof. And if I do ever give proof you ignore it!
-
I am certain sure that I am not the only one who reads Holly's Comments.
Possibly not...
Maybe you have lots of time on your hands to read long-winded pasted excerpts that are often unrelated to the Bamber case...
-
Possibly not...
Maybe you have lots of time on your hands to read long-winded pasted excerpts that are often unrelated to the Bamber case...
Obviously, since I read your comments as well.
-
LOL, no, why? Are you suggesting that there the maximum number of DNA combinations is 7 billion?
I'm saying dna evidence presented at trial is done by way of statistical analysis based on the population at large which currently stands at around 7.5 billion. Any mention of a trillion in this context is clearly nonsense.
If a person's DNA is uploaded to a dna database and maintained and such a person subsequently commits a crime leaving biological material at the soc a dna match can be made. At trial lawyers will present this evidence by way of stastical analysis eg a "billion to one" see the murder of Sally Bowman and conviction of Mark Dixie:
There was a one-in-a-billion chance it could have belonged to someone else," said Julie-Ann Cornelius, the senior forensic scientist who gave evidence in the case.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/feb/22/ukcrime.law
-
I'm saying dna evidence presented at trial is done by way of statistical analysis based on the population at large which currently stands at around 7.5 billion. Any mention of a trillion in this context is clearly nonsense.
If a person's DNA is uploaded to a dna database and maintained and such a person subsequently commits a crime leaving biological material at the soc a dna match can be made. At trial lawyers will present this evidence by way of stastical analysis eg a "billion to one" see the murder of Sally Bowman and conviction of Mark Dixie:
There was a one-in-a-billion chance it could have belonged to someone else," said Julie-Ann Cornelius, the senior forensic scientist who gave evidence in the case.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/feb/22/ukcrime.law
Why only one in a billion then, and not one in 7 billion?
-
I’ve actually got the link somewhere...I’ll look later 🙄
I’m about to cook Sunday dinner so certainly shan't hunt for it now....zzzz
I’m sure you’ve read it yourself, anyway...you do this all the time when you don’t like a fact: you ask for proof. And if I do ever give proof you ignore it!
Well these all relate to JB's case so if you want to disagree you will need to provide the supporting material:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11431.msg589565#msg589565
If you resort to getting all shouty and personal making claims that you can't support when all the material is in the public domain I will remove it.
-
Why only one in a billion then, and not one in 7 billion?
Because statistically it is possible for two people to share the same dna. Often it is presented by way of a % which is close to 100%. In paternity testing it is presented as 99.9%.
Fingerprint evidence is actually more reliable than DNA as no two people share the same fingerprints not even identical twins.
-
Because statistically it is possible for two people to share the same dna. Often it is presented by way of a % which is close to 100%. In paternity testing it is presented as 99.9%.
Fingerprint evidence is actually more reliable than DNA as no two people share the same fingerprints not even identical twins.
So is there a one in one billion or seven billion chance of having the same DNA as another person?
-
For anyone who's interested:
"What are the odds of someone who is not related to you having the exact same DNA sequence as you?
In other words, what are the odds of unrelated identical twins?
The odds are impossibly small.
The human genome has 3 billion base pairs, which are two of four nucleotides that are put together. That means to find the number, we would have to find 4^3,000,000,000. That would be the denominator (Bottom number in a fraction).
The number is impossibly large however, and no calculator today can tell you what it is. The closest I could get was 4^300 power, which was 4.14951557e180, which would be 4,149,515,57 followed by 172 0′s (the 4 with 180 places after it). Written out, it would be:
4,149,515,570,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That's just to the 300th power. 3 billion is 3×10^9 power, as opposed to 300, which is 3×10^2. That number is impossibly large, so your chances are well below any number you could possibly calculate".
-
For anyone who's interested:
"What are the odds of someone who is not related to you having the exact same DNA sequence as you?
In other words, what are the odds of unrelated identical twins?
The odds are impossibly small.
The human genome has 3 billion base pairs, which are two of four nucleotides that are put together. That means to find the number, we would have to find 4^3,000,000,000. That would be the denominator (Bottom number in a fraction).
The number is impossibly large however, and no calculator today can tell you what it is. The closest I could get was 4^300 power, which was 4.14951557e180, which would be 4,149,515,57 followed by 172 0′s (the 4 with 180 places after it). Written out, it would be:
4,149,515,570,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That's just to the 300th power. 3 billion is 3×10^9 power, as opposed to 300, which is 3×10^2. That number is impossibly large, so your chances are well below any number you could possibly calculate".
The maths is above my head VS but well done you for working it out. I think we can safely say that a stranger sharing our DNA sequence is impossible.
-
For anyone who's interested:
"What are the odds of someone who is not related to you having the exact same DNA sequence as you?
In other words, what are the odds of unrelated identical twins?
The odds are impossibly small.
The human genome has 3 billion base pairs, which are two of four nucleotides that are put together. That means to find the number, we would have to find 4^3,000,000,000. That would be the denominator (Bottom number in a fraction).
The number is impossibly large however, and no calculator today can tell you what it is. The closest I could get was 4^300 power, which was 4.14951557e180, which would be 4,149,515,57 followed by 172 0′s (the 4 with 180 places after it). Written out, it would be:
4,149,515,570,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That's just to the 300th power. 3 billion is 3×10^9 power, as opposed to 300, which is 3×10^2. That number is impossibly large, so your chances are well below any number you could possibly calculate".
I am seriously impressed &%%6 Respect
-
LOL, I can barely multiply 2 and 2, but my googling and c & p skills are second to none.
-
LOL, I can barely multiply 2 and 2, but my googling and c & p skills are second to none.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* - you should take credit, it's not like much is ever dished out here usually! 8((()*/
-
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* - you should take credit, it's not like much is ever dished out here usually! 8((()*/
Shucks, like George Washington I cannot lie. This is the guy who deserves the credit:
Steven Silz-Carson
Certified Molecular Biologist, Smith College, grad immunology & biochemistry, CU
-
This explains why in paternity testing its always 99.99% and not 100%.
https://dnacentre.co.uk/can-a-dna-test-ever-show-100-percent-probability-of-paternity/
With regard to this case I think it needs to be remembered that the scientists were using LCN DNA (LCN = Low Copy Number) where they're working with biological samples as small as 1/1000,000 the size of a grain of salt which are often degraded too and the sample is amplified up. This can result in mixed profiles too as evidenced in this case.
The other complication with this case was that the victims' biological samples had been destroyed. This resulted in PB providing a sample and SC's birth mother and another source which I think might have been the twin's milk teeth.
-
Those here who have looked at the MM case will be familiar with the basics of LCN DNA and its limitations.
-
This explains why in paternity testing its always 99.99% and not 100%.
https://dnacentre.co.uk/can-a-dna-test-ever-show-100-percent-probability-of-paternity/
With regard to this case I think it needs to be remembered that the scientists were using LCN DNA (LCN = Low Copy Number) where they're working with biological samples as small as 1/1000,000 the size of a grain of salt which are often degraded too and the sample is amplified up. This can result in mixed profiles too as evidenced in this case.
The other complication with this case was that the victims' biological samples had been destroyed. This resulted in PB providing a sample and SC's birth mother and another source which I think might have been the twin's milk teeth.
Am I correct in saying that grounds for one of his appeals failed miserably when the availability of a more sophisticated method for identifying DNA increased the number of markers identifying Sheila than the original testing had.
-
Those here who have looked at the MM case will be familiar with the basics of LCN DNA and its limitations.
Absolutely. But even so there are adamant deniers of the science which makes it clear that none of it is Madeleine's.
-
Am I correct in saying that grounds for one of his appeals failed miserably when the availability of a more sophisticated method for identifying DNA increased the number of markers identifying Sheila than the original testing had.
When was the 'original testing' carried out in your opinion?
-
Am I correct in saying that grounds for one of his appeals failed miserably when the availability of a more sophisticated method for identifying DNA increased the number of markers identifying Sheila than the original testing had.
No you're not correct.
At the time of JB's trial DNA testing was unavailable. All that was available was testing by way of blood serology which produces blood groupings. Most will be familiar with the ABO groups. In addition to this it was possible to identify enzymes and proteins but these are not statistically individuallising being shared by 8% of the white British population. Eg given JB's relatives found and handled the silencer they were asked to provide samples and it was found that JB/SC's adoptive uncle shared the same blood groups as SC.
With the advent of DNA the silencer was reexamined. There was no visible blood, we are told it was all swabbed away for the initial serology testing, hence it was analysed by way of LCN DNA testing. The CCRC referred the case to the CoA as at this stage it was thought SC's DNA was not in the silencer but June's was along with an unidentified male. This fitted the defence case at trial that SC used the silencer throughout the shootings and removed before shooting herself with the blood flake representing an 'intimate mix' of NB's and June's blood.
However when all the scientists for the defence and prosecution got together at appeal the appeal judges 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.
You will no doubt recall from the MM case that LCN DNA tests works off very small invisible to the naked eye cellular samples where it isn't possible to identify the source and all the issues with contamination.
In this case at trial it is known jurors unassembled the silencer and handled it alongside other blood stained exhibits and it was thought June's DNA may have been in the silencer from contamination as opposed to the shootings.
Sources: Dr Lincoln's report and Bamber v Regina.
-
My view is that the silencer was not used by either JB or SC in the shootings.
The silencer was fabricated to secure a conviction imo.
IMO the defence lawyers muddied the water at trial with the 'intimate mix' theory. Defence lawyers at appeal went on the same fools errand.
The third appeal hearing needs to demonstrate unequivocally that the silencer was fabricated because that is what happened imo.
-
My view is that the silencer was not used by either JB or SC in the shootings.
The silencer was fabricated to secure a conviction imo.
IMO the defence lawyers muddied the water at trial with the 'intimate mix' theory. Defence lawyers at appeal went on the same fools errand.
The third appeal hearing needs to demonstrate unequivocally that the silencer was fabricated because that is what happened imo.
So despite having never used the rifle before, Sheila had the nous to unscrew the moderator from the end (which Jeremy had left on the previous night) and crawl on her hands and knees to place it at the back of the gun cupboard for some unknown reason, before shooting the family, then herself?
-
So despite having never used the rifle before, Sheila had the nous to unscrew the moderator from the end (which Jeremy had left on the previous night) and crawl on her hands and knees to place it at the back of the gun cupboard for some unknown reason, before shooting the family, then herself?
JB said when he left the rifle from the bunny shooting it was sans silencer and sights.
-
Because statistically it is possible for two people to share the same dna. Often it is presented by way of a % which is close to 100%. In paternity testing it is presented as 99.9%.
Fingerprint evidence is actually more reliable than DNA as no two people share the same fingerprints not even identical twins.
You’re wrong, Holly
Identical twins share the same identical DNA
https://atlasbiomed.com/blog/do-siblings-have-the-same-dna-the-facts-on-family-genetics/
Maybe you should tell the scientists on the link Ive given you that they’re wrong...
-
For anyone who's interested:
"What are the odds of someone who is not related to you having the exact same DNA sequence as you?
In other words, what are the odds of unrelated identical twins?
The odds are impossibly small.
The human genome has 3 billion base pairs, which are two of four nucleotides that are put together. That means to find the number, we would have to find 4^3,000,000,000. That would be the denominator (Bottom number in a fraction).
The number is impossibly large however, and no calculator today can tell you what it is. The closest I could get was 4^300 power, which was 4.14951557e180, which would be 4,149,515,57 followed by 172 0′s (the 4 with 180 places after it). Written out, it would be:
4,149,515,570,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That's just to the 300th power. 3 billion is 3×10^9 power, as opposed to 300, which is 3×10^2. That number is impossibly large, so your chances are well below any number you could possibly calculate".
VS, it’s impossible for two people to share identical DNA unless they’re identical twins
I’ve recently had my DNA tested with my full biological siblings for hereditary reasons...
Although the results prove we share almost much of the same DNA and are full siblings, each child inherits different amounts of markers etc, hence why some siblings have blue eyes and brown eyes...
-
JB said when he left the rifle from the bunny shooting it was sans silencer and sights.
But Bamber told DB that he removed both sights and moderator because the rifle wouldn't fit in the cupboard with them attached, when police showed that it clearly would...
(https://i.imgur.com/7r1yIWG.jpg)
-
But Bamber told DB that he removed both sights and moderator because the rifle wouldn't fit in the cupboard with them attached, when police showed that it clearly would...
(https://i.imgur.com/7r1yIWG.jpg)
8((()*/
-
You’re wrong, Holly
Identical twins share the same identical DNA
https://atlasbiomed.com/blog/do-siblings-have-the-same-dna-the-facts-on-family-genetics/
Maybe you should tell the scientists on the link Ive given you that they’re wrong...
I didn't say that identical twins don't share the same dna but
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27411-police-can-now-tell-identical-twins-apart-just-melt-their-dna/
-
But Bamber told DB that he removed both sights and moderator because the rifle wouldn't fit in the cupboard with them attached, when police showed that it clearly would...
(https://i.imgur.com/7r1yIWG.jpg)
No he said the rifle with the sights and silencer on wouldn't fit in the case not the cupboard.
Source: MF's trial testimony
-
VS, it’s impossible for two people to share identical DNA unless they’re identical twins
I’ve recently had my DNA tested with my full biological siblings for hereditary reasons...
Although the results prove we share almost much of the same DNA and are full siblings, each child inherits different amounts of markers etc, hence why some siblings have blue eyes and brown eyes...
Statistically it is possible that's why evidence is presented by way of 99.9% and 1 billion to one. Obviously it isn't possible to test everyone on planet earth.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27411-police-can-now-tell-identical-twins-apart-just-melt-their-dna/
-
No he said the rifle with the sights and silencer on wouldn't fit in the case not the cupboard.
Source: MF's trial testimony
Re above.
-
When was the 'original testing' carried out in your opinion?
I do not have an 'opinion' I have been relying on information readily available on the forum; which is why I find it rather bizarre that you are questioning me about the original testing as you seem to be relatively au fait with the information already if the discussions you have taken part in are anything to go by.
Might I add this observation from a discussion you took part in at the beginning of 2014 which I think demonstrates your propensity for plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose ...
Snip
First of all you are distorting. The only shot determined to definitely be a direct contact shot was the fatal shot to Sheila. There were 4 other shots determined that it was possible they were contact shots. The second shot to Sheila was one of these shots. Another was one of the shots to Nevill. A third was the shot between June's eyes. Testimony was that there was a slight chance this was contact shot but most likely it wasn't. The assessment was that 1 of the wounds to Nicholas was close range and it is POSSIBLE that it might even have been a contact wound. The assessment was not that it definitely was a contact wound. The pathologist reported that the only definite contact wound was Sheila's fatal shot.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3418.msg131846#msg131846
___________________________________________________________________________
T'was a good thread that one although a short one and in my opinion your argument took quite a drubbing on it which probably explains why you retired.
Sheila was shot at close range while still alive as were her father and her mother ... so I think there is little doubt as to why their blood ended up in the baffles well inside the moderator.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sorry ... I thought I was replying to Holly and not Gunit ... sometimes it is hard to tell the difference.
-
I do not have an 'opinion' I have been relying on information readily available on the forum; which is why I find it rather bizarre that you are questioning me about the original testing as you seem to be relatively au fait with the information already if the discussions you have taken part in are anything to go by.
Might I add this observation from a discussion you took part in at the beginning of 2014 which I think demonstrates your propensity for plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose ...
Snip
First of all you are distorting. The only shot determined to definitely be a direct contact shot was the fatal shot to Sheila. There were 4 other shots determined that it was possible they were contact shots. The second shot to Sheila was one of these shots. Another was one of the shots to Nevill. A third was the shot between June's eyes. Testimony was that there was a slight chance this was contact shot but most likely it wasn't. The assessment was that 1 of the wounds to Nicholas was close range and it is POSSIBLE that it might even have been a contact wound. The assessment was not that it definitely was a contact wound. The pathologist reported that the only definite contact wound was Sheila's fatal shot.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3418.msg131846#msg131846
___________________________________________________________________________
T'was a good thread that one although a short one and in my opinion your argument took quite a drubbing on it which probably explains why you retired.
Sheila was shot at close range while still alive as were her father and her mother ... so I think there is little doubt as to why their blood ended up in the baffles well inside the moderator.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sorry ... I thought I was replying to Holly and not Gunit ... sometimes it is hard to tell the difference.
All I wanted to explore was the idea that 13 of Sheila's DNA markers were found by someone at some point. It keeps being mentioned but a cite has never been supplied. I thought you might know if it's true or not.
-
I do not have an 'opinion' I have been relying on information readily available on the forum; which is why I find it rather bizarre that you are questioning me about the original testing as you seem to be relatively au fait with the information already if the discussions you have taken part in are anything to go by.
Might I add this observation from a discussion you took part in at the beginning of 2014 which I think demonstrates your propensity for plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose ...
Snip
First of all you are distorting. The only shot determined to definitely be a direct contact shot was the fatal shot to Sheila. There were 4 other shots determined that it was possible they were contact shots. The second shot to Sheila was one of these shots. Another was one of the shots to Nevill. A third was the shot between June's eyes. Testimony was that there was a slight chance this was contact shot but most likely it wasn't. The assessment was that 1 of the wounds to Nicholas was close range and it is POSSIBLE that it might even have been a contact wound. The assessment was not that it definitely was a contact wound. The pathologist reported that the only definite contact wound was Sheila's fatal shot.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3418.msg131846#msg131846
___________________________________________________________________________
T'was a good thread that one although a short one and in my opinion your argument took quite a drubbing on it which probably explains why you retired.
Sheila was shot at close range while still alive as were her father and her mother ... so I think there is little doubt as to why their blood ended up in the baffles well inside the moderator.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sorry ... I thought I was replying to Holly and not Gunit ... sometimes it is hard to tell the difference.
What point(s) are you endeavouring to make?
-
All I wanted to explore was the idea that 13 of Sheila's DNA markers were found by someone at some point. It keeps being mentioned but a cite has never been supplied. I thought you might know if it's true or not.
I think those referring to '13 markers' are mistakingly using the term 'markers' instead of 'bands':
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. However, Miss Groombridge was unable to perform any sort of statistical evaluation of the likelihood of this happening and hence unable to assess the strength of the support. Dr Clayton, whilst acknowledging the respect that he had for Miss Groombridge's views and whilst recognising the possible validity of the point that she made, felt that it was unsafe to draw any such conclusion. Whilst we recognise that there may very well be merit in Miss Groombridge's evidence in this regard, we doubt very much whether a jury would have been prepared to place any significant reliance upon it so that it might have altered any view which they otherwise would have reached.
From Bamber v Regina 2002 appeal
-
All I wanted to explore was the idea that 13 of Sheila's DNA markers were found by someone at some point. It keeps being mentioned but a cite has never been supplied. I thought you might know if it's true or not.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=258.msg4394#msg4394
-
VS, it’s impossible for two people to share identical DNA unless they’re identical twins
I’ve recently had my DNA tested with my full biological siblings for hereditary reasons...
Although the results prove we share almost much of the same DNA and are full siblings, each child inherits different amounts of markers etc, hence why some siblings have blue eyes and brown eyes...
And your point is...?
-
Statistically it is possible that's why evidence is presented by way of 99.9% and 1 billion to one. Obviously it isn't possible to test everyone on planet earth.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27411-police-can-now-tell-identical-twins-apart-just-melt-their-dna/
You still haven’t explained why 1 billion to one is acceptable to you, but 1 trillion is accordimg to you beyomd absurd when there are only 7 billion people on the planet.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=258.msg4394#msg4394
Is this where the idea of 13 markers came from?
The first fact is that these tests took place in 2001.
The second fact is that 13 markers were the amount which, according to the FSS, if found in a 3 person mixture, could be shared by all 3 by chance. The figure 13 has nothing to do with Sheila Caffell.
As 17 of Sheila's 20 markers were found within the mixed results the FSS said this was positive evidence that her DNA was present.
[Point number 496]
The FSS didn't have Sheila's DNA, all they had was her biological mother's. Everyone has 20 DNA markers. Ten from their mother and ten from their father. How, then, did the FSS identify 17 markers as belonging to Sheila?
[Point number 478] http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
Is this where the idea of 13 markers came from?
The first fact is that these tests took place in 2001.
The second fact is that 13 markers were the amount which, according to the FSS, if found in a 3 person mixture, could be shared by all 3 by chance. The figure 13 has nothing to do with Sheila Caffell.
As 17 of Sheila's 20 markers were found within the mixed results the FSS said this was positive evidence that her DNA was present.
[Point number 496]
The FSS didn't have Sheila's DNA, all they had was her biological mother's. Everyone has 20 DNA markers. Ten from their mother and ten from their father. How, then, did the FSS identify 17 markers as belonging to Sheila?
[Point number 478] http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
Snip
DNA. Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell were detected in DNA from the internal swabbings of the sound moderator. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands of DNA would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided much support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator.
NB. It is not known if this DNA came from blood although it is most likely since blood matching Sheila Caffell's blood group was extracted from the sound moderator in 1985.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=261.msg4432#msg4432
-
I think those referring to '13 markers' are mistakingly using the term 'markers' instead of 'bands':
More pathetic pedantry.
-
Criticisms of Spelling and Gramma are not permitted.
-
Snip
DNA. Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell were detected in DNA from the internal swabbings of the sound moderator. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands of DNA would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided much supportfor the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator.
NB. It is not known if this DNA came from blood although it is most likely since blood matching Sheila Caffell's blood group was extracted from the sound moderator in 1985.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=261.msg4432#msg4432
No. The CoA did not establish there was "much support" for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator as you've stated above.
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. However, Miss Groombridge was unable to perform any sort of statistical evaluation of the likelihood of this happening and hence unable to assess the strength of the support. Dr Clayton, whilst acknowledging the respect that he had for Miss Groombridge's views and whilst recognising the possible validity of the point that she made, felt that it was unsafe to draw any such conclusion. Whilst we recognise that there may very well be merit in Miss Groombridge's evidence in this regard, we doubt very much whether a jury would have been prepared to place any significant reliance upon it so that it might have altered any view which they otherwise would have reached.
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.
-
More pathetic pedantry.
Please explain?
-
Is this where the idea of 13 markers came from?
The first fact is that these tests took place in 2001.
The second fact is that 13 markers were the amount which, according to the FSS, if found in a 3 person mixture, could be shared by all 3 by chance. The figure 13 has nothing to do with Sheila Caffell.
As 17 of Sheila's 20 markers were found within the mixed results the FSS said this was positive evidence that her DNA was present.
[Point number 496]
The FSS didn't have Sheila's DNA, all they had was her biological mother's. Everyone has 20 DNA markers. Ten from their mother and ten from their father. How, then, did the FSS identify 17 markers as belonging to Sheila?
[Point number 478] http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
17 bands not markers.
-
Example calculation used for bands:
DNA concentration was determined by electrophoresis in 8% agarose gel. 1µl, 0.5µl and 0.25µl of ?phage/Bst EIIDNA were loaded in the gel to assist the quantification.
