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.
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
IF my understanding is correct the court elucidates further and goes on to question if any of the DNA
Is from blood.
Mr Hayward, Mr Fletcher, Dr Lincoln for the defence, Mr Ismail, and Mr Mark Webster defence expert
all examined the sound moderator for the presence of blood.
To quote the court they said
Thus it is clear that no blood was ever seen by any of those who had examined the baffles on any baffle beyond the eighth one from the bullet exiting end and nor have any tests revealed the presence of blood beyond this point. Dr Lincoln in April 1986 specifically tested all the baffles for blood and found no trace of any beyond the eighth baffle.
They go on to say that the (ccrc) conclusion that the DNA was likely to have come from blood found in the silencer at the time was said to be justified because it was found deep within the silencer,
cannot be sustained.
They then considered how the DNA could get inside the sound moderator other than back splattering during the killings.
They considered contamination to be a significant possibility.
To quote they said
That conclusion certainly ignores, at the very least, the examination by Dr Lincoln who removed all the baffles and tested them all so that contamination of baffles, whether deep inside or not, was a possibility. Even more importantly it failed to consider the use made of the moderator as an exhibit at trial where no sort of precautions would have been taken.
They then considered Mr Webster the defence expert on his report dated 22/9/2002
on the risk of contamination where he put forth many points.
Mr Webster concluded,
"The CCRC, in their statement of reasons, more or less excluded the possibility of contamination. In my opinion, the Commission was wrong to do so."
The appeal court felt that the DNA results were rendered completely meaningless.
they concluded
Thus we are satisfied that the DNA evidence does not lead to any conclusion that the verdicts were unsafe. They do not in any way establish how June Bamber's DNA came to be found in the moderator many years after the trial. Even if one were to reject the possibility of contamination and conclude that June Bamber's blood got into the moderator during the shooting, THAT WOULD NOT MEAN SHEILA CAFFELLS BLOOD WAS NOT IN THE SILENCER. THE FLAKE OF BLOOD THAT WAS GROUP TESTED WAS INDEPENDENT OF THE DNA FOUND ON THE BAFFLES ATTRIBUTED TO JUNE BAMBER. The evidence about the blood testing is not, in our judgment, in any way diminished by the DNA findings, even if one ignored the whole issue of contamination at a later date.
