Question to members

[ISpyWithMyEye]

What will the new forensic tests reveal, and when do you expect them to take place?  I thought Jeremy’s latest explosive piece of evidence that would prove Sheila dunnit was that there was someone alive in the house while he was sat in the police car?

Yes, that lasted all of two minutes until police proved Jeremy was lying

[ISpyWithMyEye]

My position is no different from that which you held for many years until you decided JB is guilty as charged. 

Anyway let's desist from making any comments whatsoever  of a personal nature otherwise it has the potential to sow discord and disrupt the forum.

You don’t like it when you’re cornered, that’s the truth of it

You don’t have one shred of new/old evidence that even suggests one part of the investigation gave a wrong result

What you’re conveniently forgetting, Holly, is that Jeremy was proven to be guilty due to SEVERAL factors, all of which reinforced the obvious: only JEREMY BAMBER could have murdered his family.

You refuse to accept those facts, but that’s OK....no-one is remotely interested in your views or indeed Jeremy Bamber’s ludicrous weak claims. The courts are sick to death of him. They graciously allowed him his first appeal, and after hearing the evidence INCREASED his term to Life Without Parole.

In his second attempt to worm his way out, by which time forensics had moved forwards in leaps and bounds, it was established that the blood in the silencer contained 17 of Sheila’s markers, rather than the 13 markers which was good enough to prove in 1986 that it was Sheila’s blood. So when they discovered it actually contained SEVENTEEN markers of Sheila’s blood, the pathologist said the chances of that blood belonging to anyone else was a TRILLION to ONE. Big odds, Holly!

Good luck with that.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

New forensic tests.

Nothing of evidential value was lost.  It's a myth that evidence was destroyed pre-trial.

Please refer to soc officer DC Hammersley's trial testimony which covers all soc exhibits:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=165.0

Not sure why you posted that long diatribe, Holly...

All it proves is that the police took swabs, as they would have

It also proves they weren’t particularly thorough, otherwise they’d have found the silencer Jeremy hid in the cupboard


There’s nothing of any significance in there at all. We all know they took samples...so what’s your point?

[Holly Goodhead]

Not sure why you posted that long diatribe, Holly...

All it proves is that the police took swabs, as they would have

It also proves they weren’t particularly thorough, otherwise they’d have found the silencer Jeremy his in the cupboard


There’s nothing ig any significance in there at all. We all know they took samples...so what’s your point?

Some here new to the case were under the misguided idea that much forensic evidence was lost which isn't the case as evidenced by DC Hammersley's trial testimony which comprehensively covers all the seized exhibits.

[Holly Goodhead]

You don’t like it when you’re cornered, that’s the truth if it

You don’t have one shred of new/old evidence that even suggests one part of the investigation gave a wrong result

What you’re conveniently forgetting, Holly, is that Jeremy was proven to be guilty due to SEVERAL factors, all of which reinforced the obvious: only JEREMY BAMBER could have murdered his family.

You refuse to accept those facts, but that’s OK....no-one is remotely interested in your views or indeed Jeremy Bamber’s ludicrous weak claims. The courts are sick to death of him. They graciously allowed him his first appeal, and after hearing the evidence INCREASED his term to Life Without Parole.

In his second attempt to worm his way out, by which time forensics had moved forwards in leaps and bounds, it was established that the blood in the silencer contained 17 of Sheila’s markers, rather than the 13 markers which was good enough to prove in 1986 that it was Sheila’s blood. So when they discovered it actually contained SEVENTEEN markers of Sheila’s blood, the pathologist said the chances of that blood belonging to anyone else was a TRILLION to ONE. Big odds, Holly!

Good luck with that.

You are posting up way too much misinformation.  If you want to post up facts please check and provide cites and sources.

At the 2002 appeal the court determined the following which has no bearing on your assertions above:

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.

Point 497 of the following:

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

[ISpyWithMyEye]

You are posting up way too much misinformation.  If you want to post up facts please check and provide cites and sources.

At the 2002 appeal the court determined the following which has no bearing on your assertions above:

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.

Point 497 of the following:

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

You’re quoting from Jeremy Bamber’s campaign team, who cherry pick quotes — that’s kind of biased, I’d say

Of course June’s blood was possibly in the silencer too — Jeremy shot her point blank range between her eyes. In fact, forensics thought it possible both a mixture of June and Nevill’s blood was inside, which is to be expected — but there wasn’t enough to establish it was theirs. However, sense tells you it most likely was.

But what was established was that Sheila’s blood was most certainly inside the silencer. And the reason the appeal court judges made reference to the test taken in 1985 is that’s what the appeal was about. They were discussing the case that took place in 1986, and discussing the results from that case.

However, 13 markers of Sheila’s blood was found back then, which was sufficient proof that in all likelihood the blood was Sheila’s.

Remember, years later forensics retested that same blood as advances in analysis had moved on, and they discovered that SEVENTEEN markers of Sheila’s blood was in that sample — which proved beyond doubt it was Sheila’s blood. A forensic specialist tested that blood and supplied concrete evidence, so I don’t see how anyone can refute that...