1. Add up the sizes of all ? DNA bands to calculate total size of ?phage genome
? genome= 48161 bp
2. Choose a band with a similar size to the plasmid DNA
3.675bp
3. Calculate the percentage of ? DNA genome represented by that ?band.
%= 3.675*100/48161= 7,63%
4. Calculate relative concentration of the selected band:
Stock solution of ? phage DNA contains 500 ng genomic DNA/µl
500 ng genomic DNA/µl* 7.63/100= 38,15ng of 3675 bp band/µl
See third diagram for above calculation
-
Snip
DNA. Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell were detected in DNA from the internal swabbings of the sound moderator. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands of DNA would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided much support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator.
NB. It is not known if this DNA came from blood although it is most likely since blood matching Sheila Caffell's blood group was extracted from the sound moderator in 1985.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=261.msg4432#msg4432
I'm used to talking of markers. How do they differ from bands?
-
No. The CoA did not establish there was "much support" for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator as you've stated above.
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. However, Miss Groombridge was unable to perform any sort of statistical evaluation of the likelihood of this happening and hence unable to assess the strength of the support. Dr Clayton, whilst acknowledging the respect that he had for Miss Groombridge's views and whilst recognising the possible validity of the point that she made, felt that it was unsafe to draw any such conclusion. Whilst we recognise that there may very well be merit in Miss Groombridge's evidence in this regard, we doubt very much whether a jury would have been prepared to place any significant reliance upon it so that it might have altered any view which they otherwise would have reached.
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.
Just to simplify matters.
Let us look at what we know about the Anschutz rifle and more importantly the sound moderator.- the rifle was used to control vermin on the farm
- the blood recovered from the sound moderator was human and had been contributed by three different people (two females and one male)
- it was not possible to 'plant' blood in the position inside the moderator where it was found
Given that the weapon used to murder the family in White House Farm was the Anschutz I think a reasonable deduction can be arrived at from the information I've posted above.
-
I'm used to talking of markers. How do they differ from bands?
A genetic marker is a gene or DNA sequence with a known location on a chromosome that can be used to identify individuals or species.
Electrophoresis a process which enables the sorting of molecules based on size. Using an electric field, molecules (such as DNA) can be made to move through a gel made of agarose or polyacrylamide. The electric field consists of a negative charge at one end which pushes the molecules through the gel, and a positive charge at the other end that pulls the molecules through the gel. The molecules being sorted are dispensed into a well in the gel material. The gel is placed in an electrophoresis chamber, which is then connected to a power source. When the electric current is applied, the larger molecules move more slowly through the gel while the smaller molecules move faster. The different sized molecules form distinct bands on the gel.
-
Just to simplify matters.
Let us look at what we know about the Anschutz rifle and more importantly the sound moderator.- the rifle was used to control vermin on the farm
- the blood recovered from the sound moderator was human and had been contributed by three different people (two females and one male)
- it was not possible to 'plant' blood in the position inside the moderator where it was found
Given that the weapon used to murder the family in White House Farm was the Anschutz I think a reasonable deduction can be arrived at from the information I've posted above.
You are conflating the blood serology tests undertaken in 1985 and the DNA tests undertaken in 2002.
The former found the blood flake matched SC's blood groups which at the time were shared by 8% of the white British population.
The latter 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.
And of course the above doesn't prove how the blood came to be in the silencer.
-
The CoA concluded the following re the DNA tests:
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".
-
You still haven’t explained why 1 billion to one is acceptable to you, but 1 trillion is accordimg to you beyomd absurd when there are only 7 billion people on the planet.
Match Probabilities
A full DNA-17 profile obtained from a crime scene samples compared with a full DNA-17 subject profile will provide a match probability estimated in the order of 1 in a billion (a billion is one thousand million).
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/dna-17-profiling
-
Match Probabilities
A full DNA-17 profile obtained from a crime scene samples compared with a full DNA-17 subject profile will provide a match probability estimated in the order of 1 in a billion (a billion is one thousand million).
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/dna-17-profiling
What does that mean?
-
You are conflating the blood serology tests undertaken in 1985 and the DNA tests undertaken in 2002.
The former found the blood flake matched SC's blood groups which at the time were shared by 8% of the white British population.
The latter 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.
And of course the above doesn't prove how the blood came to be in the silencer.
I am conflating nothing.
My post concerned the finding of human blood deep within the sound moderator of a rifle used to shoot five people.
My post didn't mention anything at all about Sheila Caffell's blood group.
You made the connection which prompted your defensive reaction goes to prove my assertion that a reasonable deduction can be arrived at from the available information. Well done!
-
I am conflating nothing.
My post concerned the finding of human blood deep within the sound moderator of a rifle used to shoot five people.
My post didn't mention anything at all about Sheila Caffell's blood group.
You made the connection which prompted your defensive reaction goes to prove my assertion that a reasonable deduction can be arrived at from the available information. Well done!
You have changed your post quite dramatically since I responded to it:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11431.msg589876#msg589876
-
You have changed your post quite dramatically since I responded to it:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11431.msg589876#msg589876
And you went into my post too to edit your post:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11431.msg589879#msg589879
-
You have changed your post quite dramatically since I responded to it:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11431.msg589876#msg589876
You are mistaken and as a result you are accusing me of impropriety.
I am not stupid enough to change my post "dramatically" in the full knowledge that my name would appear under any dishonest modification.
Of course you may consider changing a typo consisting of one word "dramatic"???
I had originally typed ... "White House Fire".
I changed that to ... "White House Farm" and that is absolutely the only change I made, Fire to Farm.
A quick check of the timings would have avoided your confusion and an attack on my integrity ... please allow me to elucidate.
- « Last Reported: May 11, 2020, 10:30:29 PM »
« Reported By: Brietta »
When a post is reported a record is created in a log and this is a record of my original post complete with typo. Moderators have access to this to allow us to check on reported posts - « Last Edit: May 11, 2020, 10:31:00 PM by Brietta » Which is when I amended the typo in my post
- « Last Edit: May 11, 2020, 10:31:43 PM by Brietta » Which is when I amended the typo in my post within Holly's reply to it, the time of which can be clearly seen below making it an absolute impossibility for me to have performed as I am accused
« Reply #251 on: May 11, 2020, 08:23:57 PM » Holly
-
So he said ! I came across him on another forum, which I joined at the time the TV series was airing (I have since left it).
I specifically asked him if he was involved with the CT. He said that when the CT began to be run by different people , they didn't want to work with him any more. I didn't ask him why. I also don't know when the CT changed its "management", as I don't follow it; nor do I have much to do with Twitter.
I don't know how accurate SL is or isn't in his book, but he seems a tolerant and reasonable man, unlike some "supporters" whom I came across on the same forum!
This is what Scott Lomax told the express in February 2020
“I have met Jeremy Bamber several times in prison. I have also spoken to him on the phone countless times and exchanged around 200 letters with him, since March 2003.
“I first met him at Full Sutton a Prison in October 2004. He is an intelligent man who describes himself as an ‘old pro’ in terms of campaigning.
“He is a very charming man who comes across as very confident but he has always struck me as someone who is putting on a brave face.
“It has always been apparent to me that he is very concerned about pleasing other people, including his supporters. From what I understand from those who knew him before his arrest, he has always been like this and has been too trusting of people who have then let him down. *&^^&
https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1240858/White-House-Farm-where-is-Jeremy-Bamber-today-prison-life-sentence-ITV-series
-
This is what Scott Lomax told the express in February 2020
“I have met Jeremy Bamber several times in prison. I have also spoken to him on the phone countless times and exchanged around 200 letters with him, since March 2003.
“I first met him at Full Sutton a Prison in October 2004. He is an intelligent man who describes himself as an ‘old pro’ in terms of campaigning.
“He is a very charming man who comes across as very confident but he has always struck me as someone who is putting on a brave face.
“It has always been apparent to me that he is very concerned about pleasing other people, including his supporters. From what I understand from those who knew him before his arrest, he has always been like this and has been too trusting of people who have then let him down. *&^^&
https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1240858/White-House-Farm-where-is-Jeremy-Bamber-today-prison-life-sentence-ITV-series
I assume you disagree!
Whether or not Scott Lomax is right or wrong (and I suspect he is partly right and partly wrong), he has, at least, met JB, so, in my opinion, is fully entitled to comment.
-
I assume you disagree!
Scott Lomax is lying to his readers and lying to himself
This is what Scott Lomax told the express in February 2020
“It has always been apparent to me that he is very concerned about pleasing other people, including his supporters. From what I understand from those who knew him before his arrest, he has always been like this and has been too trusting of people who have then let him down.[/i] *&^^&
https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1240858/White-House-Farm-where-is-Jeremy-Bamber-today-prison-life-sentence-ITV-series
Would be interested to know who exactly Lomax is referring to when he states - ‘those who knew him before‘ ?
Re the Osea Road burglary and from someone who knew Bamber before prison
‘According to Barbara Wilson, Nevill Bamber was aware his son was guilty and it troubled him deeply: “He told me himself that Jeremy was responsible for the holiday camp break in. But he never reported him, probably because he hoped it was a lapse on Jeremy’s part.
Jeremy proclaimed himself ‘ashamed’ twenty-five years later: “I shouldn’t have done what I did in the way that I did it.’ He had cause to regret it at his trial in 1986, since the crown prosecution used the burglary as a gauge of his ethics: ‘They tried to say that my actions there mirrored the fact that I was prepared to do a crime out of greed and disrespect for my family.”
Courtesy of Carol Ann Lee from the book ‘The murders at White House Farm’
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zV3WCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=jeremy+bamber+chinese+trick+box&source=bl&ots=jQH-J5AeC1&sig=ACfU3U0BryXpogrDnkw5Ikx_1Yk1kH8qaA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZ6q_iy6vpAhWTilwKHc-SDNQQ6AEwAHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=jeremy%20bamber%20chinese%20trick%20box&f=false
-
No he said the rifle with the sights and silencer on wouldn't fit in the case not the cupboard.
Source: MF's trial testimony
That was only M.Fletcher's cross-examination, but where has Bamber ever claimed anything, whether in his statements, interviews or court testimony, about the fully-equipped rifle being fitted in a case? AP noted that when he saw the complete rifle in the cupboard a week or so before, it wasn't in a case.
-
Could moderators please attend the moderator room please.
-
Could moderators please attend the moderator room please.
You have your own room? How posh is that! @)(++(*
-
You have your own room? How posh is that! @)(++(*
Yes, mods and admins have their own areas away from the public boards.
ETA. It goes without saying that social distancing rules apply.
-
That was only M.Fletcher's cross-examination, but where has Bamber ever claimed anything, whether in his statements, interviews or court testimony, about the fully-equipped rifle being fitted in a case? AP noted that when he saw the complete rifle in the cupboard a week or so before, it wasn't in a case.
-
Just to simplify matters.
Let us look at what we know about the Anschutz rifle and more importantly the sound moderator.- the rifle was used to control vermin on the farm
- the blood recovered from the sound moderator was human and had been contributed by three different people (two females and one male)
- it was not possible to 'plant' blood in the position inside the moderator where it was found
Given that the weapon used to murder the family in White House Farm was the Anschutz I think a reasonable deduction can be arrived at from the information I've posted above.
- The rifle was used to control vermin.
- Unlike the other blood stained exhibits I can't see that the blood supposedly found inside the silencer was subjected to the test to determine human blood:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg315135#msg315135
However we are told a flake of blood measuring a 1/4 of an inch was found trapped under the first and second baffle plate. The flake was apparently cut into 5 parts for the 5 separate blood group tests. The tests showed the flake matched SC's groups which at the time were shared by 8% of the white British population.
- When the silencer was subjected to LCN DNA testing for the 2002 appeal the court 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.
-
Just to simplify matters.
Let us look at what we know about the Anschutz rifle and more importantly the sound moderator.- the rifle was used to control vermin on the farm
- the blood recovered from the sound moderator was human and had been contributed by three different people (two females and one male)
- it was not possible to 'plant' blood in the position inside the moderator where it was found
Given that the weapon used to murder the family in White House Farm was the Anschutz I think a reasonable deduction can be arrived at from the information I've posted above.
I forgot to answer the last point!
It would be reasonable to expect to see a diagram or photographic evidence about exactly where the blood supposedly found inside the silencer was actually found but I haven't seen evidence of either. I've seen it mentioned a diagram existed but I haven't see one. At trial Malcom Fletcher, who was responsible for unassembling the silencer was unsure about exactly where it was found. Same for the biologist John Hayward.
The silencer is easily unassembled:
https://youtu.be/V7SFWHLi9cc
-
I forgot to answer the last point!
It would be reasonable to expect to see a diagram or photographic evidence about exactly where the blood supposedly found inside the silencer was actually found but I haven't seen evidence of either. I've seen it mentioned a diagram existed but I haven't see one. At trial Malcom Fletcher, who was responsible for unassembling the silencer was unsure about exactly where it was found. Same for the biologist John Hayward.
The silencer is easily unassembled:
https://youtu.be/V7SFWHLi9cc
Eg photographic evidence exists for the blood stains on the bible and diagrams exist for the blood stained rifle and debris on the outside of the silencer.
-
Eg photographic evidence exists for the blood stains on the bible and diagrams exist for the blood stained rifle and debris on the outside of the silencer.
Oh I defo think you should include the bible in your attempt for freedom 8((()*/
-
Oh I defo think you should include the bible in your attempt for freedom 8((()*/
8((()*/
-
Oh I defo think you should include the bible in your attempt for freedom 8((()*/
It would be interesting to know whose blood stained the pages but since it has been destroyed with all the other exhibits we will never know.
-
It would be interesting to know whose blood stained the pages but since it has been destroyed with all the other exhibits we will never know.
Wasn’t this bible handed to the surviving relatives Holly?
You might want to rephrase your post - ‘but since it has been destroyed with all the other exhibits‘
Clearly they weren’t all destroyed as you claim
As far as I can see there was nothing of evidential value destroyed pre trial.
My understanding is that post trial the police have a duty to hold trial exhibits indefinitely. Whether their destruction was a genuine oversight or something more sinister who knows?! If JB is innocent those exhibits could almost certainly exonerate him.
And weren’t Bamber’s wetsuit and the Chinese trick box, for example, handed to Aunt Agatha
Why would Bamber handout exhibits to Aunt Agatha if there was a chance these could ‘exonerate’ him?
“in 2002 the CCRC displayed a willingness to use their powers to examine the full circumstances surrounding the destruction of evidence in 1996. JB instructed Turner QC to decline this offer to investigate. What reason has JB given for his decision?
Why did Bamber appear to allow the bible go to the relatives in 2006
-
It would be interesting to know whose blood stained the pages but since it has been destroyed with all the other exhibits we will never know.
How many times have you been here before Holly?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10186.msg573760#msg573760
-
It would be interesting to know whose blood stained the pages but since it has been destroyed with all the other exhibits we will never know.
[12] A5-08-06 Details that the Bible was not destroyed, but given to the relatives who were ‘unable to locate it for the Appeal of 2002.’ (foot of page) https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/the-bloodied-bible
The relatives didn’t have the bible in 2002 so how did the CT expect them to produce it for 2002 appeal?
And why are the relatives being blamed for this?
The OS states,
“Evidence suggests that the Bible in question was not destroyed back in the 1980’s moreover, it is probable that it is in existence today. Police gave possession of it back to Jeremy’s extended relatives who benefited financially from his conviction.”
Has Bamber told the CT to publish these words or are they the words of a CT member?
There should be documentation related to the relatives receiving the bible and it’s highly likely Bamber has copies
-
How many times have you been here before Holly?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10186.msg573760#msg573760
About as many times as most other regulars here I would think.
I hope you're not missing anything on SM. I rely on you for intelligence gathering.
Have they said anything today? Poppy? Michelle? Trudy?
-
No he said the rifle with the sights and silencer on wouldn't fit in the case not the cupboard.
Source: MF's trial testimony
Bamber wrote to Mike Tesko about the rifle and silencer being photographed in the gun cupboard Holly - page 4 here https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=229.0
-
About as many times as most other regulars here I would think.
I hope you're not missing anything on SM. I rely on you for intelligence gathering.
Have they said anything today? Poppy? Michelle? Trudy?
Which bible was handed back to the relatives Holly
-
But Bamber told DB that he removed both sights and moderator because the rifle wouldn't fit in the cupboard with them attached, when police showed that it clearly would...
(https://i.imgur.com/7r1yIWG.jpg)
Well, that’s ANOTHER lie Jeremy Bamber has told...who’s going to dispute that, I wonder?
Briatt, I thought he said when he took the rifle both the silencer and scope were unattached...but did he also say somewhere that he took them off ?
-
I didn't say that identical twins don't share the same dna but
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27411-police-can-now-tell-identical-twins-apart-just-melt-their-dna/
You INFERRED it when you said: “ Fingerprint evidence is actually more reliable than DNA as no two people share the same fingerprints not even identical twins.”
Is that not inferring identical twins don’t share the same DNA?
Quote from: Holly Goodhead on May 10, 2020, 01:25:00 PM
Because statistically it is possible for two people to share the same dna. Often it is presented by way of a % which is close to 100%. In paternity testing it is presented as 99.9%.
Fingerprint evidence is actually more reliable than DNA as no two people share the same fingerprints not even identical twins.
-
You INFERRED it when you said: “ Fingerprint evidence is actually more reliable than DNA as no two people share the same fingerprints not even identical twins.”
Is that not inferring identical twins don’t share the same DNA?
Quote from: Holly Goodhead on May 10, 2020, 01:25:00 PM
Because statistically it is possible for two people to share the same dna. Often it is presented by way of a % which is close to 100%. In paternity testing it is presented as 99.9%.
Fingerprint evidence is actually more reliable than DNA as no two people share the same fingerprints not even identical twins.
That's your interpretation.
-
Just to simplify matters.
Let us look at what we know about the Anschutz rifle and more importantly the sound moderator.- the rifle was used to control vermin on the farm
- the blood recovered from the sound moderator was human and had been contributed by three different people (two females and one male)
- it was not possible to 'plant' blood in the position inside the moderator where it was found
Given that the weapon used to murder the family in White House Farm was the Anschutz I think a reasonable deduction can be arrived at from the information I've posted above.
Excellent point, Briatt.
And as the rifle was almost brand new and had only been used by men — how strange that TWO WOMENS’ blood was found inside and two women were murdered that night: Sheila and June. And how strange that one of women’s blood samples proved it had SEVENTEEN identical markers matching Sheila’s...
-
What does that mean?
It means the blood was Sheila’s
Holly s posting up the desperate attempts of the DEFENCE to try and imply the blood “may” not have been Sheila’s, despite the FACT all 17 out of 20 markers proved categorically that the chances of the blood belonging to anyone else was billions to one.
I read somewhere it was TRILLION to one...
Whatever, even if mathematics and logic confuse some people, I’d say that anyone would agree they’re jolly high odds 🤔
-
It means the blood was Sheila’s
Holly s posting up the desperate attempts of the DEFENCE to try and imply the blood “may” not have been Sheila’s, despite the FACT all 17 out of 20 markers proved categorically that the chances of the blood belonging to anyone else was billions to one.
I read somewhere it was TRILLION to one...
Whatever, even if mathematics and logic confuse some people, I’d say that anyone would agree they’re jolly high odds 🤔
This is what the Appeal Court decided;
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.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
It means the blood was Sheila’s
Holly s posting up the desperate attempts of the DEFENCE to try and imply the blood “may” not have been Sheila’s, despite the FACT all 17 out of 20 markers proved categorically that the chances of the blood belonging to anyone else was billions to one.
I read somewhere it was TRILLION to one...
Whatever, even if mathematics and logic confuse some people, I’d say that anyone would agree they’re jolly high odds 🤔
I don't believe blood was ever in the silencer. Its a massive hoax.
-
Scott Lomax is lying to his readers and lying to himself
Would be interested to know who exactly Lomax is referring to when he states - ‘those who knew him before‘ ?
Re the Osea Road burglary and from someone who knew Bamber before prison
‘According to Barbara Wilson, Nevill Bamber was aware his son was guilty and it troubled him deeply: “He told me himself that Jeremy was responsible for the holiday camp break in. But he never reported him, probably because he hoped it was a lapse on Jeremy’s part.
Jeremy proclaimed himself ‘ashamed’ twenty-five years later: “I shouldn’t have done what I did in the way that I did it.’ He had cause to regret it at his trial in 1986, since the crown prosecution used the burglary as a gauge of his ethics: ‘They tried to say that my actions there mirrored the fact that I was prepared to do a crime out of greed and disrespect for my family.”
Courtesy of Carol Ann Lee from the book ‘The murders at White House Farm’
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zV3WCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=jeremy+bamber+chinese+trick+box&source=bl&ots=jQH-J5AeC1&sig=ACfU3U0BryXpogrDnkw5Ikx_1Yk1kH8qaA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZ6q_iy6vpAhWTilwKHc-SDNQQ6AEwAHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=jeremy%20bamber%20chinese%20trick%20box&f=false
I’ve noticed when Jeremy Bamber has no choice but to admit to one of his crimes or actions, he always says something revealing, albeit unwittingly
Your post above for example — here he says:
“I shouldn’t have done what I did in the way that I did it.”
Note the last part: “in the way that I did it”
It was the same when said he shouldn’t have “acted” the way he did at the funerals.
It’s like he talks aloud without realising it. What he’s REALLY saying is he regrets getting caught out and should have carried out his acts differently.
-
That was only M.Fletcher's cross-examination, but where has Bamber ever claimed anything, whether in his statements, interviews or court testimony, about the fully-equipped rifle being fitted in a case? AP noted that when he saw the complete rifle in the cupboard a week or so before, it wasn't in a case.
He claimed the rifle wouldn’t fit in the cupboard with the silencer and scope attached. And that was a lie.
-
Wow, how Jeremy trips himself up SO badly!!
Lied about not knowing if the rifle fitted in the cupboard
Lied that the rifle seldom had silencer and scope attached
Lied saying rabbits scatter when shot at with a silencer attached
He’s definitely thick
-
This is what the Appeal Court decided;
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.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
What was June’s blood doing in there then?
-
Wasn’t this bible handed to the surviving relatives Holly?
You might want to rephrase your post - ‘but since it has been destroyed with all the other exhibits‘
Clearly they weren’t all destroyed as you claim
And weren’t Bamber’s wetsuit and the Chinese trick box, for example, handed to Aunt Agatha
Why would Bamber handout exhibits to Aunt Agatha if there was a chance these could ‘exonerate’ him?
Ooooooh...
This is interesting !!
Why would Jeremy Bamber the court’s HELP ?😌
-
What was June’s blood doing in there then?
The CoA concluded June's DNA was in the silencer. The DNA tests were based on LCN which works off small invisible to the eye degraded samples where it isn't possible to identify the source of the cellular material. Jurors handled the silencers along with other exhibits. It could be June's DNA by way of a single skin cell deposited inside the silencer.
