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
