Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence

[Holly Goodhead]

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

[Holly Goodhead]

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.

[Common sense]

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."

[Holly Goodhead]

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? 

[Nicholas]

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

[mrswah]

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!

[ISpyWithMyEye]

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...

[Brietta]

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.

[Eleanor]

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.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

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 😌

[ISpyWithMyEye]

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?


😌

[Common sense]

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?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

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.

[Nicholas]

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.

 

[Holly Goodhead]

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?