-
What was June’s blood doing in there then?
It may or may not have been blood;
487. The evidence reveals that the form of DNA testing carried out was Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA profiling. This form of DNA profiling is designated to increase the sensitivity of earlier types of DNA profiling so that, in theory, only a few cells are required for successful analysis. As a result mixed DNA profiles, (i.e. profiles containing DNA originating from more than one individual) can be anticipated. LCN DNA profiling tests do not provide any information about the type of body fluid tested or when it was deposited on the item.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
I don't believe blood was ever in the silencer. Its a massive hoax.
Funny that because I am starting to believe it wasn't - a hoax that is. I'm not so sure that it was found in the way suggested though.
-
It may or may not have been blood;
487. The evidence reveals that the form of DNA testing carried out was Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA profiling. This form of DNA profiling is designated to increase the sensitivity of earlier types of DNA profiling so that, in theory, only a few cells are required for successful analysis. As a result mixed DNA profiles, (i.e. profiles containing DNA originating from more than one individual) can be anticipated. LCN DNA profiling tests do not provide any information about the type of body fluid tested or when it was deposited on the item.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
This must surely be familiar to those who have looked at the case of MM.
-
I don't believe blood was ever in the silencer. Its a massive hoax.
You do realise that makes you look deluded, don’t you?
-
I’ve noticed when Jeremy Bamber has no choice but to admit to one of his crimes or actions, he always says something revealing, albeit unwittingly
Your post above for example — here he says:
“I shouldn’t have done what I did in the way that I did it.”
Note the last part: “in the way that I did it”
It was the same when said he shouldn’t have “acted” the way he did at the funerals.
It’s like he talks aloud without realising it. What he’s REALLY saying is he regrets getting caught out and should have carried out his acts differently.
8((()*/
-
I’ve never seen any mention made by JM about the gun case.
He claimed the rifle wouldn’t fit in the cupboard with the silencer and scope attached. And that was a lie.
8((()*/
-
What was June’s blood doing in there then?
Holly says it’s all a hoax 😌
There was NO blood in the baffles. No back spatter. No dried flake of blood. No red paint matching the mantel.
It was all a figment of the forensic scientists imagination, *%87
-
I don't believe blood was ever in the silencer. Its a massive hoax.
The ‘hoax’ Holly is the BS Bamber has clearly sucked you into
-
Bamber wrote to Mike Tesko about the rifle and silencer being photographed in the gun cupboard Holly - page 4 here https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=229.0
quote author=Nicholas link=topic=11431.msg590188#msg590188 date=1589383165]
Bamber wrote to Mike Tesko about the rifle and silencer being photographed in the gun cupboard Holly - page 4 here https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=229.0
[/quote]
It’s obvious that the police were actually being fair to Jeremy.
They took the rifle back to WHF (you can see the police label exhibit attached) and with the silencer attached they placed it in the cupboard to see it it would fit. And it did. And they took photographs as PROOF.
Slightly off topic, but HB does bang on to MT about not getting psychics involved. Many people mock them, but even the police themselves have sometimes used them. So why was JB panicking so much about MT using one? If some people thought it was stupid how could it have harmed his appeal? If anything, it could have gone in his favour if he was seen to be so desperate to clear his name he’d try absolutely anything at all.
I wonder if JB was lying to Mike Tesko...maybe JB DOES think some psychics can speak to the dead? Maybe he was scared that the psychic would tell MT that she got messages from the family and they said Jeremy had killed them? He wrote about five pages insisting MT shouldn’t use a psychic, and I don’t believe he was worried that people would laugh at them seeking a psychics help, when the police themselves have used them.
Another abnormal thing in his letters to MT was how he referred to his mum, dad, sister and nephews as “the deceased”. Who calls their lost loved ones “deceased”...?😖
-
It may or may not have been blood;
487. The evidence reveals that the form of DNA testing carried out was Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA profiling. This form of DNA profiling is designated to increase the sensitivity of earlier types of DNA profiling so that, in theory, only a few cells are required for successful analysis. As a result mixed DNA profiles, (i.e. profiles containing DNA originating from more than one individual) can be anticipated. LCN DNA profiling tests do not provide any information about the type of body fluid tested or when it was deposited on the item.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
OK, let me re-phrase that. What was June’s body fluid doing inside the silencer?
-
I don't believe blood was ever in the silencer. Its a massive hoax.
Perpetrated by whom? How many individuals are involved in the hoax and why?
-
This must surely be familiar to those who have looked at the case of MM.
Yes indeed. That's why I referred to markers rather than bands because that was what the FSS spoke about in that case. All the samples in that case were mixed and they couldn't say how many people contributed to the mix or draw any meaningful conclusions about whose DNA was in the mix. Five years after the Bamber case the FSS were much less sure about mixed samples.
-
OK, let me re-phrase that. What was June’s body fluid doing inside the silencer?
They put it down to contamination.
-
They put it down to contamination.
Deliberate contamination if Holly’s earlier comment is anything to go by...
-
Deliberate contamination if Holly’s earlier comment is anything to go by...
It's unlikely to have been deliberate. They weren't as careful back then as they are now because they weren't concerned about DNA. It only took someone who had handled something with June's DNA on it and then touched the silencer or inspected the silencer in an area that previously had an item from June on it and June's DNA ends up contaminating it.
-
It's unlikely to have been deliberate. They weren't as careful back then as they are now because they weren't concerned about DNA. It only took someone who had handled something with June's DNA on it and then touched the silencer or inspected the silencer in an area that previously had an item from June on it and June's DNA ends up contaminating it.
I thought the “body fluids” were found deep inside the silencer with indications of “back spatter” which is not conducive with the scenario you paint above, imo.
-
Holly says it’s all a hoax 😌
There was NO blood in the baffles. No back spatter. No dried flake of blood. No red paint matching the mantel.
It was all a figment of the forensic scientists imagination, *%87
Perhaps you can explain the following then:
- The drawback phenemenon is not usually observed with. 22 rifles and low velocity ammo.
- A silencer makes it less likely still.
- When it is observed it usually involves contact gunshot wounds to the head
- When it is observed it usually includes tissue with the blood
- No comparable cases in criminal history where blood inside a silencer underpins a conviction.
- None of the forensic literature, research, tests include drawback with a silencer
- No tests/modelling have been undertaken to establish whether the drawback phenemenon is possible with the rifle, ammo and silencer.
- The blood flake inside the silencer was the only blood stained exhibit capable of yielding the results claimed.
- The non-porous blood stained rifle was unable to yield any results beyond human in origin
- Blood analysed by serology requires good quality samples of a certain quantity. Heat and humidity are known to degrade samples rendering them useless for serological analysis. The blood flake had to withstand heat from firearm discharge, humidity in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber and gunshot residue.
- Victims' blood samples were analysed for:
- Antigens - ABO
- Haptoglobin - HP - Protein
- Phosphoglucomutase - PGM - Enzyme
- Adenylate Kinase - AK - Enzyme
- Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase - EAP - Enzyme
The samples yielded results for all the above.
The blood flake in the silencer was analysed but unable to yield a result for the enzyme PGM. At trial John Hayward told the court PGM is less stable than AK and EAP. This contradicts advice. I was given by the Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Research Institute in California that PGM is more stable than AK and EAP which begs the question how/why in this case the flake was unable to yield a result for PGM? This is currently being reviewed by a forensic scientist in private practice along with other 'evidence'.
-
This is currently being reviewed by a forensic scientist in private practice along with other 'evidence'.
Won’t make any difference Holly - Bamber’s murder convictions won’t be overturned
-
the flake was unable to yield a result for PGM? This is currently being reviewed by a forensic scientist in private practice along with other 'evidence'.
Wasn’t the flake tested to destruction
What exactly is this person reviewing
-
Yes indeed. That's why I referred to markers rather than bands because that was what the FSS spoke about in that case. All the samples in that case were mixed and they couldn't say how many people contributed to the mix or draw any meaningful conclusions about whose DNA was in the mix. Five years after the Bamber case the FSS were much less sure about mixed samples.
Both markers and bands are relevant terms
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11431.msg589877#msg589877
Re this aspect of the case (plse refer to coa doc) the court was referring to bands which are the end result of the tests. I gave an example of how the tests work using gel electrophoresis and present as bands:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11431.msg589873#msg589873
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gel_electrophoresis
-
Both markers and bands are relevant terms
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11431.msg589877#msg589877
Re this aspect of the case (plse refer to coa doc) the court was referring to bands which are the end result of the tests. I gave an example of how the tests work using gel electrophoresis and present as bands:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11431.msg589873#msg589873
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gel_electrophoresis
Makes no difference what you did Holly
Where I've placed ? I've been unable to decipher the word.
Jeremy Bamber A5352AC
HM Wakefield WF29AG
Dear xxxx - Sorry about the moths. Please have xxxxxxx/xxx contact xxxxx on my web site. Anyway I've done a huge piece of work on bullets and bullet cases. Those charts you sent are actual case ones (main bedroom) but they were not actually true - the police made them up. DC Hammersley the DRH acronym was not at the scene ? morning on 07.08.85. The 4th soc officer is DC Henderson. He collected all the exhibits, dad was not shot or wounded upstairs ? all. Sheila's feet ? blood stained photos not disclosed til 2011. The finger print stuff - there ? around 300 photos of prints taken from the bible, we want those photos examined. Thanks always. Jeremy.
Just as it’ll make no difference if the photos of the bible are examined
-
Wasn’t the flake tested to destruction
What exactly is this person reviewing
Holly previously said the flake never existed in the first place (&^&
-
Holly previously said the flake never existed in the first place (&^&
Suspect Bamber’s ‘methodology’ has rubbed off on her *&^^&
-
Deliberate contamination if Holly’s earlier comment is anything to go by...
In terms of how June's DNA probably came to be in the silencer:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11431.msg589761#msg589761
The silencer is easily unassembled:
https://youtu.be/V7SFWHLi9cc
-
Holly previously said the flake never existed in the first place (&^&
Perhaps you can explain the following:
Perhaps you can explain the following then:
- The drawback phenemenon is not usually observed with. 22 rifles and low velocity ammo.
- A silencer makes it less likely still.
- When it is observed it usually involves contact gunshot wounds to the head
- When it is observed it usually includes tissue with the blood
- No comparable cases in criminal history where blood inside a silencer underpins a conviction.
- None of the forensic literature, research, tests include drawback with a silencer
- No tests/modelling have been undertaken to establish whether the drawback phenemenon is possible with the rifle, ammo and silencer.
- The blood flake inside the silencer was the only blood stained exhibit capable of yielding the results claimed.
- The non-porous blood stained rifle was unable to yield any results beyond human in origin
- Blood analysed by serology requires good quality samples of a certain quantity. Heat and humidity are known to degrade samples rendering them useless for serological analysis. The blood flake had to withstand heat from firearm discharge, humidity in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber and gunshot residue.
- Victims' blood samples were analysed for:
- Antigens - ABO
- Haptoglobin - HP - Protein
- Phosphoglucomutase - PGM - Enzyme
- Adenylate Kinase - AK - Enzyme
- Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase - EAP - Enzyme
The samples yielded results for all the above.
The blood flake in the silencer was analysed but unable to yield a result for the enzyme PGM. At trial John Hayward told the court PGM is less stable than AK and EAP. This contradicts advice. I was given by the Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Research Institute in California that PGM is more stable than AK and EAP which begs the question how/why in this case the flake was unable to yield a result for PGM? This is currently being reviewed by a forensic scientist in private practice along with other 'evidence'
-
In terms of how June's DNA probably came to be in the silencer:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11431.msg589761#msg589761
The silencer is easily unassembled:
https://youtu.be/V7SFWHLi9cc
What did Bamber write to you about un-assembling the silencer Holly ?
-
Perhaps you can explain the following:
Perhaps you can explain the following then:
- The drawback phenemenon is not usually observed with. 22 rifles and low velocity ammo.
- A silencer makes it less likely still.
- When it is observed it usually involves contact gunshot wounds to the head
- When it is observed it usually includes tissue with the blood
- No comparable cases in criminal history where blood inside a silencer underpins a conviction.
- None of the forensic literature, research, tests include drawback with a silencer
- No tests/modelling have been undertaken to establish whether the drawback phenemenon is possible with the rifle, ammo and silencer.
- The blood flake inside the silencer was the only blood stained exhibit capable of yielding the results claimed.
- The non-porous blood stained rifle was unable to yield any results beyond human in origin
- Blood analysed by serology requires good quality samples of a certain quantity. Heat and humidity are known to degrade samples rendering them useless for serological analysis. The blood flake had to withstand heat from firearm discharge, humidity in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber and gunshot residue.
- Victims' blood samples were analysed for:
- Antigens - ABO
- Haptoglobin - HP - Protein
- Phosphoglucomutase - PGM - Enzyme
- Adenylate Kinase - AK - Enzyme
- Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase - EAP - Enzyme
The samples yielded results for all the above.
The blood flake in the silencer was analysed but unable to yield a result for the enzyme PGM. At trial John Hayward told the court PGM is less stable than AK and EAP. This contradicts advice. I was given by the Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Research Institute in California that PGM is more stable than AK and EAP which begs the question how/why in this case the flake was unable to yield a result for PGM? This is currently being reviewed by a forensic scientist in private practice along with other 'evidence'
There’s nothing to explain Holly
-
Suspect Bamber’s ‘methodology’ has rubbed off on her *&^^&
Nope. I'm afraid you're wrong. I attempted to assist JB with this but like the 'where NB was shot' he had his own ideas so I gave up.
-
Nope. I'm afraid you're wrong.
Doesn’t appear that I am Holly
-
I attempted to assist JB with this but like the 'where NB was shot' he had his own ideas so I gave up.
Bamber knows where he shot his dad Holly - he’s playing games with you
-
Nope. I'm afraid you're wrong. I attempted to assist JB with this but like the 'where NB was shot' he had his own ideas so I gave up.
What chart did you send that he claimed was made up by police
-
Perhaps you can explain the following:
Perhaps you can explain the following then:
- The drawback phenemenon is not usually observed with. 22 rifles and low velocity ammo.
- A silencer makes it less likely still.
- When it is observed it usually involves contact gunshot wounds to the head
- When it is observed it usually includes tissue with the blood
- No comparable cases in criminal history where blood inside a silencer underpins a conviction.
- None of the forensic literature, research, tests include drawback with a silencer
- No tests/modelling have been undertaken to establish whether the drawback phenemenon is possible with the rifle, ammo and silencer.
- The blood flake inside the silencer was the only blood stained exhibit capable of yielding the results claimed.
- The non-porous blood stained rifle was unable to yield any results beyond human in origin
- Blood analysed by serology requires good quality samples of a certain quantity. Heat and humidity are known to degrade samples rendering them useless for serological analysis. The blood flake had to withstand heat from firearm discharge, humidity in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber and gunshot residue.
- Victims' blood samples were analysed for:
- Antigens - ABO
- Haptoglobin - HP - Protein
- Phosphoglucomutase - PGM - Enzyme
- Adenylate Kinase - AK - Enzyme
- Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase - EAP - Enzyme
The samples yielded results for all the above.
The blood flake in the silencer was analysed but unable to yield a result for the enzyme PGM. At trial John Hayward told the court PGM is less stable than AK and EAP. This contradicts advice. I was given by the Chief Forensic Serologist at the Serological Research Institute in California that PGM is more stable than AK and EAP which begs the question how/why in this case the flake was unable to yield a result for PGM? This is currently being reviewed by a forensic scientist in private practice along with other 'evidence'
So the blood flake DID exist — and still does?
You said it was a hoax 😳
I take it this specialist in America will be able to determine the DNA belongs to Sheila, and I take it he’ll be able to say how red paint from the mantel managed to plop itself on the end of the silencer?
I also take it that this specialist will also be able to determine that Sheila must have had the strength of the Incredible Hulk and the magical powers of Superman to have been able to beat Nevill to a pulp in the kitchen, then fly through the air upstairs avoiding treading on all his blood on the kitchen floor, all the sugar that overturned, and all the thousands of shards of glass from the broken lampshade ?
-
So the blood flake DID exist — and still does?
You said it was a hoax 😳
I take it this specialist in America will be able to determine the DNA belongs to Sheila, and I take it he’ll be able to say how red paint from the mantel managed to plop itself on the end of the silencer?
I also take it that this specialist will also be able to determine that Sheila must have had the strength of the Incredible Hulk and the magical powers of Superman to have been able to beat Nevill to a pulp in the kitchen, then fly through the air upstairs avoiding treading on all his blood on the kitchen floor, all the sugar that overturned, and all the thousands of shards of glass from the broken lampshade ?
a ‘hoax’ her and ‘a forensic scientist’ are reviewing @)(++(*
This is currently being reviewed by a forensic scientist in private practice along with other 'evidence'
-
So the blood flake DID exist — and still does?
You said it was a hoax 😳
I take it this specialist in America will be able to determine the DNA belongs to Sheila, and I take it he’ll be able to say how red paint from the mantel managed to plop itself on the end of the silencer?
What evidence exists to show a flake of blood was trapped under the first/second baffle? A diagram or photograph?
-
What evidence exists to show a flake of blood was trapped under the first/second baffle? A diagram or photograph?
The dried blood flake which contained 17 of Sheila’s blood markers was found on the eighth baffle: you know that.
This repetition of yours is highlighting Jeremy Bamber’s guilt: the videos you hunt through on YouTube throw even more light on how impossible it was that Sheila killed everyone, then herself.
You’ve posted a YouTube video of a man cleaning his silencer, and in doing so, you’ve thrown more evidence to show Jeremy Bamber removed that silencer after killing Sheila. He also removed the barrel protector and replaced it after slaughtering his family.
You see, after removing a silencer you then have to screw the protector back onto the rifle’s barrel. And the rifle found laying on Sheila’s lap had the protector on its barrel.
That means:
Sheila would’ve had to have shot herself in her neck the one time, with the silencer attached
That shot didn’t kill her, though. So, according to your imagination instead of her unscrewing the silencer and tossing it on the floor, then shooting herself yet again in the neck, she decided to stumble downstairs pouring with blood, half paralysed, dazed, dizzy, shocked, and psychotic.
Almost near collapse due to loss of blood — yet miraculously not one drop of blood fell down onto her nightdress, body, legs, feet, carpet — she went to the kitchen and gave the silencer a rinse under the tap and meticulously made sure no blood was left in the sink; she then walked across Nevill’s blood, sugar and glass; went to the cupboard, bent down without any blood dripping from her neck, throat, nose or mouth, placed the silencer in a box at the very back of the cupboard, and closed the box.
She THEN, in her psychotic state, decided to find the barrel protector she’d removed, managed to find it amongst all the mess and upheaval, but still in her frenzy as she struggled to breathe due to the pressure of blood ballooning in her neck and throat, she caught sight of it, screwed it back on, and walked upstairs without leaving a single footprint...
She then walked into the master bedroom, avoided stepping on June’s blood, laid down at an angle, pressed her bloodied handprint inside the Bible, closed it, opened it again — and then shot herself a second time.
Besides all the obvious, you tell everyone WHY Sheila not only removed the silencer and put it in the cupboard — for NO reason whatsoever — and THEN, still in her psychotic state decided to hunt for that small barrel protector which must have been uppermost in her mind (wouldn’t it yours after having blown your two sons brains out; your father’s and your mother’s), and then screw that terribly important protector back on the barrel?
What would have made that barrel protector more important to her than anything else?
-
The dried blood flake which contained 17 of Sheila’s blood markers was found on the eighth baffle: you know that.
This repetition of yours is highlighting Jeremy Bamber’s guilt: the videos you hunt through on YouTube throw even more light on how impossible it was that Sheila killed everyone, then herself.
You’ve posted a YouTube video of a man cleaning his silencer, and in doing so, you’ve thrown more evidence to show Jeremy Bamber removed that silencer after killing Sheila. He also removed the barrel protector and replaced it after slaughtering his family.
You see, after removing a silencer you then have to screw the protector back onto the rifle’s barrel. And the rifle found laying on Sheila’s lap had the protector on its barrel.
That means:
Sheila would’ve had to have shot herself in her neck the one time, with the silencer attached
That shot didn’t kill her, though. So, according to your imagination instead of her unscrewing the silencer and tossing it on the floor, then shooting herself yet again in the neck, she decided to stumble downstairs pouring with blood, half paralysed, dazed, dizzy, shocked, and psychotic.
Almost near collapse due to loss of blood — yet miraculously not one drop of blood fell down onto her nightdress, body, legs, feet, carpet — she went to the kitchen and gave the silencer a rinse under the tap and meticulously made sure no blood was left in the sink; she then walked across Nevill’s blood, sugar and glass; went to the cupboard, bent down without any blood dripping from her neck, throat, nose or mouth, placed the silencer in a box at the very back of the cupboard, and closed the box.
She THEN, in her psychotic state, decided to find the barrel protector she’d removed, managed to find it amongst all the mess and upheaval, but still in her frenzy as she struggled to breathe due to the pressure of blood ballooning in her neck and throat, she caught sight of it, screwed it back on, and walked upstairs without leaving a single footprint...
She then walked into the master bedroom, avoided stepping on June’s blood, laid down at an angle, pressed her bloodied handprint inside the Bible, closed it, opened it again — and then shot herself a second time.
Besides all the obvious, you tell everyone WHY Sheila not only removed the silencer and put it in the cupboard — for NO reason whatsoever — and THEN, still in her psychotic state decided to hunt for that small barrel protector which must have been uppermost in her mind (wouldn’t it yours after having blown your two sons brains out; your father’s and your mother’s), and then screw that terribly important protector back on the barrel?
What would have made that barrel protector more important to her than anything else?
There was no thread protector on the end of the rifle when it was found, as is obvious in the crime scene photo...
-
Snip/
The dried blood flake which contained 17 of Sheila’s blood markers was found on the eighth baffle: you know that.
Mr Hayward found a flake of blood under the first or second baffle plate. He mentioned no markers as he tested the flake for blood groups, not for DNA markers. When DNA tests were carried out 14-15 years later the flake of blood no longer existed, Haywards tests destroyed it.
-
No you're not correct.
At the time of JB's trial DNA testing was unavailable. All that was available was testing by way of blood serology which produces blood groupings. Most will be familiar with the ABO groups. In addition to this it was possible to identify enzymes and proteins but these are not statistically individuallising being shared by 8% of the white British population. Eg given JB's relatives found and handled the silencer they were asked to provide samples and it was found that JB/SC's adoptive uncle shared the same blood groups as SC.
With the advent of DNA the silencer was reexamined. There was no visible blood, we are told it was all swabbed away for the initial serology testing, hence it was analysed by way of LCN DNA testing. The CCRC referred the case to the CoA as at this stage it was thought SC's DNA was not in the silencer but June's was along with an unidentified male. This fitted the defence case at trial that SC used the silencer throughout the shootings and removed before shooting herself with the blood flake representing an 'intimate mix' of NB's and June's blood.
However when all the scientists for the defence and prosecution got together at appeal the appeal judges 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.