[Holly Goodhead]

You’re quoting from Jeremy Bamber’s campaign team, who cherry pick quotes — that’s kind of biased, I’d say

Of course June’s blood was possibly in the silencer too — Jeremy shot her point blank range between her eyes. In fact, forensics thought it possible both a mixture of June and Nevill’s blood was inside, which is to be expected — but there wasn’t enough to establish it was theirs. However, sense tells you it most likely was.

But what was established was that Sheila’s blood was most certainly inside the silencer. And the reason the appeal court judges made reference to the test taken in 1985 that’s what the appeal was about. They were discussing the case that took place in 1986, and discussing the results from that case.

However, 13 markers of Sheila’s blood was found back then, which was sufficient proof to that in all likelihood the blood was Sheila’s.

Remember, years later forensics retested that same blood as advances in analysis had moved on, and they discovered that SEVENTEEN markers of Sheila’s blood was in that sample — which proved beyond doubt it was Sheila’s blood. A forensic specialist tested that blood and supplied concrete evidence, so I don’t see how anyone can refute that...

I am quoting from a doc produced by the three appeal court judges who make clear at point 497:

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

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

[APRIL]

I am quoting from a doc produced by the three appeal court judges who make clear at point 497:

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

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

But we can't pick out just one point and claim it to be the definitive of guilt or innocence of either Jeremy or Sheila. It's about the total and subsequent balance of ALL pointers.

[Holly Goodhead]

But we can't pick out just one point and claim it to be the definitive of guilt or innocence of either Jeremy or Sheila. It's about the total and subsequent balance of ALL pointers.

I'm not suggesting we can just pointing out the conclusions of the appeal court judges with regard to whether or not SC's DNA was in the silencer. 

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I am quoting from a doc produced by the three appeal court judges who make clear at point 497:

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

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

If you read my previous reply, Holly, you’ll understand that the appeal court judges were examining the trial that took place in 1986.

I repeat: in 1986 forensics discovered 13 markers in the blood sample which belonged to Sheila, and 13 markers were evidence enough that the blood was Sheila’s.

However, when that same blood was tested years later, by which time forensic evidence had moved forward, the sample showed 17 markers that matched Sheila’s. The court was told that the likelihood of that blood belonging to anyone else was a trillion to one, which Im sure you’ll agree is huge odds.

I feel you’re trying to turn this into something that doesn’t exist...it’s been established it’s Sheila’s blood and by you trying to cast doubts is doing the opposite of what you’re desperately trying to achieve.

[Caroline]

What will the new forensic tests reveal, and when do you expect them to take place?  I thought Jeremy’s latest explosive piece of evidence that would prove Sheila dunnit was that there was someone alive in the house while he was sat in the police car?

Don't forget the suicide note! 

Jeremy hasn't sanctioned whatever Holly is doing, he never would because he's not in control of it. Whatever the tests are, they are done from the standpoint of bias - that's not how science works or is it an acceptable practice.

[G-Unit]

If you read my previous reply, Holly, you’ll understand that the appeal court judges were examining the trial that took place in 1986.

I repeat: in 1986 forensics discovered 13 markers in the blood sample which belonged to Sheila, and 13 markers were evidence enough that the blood was Sheila’s.

However, when that same blood was tested years later, by which time forensic evidence had moved forward, the sample showed 17 markers that matched Sheila’s. The court was told that the likelihood of that blood belonging to anyone else was a trillion to one, which Im sure you’ll agree is huge odds.

I feel you’re trying to turn this into something that doesn’t exist...it’s been established it’s Sheila’s blood and by you trying to cast doubts is doing the opposite of what you’re desperately trying to achieve.

Are you saying that 13 of Sheila's DNA markers were found in blood 1986?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Are you saying that 13 of Sheila's DNA markers were found in blood 1986?

Yes.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I am quoting from a doc produced by the three appeal court judges who make clear at point 497:

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

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

You’re ignoring EVIDENCE again, Holly

For someone who keeps saying they only want people to post factual evidence rather than assumptions, when evidence is presented to you, you ignore it.

The blood test you’re referring to  — and which the appeal court judges discussed — was the first one carried out in 1985

That test showed that in all likelihood the blood was Sheila’s as it contained 13 of her markers, and her blood group was rare.

But when they repeated that test some years later, it showed that actually there were SEVENTEEN markers of Sheilas blood, meaning, it was a trillion to one that the blood could have belonged to anyone else.

It’s straightforward and isn’t hard to comprehend. I don’t see why you’re having difficulty with it...

[G-Unit]

You’re ignoring EVIDENCE again, Holly

For someone who keeps saying they only want people to post factual evidence rather than assumptions, when evidence is presented to you, you ignore it.

The blood test you’re referring to  — and which the appeal court judges discussed — was the first one carried out in 1985

That test showed that in all likelihood the blood was Sheila’s as it contained 13 of her markers, and her blood group was rare.

But when they repeated that test some years later, it showed that actually there were SEVENTEEN markers of Sheilas blood, meaning, it was a trillion to one that the blood could have belonged to anyone else.

It’s straightforward and isn’t hard to comprehend. I don’t see why you’re having difficulty with it...

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