Martyn Ismail was an expert for the prosecution at 2002 appeal re SC being moved at soc. I haven't seen anything about him being involved with the blood/dna/silencer.
I agree with what you've posted other than the last sentence. The tests carried out in 1985 were based on blood serology and incapable of identifying an individual. The test results will be shared by others. Dr Lincoln said 8% of the white British population.
Assuming blood was found in the silencer as FSS claimed it still begs the question how it came to be there:
- out of all the blood stained exhibits only the flake inside the silencer was capable of yielding the results produced by FSS.
- only the blood flake inside the silencer was exposed to environmental conditions which would be expected to degrade blood (for serology tests) rendering it incapable of yielding results: hot firearm discharge gases and cyanoacrylate fuming chamber.
- drawback would not be expected with the small calibre rifle, low velocity ammo, silencer and neck shots
- when drawback does occur tissue would be expected to present with the blood - none was present.
- when drawback does occur it normally presents with headshots.
- Nicholas sustained a contact headshot but his blood groups were not found.
- FSS had quality issues during the 80's and imo therein lies the problem.
Hi Holly
Taken from the court of Appeal 2002 posted below.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.htmlYour first question regarding Martyn Ismail,
498v v) On 29 March 1999, Mr Martyn Ismail, another forensic scientist and Mr Mark Webster, the defence expert, examined the sound moderator for the presence of blood. No visible signs of blood were found and a number of discrete tests for blood were performed but no blood was detected. More extensive chemical tests were not performed because they might have reduced the chance of obtaining DNA profiles.
Your next question regarding Dr Patrick Lincoln for the defence though not used at trial,
(thanks for posting Dr Lincolns questioning i found interesting)
point 460)
On the 29/4/1986 Dr Lincoln visited the forensic science lab and examined the material.
He said according to the appeal court
He agreed with Mr Hayward's conclusion that the combination of blood groups revealed in his testing of the inside of the moderator could have come solely from Sheila Caffell but did not come from any one of the other individuals. He said that it was not clear from Mr Hayward's statement that he had obtained the blood from which the different group testings had been done from the same area of the moderator. If they were not from the same area, then the results could have originated from more than one individual.
These were his concerns as outlined in your post.
He again went to the laboratory to speak with Mr Hayward,
After this meeting
point 461)
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.
Your point about the tests showing 8 per cent of the white British population would share them, as postulated by Dr lincoln,
seems to me a misnomer, As Essex police considered it to be only Sheila at first, then Jeremy Bamber,
as there was no forced entry to commit the heinous crime.
The forensic and ballistic experts concurred regarding how the blood was purchased into the sound moderator
Mr Fletcher said according to the appeals justice court
point (457)
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".
So the Ballistics expert was virtually certain that Sheilas blood would get in to the moderator
with only a slight possibility of it not happening.
Yes i have read literature that you and others have posted regarding drawback issues,
And yes i am sure allegedly mistakes have been made at some time by the FSS, allegedly in the
Damiola Taylor case i read,
but i am convinced by the expert testimony, of the Forensics and Ballistics expert,
as was the court.
Of course Holly you are free to disagree, by the way i am impressed by how much literature you have regarding this case