You will no doubt recall from the MM case that LCN DNA tests works off very small invisible to the naked eye cellular samples where it isn't possible to identify the source and all the issues with contamination.
In this case at trial it is known jurors unassembled the silencer and handled it alongside other blood stained exhibits and it was thought June's DNA may have been in the silencer from contamination as opposed to the shootings.
Sources: Dr Lincoln's report and Bamber v Regina.
What items containing June’s blood were physically handled by the jurors? When was this blood flake examined? Pre or post trial?
-
When the FSS tested swabs from the moderator for DNA they had no samples of June Bamber's or Sheila Caffell's DNA to compare the results with. They used Pamela Boutflour's DNA to represent June's DNA and Sheila's natural mother's DNA to represent her's.
It's impossible to know, however, how similar Pamela's DNA was to June's, because siblings only share 50% of their DNA. Similarly children inherit only 50% of their DNA from their mothers and 50% from their fathers.
In my opinion there was a lot of guesswork involved because they didn't have access to the full DNA profiles of June and Sheila. The best match they could have got is 50% in both examples.
-
When the FSS tested swabs from the moderator for DNA they had no samples of June Bamber's or Sheila Caffell's DNA to compare the results with. They used Pamela Boutflour's DNA to represent June's DNA and Sheila's natural mother's DNA to represent her's.
It's impossible to know, however, how similar Pamela's DNA was to June's, because siblings only share 50% of their DNA. Similarly children inherit only 50% of their DNA from their mothers and 50% from their fathers.
In my opinion there was a lot of guesswork involved because they didn't have access to the full DNA profiles of June and Sheila. The best match they could have got is 50% in both examples.
Why, when there was blood stained items sll over the place did they not have smples of either of the women’s DNA?
-
There was no thread protector on the end of the rifle when it was found, as is obvious in the crime scene photo...
Thank you for pointing that out, Myster — I’d not studied the photo properly — I should have done 8((()*/
However, what this evidence now establishes is that Jeremy Bamber’s claims that Sheila used the rifle without a silencer attached, is impossible. Nevill always kept the silencer attached, hence why the barrel protector was never used. Therefore, when JB claimed he went to shoot bunny rabbits and found the rifle without the silencer being screwed on — he was lying.
-
Mr Hayward found a flake of blood under the first or second baffle plate. He mentioned no markers as he tested the flake for blood groups, not for DNA markers. When DNA tests were carried out 14-15 years later the flake of blood no longer existed, Haywards tests destroyed it.
The blood flake was found on the eighth baffle.
In the first forensic test in 1985 13 out of 20 blood markers belonging to Sheila were identified.
In or around 2002 the blood sample was analysed again, using more advanced methods, and the scientists found SEVENTEEN of Sheila’s blood markers: meaning the blood HAD to be Sheila’s.
I have read the OFFICIAL FACTS several times, and will find them for you — but you’ll still refuse to believe the evidence...
-
Why, when there was blood stained items sll over the place did they not have smples of either of the women’s DNA?
EP collected samples then destroyed them in February 1996.
-
When the FSS tested swabs from the moderator for DNA they had no samples of June Bamber's or Sheila Caffell's DNA to compare the results with. They used Pamela Boutflour's DNA to represent June's DNA and Sheila's natural mother's DNA to represent her's.
It's impossible to know, however, how similar Pamela's DNA was to June's, because siblings only share 50% of their DNA. Similarly children inherit only 50% of their DNA from their mothers and 50% from their fathers.
In my opinion there was a lot of guesswork involved because they didn't have access to the full DNA profiles of June and Sheila. The best match they could have got is 50% in both examples.
Scientists don’t do “guess work”, Gunit...
They may provide probabilities on evidence presented to them if they have little to work on, but their “probabilities” aren’t guesses plucked out of the air.
In any event, June and Pamela were full siblings, and whilst they shared 50% identical DNA the results would have been compelling.
-
EP collected samples then destroyed them in February 1996.
We all know how incompetent EP were back then, but they certainly didn’t destroy everything.
How do you think scientists tested Sheila’s blood in 2002?
Jeremy Bamber isn’t the sharpest tool in the box, but he certainly had a degree of foresight when he made sure June, Sheila and Nevill were all cremated, didn’t he, eh? And against their wishes too!
-
The blood flake was found on the eighth baffle.
In the first forensic test in 1985 13 out of 20 blood markers belonging to Sheila were identified.
In or around 2002 the blood sample was analysed again, using more advanced methods, and the scientists found SEVENTEEN of Sheila’s blood markers: meaning the blood HAD to be Sheila’s.
I have read the OFFICIAL FACTS several times, and will find them for you — but you’ll still refuse to believe the evidence...
Your post demonstrates perfectly why cites should be provided. You appear to expect member's to believe what you say even though the official evidence contradicts you.
Ground 15 is the sole ground upon which this case was referred to the Court by the CCRC. It is based upon the testing of the sound moderator for DNA, a technique that was not available at trial.
[Point 452 Grounds 14 and 15]
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
We all know how incompetent EP were back then, but they certainly didn’t destroy everything.
How do you think scientists tested Sheila’s blood in 2002?
Jeremy Bamber isn’t the sharpest tool in the box, but he certainly had a degree of foresight when he made sure June, Sheila and Nevill were all cremated, didn’t he, eh? And against their wishes too!
EP destroyed the blood-based samples in 1996. The scientists tested unknown fluids in 2002 and compared the DNA found with that of Pamela Boutflour and Christine (nee Jay).
Please find below cites to the official evidence.
482. No questions were asked at trial of Mr Hayward to establish what part of the blood he had tested. The position was, however, known to the defence through their own expert Dr Lincoln. Dr Lincoln had seen the evidential material upon which the group testing results were based and agreed with the conclusions. He recorded that evidence in the course of his report of 19 September 1986. He said that Mr Hayward had "found a flake of blood trapped under the first or second baffle plate" and that it was this flake that was tested and produced the groupings A, EAP BA, AK1, Hp2.1 upon which reliance was placed by the prosecution.
[number 482]
The Commission was subsequently informed that Essex Police had destroyed all the blood based exhibits in February 1996."
[477 10.3]
Samples obtained from Sheila Caffell's natural mother and from other sources enabled the scientists to say with confidence that the major component did not come from Sheila Caffell... it has been possible to obtain a sample from June Bamber's sister, Pamela Boutflour...
[490]
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
It has been brought to my attention that some posters are still using inappropriate comments and remarks towards other members on the boards. Forum rules dictate that all responses should be amicable and constructive, there is no need to express any opinion or respond to any question aggressively.
Please keep this in mind guys when posting. TY
-
EP destroyed the blood-based samples in 1996. The scientists tested unknown fluids in 2002 and compared the DNA found with that of Pamela Boutflour and Christine (nee Jay).
Please find below cites to the official evidence.
482. No questions were asked at trial of Mr Hayward to establish what part of the blood he had tested. The position was, however, known to the defence through their own expert Dr Lincoln. Dr Lincoln had seen the evidential material upon which the group testing results were based and agreed with the conclusions. He recorded that evidence in the course of his report of 19 September 1986. He said that Mr Hayward had "found a flake of blood trapped under the first or second baffle plate" and that it was this flake that was tested and produced the groupings A, EAP BA, AK1, Hp2.1 upon which reliance was placed by the prosecution.
[number 482]
The Commission was subsequently informed that Essex Police had destroyed all the blood based exhibits in February 1996."
[477 10.3]
Samples obtained from Sheila Caffell's natural mother and from other sources enabled the scientists to say with confidence that the major component did not come from Sheila Caffell... it has been possible to obtain a sample from June Bamber's sister, Pamela Boutflour...
[490]
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
Yes and I wondered until recently whether the other sources related to SC's birth father but I read recently CC was asked to handover the twin's milk teeth which I assume was for this purpose.
I wonder why the police didn't track down SC's birth father assuming CJ knew his identity. Maybe they did track him down and he was found deceased/cremated.
I think DNA can be extracted from burial sites whether buried or cremated. But as the scientists were concerned with attempting whose DNA was in the silencer from a finite pool ie NB, June and SC maybe they were happy to use what they had and hedge it around statistics eg:
Because the blood sample of June Bamber no longer exists, it has not been possible to do a direct comparison between her DNA and that of the major component. However, it has been possible to obtain a sample from June Bamber's sister, Pamela Boutflour, which because closely related relatives are statistically more likely to have shared components than unrelated individuals, has enabled conclusions to be drawn. That evidence shows that it is about 3,500 times more likely that the major source of DNA was from a full sister of Pamela Boutflour, i.e. June Bamber, compared to it being from an unrelated female.
-
What items containing June’s blood were physically handled by the jurors? When was this blood flake examined? Pre or post trial?
LCN DNA can produce a DNA profile from cellular material as small as 1/1,000,000 the size of a grain of salt. When exhibits were handled by police, scientists, jurors and others in 1985/6 no safeguards were in place to protect against contamination as DNA evidence was not in use then:
487. The evidence reveals that the form of DNA testing carried out was Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA profiling. This form of DNA profiling is designated to increase the sensitivity of earlier types of DNA profiling so that, in theory, only a few cells are required for successful analysis. As a result mixed DNA profiles, (i.e. profiles containing DNA originating from more than one individual) can be anticipated. LCN DNA profiling tests do not provide any information about the type of body fluid tested or when it was deposited on the item. Because of the sensitivity of the test, the possibility of contamination must be taken into account. Rigorous procedures have been drawn up to eliminate so far as possible any contamination in the gathering and examination of items from crime scenes. Because DNA testing was not available at the time of these killings (let alone LCN DNA testing) such procedures were not in place at the time when these items were gathered and first tested. In addition, at the trial no precautions would have been considered necessary to protect the integrity of the exhibits because it was not then anticipated that further testing would take place.
-
We also need to remember it was June's relatives who found and handled the silencer thereafter until it was handed over to the police some 2/3 days later. June's possessions were being handled at the same time eg her jewellery.
-
The dried blood flake which contained 17 of Sheila’s blood markers was found on the eighth baffle: you know that.
This repetition of yours is highlighting Jeremy Bamber’s guilt: the videos you hunt through on YouTube throw even more light on how impossible it was that Sheila killed everyone, then herself.
You’ve posted a YouTube video of a man cleaning his silencer, and in doing so, you’ve thrown more evidence to show Jeremy Bamber removed that silencer after killing Sheila. He also removed the barrel protector and replaced it after slaughtering his family.
You see, after removing a silencer you then have to screw the protector back onto the rifle’s barrel. And the rifle found laying on Sheila’s lap had the protector on its barrel.
That means:
Sheila would’ve had to have shot herself in her neck the one time, with the silencer attached
That shot didn’t kill her, though. So, according to your imagination instead of her unscrewing the silencer and tossing it on the floor, then shooting herself yet again in the neck, she decided to stumble downstairs pouring with blood, half paralysed, dazed, dizzy, shocked, and psychotic.
Almost near collapse due to loss of blood — yet miraculously not one drop of blood fell down onto her nightdress, body, legs, feet, carpet — she went to the kitchen and gave the silencer a rinse under the tap and meticulously made sure no blood was left in the sink; she then walked across Nevill’s blood, sugar and glass; went to the cupboard, bent down without any blood dripping from her neck, throat, nose or mouth, placed the silencer in a box at the very back of the cupboard, and closed the box.
She THEN, in her psychotic state, decided to find the barrel protector she’d removed, managed to find it amongst all the mess and upheaval, but still in her frenzy as she struggled to breathe due to the pressure of blood ballooning in her neck and throat, she caught sight of it, screwed it back on, and walked upstairs without leaving a single footprint...
She then walked into the master bedroom, avoided stepping on June’s blood, laid down at an angle, pressed her bloodied handprint inside the Bible, closed it, opened it again — and then shot herself a second time.
Besides all the obvious, you tell everyone WHY Sheila not only removed the silencer and put it in the cupboard — for NO reason whatsoever — and THEN, still in her psychotic state decided to hunt for that small barrel protector which must have been uppermost in her mind (wouldn’t it yours after having blown your two sons brains out; your father’s and your mother’s), and then screw that terribly important protector back on the barrel?
What would have made that barrel protector more important to her than anything else?
The blood flake was supposedly found trapped under the first and second baffle plates. We are told it was cut into 5 to carry out the five tests: ABO, AK, EAP, HP and PGM. Having performed these tests in 1985 it was no longer available.
You're conflating DNA markers with DNA in bands.
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. However, Miss Groombridge was unable to perform any sort of statistical evaluation of the likelihood of this happening and hence unable to assess the strength of the support. Dr Clayton, whilst acknowledging the respect that he had for Miss Groombridge's views and whilst recognising the possible validity of the point that she made, felt that it was unsafe to draw any such conclusion. Whilst we recognise that there may very well be merit in Miss Groombridge's evidence in this regard, we doubt very much whether a jury would have been prepared to place any significant reliance upon it so that it might have altered any view which they otherwise would have reached.
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.
In 2002 although there was no visible blood present in the silencer it was swabbed in anticipation of picking up some DNA which could be analysed by way of LCN DNA which is capable of producing a sample as small as 1/1,000,000 the size of a grain of salt.
I do not believe the silencer was used by either JB or SC.
What you've referred to above re SC using the silencer was the defence strategy at trial.
-
Human blood was located deep within the moderator where no human blood should have been and a pull through showed that the inside of the gun barrel was clear of blood.
Evidence was given at the original trial which quite clearly indicated exactly how that blood got to where it was found.
Evidence was also given about the location, possible order and distance of the victims from the shooter when they were killed.
It was probably only when he realised that it would have been impossible for Sheila to shoot herself with the moderator attached that Bamber removed it and hid it in plain view at the back of the cupboard.
In my opinion he made mistakes that night which showed his plan was not as well thought through as he imagined and the plan to fit Sheila up for his crime almost foundered in not taking the length of the rifle plus the moderator into consideration. It could never have occurred to him that the weight of the evidence he left behind him, including the moderator, would be his downfall.
Snip
Mr Hayward added in evidence that he would be very surprised to find blood from a person, who had not been shot with a contact or very close contact shot, inside the muzzle of the moderator. He concluded that since (a) the blood inside the moderator belonged to the same group as Sheila and (b) there was no blood within the barrel of the rifle of the gun, that she had been shot whilst the moderator was fitted to the rifle.
Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert also expressed the opinion to the jury that the sound moderator had been fitted to the gun when Sheila had been shot. He attributed the presence of blood within the device to the phenomenon of “back-spatter”. This occurs when the expansion of gases created by a bullet being discharged creates back pressure which in turn propels blood from the wound back towards the weapon. This effect is only seen when the muzzle of the weapon is in contact with, or very close contact to, the victim.
http://netk.net.au/UK/Bamber1.asp
-
Your post demonstrates perfectly why cites should be provided. You appear to expect member's to believe what you say even though the official evidence contradicts you.
Ground 15 is the sole ground upon which this case was referred to the Court by the CCRC. It is based upon the testing of the sound moderator for DNA, a technique that was not available at trial.
[Point 452 Grounds 14 and 15]
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
That’s why in 1985 forensics were only able to discover 13 of Sheila’s blood markers in the dried flake found on the eighth baffle; but by 2002, when forensics had advanced, they were able to prove that SEVENTEEN markers of Sheilas blood was in that same sample.
Incidentally, and no, I don’t have a cite for this but you’re free to Google it, if 13 markers are found in a blood sample it shows that the likelihood of it belonging to a certain person is extremely high (I’ll need to find the number, but it’s huge).
But finding SEVENTEEN markers — as they did in 2002 — proved that the blood was Sheila’s. It said somewhere in the documents that it was a “trillion to one” that is was NOT Sheila’s.
When I have time to browse/search and am not distracted by interruptions I shall find the evidence for you, but there’s nothing stopping you searching yourself...just try Google or look through the OFFICIAL court documents. If you’re looking at what JB’s campaign team are putting up, that explains why you’re confused.
They lie and distort.
-
That’s why in 1985 forensics were only able to discover 13 of Sheila’s blood markers in the dried flake found on the eighth baffle; but by 2002, when forensics had advanced, they were able to prove that SEVENTEEN markers of Sheilas blood was in that same sample.
Incidentally, and no, I don’t have a cite for this but you’re free to Google it, if 13 markers are found in a blood sample it shows that the likelihood of it belonging to a certain person is extremely high (I’ll need to find the number, but it’s huge).
But finding SEVENTEEN markers — as they did in 2002 — proved that the blood was Sheila’s. It said somewhere in the documents that it was a “trillion to one” that is was NOT Sheila’s.
When I have time to browse/search and am not distracted by interruptions I shall find the evidence for you, but there’s nothing stopping you searching yourself...just try Google or look through the OFFICIAL court documents. If you’re looking at what JB’s campaign team are putting up, that explains why you’re confused.
They lie and distort.
Because they were either deluded or have become deluded
Trudi Benjamin appears to have been deluded to begin with
She publicly claimed here http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/tru
“When I fist wrote to Jeremy at the tail end of 2010 I already believed that he was innocent, although I probably wasn’t exactly sure why (sic)
-
Yes and I wondered until recently whether the other sources related to SC's birth father but I read recently CC was asked to handover the twin's milk teeth which I assume was for this purpose.
I wonder why the police didn't track down SC's birth father assuming CJ knew his identity. Maybe they did track him down and he was found deceased/cremated.
I think DNA can be extracted from burial sites whether buried or cremated. But as the scientists were concerned with attempting whose DNA was in the silencer from a finite pool ie NB, June and SC maybe they were happy to use what they had and hedge it around statistics eg:
Because the blood sample of June Bamber no longer exists, it has not been possible to do a direct comparison between her DNA and that of the major component. However, it has been possible to obtain a sample from June Bamber's sister, Pamela Boutflour, which because closely related relatives are statistically more likely to have shared components than unrelated individuals, has enabled conclusions to be drawn. That evidence shows that it is about 3,500 times more likely that the major source of DNA was from a full sister of Pamela Boutflour, i.e. June Bamber, compared to it being from an unrelated female.
DNA cannot be found in cremated remains.
Ashes are basically little chips of carbon; during combustion the entirety of its organic system and data is totally destroyed.
Everything’s gone — forever.
Colin Caffell wasn’t “asked” to hand over his sons milk teeth — he was forced to when Jeremy Bamber was trying another of his ruses to wriggle out of jail.
Sheila’s Mother is still alive now, and they already had her DNA, so the police and forensics had ample evidence to go on.
In all honesty, this has all been gone over decades ago...forensics proved the blood was Sheila’s, and nothing can alter that fact.
Besides, all the other incriminating compelling evidence proved beyond doubt that Jeremy Bamber murdered all his family...why can’t some people accept that?
-
LCN DNA can produce a DNA profile from cellular material as small as 1/1,000,000 the size of a grain of salt. When exhibits were handled by police, scientists, jurors and others in 1985/6 no safeguards were in place to protect against contamination as DNA evidence was not in use then:
487. The evidence reveals that the form of DNA testing carried out was Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA profiling. This form of DNA profiling is designated to increase the sensitivity of earlier types of DNA profiling so that, in theory, only a few cells are required for successful analysis. As a result mixed DNA profiles, (i.e. profiles containing DNA originating from more than one individual) can be anticipated. LCN DNA profiling tests do not provide any information about the type of body fluid tested or when it was deposited on the item. Because of the sensitivity of the test, the possibility of contamination must be taken into account. Rigorous procedures have been drawn up to eliminate so far as possible any contamination in the gathering and examination of items from crime scenes. Because DNA testing was not available at the time of these killings (let alone LCN DNA testing) such procedures were not in place at the time when these items were gathered and first tested. In addition, at the trial no precautions would have been considered necessary to protect the integrity of the exhibits because it was not then anticipated that further testing would take place.
My question was “ What items containing June’s blood were physically handled by the jurors? When was this blood flake examined? Pre or post trial?”
Do you know?
-
Because they were either deluded or have become deluded
Trudi Benjamin appears to have been deluded to begin with
She publicly claimed here http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/tru
“When I fist wrote to Jeremy at the tail end of 2010 I already believed that he was innocent, although I probably wasn’t exactly sure why (sic)
I don’t know Trudi’s true reasons for her obsession with Jeremy Bamber, but I do know that if I was her husband I’d be extremely alarmed.
Perhaps she can’t see it, but she appears spellbound by him, and the fact her husband doesn’t seem bothered about her obsession suggests he doesn’t care. So I suspect her marriage is lacking in some way...
I think Trudi fits many of the characteristics of all the women who are attracted to prisoners: just watching her speak on YouTube gives an insight to her psyche...she doesn’t come across self-assured and appears to lack self-esteem. I think she’s living in a fantasy world, like all of these prisoner groupies do.
Take a read of this, it gives a good insight to the women who do this and it’s actually sad in my opinion
Oh, and they ALL claim the prisoner is either innocent, or he’s now “changed”
https://www.longdom.org/open-access/women-attracted-to-incarcerated-men-a-case-study-2573-4598-1000139.pdf
-
That’s why in 1985 forensics were only able to discover 13 of Sheila’s blood markers in the dried flake found on the eighth baffle; but by 2002, when forensics had advanced, they were able to prove that SEVENTEEN markers of Sheilas blood was in that same sample.
Incidentally, and no, I don’t have a cite for this but you’re free to Google it, if 13 markers are found in a blood sample it shows that the likelihood of it belonging to a certain person is extremely high (I’ll need to find the number, but it’s huge).
But finding SEVENTEEN markers — as they did in 2002 — proved that the blood was Sheila’s. It said somewhere in the documents that it was a “trillion to one” that is was NOT Sheila’s.
When I have time to browse/search and am not distracted by interruptions I shall find the evidence for you, but there’s nothing stopping you searching yourself...just try Google or look through the OFFICIAL court documents. If you’re looking at what JB’s campaign team are putting up, that explains why you’re confused.
They lie and distort.
There's loads of information about it on the internet; I found a good site when this conversation began but I can't remember which one and I'm not trawling through my history to find it.
I think there is relevant information here ...
Snip
Since the FBI's National DNA Index System, or NDIS, came online in 1998, forensic labs in the United States have been generating profiles by analyzing a specific set of 13 genetic markers.
Starting January 1, 2017, that number will rise to 20, an advance made possible by close collaboration between scientists at the FBI and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The additional markers will vastly increase the statistical certainty of DNA identifications and allow investigators to identify suspects that could slip through the cracks today.
________________________________________________________________________
"But if you start with 20 markers, seven can drop out and you'll still have what's considered a full profile today," Coble said.
https://phys.org/news/2016-12-fbi-dna-profiles-powerful-cases.html
-
I don’t know Trudi’s true reasons for her obsession with Jeremy Bamber, but I do know that if I was her husband I’d be extremely alarmed.
Perhaps she can’t see it, but she appears spellbound by him, and the fact her husband doesn’t seem bothered about her obsession suggests he doesn’t care. So I suspect her marriage is lacking in some way...
I think Trudi fits many of the characteristics of all the women who are attracted to prisoners: just watching her speak on YouTube gives an insight to her psyche...she doesn’t come across self-assured and appears to lack self-esteem. I think she’s living in a fantasy world, like all of these prisoner groupies do.
Take a read of this, it gives a good insight to the women who do this and it’s actually sad in my opinion
Oh, and they ALL claim the prisoner is either innocent, or he’s now “changed”
https://www.longdom.org/open-access/women-attracted-to-incarcerated-men-a-case-study-2573-4598-1000139.pdf
Interesting article 8((()*/
The abstract reads:
’This is a case study of a woman with a psychiatric diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder who, when widowed, started a pen pal correspondence with a man in prison. She subsequently invited him to live with her upon his release. The situation ended badly.
Do any of Bamber’s supporters have a borderline personality disorder (BDP) ?
-
https://www.longdom.org/open-access/women-attracted-to-incarcerated-men-a-case-study-2573-4598-1000139.pdf
Usual outcomes
’Although accurate numbers are not available, the outcomes for women who get involved with prisoners, during peace time, are overwhelmingly poor. The women suffer abuse and interpersonal trauma, which frequently lead to depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation and self-harm. Life with an ex-prisoner can engender fear, despair, feelings of worthlessness and self-contempt [18].
When Chloe brought Todd home to her low rental apartment, she either did not know or did not tell her mental health team why he had been in prison. She said it was “something minor.” Chloe received a government disability pension on the basis of her Borderline Disorder, which she began to share with Todd. He was unable to work for unspecified reasons. He drank and she drank with him. She came to her mental health appointments with black and blue marks saying that she had fallen down the stairs while drunk. This could have been true, but the consensus among her mental health team was that Todd was abusing her. She never admitted to this. During the months that he lived with her, Chloe signed herself into hospital on several occasions, feeling suicidal. On the last occasion, she stayed two weeks and was discharged against medical advice. Three days later she jumped to her death from the roof of her building.
-
I don’t know Trudi’s true reasons for her obsession with Jeremy Bamber, but I do know that if I was her husband I’d be extremely alarmed.https://www.longdom.org/open-access/women-attracted-to-incarcerated-men-a-case-study-2573-4598-1000139.pdf
Maybe he sees the whole thing as a business opportunity ?
Trudi’s husband Pat is a director of JB Campaign ltd
“I am very proud, alongside my husband Pat Benjamin, to be a Director of the organisation, and we are delighted to be working with the Campaign Management Team to maintain a high standard of business and accounting practices. In accordance, with requirements by Companies House, all monies will be accounted for and annual accounts will be filed. The Directors and Management Team give their time and expertise for free.
The decision to generate revenue in this way was taken partly because of the denigration of legal aid and the funding crisis for prisoners such as Jeremy but also because of the outrage we feel at the continued wrongful conviction and 31-year loss of liberty of an innocent man. Our hope is that campaigners and supporters, who feel as we do, will give generously to help Jeremy gain the freedom he so richly deserves.
Please look at the “Management Team” to find out more about who we are and the 'Operations' page to find out how we work.
Thank you.
Trudi Benjamin
Managing Director/Spokesperson
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/jb-campaign-ltd-and-directors
-
That’s why in 1985 forensics were only able to discover 13 of Sheila’s blood markers in the dried flake found on the eighth baffle; but by 2002, when forensics had advanced, they were able to prove that SEVENTEEN markers of Sheilas blood was in that same sample.
Incidentally, and no, I don’t have a cite for this but you’re free to Google it, if 13 markers are found in a blood sample it shows that the likelihood of it belonging to a certain person is extremely high (I’ll need to find the number, but it’s huge).
But finding SEVENTEEN markers — as they did in 2002 — proved that the blood was Sheila’s. It said somewhere in the documents that it was a “trillion to one” that is was NOT Sheila’s.
When I have time to browse/search and am not distracted by interruptions I shall find the evidence for you, but there’s nothing stopping you searching yourself...just try Google or look through the OFFICIAL court documents. If you’re looking at what JB’s campaign team are putting up, that explains why you’re confused.
They lie and distort.
You have been provided with cites numerous times showing the blood flake found inside the silencer in 1985 was analysed by way of blood serology: Antigens (ABO), enzymes (AK, EAP, PGM) protein (HP). Nothing to do with markers.
In 2002 the scientists found 17 of the 20 BANDS (not markers which are quite different) attributable to SC had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested 13 BANDS.
The scientists and court concluded
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.
-
DNA markers and bands are completely different:
A genetic marker is a gene or DNA sequence with a known location on a chromosome that can be used to identify individuals or species.
Electrophoresis a process which enables the sorting of molecules based on size. Using an electric field, molecules (such as DNA) can be made to move through a gel made of agarose or polyacrylamide. The electric field consists of a negative charge at one end which pushes the molecules through the gel, and a positive charge at the other end that pulls the molecules through the gel. The molecules being sorted are dispensed into a well in the gel material. The gel is placed in an electrophoresis chamber, which is then connected to a power source. When the electric current is applied, the larger molecules move more slowly through the gel while the smaller molecules move faster. The different sized molecules form distinct bands on the gel.
-
That’s why in 1985 forensics were only able to discover 13 of Sheila’s blood markers in the dried flake found on the eighth baffle; but by 2002, when forensics had advanced, they were able to prove that SEVENTEEN markers of Sheilas blood was in that same sample.
Incidentally, and no, I don’t have a cite for this but you’re free to Google it, if 13 markers are found in a blood sample it shows that the likelihood of it belonging to a certain person is extremely high (I’ll need to find the number, but it’s huge).
But finding SEVENTEEN markers — as they did in 2002 — proved that the blood was Sheila’s. It said somewhere in the documents that it was a “trillion to one” that is was NOT Sheila’s.
When I have time to browse/search and am not distracted by interruptions I shall find the evidence for you, but there’s nothing stopping you searching yourself...just try Google or look through the OFFICIAL court documents. If you’re looking at what JB’s campaign team are putting up, that explains why you’re confused.
They lie and distort.
I don't believe you mean to lie, so I can only assume you either haven't read or can't understand what was done and when. Please stop posting misinformation.
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.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
There's loads of information about it on the internet; I found a good site when this conversation began but I can't remember which one and I'm not trawling through my history to find it.
I think there is relevant information here ...
Snip
Since the FBI's National DNA Index System, or NDIS, came online in 1998, forensic labs in the United States have been generating profiles by analyzing a specific set of 13 genetic markers.
Starting January 1, 2017, that number will rise to 20, an advance made possible by close collaboration between scientists at the FBI and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The additional markers will vastly increase the statistical certainty of DNA identifications and allow investigators to identify suspects that could slip through the cracks today.
________________________________________________________________________
"But if you start with 20 markers, seven can drop out and you'll still have what's considered a full profile today," Coble said.
https://phys.org/news/2016-12-fbi-dna-profiles-powerful-cases.html
Thank you for posting that, Brietta !
I appreciate that 😊
-
The whole proposition of how a blood flake came to be trapped under the first/second baffle plate is based on the drawback phenemenon.
The following was referred to at trial:
Abstract
It is well known that gunshot wounding can produce fine droplets of blood spattered in a forward direction. Under certain circumstances blood droplets can also be propelled backwards in a direction against the line of fire. Although the phenomenon of back spatter of blood is most commonly seen in contact gunshot wounds of the head, its occurrence is not well recognized. In this article we summarize investigative and experimental observations concerning back spatter. We suggest that back spatter is a type of “blow-back” effect produced by discharge of a large volume of gas in a confined space.
https://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/JOURNALS/FORENSIC/PAGES/JFS11526J.htm
The above does not take into account a silencer which totally changes the proposition since the hot discharge gases do not enter into the wound at the exact same time as the bullet but release slowly after the bullet has entered the wound:
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Interesting article 8((()*/
The abstract reads:
’This is a case study of a woman with a psychiatric diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder who, when widowed, started a pen pal correspondence with a man in prison. She subsequently invited him to live with her upon his release. The situation ended badly.
Do any of Bamber’s supporters have a borderline personality disorder (BDP) ?
I don’t know if any of his supporters have a BPD, but the ones I’ve seen post on Twitter become quickly enraged if you disagree with them, which is somewhat “emotional”, I guess...
Oh, and they block you immediately, but that’s because they refuse to hear. They’d rather be DEAF.
I don’t think it’s in the link I put up, but one woman who began writing to a prisoner in America, and insisted he was innocent, eventually had him move in with her when he managed to get released.
That didn’t end well, either.
Just a few weeks later he sliced off one of her ears and pulled some of her teeth out with pliers...
-
There's loads of information about it on the internet; I found a good site when this conversation began but I can't remember which one and I'm not trawling through my history to find it.
I think there is relevant information here ...
Snip
Since the FBI's National DNA Index System, or NDIS, came online in 1998, forensic labs in the United States have been generating profiles by analyzing a specific set of 13 genetic markers.
Starting January 1, 2017, that number will rise to 20, an advance made possible by close collaboration between scientists at the FBI and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The additional markers will vastly increase the statistical certainty of DNA identifications and allow investigators to identify suspects that could slip through the cracks today.
________________________________________________________________________
"But if you start with 20 markers, seven can drop out and you'll still have what's considered a full profile today," Coble said.
https://phys.org/news/2016-12-fbi-dna-profiles-powerful-cases.html
That means the US is going to analyse 20 markers instead of 13. The UK has always analysed 20 markers.
-
That means the US is going to analyse 20 markers instead of 13. The UK has always analysed 20 markers.
The point being made recalls the magic number 13 which has been under discussion ... ""But if you start with 20 markers, seven can drop out and you'll still have what's considered a full profile today," Coble said.
https://phys.org/news/2016-12-fbi-dna-profiles-powerful-cases.html ... making, what do you think of Sheila's amended DNA count of 17 markers ?
Not sure if you are correct with the 20 ... isn't it something more like 27?
-
The point being made recalls the magic number 13 which has been under discussion ... ""But if you start with 20 markers, seven can drop out and you'll still have what's considered a full profile today," Coble said.
https://phys.org/news/2016-12-fbi-dna-profiles-powerful-cases.html ... making, what do you think of Sheila's amended DNA count of 17 markers ?
Not sure if you are correct with the 20 ... isn't it something more like 27?
The US authorities always thought 13 bands were sufficient for a match and stored 13 in their Database. The UK stored 16;
Currently the sixteen loci of the DNA-17 system are analysed, resulting in a string of 32 numbers, being two allele repeats from each of the sixteen loci.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_National_DNA_Database
The UK authorities thought 13 bands could arise by chance;
Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found.
[number 496] http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
In 2007 the FSS took a very different approach to DNA matches. They rejected the idea that Madeleine McCann's DNA was in a mixed sample despite having identified 15 of her bands. That's because the bands can't be allocated to specific people in a mixed sample. According to John Lowe, that is. He had Madeleine's full DNA profile too, which the scientists in 2000 didn't have for June or Sheila.
DNA profiling reveals a series of bands, half of which a child inherits from their natural mother (maternal) and half of which it inherits from their natural father (paternal)...
Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart...Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors...
It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
-
The US authorities always thought 13 bands were sufficient for a match and stored 13 in their Database. The UK stored 16;
Currently the sixteen loci of the DNA-17 system are analysed, resulting in a string of 32 numbers, being two allele repeats from each of the sixteen loci.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_National_DNA_Database
The UK authorities thought 13 bands could arise by chance;
Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found.
[number 496] http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
In 2007 the FSS took a very different approach to DNA matches. They rejected the idea that Madeleine McCann's DNA was in a mixed sample despite having identified 15 of her bands. That's because the bands can't be allocated to specific people in a mixed sample. According to John Lowe, that is. He had Madeleine's full DNA profile too, which the scientists in 2000 didn't have for June or Sheila.
DNA profiling reveals a series of bands, half of which a child inherits from their natural mother (maternal) and half of which it inherits from their natural father (paternal)...
Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart...Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors...
It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
It’s so incredibly ironic isn’t it? I have never once seen you cast doubt on the “perfect match” DNA results on the Madeleine forum but here you are doing just that in your defence of JB!
-
It’s so incredibly ironic isn’t it? I have never once seen you cast doubt on the “perfect match” DNA results on the Madeleine forum but here you are doing just that in your defence of JB!
What is ironic is how the FSS changed in seven years. In 2000 they claimed to be able to identify Sheila Caffell using a mixed sample and comparing it with Sheila's mother's DNA only. In 2007 they had Madeleine McCann's own DNA, confirming her as the offspring of both her parents, but still couldn't identify her from a mixed sample.
-
What is ironic is how the FSS changed in seven years. In 2000 they claimed to be able to identify Sheila Caffell using a mixed sample and comparing it with Sheila's mother's DNA only. In 2007 they had Madeleine McCann's own DNA, confirming her as the offspring of both her parents, but still couldn't identify her from a mixed sample.
Have you considered the possibility that the sample simply didn’t contain Madeleine’s DNA at all, while the result for Sheila’s was more identifiable because it actually did come from her?
-
Have you considered the possibility that the sample simply didn’t contain Madeleine’s DNA at all, while the result for Sheila’s was more identifiable because it actually did come from her?
They didn't have a DNA profile from Sheila.
-
They didn't have a DNA profile from Sheila.
I didn’t say they did.
-
I didn’t say they did.
So you mean the DNA they took from the moderator was actually Sheila's? Even if it was, how did they know when they had only her mother's DNA to compare it with?
-
They didn't have a DNA profile from Sheila.
You’re wrong, Gunit
They did have Sheila’s DNA.
They also discovered that out of the 20 possible markers/bands we all have in our blood, they found 13 of Sheila’s in the blood found in the silencer when tested in 1985; and in 2002, when advances in analysis had increased in leaps and bounds, they found 17 bands/markers of Sheila’s blood inside the silencer.
As an aside, finding 13 bands HEAVILY suggests the blood belongs to that certain person (Sheila)
But finding a full 17 out of 20 proves undoubtedly it most certainly came from Sheila and no-one else.
I have read several times, that the odds of two people sharing the same 17 bands is a trillion to one. I don’t have it to hand, but I’ve definitely read it more than once, and when I find I will post it.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
So you mean the DNA they took from the moderator was actually Sheila's? Even if it was, how did they know when they had only her mother's DNA to compare it with?
If it had similarities to Sheila's mother's DNA, but wasn't Sheila's DNA then whose was it?
-
So you mean the DNA they took from the moderator was actually Sheila's? Even if it was, how did they know when they had only her mother's DNA to compare it with?
They also ground down the milk teeth of the twins that Colin had kept for years.
Colin was heartbroken over that!
Jeremy Bamber was hoping against hope that maybe, just maybe, Sheila’s blood hadn’t spattered back into that silencer he used when he shot her dead, so to try and worm his way out of jail he robbed Colin of the only thing he had left of his beautiful little boys: their milk teeth 😔 He would have held those teeth in his hands sometimes, looking at them, touching them, tears running down his cheeks as he remembered when they lost their baby teeth and hid them under their pillow waking up the next morning squealing with delight to find the Tooth Fairy had taken them and left them 50p....
The heartache and pain that revolting evil creature has put people through is absolutely EVIL.
-
If it had similarities to Sheila's mother's DNA, but wasn't Sheila's DNA then whose was it?
It was Sheila’s DNA, VS
I’ve put the link up which shows the forensics report
I suspect where the confusion lies is that there’s so much to read, including certain scientific terms which I’m not at all familiar with, and amongst it all I’d the defence’s argument that maybe the blood “wasn’t “ Sheila’s. They were just trying it on, and so gave it their best shot by muddying the waters — but they too knew it was Sheila’s blood, of course they did.
So reading through all the wordy legalities and scientific reports it can be complex, but when you condense it down it ultimately says that the blood was definitely Sheila’s.
-
It was Sheila’s DNA, VS
I’ve put the link up which shows the forensics report
I suspect where the confusion lies is that there’s so much to read, including certain scientific terms which I’m not at all familiar with, and amongst it all I’d the defence’s argument that maybe the blood “wasn’t “ Sheila’s. They were just trying it on, and so gave it their best shot by muddying the waters — but they too knew it was Sheila’s blood, of course they did.
So reading through all the wordy legalities and scientific reports it can be complex, but when you condense it down it ultimately says that the blood was definitely Sheila’s.
The opportunity for 'confusion' arises from the scientific inability to determine the number of donors both male but predominantly female who contributed to the mix found inside the moderator, some quite deeply so.
Hardly surprising since four of the victims had been shot at close range while still alive with the probability that the muzzle was right on Sheila's neck.
But there is no confusion about Sheila Caffell's DNA being present.
Which means there is only one conclusion to be reached about who the shooter was.
-
It was Sheila’s DNA, VS
I’ve put the link up which shows the forensics report
I suspect where the confusion lies is that there’s so much to read, including certain scientific terms which I’m not at all familiar with, and amongst it all I’d the defence’s argument that maybe the blood “wasn’t “ Sheila’s. They were just trying it on, and so gave it their best shot by muddying the waters — but they too knew it was Sheila’s blood, of course they did.
So reading through all the wordy legalities and scientific reports it can be complex, but when you condense it down it ultimately says that the blood was definitely Sheila’s.
I really don't think you should be disseminating untruths by contradicting the rulings of the Appeal Court;
The Court said;
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...
500. In these circumstances we find it impossible to conclude that any particular finding of DNA necessarily came from blood.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
If it wasn't Sheila's DNA then whose was it and what was it doing in there?
-
If it wasn't Sheila's DNA then whose was it and what was it doing in there?
Have you now finally accepted what the Court actually said, rather than what some people think they said?
-
Have you now finally accepted what the Court actually said, rather than what some people think they said?
I have never disputed what the court actually said, and kindly stop patronising me. If the DNA found in the silencer resembled Sheila's but was not Sheila's then who of her blood relatives handled the silencer or contaminated it, in your view?
-
Have you now finally accepted what the Court actually said, rather than what some people think they said?
The P word defo belongs here.
-
The P word defo belongs here.
It really does and is quite insufferable imo.
-
The P word defo belongs here.
Perspicacious.
-
Perspicacious.
You think?
-
Perspicacious.
You really are such a suck up.
-
You really are such a suck up.
I love you too.
-
You think?
Paraffin?
-
I love you too.
I'm not interested in being loved by you, but I am surprised by your blind devotion to some on this forum. I thought you might be more discerning and, well, honest than that but you've been a bit of a disappointment in that regard. Never mind, I'll get over it.
-
Paraffin?
Practicable.
-
I'm not interested in being loved by you, but I am surprised by your blind devotion to some on this forum. I thought you might be more discerning and, well, honest than that but you've been a bit of a disappointment in that regard. Never mind, I'll get over it.
Pugnacity
-
Pugnacity
Piss off. Nicely.
-
Piss off. Nicely.
Pardon?
-
Pardon?
perfectly plain parlance.
-
perfectly plain parlance.
Pedant.
PEDANT, THE WORD WAS PEDANTIC!
WOO
-
Pedant.
PEDANT, THE WORD WAS PEDANTIC!
WOO
No.
-
Paraffin?
The word is 'patronising' but I'm thinking of another P word now! @)(++(*
-
The word is 'patronising' but I'm thinking of another P word now! @)(++(*
@)(++(* great minds.
-
I have never disputed what the court actually said, and kindly stop patronising me. If the DNA found in the silencer resembled Sheila's but was not Sheila's then who of her blood relatives handled the silencer or contaminated it, in your view?
There was a mixture; probably from three people. Two females and one male. I have no idea who they were or where the DNA came from. The scientists, however, agreed that June Bamber's DNA was there. She was unrelated to Sheila Caffell, of course.
-
@)(++(* great minds.
AHAHAHAHAAHAHAAA
Give us a shout when they turn up.
-
Pugnacity
8((()*/
-
There was a mixture; probably from three people. Two females and one male. I have no idea who they were or where the DNA came from. The scientists, however, agreed that June Bamber's DNA was there. She was unrelated to Sheila Caffell, of course.
Why did they conclude that one of the people may have been Sheila? For no other reason than it was female DNA?
-
Why did they conclude that one of the people may have been Sheila? For no other reason than it was female DNA?
They found 17 out of 20 bands which they said was Sheila's. I don't know how they justified that conclusion, because they didn't have a full profile of her DNA. They had 50% of it from her mother, but none of her father's. There was a lot of speculation about contamination. They also, remember, said that of those 17 bands 13 could have matched by chance.
-
They found 17 out of 20 bands which they said was Sheila's. I don't know how they justified that conclusion, because they didn't have a full profile of her DNA. They had 50% of it from her mother, but none of her father's. There was a lot of speculation about contamination. They also, remember, said that of those 17 bands 13 could have matched by chance.
So 4 bands could not have been matched by chance. As there was no one else related to Sheila by blood in that farm house then that would suggest a strong likelihood it was hers.
-
So 4 bands could not have been matched by chance. As there was no one else related to Sheila by blood in that farm house then that would suggest a strong likelihood it was hers.
The four bands could have belonged to the unknown man.
-
The four bands could have belonged to the unknown man.
Where does it say that? You just wrote that 13 of the 17 bands could have matched by chance, are you now changing your mind and saying that 17 out of 17 could have matched by chance?
-
If it had similarities to Sheila's mother's DNA, but wasn't Sheila's DNA then whose was it?
There are markers that tell the sex of the donor. Since they talk of Shiela and her mother I presume the sex was determined to be female.
If they are looking for 20 markers and only match 17, IMO the sample is more likely to come from the mother rather than the daughter.
Had the biological mother of Shiela come on the scene somehow?
-
There are markers that tell the sex of the donor. Since they talk of Shiela and her mother I presume the sex was determined to be female.
If they are looking for 20 markers and only match 17, IMO the sample is more likely to come from the mother rather than the daughter.
Had the biological mother of Shiela come on the scene somehow?
Nowhere near the scene, she was in Canada.
-
Nowhere near the scene, she was in Canada.
OK, so the grandmother of the twins was not involved if that was the case. Could there be female siblings of Shiela who shared the same mother (maternal siblings)?
-
OK, so the grandmother of the twins was not involved if that was the case. Could there be female siblings of Shiela who shared the same mother (maternal siblings)?
Most likely, in Canada too. Far too big a leap to have any of Sheila's biological family at a remote farmhouse in the wilds of Essex -given it wasn't Sheila's home anyway- at that time of the morning.
-
OK, so the grandmother of the twins was not involved if that was the case. Could there be female siblings of Shiela who shared the same mother (maternal siblings)?
Nope.
-
Isn't it wonderful that despite everything, the exhibit retained its integrity because the family's life's blood was too deep within its innards to be disturbed.
Signifying what an absolute bloodbath there must have been.
We are told blood was found inside the silencer in 1985.
- How deep?
- What actual evidence exists by way of a diagram or photos?
-
We are told blood was found inside the silencer in 1985.
- How deep?
- What actual evidence exists by way of a diagram or photos?
This isn't very clear but .....
-
This isn't very clear but .....
8((()*/
-
This isn't very clear but .....
You can that again! How come the blood stains on the rifle are far better illustrated?
-
Most likely, in Canada too. Far too big a leap to have any of Sheila's biological family at a remote farmhouse in the wilds of Essex -given it wasn't Sheila's home anyway- at that time of the morning.
But Shiela and her twins were there that night. Where would she normally live? What was the reason for staying there that night?
-
This isn't very clear but .....
I think the diagram (if you can call it that) was produced by defense expert Dr Lincoln as the date on it, 29th Apr '86, coincides with when he visited the lab.
Did those who claim to have found/observed the blood inside the silencer: Malcolm Fletcher, ballistics - responsible for unassembling the silencer and John Hayward, biologist, responsible for grouping the blood, produce diagrams and/or photos? If not why not when we know this is the usual process as evidenced by the rifle and external silencer:
-
But Shiela and her twins were there that night. Where would she normally live? What was the reason for staying there that night?
It's possible that you have a lot of catching up to do, Robittybob1!!! Okay, pin ya lugs back! The twins were being taken on holiday, to Norway, by their father, Colin Caffell, at the end of they week. They spent most of their time with him. He and Sheila had joint custody. Colin and Sheila lived in different parts of London. Sheila's parents, the Bambers, as grandparents frequently do, wanted to see the boys before they went on holiday. Colin wasn't entirely happy with this, the Bambers' ideology being very different from his own. Nor was Sheila entirely happy to be spending time with her parents. Whilst she was close to her father, the relationship she had with her mother, was toxic. However, they were only to be staying for four nights............
-
The silencer was first examined at the lab on 13th Aug by scientist Glynis Howard. I don't know whether the diagram was drawn by her own fair hand or a.n. other but regardless it is clear the writing describing the stains by way of measurements is the same as much of the other writing.
It is also clear others have added to it at latter dates by way of the paint on the outside and the blood inside.
After Glynis Howard completed her examination of the silencer it was handed back to Di Cook for fingerprinting.
On 15th Aug the silencer went into the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber at the police research facility at Sandridge, Herts.
On 12 Sep the silencer was back in the lab at Huntingdon where it was unassembled by MF who supposedly found the blood inside.
When was the paint first identified? The author of the original diagram didn't identify it as the notes relating to the paint are in different handwriting and were added later.
-
Silencer diagrams:
-
At trial Glynis Howard told the court she has a BSc but she doesn't say in what. Anyway she was responsible for the first forensic examination of the silencer which resulted in a diagram showing small blood stains on the outside but surely if she observed paint she would make a note of it which she doesn't. Nor does she she refer to the paint in her trial testimony.
Her examination of the silencer on 13th Aug revealed blood staining inside the bore to the extent she inserted cotton threads to remove for analysis and yet did not think to open it up then and there to see if the blood extended to the inside?
So despite this forensic examination of the silencer on 13th Aug it appears the paint on the outside and the blood on the inside was overlooked? DI Cook waited for GH to complete her examination and took away with him the rifle and silencer for fingerprinting in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber on 15th Aug.
I guess the reason the silencer went to the lab first was to remove any forensic evidence which might be adversely
affected by going in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber?
Why wasnt this other forensic evidence removed on 13th Aug? Imo it wasn't removed because it didn't exist!
-
It's possible that you have a lot of catching up to do, Robittybob1!!! Okay, pin ya lugs back! The twins were being taken on holiday, to Norway, by their father, Colin Caffell, at the end of the week. They spent most of their time with him. He and Sheila had joint custody. Colin and Sheila lived in different parts of London. Sheila's parents, the Bambers, as grandparents frequently do, wanted to see the boys before they went on holiday. Colin wasn't entirely happy with this, the Bambers' ideology being very different from his own. Nor was Sheila entirely happy to be spending time with her parents. Whilst she was close to her father, the relationship she had with her mother, was toxic. However, they were only to be staying for four nights............
Well, that is quite a story, one that hasn't been covered in any of the documentaries I've seen on the subject as yet.
So who provided this story to us? Was it Colin?
-
Well, that is quite a story, one that hasn't been covered in any of the documentaries I've seen on the subject as yet.
So who provided this story to us? Was it Colin?
I thought it had been in "White House Farm Murders"? Perhaps not. I think it probably came from Colin, in his book. He'd have had greater insight -than others- to Sheila's relationship with her parents.
-
Brian Elliot who has a Btec in Analytical Chemistry was responsible for analysing the paint on the moderator on 25th Sept along with a paint sample taken from the Aga on 14th Aug.
- Why did GH not observe/record the paint on 13th Aug?
- Why was the paint not removed on 13th Aug before it went into the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber on 15th Aug?
- DI Cook removed a paint sample from the Aga on 14th Aug because it was thought the paint on the silencer may have matched.
- Why did DI Cook take the silencer to the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber on 15th Aug before the paint was removed?
- Why wait until 25th Sep to pass the silencer to Brian Elliot for forensic examination of the paint?
-
Brian Elliot who has a Btec in Analytical Chemistry was responsible for analysing the paint on the moderator on 25th Sept along with a paint sample taken from the Aga on 14th Aug.
- Why did GH not observe/record the paint on 13th Aug?
- Why was the paint not removed on 13th Aug before it went into the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber on 15th Aug?
- DI Cook removed a paint sample from the Aga on 14th Aug because it was thought the paint on the silencer may have matched.
- Why did DI Cook take the silencer to the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber on 15th Aug before the paint was removed?
- Why wait until 25th Sep to pass the silencer to Brian Elliot for forensic examination of the paint?
Is that true? A BTec? Like they gave kids for turning up at a motor pool one day a week and changing a spark plug?
-
Is that true? A BTec? Like they gave kids for turning up at a motor pool one day a week and changing a spark plug?
Yes it is true according to his trial testimony. It appears he was better qualified than the ballistics 'expert' who was only able to tell the court about experience which included a small amount with an air rifle as a small boy.
-
Yes it is true according to his trial testimony. It appears he was better qualified than the ballistics 'expert' who was only able to tell the court about experience which included a small amount with an air rifle as a small boy.
Is it any wonder the FSS experienced high profile quality failures in the 80's when it was employing under qualified 'experts'?
@ 3.3.1
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm
-
I thought it had been in "White House Farm Murders"? Perhaps not. I think it probably came from Colin, in his book. He'd have had greater insight -than others- to Sheila's relationship with her parents.
OK, when I listen to that again I'll keep an ear out for it.
-
At trial Glynis Howard told the court she has a BSc but she doesn't say in what. Anyway she was responsible for the first forensic examination of the silencer which resulted in a diagram showing small blood stains on the outside but surely if she observed paint she would make a note of it which she doesn't. Nor does she she refer to the paint in her trial testimony.
Her examination of the silencer on 13th Aug revealed blood staining inside the bore to the extent she inserted cotton threads to remove for analysis and yet did not think to open it up then and there to see if the blood extended to the inside?
So despite this forensic examination of the silencer on 13th Aug it appears the paint on the outside and the blood on the inside was overlooked? DI Cook waited for GH to complete her examination and took away with him the rifle and silencer for fingerprinting in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber on 15th Aug.
I guess the reason the silencer went to the lab first was to remove any forensic evidence which might be adversely
affected by going in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber?
Why wasnt this other forensic evidence removed on 13th Aug? Imo it wasn't removed because it didn't exist!
The blood embedded in the knurling of the end cap is mentioned on both those moderator diagrams you posted!
Sorry the PAINT.
-
Brian Elliot who has a Btec in Analytical Chemistry was responsible for analysing the paint on the moderator on 25th Sept along with a paint sample taken from the Aga on 14th Aug.
- Why did GH not observe/record the paint on 13th Aug?
- Why was the paint not removed on 13th Aug before it went into the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber on 15th Aug?
- DI Cook removed a paint sample from the Aga on 14th Aug because it was thought the paint on the silencer may have matched.
- Why did DI Cook take the silencer to the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber on 15th Aug before the paint was removed?
- Why wait until 25th Sep to pass the silencer to Brian Elliot for forensic examination of the paint?
What is it with you and qualifications? I know lots of people that are qualified on paper but I wouldn't trust them to load my dish washer!
-
What is it with you and qualifications? I know lots of people that are qualified on paper but I wouldn't trust them to load my dish washer!
There's probably a B-Tec in dishwashing.
-
What is it with you and qualifications? I know lots of people that are qualified on paper but I wouldn't trust them to load my dish washer!
Or to put it another way, a degree is not a indication of honesty.
-
Seems like a bona-fide qualification to me...
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Applied_Science_BTEC_Nationals/Practical_Chemical_Analysis (https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Applied_Science_BTEC_Nationals/Practical_Chemical_Analysis)
-
I think the diagram (if you can call it that) was produced by defense expert Dr Lincoln as the date on it, 29th Apr '86, coincides with when he visited the lab.
Did those who claim to have found/observed the blood inside the silencer: Malcolm Fletcher, ballistics - responsible for unassembling the silencer and John Hayward, biologist, responsible for grouping the blood, produce diagrams and/or photos? If not why not when we know this is the usual process as evidenced by the rifle and external silencer:
I'm sure they did but once again, as a bunch on amateur detectives, we don't have access to all of the case material and nor do we have the right to access it.
-
What is it with you and qualifications? I know lots of people that are qualified on paper but I wouldn't trust them to load my dish washer!
You believe and propogate what a journalist said about an unnamed psychiatrist's opinion on Jeremy Bamber's mental state.
-
You believe and propogate what a journalist said about an unnamed psychiatrist's opinion on Jeremy Bamber's mental state.
Are you saying this, or any person, who is unnamed, makes them factually wrong, and are you dismissing the fact that a named person can be wrong?
-
You believe and propogate what a journalist said about an unnamed psychiatrist's opinion on Jeremy Bamber's mental state.
Completely.
-
I really don't think you should be disseminating untruths by contradicting the rulings of the Appeal Court;
The Court said;
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...
500. In these circumstances we find it impossible to conclude that any particular finding of DNA necessarily came from blood.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
I’m not spreading untruths.
I’ve cited an extract from the official court documents.
The forensic scientist said she was certain it was Sheila’s blood: the defence (obviously) tried to refute it by saying it didn’t show EVERY marker. But 17 out of 20 — and of a RARE blood group at that — was enough to convince the judges the blood was Sheila’s, even though for legal reasons they were obliged to say it wasn’t “fully proven” — but they all knew it was really 😌
-
That means the US is going to analyse 20 markers instead of 13. The UK has always analysed 20 markers.
You’ll confuse yourself further, Gunit, if you start trying to compare American forensics with British.
When you Google information it’s better to stick to British sites; this didn’t happen in America and has no relevance
-
I’m not spreading untruths.
I’ve cited an extract from the official court documents.
The forensic scientist said she was certain it was Sheila’s blood: the defence (obviously) tried to refute it by saying it didn’t show EVERY marker. But 17 out of 20 — and of a RARE blood group at that — was enough to convince the judges the blood was Sheila’s, even though for legal reasons they were obliged to say it wasn’t “fully proven” — but they all knew it was really 😌
If you're referring to the DNA testing quoted in the 2002 Appeal, the forensic scientist did not say she was certain it came from Sheila's blood. LCN DNA tests are unable to indentify which bodily fluid the DNA came from.
-
Have you now finally accepted what the Court actually said, rather than what some people think they said?
You don’t seem to have comprehended that the Court were legally bound to say it wasn’t 100% established that the blood was Sheila’s, as they hadn’t discovered all 20 markers.
They discovered SEVENTEEN that were a perfect match to Sheila’s, and as the EXPERT forensic scientist stated “it was a trillion to one that the blood found in the silencer was Sheila’s”.
By focussing on this and trying to distort it to suit your desires wont change a thing; do you realise that?
-
Perspicacious.
Stop taking the P out of her 😌
-
You think?
@)(++(* Seems he does...
-
You don’t seem to have comprehended that the Court were legally bound to say it wasn’t 100% established that the blood was Sheila’s, as they hadn’t discovered all 20 markers.
They discovered SEVENTEEN that were a perfect match to Sheila’s, and as the EXPERT forensic scientist stated “it was a trillion to one that the blood found in the silencer was Sheila’s”.
By focussing on this and trying to distort it to suit your desires wont change a thing; do you realise that?
I'm not the one who misunderstands the evidence.
-
They found 17 out of 20 bands which they said was Sheila's. I don't know how they justified that conclusion, because they didn't have a full profile of her DNA. They had 50% of it from her mother, but none of her father's. There was a lot of speculation about contamination. They also, remember, said that of those 17 bands 13 could have matched by chance.
A trillion to one chance 🤓
-
Where does it say that? You just wrote that 13 of the 17 bands could have matched by chance, are you now changing your mind and saying that 17 out of 17 could have matched by chance?
It’s really difficult arguing with some people...
Everyone knows you’re right, VS 😊
-
OK, so the grandmother of the twins was not involved if that was the case. Could there be female siblings of Shiela who shared the same mother (maternal siblings)?
There were only three adults in the house, Robbity
Two women and one man — Sheila, June and Nevill
Plus two little boys — Daniel and Nicholas
The silencer that Jeremy used and then hid contained the blood of three adults.
Sheila had a rare blood group — A Rhesus negative. The same as one of the blood groups in the silencer. That blood group (A) had 17 out of 20 possible markers which exactly matched Sheila’s. They were unable to pick up the remaining three markers, and as the defence desperately tried to suggest it “may” not have been Sheila’s blood as they hadn’t found all 20 markers, the court was legally bound to say they couldn’t prove 100% that the blood was Sheila’s, despite the forensic scientist saying that 17 markers exactly matching each other meant the chances of it NOT being Sheila’s blood was a trillion to one.
So basically, the blood was Sheila’s. Fact.
-
A trillion to one chance
It's standard procedure to take a blood sample at autopsy so there is no reason why Sheila's wouldn't be freely available at the time unless the pathologist messed up?
-
There were only three adults in the house, Robbity
Two women and one man — Sheila, June and Nevill
Plus two little boys — Daniel and Nicholas
The silencer that Jeremy used and then hid contained the blood of three adults.
Sheila had a rare blood group — A Rhesus negative. The same as one of the blood groups in the silencer. That blood group (A) had 17 out of 20 possible markers which exactly matched Sheila’s. They were unable to pick up the remaining three markers, and as the defence desperately tried to suggest it “may” not have been Sheila’s blood as they hadn’t found all 20 markers, the court was legally bound to say they couldn’t prove 100% that the blood was Sheila’s, despite the forensic scientist saying that 17 markers exactly matching each other meant the chances of it NOT being Sheila’s blood was a trillion to one.
So basically, the blood was Sheila’s. Fact.
Sheila's blood wasn't tested for DNA.
-
It's standard procedure to take a blood sample at autopsy so there is no reason why Sheila's wouldn't be freely available at the time unless the pathologist messed up?
The pathologist didn't mess up but Essex Police did in that all exhibits were destroyed including victims' samples:
165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.
-
There were only three adults in the house, Robbity
Two women and one man — Sheila, June and Nevill
Plus two little boys — Daniel and Nicholas
The silencer that Jeremy used and then hid contained the blood of three adults.
Sheila had a rare blood group — A Rhesus negative. The same as one of the blood groups in the silencer. That blood group (A) had 17 out of 20 possible markers which exactly matched Sheila’s. They were unable to pick up the remaining three markers, and as the defence desperately tried to suggest it “may” not have been Sheila’s blood as they hadn’t found all 20 markers, the court was legally bound to say they couldn’t prove 100% that the blood was Sheila’s, despite the forensic scientist saying that 17 markers exactly matching each other meant the chances of it NOT being Sheila’s blood was a trillion to one.
So basically, the blood was Sheila’s. Fact.
The bands are based on the weight of molecules and need to match exactly to confirm a match with the cellular material under investigation:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11431.msg589873#msg589873
-
It's standard procedure to take a blood sample at autopsy so there is no reason why Sheila's wouldn't be freely available at the time unless the pathologist messed up?
By the time the DNA tests were carried out all the blood-based samples had been destroyed by Essex Police.
-
The pathologist didn't mess up but Essex Police did in that all exhibits were destroyed including victims' samples:
165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.
All exhibits were not destroyed Holly
Aunt Agatha has the Chinese trick box, she also had the wetsuit
The surviving relatives received June’s bible
The passage you keep quoting from is misleading
-
A trillion to one chance 🤓
A billion to one actually based on CPS guidelines:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/dna-17-profiling
But hey what's a few billion between friends after all genetically humans are 99.9% alike 🤔
-
A billion to one actually based on CPS guidelines:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/dna-17-profiling
But hey what's a few billion between friends after all genetically humans are 99.9% alike 🤔
A one billion to one is based on all bands matching which it wasn't with the DNA found in the silencer.
-
All exhibits were not destroyed Holly
Aunt Agatha has the Chinese trick box, she also had the wetsuit
The surviving relatives received June’s bible
The passage you keep quoting from is misleading
The Chinese trick box and wetsuit were JB's possessions and were not presented at trial.
June Bamber had a number of bibles at WHF. The one found at soc was given the exhibit number DRH/44 and asfaik was destroyed with all the other exhibits.
-
Is that true? A BTec? Like they gave kids for turning up at a motor pool one day a week and changing a spark plug?
You and Holly are ridiculing a highly qualified Forensic Scientist who has a B.Tech (which you can’t even spell) and which takes up to four years of training to qualify.
That same Forensic Scientist also has a degree in Analytical Chemistry, which also takes years to qualify in.
He’d worked for 13 years as a Forensic Scientist at the Metropolitan Police Laboratory And also at Huntingdon.
You, General, mock him, saying his qualifications are like some boy learning how to change a spark plug once a week at some garage.
What’s YOUR qualifications and career?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
You and Holly are ridiculing a highly qualified Forensic Scientist who has a B.Tech (which you can’t even spell) and which takes up to four years of training to qualify.
That same Forensic Scientist also has a degree in Analytical Chemistry, which also takes years to qualify in.
He’d worked for 13 years as a Forensic Scientist at the Metropolitan Police Laboratory And also at Huntingdon.
You, General, mock him, saying his qualifications are like some boy learning how to change a spark plug once a week at some garage.
What’s YOUR qualifications and career?
I didn't ridicule Brian Elliot's qualifications I simply highlighted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_and_Technology_Education_Council
-
You and Holly are ridiculing a highly qualified Forensic Scientist who has a B.Tech (which you can’t even spell) and which takes up to four years of training to qualify.
That same Forensic Scientist also has a degree in Analytical Chemistry, which also takes years to qualify in.
He’d worked for 13 years as a Forensic Scientist at the Metropolitan Police Laboratory And also at Huntingdon.
You, General, mock him, saying his qualifications are like some boy learning how to change a spark plug once a week at some garage.
What’s YOUR qualifications and career?
The prosecution expert says one thing while the defence expert says the opposite. Can we believe any of these paid jobsworths?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24868245?seq=1
-
I'm not the one who misunderstands the evidence.
Yes you are.
You seem somewhat out of your depth in my opinion — Otherwise you’d understand what the reports MEAN
You seem not to have yet comprehended what the report states. Besides that, you frequently ask things which you ought to know. Maybe you’re not that au fait with the case?
-
The Chinese trick box and wetsuit were JB's possessions and were not presented at trial.
Where were these ire s seized from and what exhibit numbers were they given ?
-
June Bamber had a number of bibles at WHF.
How many bibles were seized by police from WHF ?
-
The one found at soc was given the exhibit number DRH/44 and asfaik was destroyed with all the other exhibits.
This bible was returned to the surviving family in 2006
-
I didn't ridicule Brian Elliot's qualifications I simply highlighted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_and_Technology_Education_Council
However upon closer examination it appears BTecs were first handed out in 1984 and yet Brian Elliot told the court at trial he had been a forensic scientist for 13 years 🤔
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_and_Technology_Education_Council
Help required.
-
The Chinese trick box and wetsuit were JB's possessions and were not presented at trial.
June Bamber had a number of bibles at WHF. The one found at soc was given the exhibit number DRH/44 and asfaik was destroyed with all the other exhibits.
Maybe you should ask Bamber, Mark Newby or his CT to provide copies of the paperwork related to all exhibits
These questions have still yet to be answered http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,514.msg9287.html#msg9287
“Mike, please could you clarify when JB or his legal team were advised that evidence, in particular blood samples, were going to be or had been destroyed, as happened in 1996.
Likewise, in 2002 the CCRC displayed a willingness to use their powers to examine the full circumstances surrounding the destruction of evidence in 1996. JB instructed Turner QC to decline this offer to investigate. What reason has JB given for his decision?
“It appears JB rejected a golden opportunity to (possibly) have the EP discredited by the CCRC.
The CCRC would have borne the costs as well - not to be sneezed at.
Had EP been proved to be disingenuous on this matter, the Commission may have allowed 'generous discretion' in viewing related grounds for Appeal.
The silence on this leads to other conspiracy theories - that JB wanted blood samples destroyed fearing DNA developments since 1985... etc.
So I think the matter should be addressed.
-
This bible was returned to the surviving family in 2006
Nicholas what proof exists that DRH/44 was returned to the relatives?
Even if it was, how would it assist with SC's DNA?
-
Nicholas what proof exists that DRH/44 was returned to the relatives?
What proof exists that the bible in question was destroyed ?
-
Yes it is true according to his trial testimony. It appears he was better qualified than the ballistics 'expert' who was only able to tell the court about experience which included a small amount with an air rifle as a small boy.
You’re demeaning people again, Holly
Malcolm Fletcher had THIRTEEN YEARS EXPERIENCE working in the HOME OFFICE FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY in the FIREARMS Department.
You mock him by implying he isn’t an expert by putting ‘expert’, and trying to suggest his only experience was having an air rifle as a small boy.
Why do you try and debase certain people and put them down?
It doesn’t make you look good...
-
Nicholas what proof exists that DRH/44 was returned to the relatives?
Even if it was, how would it assist with SC's DNA?
According to CAL, page 408, the bible was handed back to the family in 2006 and the note was in June's handwriting.
I wonder why the bible wasn't forensically analysed and an attempt made to group the blood. The wallpaper was tested and indicative results matched it to NB's 'O' antigen although it didn't meet the labs internal standards for a definitive conclusion. And yet it seems the blood staining was much smaller than that on the bible? Both would have similar porosity.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=165.0;attach=229;image
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=165.0;attach=231
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/the-bloodied-bible
So many loose ends just left hanging by JB's defence (yes that's you Paul Terzeon and Geoffrey Rivlin. If it transpires that the pair of you were largely repsonsible for sending an innocent man to jail for 30 plus years and you refuse to accept responsibility and make a public apology I will chain myself naked to Downing St railings until you do or a nice fireman cuts me loose!)
-
Posters are reminded of the forum rules. Please calm down and above all, please refrain from attacking other members who hold opposing views.
Admin
-
I'm sure they did but once again, as a bunch on amateur detectives, we don't have access to all of the case material and nor do we have the right to access it.
And would Holly understand it anyway...she’s not a Forensic Scientist
Neither am I — but unlike her I don’t search out technical reports and post them up as I wouldn’t know their exact meaning. I’m surprised Holly has all this vast knowledge on ballistics, forensics, pathology, law and psychology — yet still, after almost a DECADE, she hasn’t been able to to help Jeremy Bamber win leave for a third appeal 😌
It doesn’t look very optimistic. He had one of the top QC’s representing him at trail — and lost
He has Holly with her vast knowledge and experience on a multitude of professions — and he’s still stuck in his little cell poring over paperwork that’s possibly faded and yellowed...
-
It's standard procedure to take a blood sample at autopsy so there is no reason why Sheila's wouldn't be freely available at the time unless the pathologist messed up?
Yes, of course they took samples of Sheila’s blood — that’s how they measured the levels of the Haloperidol in her system, including the small amount of cannabis she’d smoked several days previously
She had no other substances inside her system, despite Gunit frequently saying Sheila “probably” took antihistamine for Hay Fever — in August, long after the HF season. That would have sent her berserk, apparently, according to Gunit.😳
-
What proof exists that the bible in question was destroyed ?
See ground 9 point 405
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
Sheila's blood wasn't tested for DNA.
😫
-
You’re demeaning people again, Holly
Malcolm Fletcher had THIRTEEN YEARS EXPERIENCE working in the HOME OFFICE FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY in the FIREARMS Department.
You mock him by implying he isn’t an expert by putting ‘expert’, and trying to suggest his only experience was having an air rifle as a small boy.
Why do you try and debase certain people and put them down?
It doesn’t make you look good...
I'm not putting anyone down but if jurors are relying on experts to decide a person's fate in terms of removing liberty for the rest of their natural life then experts need to be appropriately qualified and there's no evidence they were.
Buck stops with HO.
-
All exhibits were not destroyed Holly
Aunt Agatha has the Chinese trick box, she also had the wetsuit
The surviving relatives received June’s bible
The passage you keep quoting from is misleading
I remember something about milk teeth. Jeremy went to see Pam about the Jewellery and they had a discussion about who would get what and he said he wanted the teeth. Pam found them in a box. There was one of Jeremy's and one of Sheila's. Why would he want them?
-
I'm not putting anyone down but if jurors are relying on experts to decide a person's fate in terms of removing liberty for the rest of their natural life then experts need to be appropriately qualified and there's no evidence they were.
Buck stops with HO.
He was an experienced man but it's easy to just dismiss that and make that your excuse.
-
If you're referring to the DNA testing quoted in the 2002 Appeal, the forensic scientist did not say she was certain it came from Sheila's blood. LCN DNA tests are unable to indentify which bodily fluid the DNA came from.
I’ve posted the transcript
What don’t you understand about the FACT 17 out of a possible 20 markers of Sheila’s blood was found inside the silencer!The FS scientist stated the possibility of that blood being anyone else’s was a TRILLION TO ONE.
I’m not replying to you about this anymore!
-
He was an experienced man but it's easy to just dismiss that and make that your excuse.
He was woefully under qualified venturing into areas that fall to a pathologist.
I suspect you would feel differently if you were about to undergo some serious surgery and found the surgeon was a master butcher.
-
I’ve posted the transcript
What don’t you understand about the FACT 17 out of a possible 20 markers of Sheila’s blood was found inside the silencer!The FS scientist stated the possibility of that blood being anyone else’s was a TRILLION TO ONE.
I’m not replying to you about this anymore!
The one in a trillion statistic which was rubbished by Holly has been discussed on this forum before on this thread. Frustratingly the programme it was mentioned in doesn’t appear to be online anymore
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=830.0
-
The one in a trillion statistic which was rubbished by Holly has been discussed on this forum before on this thread. Frustratingly the programme it was mentioned in doesn’t appear to be online anymore
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=830.0
Look thru historic cases and forensic lit from 1 in a trillion.
-
A billion to one actually based on CPS guidelines:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/dna-17-profiling
But hey what's a few billion between friends after all genetically humans are 99.9% alike 🤔
And out of all those billions of people who exist and have ever existed — except for identical twins — NO TWO people have the same DNA.
There’s literally TRILLIONS of variations depending on which DNA you’ve received from your parents. Every egg and every sperm holds differing variables of DNA, hence why full siblings only share 50% of the same DNA.
My family are currently doing a hereditary trace and family tree.
My sister and I are full biological siblings. DNA has proved that. We are predominately British.
However, 17% of my DNA has picked up Scandinavian and Souther Italian whilst its hasn’t shown up in my sister’s, and we ARE absolutely FULL BIOLOGICAL SISTERS. So that’s how VARIED and random EVERYONE’S DNA is. Every single person is unique. Everyone.
-
I remember something about milk teeth. Jeremy went to see Pam about the Jewellery and they had a discussion about who would get what and he said he wanted the teeth. Pam found them in a box. There was one of Jeremy's and one of Sheila's. Why would he want them?
Yet Brancher has suggested Bamber and JM were ‘both as bad as one another’ ? *&^^&
-
I remember something about milk teeth. Jeremy went to see Pam about the Jewellery and they had a discussion about who would get what and he said he wanted the teeth. Pam found them in a box. There was one of Jeremy's and one of Sheila's. Why would he want them?
Assuming he is guilty, I'd guess because they contain DNA, and could be used to incriminate him?
-
I'm sure they did but once again, as a bunch on amateur detectives, we don't have access to all of the case material and nor do we have the right to access it.
We have the trial testimony. MF refers to 7 baffles. JH refers to 5 baffles. Both are hesitant and unsure. Neither make ref to notes, drawings or diagrams.
-
Yet Brancher has suggested Bamber and JM were ‘both as bad as one another’ ? *&^^&
I'd suggest he was a bad influence on her.
-
What is it with you and qualifications? I know lots of people that are qualified on paper but I wouldn't trust them to load my dish washer!
It's about demonstrating competence and fit for purpose!
-
It's about demonstrating competence and fit for purpose!
And only you think he wasn't.
-
Look thru historic cases and forensic lit from 1 in a trillion.
What do you mean?
-
I didn't ridicule Brian Elliot's qualifications I simply highlighted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_and_Technology_Education_Council
Yes you did.
What right have YOU got to say that Forensic Scientist lacks experience?! That his only experience was having a pellet gun as a child...which is utter rubbish
Usually, when someone constantly knocks others, highlights their flaws, tries to humiliate/put them down — just as you’ve frequently done against Sheila where you’ve mentioned “she had stretch marks” ...yes, she did, she’d given birth to TWINS! Twin boys the man YOU have a warped obsession with who shot those little boys dead!!
You mentioned her scars beneath her breasts where she’d had implants — for no reason at all.
You tried to start a rumour implying Sheila massaged “older men”, which was a disgraceful lie!
Sheila had a BEAUTIFUL face — why have you never highlighted that, eh?
Y
-
The Chinese trick box and wetsuit were JB's possessions and were not presented at trial.
June Bamber had a number of bibles at WHF. The one found at soc was given the exhibit number DRH/44 and asfaik was destroyed with all the other exhibits.
Untrue imo.
-
However upon closer examination it appears BTecs were first handed out in 1984 and yet Brian Elliot told the court at trial he had been a forensic scientist for 13 years 🤔
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_and_Technology_Education_Council
Help required.
He was indeed a Forensic Scientist for 13 years when he testified under oath at court.
DURING that time he took a FURTHER B.Tech course whilst working for the Metropolitan Forensics Team — which is perfectly normal and usual.
You’re strange
-
Maybe you should ask Bamber, Mark Newby or his CT to provide copies of the paperwork related to all exhibits
These questions have still yet to be answered http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,514.msg9287.html#msg9287
“Mike, please could you clarify when JB or his legal team were advised that evidence, in particular blood samples, were going to be or had been destroyed, as happened in 1996.
Likewise, in 2002 the CCRC displayed a willingness to use their powers to examine the full circumstances surrounding the destruction of evidence in 1996. JB instructed Turner QC to decline this offer to investigate. What reason has JB given for his decision?
“It appears JB rejected a golden opportunity to (possibly) have the EP discredited by the CCRC.
The CCRC would have borne the costs as well - not to be sneezed at.
Had EP been proved to be disingenuous on this matter, the Commission may have allowed 'generous discretion' in viewing related grounds for Appeal.
The silence on this leads to other conspiracy theories - that JB wanted blood samples destroyed fearing DNA developments since 1985... etc.
So I think the matter should be addressed.
Speaks volumes doesn’t it?
-
Posters are reminded of the forum rules. Please calm down and above all, please refrain from attacking other members who hold opposing views.
Admin
With all due respect there’s a difference between holding opposing views and telling outright lies, exaggerating, distorting, mocking and denigrating people.
No-one should do that.
It’s disgraceful!
-
I'm not putting anyone down but if jurors are relying on experts to decide a person's fate in terms of removing liberty for the rest of their natural life then experts need to be appropriately qualified and there's no evidence they were.
Buck stops with HO.
Malcolm Fletcher WAS qualified
He had 13 years experience!
Besides, the judge told the jury they could convict Jeremy on Julie’s evidence alone....
And the reason his Liberty was taken away was because he’s an evil psychopathic mass murderer.
-
I remember something about milk teeth. Jeremy went to see Pam about the Jewellery and they had a discussion about who would get what and he said he wanted the teeth. Pam found them in a box. There was one of Jeremy's and one of Sheila's. Why would he want them?
That’s REALLY weird!!
Why on earth would want Sheila’s milk tooth?!
Oh, let me guess....
-
He was woefully under qualified venturing into areas that fall to a pathologist.
I suspect you would feel differently if you were about to undergo some serious surgery and found the surgeon was a master butcher.
You’re calling Professor Vanezis “woefully under qualified”?!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The one in a trillion statistic which was rubbished by Holly has been discussed on this forum before on this thread. Frustratingly the programme it was mentioned in doesn’t appear to be online anymore
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=830.0
Thank you, VS
I have seen it in writing too, and do have it somewhere...I’ve literally thousands of screenshots/docs etc, but not in order, hence why I can’t grab them quickly. But I shall do soon....
I think it’s appalling how some people can denigrate and rubbish experts and victims because they have a sick twisted fantasy about a repulsive psychopath who blew the brains out of all his family: father, mother, sister and two little boys
WTH is WRONG with these seriously weird, warped people? No wonder they don’t put their mugshots up!
-
Assuming he is guilty, I'd guess because they contain DNA, and could be used to incriminate him?
He IS guilty. He was convicted 35 years ago. There nothing to assume.
You’re right about the tooth, though
-
I'd suggest he was a bad influence on her.
There’s a wealth of evidence showing Bamber to be controlling, arrogant and emotionally repressed but none of these descriptions fit JM
-
Speaks volumes doesn’t it?
Indeed it does
-
Besides, the judge told the jury they could convict Jeremy on Julie’s evidence alone....
Sally Challen had her murder conviction reduced to manslaughter
‘Sally suffered years of emotional abuse from her husband.
She was a victim of coercive control - which became a criminal offence in England and Wales in 2015.
Coercive control describes a pattern of behaviour by an abuser to harm, punish or frighten their victim.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-50673081?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cglkv3nvv48t/sally-challen-murder-case&link_location=live-reporting-story
Much has been made by Bamber’s supporters of JM’s admissions of having ‘stabbed a teddy’ and of putting a pillow over his face and of her comment ‘if you were dead you’d always be with me’ or whatever it was she said & throwing the wooden box at a mirror.
Don’t suppose Bamber’s supporters have ever given consideration to JM’s behaviour at that time?
She claimed in court she ‘felt hurt’
-
Speaks volumes doesn’t it?
Am not convinced the ‘police officer’ mentioned below ‘destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives’ - One of Bamber’s previous representatives was a fraudster
165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.
Why didn’t Bamber take up the CCRC’s offer ?
Maybe you should ask Bamber, Mark Newby or his CT to provide copies of the paperwork related to all exhibits
These questions have still yet to be answered http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,514.msg9287.html#msg9287
“Mike, please could you clarify when JB or his legal team were advised that evidence, in particular blood samples, were going to be or had been destroyed, as happened in 1996.
Likewise, in 2002 the CCRC displayed a willingness to use their powers to examine the full circumstances surrounding the destruction of evidence in 1996. JB instructed Turner QC to decline this offer to investigate. What reason has JB given for his decision?
“It appears JB rejected a golden opportunity to (possibly) have the EP discredited by the CCRC.
The CCRC would have borne the costs as well - not to be sneezed at.
Had EP been proved to be disingenuous on this matter, the Commission may have allowed 'generous discretion' in viewing related grounds for Appeal.
The silence on this leads to other conspiracy theories - that JB wanted blood samples destroyed fearing DNA developments since 1985... etc.
So I think the matter should be addressed.
Is it because a paper trail would lead back to Bamber having given his permission to have certain items destroyed?
What’s the full story behind the trial exhibits being handed back to relatives and Aunt Agatha in 2006?
Am not interested in AA’s previous comments on this
But am interested in why a fuss appears to have been made when Mike Tesko published the paperwork - what did Bamber supporters appear to want to keep hidden and why ?
-
Sally Challen had her murder conviction reduced to manslaughter
‘Sally suffered years of emotional abuse from her husband.
She was a victim of coercive control - which became a criminal offence in England and Wales in 2015.
Coercive control describes a pattern of behaviour by an abuser to harm, punish or frighten their victim.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-50673081?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cglkv3nvv48t/sally-challen-murder-case&link_location=live-reporting-story
Much has been made by Bamber’s supporters of JM’s admissions of having ‘stabbed a teddy’ and of putting a pillow over his face and of her comment ‘if you were dead you’d always be with me’ or whatever it was she said & throwing the wooden box at a mirror.
Don’t suppose Bamber’s supporters have ever given consideration to JM’s behaviour at that time?
She claimed in court she ‘felt hurt’
Oh, his CT are all weird.
That pillow event wasn’t attempted murder! Julie pushed the pillow onto his face and he deliberately keyed still — he could have EASILY pushed her off. He wasn’t struggling to breathe..,he possibly found it funny! That’s was just Julie play fighting. It’s pathetic.
The stabbing if the teddy bear — she didn’t use a 10 inch knife. She used eyebrow tweezers or nail scissors...can’t quite remember. It was all rubbish, and has got twisted.
-
I remember something about milk teeth. Jeremy went to see Pam about the Jewellery and they had a discussion about who would get what and he said he wanted the teeth. Pam found them in a box. There was one of Jeremy's and one of Sheila's. Why would he want them?
According to CAL Jeremy went to Vaulty for petrol. Pam came out and told him she intended to keep June's jewellery (which her daughter took from White House Farn without his permission, along with his Granny Bamber's jewellery). In my opinion the remark about the teeth was to make a point; that they had taken keepsakes to which they had no right whatsoever.
-
According to CAL Jeremy went to Vaulty for petrol. Pam came out and told him she intended to keep June's jewellery (which her daughter took from White House Farn without his permission, along with his Granny Bamber's jewellery). In my opinion the remark about the teeth was to make a point; that they had taken keepsakes to which they had no right whatsoever.
No right whatsoever?? Who has them now then?
-
No right whatsoever?? Who has them now then?
I assume the Boutflours. I believe they returned Granny Bamber's jewellery and if it was part of Nevill's estate I assume the Pargeters got it with the rest of his estate.
-
I assume the Boutflours. I believe they returned Granny Bamber's jewellery and if it was part of Nevill's estate I assume the Pargeters got it with the rest of his estate.
Well, at least the right people got them in the end. They were returned to the rightful families as opposed to being sold without consulting them.
-
Well, at least the right people got them in the end. They were returned to the rightful families as opposed to being sold without consulting them.
As an adopted son Jeremy Bamber was, at the time, the 'rightful' family. He was under no obligation to consult his relatives about anything.
-
As an adopted son Jeremy Bamber was, at the time, the 'rightful' family. He was under no obligation to consult his relatives about anything.
Certainly, in law, you're correct. Morally, and speaking as an adopted daughter, I find it lacking. Still, it must be comforting to have something to hide behind.
-
Certainly, in law, you're correct. Morally, and speaking as an adopted daughter, I find it lacking. Still, it must be comforting to have something to hide behind.
Morally I find it lacking that the relatives were asking for June's engagement ring two days after she died.
-
Morally I find it lacking that the relatives were asking for June's engagement ring two days after she died.
Once an item has been turned into cash, it's gone forever. I give them credit for rescuing family items that Jeremy would have had no compunction about selling. They knew him of old.
-
Once an item has been turned into cash, it's gone forever. I give them credit for rescuing family items that Jeremy would have had no compunction about selling. They knew him of old.
They judged him, clearly disliked him and went to see him on 7th August out of 'duty I suppose'. [Ann Eaton w/s 14/5/91]. Family items cease to be family items when owned by individual family members.
-
They judged him, clearly disliked him and went to see him on 7th August out of 'duty I suppose'. [Ann Eaton w/s 14/5/91]. Family items cease to be family items when owned by individual family members.
They knew him. They had previous experience of him.
-
Morally I find it lacking that the relatives were asking for June's engagement ring two days after she died.
They knew what he was like, didn’t they...
And they were proved right
-
They knew what he was like, didn’t they...
And they were proved right
....so they stole some stuff.
-
They knew what he was like, didn’t they...
And they were proved right
If my aunt started asking for my mother's jewellery 2 days after her murder I wouldn't be impressed.
-
If my aunt started asking for my mother's jewellery 2 days after her murder I wouldn't be impressed.
Then we must hope you'd have enough moral integrity about you that they wouldn't feel the need to ask.
-
I assume the Boutflours. I believe they returned Granny Bamber's jewellery and if it was part of Nevill's estate I assume the Pargeters got it with the rest of his estate.
They must have had some rights to them then.
-
Morally I find it lacking that the relatives were asking for June's engagement ring two days after she died.
Where do you stand on the morals of trying to sell sexy photos of your dead sister to the red tops?
-
If my aunt started asking for my mother's jewellery 2 days after her murder I wouldn't be impressed.
Seriously?? I wouldn’t at all, if it was an heirloom from her side of the family and provided so comfort.
-
Seriously?? I wouldn’t at all, if it was an heirloom from her side of the family and provided so comfort.
Why do you think June's engagement ring came from her family? Or are you speculating?
-
Why do you think June's engagement ring came from her family? Or are you speculating?
You’re not interested in my opinion so please don’t ask for it.
-
You’re not interested in my opinion so please don’t ask for it.
I asked a sensible question in reply to your assumption that June's jewellery was made up of 'family heirlooms'. Please provide a cite.
-
I asked a sensible question in reply to your assumption that June's jewellery was made up of 'family heirlooms'. Please provide a cite.
I posted an opinion about how I would feel if my aunt wanted a piece of jewellery belonging to my mother, especially if it was a family heirloom. What cite would you like? My phone number so you can call me to verify that this is my opinion?
-
I posted an opinion about how I would feel if my aunt wanted a piece of jewellery belonging to my mother, especially if it was a family heirloom. What cite would you like? My phone number so you can call me to verify that this is my opinion?
@)(++(*
-
I asked a sensible question in reply to your assumption that June's jewellery was made up of 'family heirlooms'. Please provide a cite.
From your favourite source! 8((()*/
Pamela explained that she hadn’t been able to put off telling her mother any longer. She then told him that although they had returned some of the items taken from White House Farm, she intended to hold on to June’s jewellery because it had been in the family for generations, adding that she would especially like the locket
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 260). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.
-
I asked a sensible question in reply to your assumption that June's jewellery was made up of 'family heirlooms'. Please provide a cite.
Why do you keep asking for cites when you then say they could be wrong?
-
....so they stole some stuff.
Are you accusing the family of theft?
You’re really showing your true colours aren’t you...
The family asked for certain items because they were SENTIMENTAL, priceless, and they knew what Jeremy was like
Just as well: he was flogging everything two days later!
Didn’t seem to have any sentimental value to him did it...
-
Are you accusing the family of theft?
You’re really showing your true colours aren’t you...
The family asked for certain items because they were SENTIMENTAL, priceless, and they knew what Jeremy was like
Just as well: he was flogging everything two days later!
Didn’t seem to have any sentimental value to him did it...
Him and Brett Collins trying to flog semi nude pictures of Sheila around Fleet Street must be a low even for a mass murderer.
-
Are you accusing the family of theft?
You’re really showing your true colours aren’t you...
The family asked for certain items because they were SENTIMENTAL, priceless, and they knew what Jeremy was like
Just as well: he was flogging everything two days later!
Didn’t seem to have any sentimental value to him did it...
What do you call it when people take property which doesn't belong to them then?
-
What do you call it when people take property which doesn't belong to them then?
As they have it now legally are you suggesting the judicial system rewards thieves? They must have had some rightful claim to it, no?
-
What do you call it when people take property which doesn't belong to them then?
What do you call it when you attempt to make a massive pile of cash by trying to sell nude photos of your dead sister to the red tops within a few weeks of her sensational murder?
-
What do you call it when you attempt to make a massive pile of cash by trying to sell nude photos of your dead sister to the red tops within a few weeks of her sensational murder?
Sauce?
-
Sauce?
Is that really the best word you could come up with?
-
What do you call it when you attempt to make a massive pile of cash by trying to sell nude photos of your dead sister to the red tops within a few weeks of her sensational murder?
A Sun story?
-
As they have it now legally are you suggesting the judicial system rewards thieves? They must have had some rightful claim to it, no?
The Boutflours tried to take it all, but eventually had to hand over Nevill's estate to the Pargeter's.
-
Is that really the best word you could come up with?
Where's your sauce?
-
A Sun story?
Ah. Of course. You’re claiming it never happened. Right you are. Should have guessed.
-
The Boutflours tried to take it all, but eventually had to hand over Nevill's estate to the Pargeter's.
All of it?
-
Ah. Of course. You’re claiming it never happened. Right you are. Should have guessed.
I'm not saying it wasn't true, just that knowing how truthful and sincere the tabloids are (not) it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that the tale was not necessarily as presented.
-
What do you call it when people take property which doesn't belong to them then?
Do you mean like when jeremy Bamber broke into the Caravan Site and took almost £1000?
I’d call that THEFT.
Or do you mean taking property from your parents by shooting them dead? Or taking away your sister’s and nephews rightful inheritance by killing shooting them dead too?
I’d call that THEFT.
And MURDER.
And do you mean selling off property that belonged to the sister you killed?
Yeah, that’s THEFT too
-
Him and Brett Collins trying to flog semi nude pictures of Sheila around Fleet Street must be a low even for a mass murderer.
Yes, trying to flog nude photos of the sister you killed , and giggling about it, sure is low. Real low....
The Sun newspaper soon wiped that grin off his mug when they printed the story on the front page how he’d tried to flog the pictures...and how strange he did a little disappearing act when the story broke. None of his threats to sue for libel — the new Boss just hid like a rat up a drainpipe.
-
A Sun story?
Are you trying to say The Sun lied?
And are you seriously suggesting the litigious jeremy Bamber wouldn’t have sued them for libel?
Do you want to see the headlines...I’ll post them up for you
Meanwhile, here’s one of the coward coming out of court after admitting to burglary and theft. Are you saying that’s an illusion?
And guess what? That jumper he’s hiding his smarmy mug under actually belonged to Sheila!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Are you trying to say The Sun lied?
The S*n routinely lies. Many, many lies.
The Bamber story may be true, I dunno. But many, many lies.
-
Where's your sauce?
I take it you don't know much about this case?
Michael Fielder (the guy Bamber and Collins met in the pub), make a statement. He has appeared in interviews and just about every book written. The episode is also recounted in detail in Colin's book. I am sure you and the others will make an excuse of about Fielder being a Sun reporter but Colin (who wasn't a Sun reporter) backs up Fielder's claim - Bamber even used the same words to both Colin and Fielder to describe the photographs. I asked Bamber about the article and he declines to answer (again).
-
The S*n routinely lies. Many, many lies.
The Bamber story may be true, I dunno. But many, many lies.
Ha, ha!! Knew it! @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
This time it's backed up by Colin! 8((()*/
-
I take it you don't know much about this case?
Michael Fielder (the guy Bamber and Collins met in the pub), make a statement. He has appeared in interviews and just about every book written. The episode is also recounted in detail in Colin's book. I am sure you and the others will make an excuse of about Fielder being a Sun reporter but Colin (who wasn't a Sun reporter) backs up Fielder's claim - Bamber even used the same words to both Colin and Fielder to describe the photographs. I asked Bamber about the article and he declines to answer (again).
No, but I thought forum rules required a source / cite to back up claims, irrespective of whether you think it's 'common knowledge', or 'I read it once'. This is how Ispyweener is getting a free pass - never providing cites.
So you can do what I do and offer nothing, because I can't back it up or am too lazy to look, or don't post opinions as facts unless you can back your sh1t up.
....and who are 'the others'? Am I in a clique now? WOO!
-
Ha, ha!! Knew it! @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
This time it's backed up by Colin! 8((()*/
What? You didn't know about The S*n's history of lies? Where would you like me to start?
Who's Colin?
-
I take it you don't know much about this case?
Michael Fielder (the guy Bamber and Collins met in the pub), make a statement. He has appeared in interviews and just about every book written. The episode is also recounted in detail in Colin's book. I am sure you and the others will make an excuse of about Fielder being a Sun reporter but Colin (who wasn't a Sun reporter) backs up Fielder's claim - Bamber even used the same words to both Colin and Fielder to describe the photographs. I asked Bamber about the article and he declines to answer (again).
CC also claims NB and JB like to play practical jokes on farm reps by placing large orders and then cancelling them. Why couldn't this extend to The Sun?
-
What? You didn't know about The S*n's history of lies? Where would you like me to start?
Who's Colin?
I wouldn't like you to start anywhere. I think you're just taking the piss.
-
CC also claims NB and JB like to play practical jokes on farm reps by placing large orders and then cancelling them. Why couldn't this extend to The Sun?
So you're calling him a liar? There really is no end to the amount of excuses you and other will find to support this man is there? %56&
-
I wouldn't like you to start anywhere. I think you're just taking the piss.
Are we at cross purposes here? I'm talking about that sh1tty rag's history of publishing heinous lies, quite non-specific.
What are you talking about?
-
So you're calling him a liar? There really is no end to the amount of excuses you and other will find to support this man is there? %56&
Calling who a liar?
-
Are we at cross purposes here? I'm talking about that sh1tty rag's history of publishing heinous lies, quite non-specific.
What are you talking about?
I think it's pretty clear and I don't have time to draw you a diagram!
We're talking about ONE particular story, not the history of the newspaper - a story that was backed cup by the ex husband of Sheila. Bamber told him about the photographs, showing him some of them and stating that there were others where "you could see everything right down to the last details'. Colin was shocked to later see the pictures mentioned in The Sun in which he stated to Michael Fielder (the reporter) that n the photographs "you can see everything right down to the last detail. That's what I'm talking about!
-
I think it's pretty clear and I don't have time to draw you a diagram!
We're talking about ONE particular story, not the history of the newspaper - a story that was backed cup by the ex husband of Sheila. Bamber told him about the photographs, showing him some of them and stating that there were others where "you could see everything right down to the last details'. Colin was shocked to later see the pictures mentioned in The Sun in which he stated to Michael Fielder (the reporter) that n the photographs "you can see everything right down to the last detail. That's what I'm talking about!
Oh right, OK.
I was talking about that sh1tarsed rag of a paper.
At ease soldier.
-
Oh right, OK.
I was talking about that sh1tarsed rag of a paper.
At ease soldier.
Bollocks
-
Bollocks
A bit rude that, Caz girl.
-
A bit rude that, Caz girl.
Well, what can I say - I'm Northern 8((()*/
-
Well, what can I say - I'm Northern 8((()*/
Me too. Straight talking. Can't beat it.
-
I think it's pretty clear and I don't have time to draw you a diagram!
We're talking about ONE particular story, not the history of the newspaper - a story that was backed cup by the ex husband of Sheila. Bamber told him about the photographs, showing him some of them and stating that there were others where "you could see everything right down to the last details'. Colin was shocked to later see the pictures mentioned in The Sun in which he stated to Michael Fielder (the reporter) that n the photographs "you can see everything right down to the last detail. That's what I'm talking about!
But why should we see CC's accounts as infallible?
-
But why should we see CC's accounts as infallible?
He is backing up what someone else said and vice versa. Why should we see anyone's point of view as fallible in that case? When you cite someone, you cling onto it for grim death, even they couldn't possibly have made a mistake, even though the rest of the evidence shows they must have. Too many excuses and denials just make a mockery of the whole thing. Everyone lied except Bamber - it just doesn't wash.
-
He is backing up what someone else said and vice versa. Why should we see anyone's point of view as fallible in that case? When you cite someone, you cling onto it for grim death, even they couldn't possibly have made a mistake, even though the rest of the evidence shows they must have. Too many excuses and denials just make a mockery of the whole thing. Everyone lied except Bamber - it just doesn't wash.
CC's claims often contradict with others. Eg his claim his mother observed JB naked or semi-naked running out of the bathroom at CC's. He even said recently on prime TV that JB had his hair soaped up in spikes which he did to copy the twins and yet his mother makes no ref to this meeting in her wit stat.
-
CC's claims often contradict with others. Eg his claim his mother observed JB naked or semi-naked running out of the bathroom at CC's. He even said recently on prime TV that JB had his hair soaped up in spikes which he did to copy the twins and yet his mother makes no ref to this meeting in her wit stat.
An omission doesn’t mean it didn’t occur Holly
-
An omission doesn’t mean it didn’t occur Holly
I never said otherwise.
-
An omission doesn’t mean it didn’t occur Holly
I never said otherwise.
You alluded to it
CC's claims often contradict with others. Eg his claim his mother observed JB naked or semi-naked running out of the bathroom at CC's. He even said recently on prime TV that JB had his hair soaped up in spikes which he did to copy the twins and yet his mother makes no ref to this meeting in her wit stat.
-
It is disappointing to note that despite numerous warnings, some members continue to use crude and totally uncalled-for language when responding to other members. This will no longer be allowed to continue.
I have instructed the moderation team to clamp down heavily on rule breakers from now on.
There will be no exceptions!
-
CC also claims NB and JB like to play practical jokes on farm reps by placing large orders and then cancelling them. Why couldn't this extend to The Sun?
Are you seriously suggesting that shortly after his sister’s murder JB approached the Sun with thr offer of selling nude photos to them as a practical joke?
-
He is backing up what someone else said and vice versa. Why should we see anyone's point of view as fallible in that case? When you cite someone, you cling onto it for grim death, even they couldn't possibly have made a mistake, even though the rest of the evidence shows they must have. Too many excuses and denials just make a mockery of the whole thing. Everyone lied except Bamber - it just doesn't wash.
It’s utterly astounding to me the level of denial and excuse making being made in defence of JB, it totally comfirms my view that his supporters are very misguided indeed (that’s the polite word for it).
-
It’s utterly astounding to me the level of denial and excuse making being made in defence of JB, it totally comfirms my view that his supporters are very misguided indeed (that’s the polite word for it).
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.
-
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.
Luckily the court managed to sort the wheat from the chaff ... do you think they were misguided too?
-
Luckily the court managed to sort the wheat from the chaff ... do you think they were misguided too?
The judges, jury and witnesses did their best, IMO.
Whether or not they got it right, I'm not sure.
-
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.
People who are “guilters” do n’t dispute the official, accepted narrative so where does the misguided bit come into it?
-
People who are “guilters” do n’t dispute the official, accepted narrative so where does the misguided bit come into it?
Officialdom often calls the big issues wrong. I say this as someone who spent nearly a 1/4 of a century in financial services. Former chairman of the financial regulator Lord Turner re the crisis that almost caused the entire global financial system to collaps:
"I think we, as authorities, central banks, regulators, those who are involved today, are the inheritors of a 50-year-long, large intellectual and policy mistake".
-
Officialdom often calls the big issues wrong. I say this as someone who spent nearly a 1/4 of a century in financial services. Former chairman of the financial regulator Lord Turner re the crisis that almost caused the entire global financial system to collaps:
"I think we, as authorities, central banks, regulators, those who are involved today, are the inheritors of a 50-year-long, large intellectual and policy mistake".
What the effing jeff has that got to do with what I wrote? You think I’m misguided for accepting that Jeremy Bamber murdered his family? I also accept the moon landings happened and that Oswald acted alone, but I guess some people would think I was misguided about that as well!
-
What the effing jeff has that got to do with what I wrote? You think I’m misguided for accepting that Jeremy Bamber murdered his family? I also accept the moon landings happened and that Oswald acted alone, but I guess some people would think I was misguided about that as well!
Did I say you're misguided?
You said guilters don't dispute the official accepted narrative. I pointed out that officialdom often calls it wrong.
-
People who are “guilters” do n’t dispute the official, accepted narrative so where does the misguided bit come into it?
Something can be official and accepted, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's true.
-
Something can be official and accepted, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's true.
Or that it isn't.
-
Or that it isn't.
Obviously.
-
Obviously.
Indubitably.
-
Or that it isn't.
Naturally!
-
Something can be official and accepted, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's true.
misguided
having or showing faulty judgement or reasoning.
Please explain how accepting the official and accepted narrative makes a “guilter” misguided? There is no faulty reasoning or judgement in coming to the conclusion that Jeremy who has been found guilty in a court of law and who has had several appeals thrown out must be guilty, unless you can explain how doing so makes me misguided?
-
misguided
having or showing faulty judgement or reasoning.
Please explain how accepting the official and accepted narrative makes a “guilter” misguided? There is no faulty reasoning or judgement in coming to the conclusion that Jeremy who has been found guilty in a court of law and who has had several appeals thrown out must be guilty, unless you can explain how doing so makes me misguided?
Who said anything about misguided?
-
Who said anything about misguided?
I used the word to describe JB’s supporters’ constant denial and excuses for the huge wealth of evidence which points to the fact that he is lower than a snake’s belly. Mrswah claimed some “guilters” and fencesitters could be misguided too, but misguided about what exactly I have no idea.
-
The pathologist didn't mess up but Essex Police did in that all exhibits were destroyed including victims' samples:
165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciatling that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.
According to Forensic Scientist Mark Webster (2016)
‘Blood grouping evidence in Bamber case was investigated by McKenzie friends "The Manchester McKenzie Organisation" in the 1990s.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=276.0
-
misguided
having or showing faulty judgement or reasoning.
Please explain how accepting the official and accepted narrative makes a “guilter” misguided? There is no faulty reasoning or judgement in coming to the conclusion that Jeremy who has been found guilty in a court of law and who has had several appeals thrown out must be guilty, unless you can explain how doing so makes me misguided?
Ok, so perhaps I used the wrong word. "Mistaken" would have been better! I was not suggesting that there is anything wrong with your reasoning. I do maintain, however, that even if someone has been found guilty and has lost appeals, that person could still be innocent.
As far as I can see (and I'm by no means an expert on this case), it is possible that the guilters have got it wrong. It's also possible that the supporters have got it wrong.
As for me, I haven't a clue, so I'm going to be wrong anyway!
-
Ok, so perhaps I used the wrong word. "Mistaken" would have been better! I was not suggesting that there is anything wrong with your reasoning. I do maintain, however, that even if someone has been found guilty and has lost appeals, that person could still be innocent.
As far as I can see (and I'm by no means an expert on this case), it is possible that the guilters have got it wrong. It's also possible that the supporters have got it wrong.
As for me, I haven't a clue, so I'm going to be wrong anyway!
Come on, there are SOME clues!
-
Come on, there are SOME clues!
How did this term 'guilter' evolve? What an odd label that is, almost as if it is to describe someone with an erroneous counter opinion and there's another option. There is no other option.
-
How did this term 'guilter' evolve? What an odd label that is, almost as if it is to describe someone with an erroneous counter opinion and there's another option. There is no other option.
It’s a derogatory term to make those who accept Bamber’s guilt sound like some weird American conspiracy nutter cult.
-
It’s a derogatory term to make those who accept Bamber’s guilt sound like some weird American conspiracy nutter cult.
It's a pretty lame attempt at a quasi-pejorative label that probably points more to a desperate need to create a schism that doesn't exist.
Believing Bamber to be guilty isn't a 'camp', it's an absolute.
-
It's a pretty lame attempt at a quasi-pejorative label that probably points more to a desperate need to create a schism that doesn't exist.
Believing Bamber to be guilty isn't a 'camp', it's an absolute.
well yeah, but that’s not how the supporters see it.
-
well yeah, but that’s not how the supporters see it.
As a grammar pedant, I disapprove of the term "guilter". I prefer "opposer" or "detractor", the opposites of supporter.
-
As a grammar pedant, I disapprove of the term "guilter". I prefer "opposer" or "detractor", the opposites of supporter.
Fair enough, I'll use "opposer " in future. Wasn't sure what to use, to be honest, and I'd seen "guilter" used somewhere else.
But I wouldn't want to offend anyone!
-
Come on, there are SOME clues!
Of course there are!
I realise he's more likely to be guilty than not, and I go back and forth with my opinions, depending on what I read, and am frustrated that I never come to a conclusion. Probably haven't read enough of the important stuff-----cant drum up much enthusiasm for blood/ballistics evidence, but I'm very interested in the family "dynamics".
-
Fair enough, I'll use "opposer " in future. Wasn't sure what to use, to be honest, and I'd seen "guilter" used somewhere else.
But I wouldn't want to offend anyone!
We can only please some of the posters, SOME of the time, Mrswah ?{)(**
-
But why should we see CC's accounts as infallible?
You think the convicted mass murderer Jeremy Bamber’s accounts are infallible
Funny the jury didn’t think so....😌
-
As a grammar pedant, I disapprove of the term "guilter". I prefer "opposer" or "detractor", the opposites of supporter.
I stand corrected. I’m old school.....opposer it is. Apologies.
-
CC's claims often contradict with others. Eg his claim his mother observed JB naked or semi-naked running out of the bathroom at CC's. He even said recently on prime TV that JB had his hair soaped up in spikes which he did to copy the twins and yet his mother makes no ref to this meeting in her wit stat.
That’s because it didn’t crop up in the interview
What you’re forgetting is, Colin’s mother was in pieces as her beautiful little grandsons had been shot dead — by the man you support — Jeremy Bamber
She wouldn’t have said every solitary thing to the police as they asked her questions, and as the police didn’t know the sick, twisted Jeremy got a sick kick out of copying the twins spiky hair when they were in the bath, and which was in a framed photograph, she obviously never got round to mentioning it
-
Maybe you should ask Bamber, Mark Newby or his CT to provide copies of the paperwork related to all exhibits
These questions have still yet to be answered http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,514.msg9287.html#msg9287
“Mike, please could you clarify when JB or his legal team were advised that evidence, in particular blood samples, were going to be or had been destroyed, as happened in 1996.
Likewise, in 2002 the CCRC displayed a willingness to use their powers to examine the full circumstances surrounding the destruction of evidence in 1996. JB instructed Turner QC to decline this offer to investigate. What reason has JB given for his decision?
“It appears JB rejected a golden opportunity to (possibly) have the EP discredited by the CCRC.
The CCRC would have borne the costs as well - not to be sneezed at.
Had EP been proved to be disingenuous on this matter, the Commission may have allowed 'generous discretion' in viewing related grounds for Appeal.
The silence on this leads to other conspiracy theories - that JB wanted blood samples destroyed fearing DNA developments since 1985... etc.
So I think the matter should be addressed.
These questions have still yet to be answered
In Bamber’s 7th June 2011 letter to Mike T here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=229.0 on the last page Bamber states,
“Those photos you attribute to DS Jones taking them, he didn’t he exhibited them, DC Bird took them, I have copies of the originals - the ones DS Jones exhibited were destroyed not the original images
-
These questions have still yet to be answered
In Bamber’s 7th June 2011 letter to Mike T here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=229.0 on the last page Bamber states,
“Those photos you attribute to DS Jones taking them, he didn’t he exhibited them, DC Bird took them, I have copies of the originals - the ones DS Jones exhibited were destroyed not the original images
Oh, did JB want want the blood from the silencers destroyed?!
Now, why would he want that if he was innocent?😗
And then he complains about evidence that WAS destroyed...🤷♀️
He can’t have it both ways
-
CC's claims often contradict with others. Eg his claim his mother observed JB naked or semi-naked running out of the bathroom at CC's. He even said recently on prime TV that JB had his hair soaped up in spikes which he did to copy the twins and yet his mother makes no ref to this meeting in her wit stat.
https://youtu.be/afIXWrexiWk @ 4.20
-
Oh, did JB want want the blood from the silencers destroyed?!
Now, why would he want that if he was innocent?😗
And then he complains about evidence that WAS destroyed...🤷♀️
He can’t have it both ways
By the time the defence expert visited the lab to examine the silencer there was no evidence of visible blood in the silencer!
-
https://youtu.be/afIXWrexiWk @ 4.20
Went through that one yesterday, Holly
Colin’s mum was mourning the loss of her grandsons!
When she made her statement to police she was merely answering questions they asked HER.
It obviously never arose about JB putting his hair in spikes, mimicking the twins’ photo...but he did do it. Colin isn’t a pathological liar/nut, neither is his mother...but JB is, and he got a warped kick from doing it.
-
Went through that one yesterday, Holly
Colin’s mum was mourning the loss of her grandsons!
When she made her statement to police she was merely answering questions they asked HER.
It obviously never arose about JB putting his hair in spikes, mimicking the twins’ photo...but he did do it. Colin sent a pathological liar/nut, neither is his mother...but JB is, and he got a warped kick from doing it.
His mother provided a wit stat where she recounts her very limited contact with JB. Why would she omit such an encounter?
-
His mother provided a wit stat where she recounts her very limited contact with JB. Why would she omit such an encounter?
There are also many inconsistencies in the wit stats of FE, CC and his mother.
-
His mother provided a wit stat where she recounts her very limited contact with JB. Why would she omit such an encounter?
She may have forgotten about it at the time she gave her statement - her grandchildren, their mother & her parents had been murdered - suspect that may have had some bearing on her thought processes at the time
What date was her statement taken ?
How many statements did she make ?
When did CC disclose
JB putting his hair in spikes, mimicking the twins’ photo...
was this before or after Bamber's murder trial ?
-
His mother provided a wit stat where she recounts her very limited contact with JB. Why would she omit such an encounter?
Probably due to the fact the police asked her specific questions; she was in a foggy grief-stricken haze of unreality, and it simply didn’t enter her mind.
You can’t accuse someone of lying simply because they didn’t mention it to someone else.
She must have been in utter pieces!
I don’t know, and I hope you never have had to go through tragic events — but I have — and I can tell you now that you’re incapable of even thinking straight, let alone discussing details you may have forgotten to mention.
You’re almost suggesting Colin would have not just made that up, but that he even envisaged it inside his head when he was broken to bits?
-
By the time the defence expert visited the lab to examine the silencer there was no evidence of visible blood in the silencer!
That’s why they had to take it apart and examine it under microscope
-
It's a pretty lame attempt at a quasi-pejorative label that probably points more to a desperate need to create a schism that doesn't exist.
Believing Bamber to be guilty isn't a 'camp', it's an absolute.
I don’t often agree with you, General, but I do in this instance
I’d also like to hear you say that when you’re sloshed....
-
She may have forgotten about it at the time she gave her statement - her grandchildren, their mother & her parents had been murdered - suspect that may have had some bearing on her thought processes at the time
What date was her statement taken ?
How many statements did she make ?
When did CC disclose
was this before or after Bamber's murder trial ?
quote author=Nicholas link=topic=11431.msg593032#msg593032 date=1590229175]
She may have forgotten about it at the time she gave her statement - her grandchildren, their mother & her parents had been murdered - suspect that may have had some bearing on her thought processes at the time
The same could be said as to why Jeremy turned up at CM’s workplace unannounced, which was described as strange.
-
There are also many inconsistencies in the wit stats of FE, CC and his mother.
Look, you’ll always find inconsistencies in everyone’s statements, or even when people relay a happening to you.
People forget some details; get times slightly wrong; exact phrases; all sorts of things...the police know that.
But when you add them all together they form a pattern which adds up.
-
The same could be said as to why Jeremy turned up at CM’s workplace unannounced, which was described as strange.
Perhaps Jeremy was much closer to Charles than anyone realised...
Or maybe he wanted to get out of the house to be alone. The police and family were all milling around and he may have got edgy...
-
Look, you’ll always inconsistencies in everyone’s statements, or even when people relay a happening to you.
People forget some details; get times slightly wrong; exact phrases; all sorts of things...the police know that.
But when you add them all together they form a pattern which adds up.
I agree you will always find inconsistencies in wit accounts. Some are easily explained others more difficult if witnesses are being truthful.
-
I agree you will always find inconsistencies in wit accounts. Some are easily explained others more difficult if witnesses are being truthful.
It’s glaringly obvious Bamber wasn’t truthful in his witness statements Holly
-
Fair enough, I'll use "opposer " in future. Wasn't sure what to use, to be honest, and I'd seen "guilter" used somewhere else.
But I wouldn't want to offend anyone!
You do realise, don’t you, that you’ve just admitted exactly which side of the fence you’re on, MrsWah. Whoops!
-
I agree you will always find inconsistencies in wit accounts. Some are easily explained others more difficult if witnesses are being truthful.
Well, the witness statements satisfied the prosecution and defence, Holly...including the jury and Judge...
So are you saying they all missed something Miss GoodHead has picked up on?😌
-
The S*n routinely lies. Many, many lies.
The Bamber story may be true, I dunno. But many, many lies.
But it wasn’t just The Sun
ALL the national newspapers reported on the case, and they all said the same
Are you suggesting all newspaper editors are stupid?
-
But why should we see CC's accounts as infallible?
Are you trying to suggest Colin lied?
He wasn’t the one charged with mass murder, Holly — the monster, Jeremy Bamber was.
Colin had no reason to lie
Jeremy Bamber did though
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.”
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.