Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence

[G-Unit]

When the FSS tested swabs from the moderator for DNA they had no samples of June Bamber's or Sheila Caffell's DNA to compare the results with. They used Pamela Boutflour's DNA to represent June's DNA and Sheila's natural mother's DNA to represent her's.

It's impossible to know, however, how similar Pamela's DNA was to June's, because siblings only share 50% of their DNA. Similarly children inherit only 50% of their DNA from their mothers and 50% from their fathers.

In my opinion there was a lot of guesswork involved because they didn't have access to the full DNA profiles of June and Sheila. The best match they could have got is 50% in both examples.

[Vertigo Swirl]

When the FSS tested swabs from the moderator for DNA they had no samples of June Bamber's or Sheila Caffell's DNA to compare the results with. They used Pamela Boutflour's DNA to represent June's DNA and Sheila's natural mother's DNA to represent her's.

It's impossible to know, however, how similar Pamela's DNA was to June's, because siblings only share 50% of their DNA. Similarly children inherit only 50% of their DNA from their mothers and 50% from their fathers.

In my opinion there was a lot of guesswork involved because they didn't have access to the full DNA profiles of June and Sheila. The best match they could have got is 50% in both examples.

Why, when there was blood stained items sll over the place did they not have smples of either of the women’s DNA?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

There was no thread protector on the end of the rifle when it was found, as is obvious in the crime scene photo...

Thank you for pointing that out, Myster — I’d not studied the photo properly — I should have done 

However, what this evidence now establishes is that Jeremy Bamber’s claims that Sheila used the rifle without a silencer attached, is impossible. Nevill always kept the silencer attached, hence why the barrel protector was never used. Therefore, when JB claimed he went to shoot bunny rabbits and found the rifle without the silencer being screwed on — he was lying.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Mr Hayward found a flake of blood under the first or second baffle plate. He mentioned no markers as he tested the flake for blood groups, not for DNA markers. When DNA tests were carried out 14-15 years later the flake of blood no longer existed, Haywards tests destroyed it.

The blood flake was found on the eighth baffle.

In the first forensic test in 1985 13 out of 20 blood markers belonging to Sheila were identified.

In or around 2002 the blood sample was analysed again, using more advanced methods, and the scientists found SEVENTEEN of Sheila’s blood markers: meaning the blood HAD to be Sheila’s.

I have read the OFFICIAL FACTS several times, and will find them for you — but you’ll still refuse to believe the evidence...

[G-Unit]

Why, when there was blood stained items sll over the place did they not have smples of either of the women’s DNA?

EP collected samples then destroyed them in February 1996.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

When the FSS tested swabs from the moderator for DNA they had no samples of June Bamber's or Sheila Caffell's DNA to compare the results with. They used Pamela Boutflour's DNA to represent June's DNA and Sheila's natural mother's DNA to represent her's.

It's impossible to know, however, how similar Pamela's DNA was to June's, because siblings only share 50% of their DNA. Similarly children inherit only 50% of their DNA from their mothers and 50% from their fathers.

In my opinion there was a lot of guesswork involved because they didn't have access to the full DNA profiles of June and Sheila. The best match they could have got is 50% in both examples.

Scientists don’t do “guess work”, Gunit...

They may provide probabilities on evidence presented to them if they have little to work on, but their “probabilities” aren’t guesses plucked out of the air.

In any event, June and Pamela were full siblings, and whilst they shared 50% identical DNA the results would have been compelling.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

EP collected samples then destroyed them in February 1996.

We all know how incompetent EP were back then, but they certainly didn’t destroy everything.

How do you think scientists tested Sheila’s blood in 2002?

Jeremy Bamber isn’t the sharpest tool in the box, but he certainly had a degree of foresight when he made sure June, Sheila and Nevill were all cremated, didn’t he, eh? And against their wishes too!

[G-Unit]

The blood flake was found on the eighth baffle.

In the first forensic test in 1985 13 out of 20 blood markers belonging to Sheila were identified.

In or around 2002 the blood sample was analysed again, using more advanced methods, and the scientists found SEVENTEEN of Sheila’s blood markers: meaning the blood HAD to be Sheila’s.

I have read the OFFICIAL FACTS several times, and will find them for you — but you’ll still refuse to believe the evidence...

Your post demonstrates perfectly why cites should be provided. You appear to expect member's to believe what you say even though the official evidence contradicts you.

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.
[Point 452 Grounds 14 and 15]
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

[G-Unit]

We all know how incompetent EP were back then, but they certainly didn’t destroy everything.

How do you think scientists tested Sheila’s blood in 2002?

Jeremy Bamber isn’t the sharpest tool in the box, but he certainly had a degree of foresight when he made sure June, Sheila and Nevill were all cremated, didn’t he, eh? And against their wishes too!

EP destroyed the blood-based samples in 1996. The scientists tested unknown fluids in 2002 and compared the DNA found with that of Pamela Boutflour and Christine (nee Jay).

Please find below cites to the official evidence.



482. No questions were asked at trial of Mr Hayward to establish what part of the blood he had tested. The position was, however, known to the defence through their own expert Dr Lincoln. Dr Lincoln had seen the evidential material upon which the group testing results were based and agreed with the conclusions. He recorded that evidence in the course of his report of 19 September 1986. He said that Mr Hayward had "found a flake of blood trapped under the first or second baffle plate" and that it was this flake that was tested and produced the groupings A, EAP BA, AK1, Hp2.1 upon which reliance was placed by the prosecution.
[number 482]

The Commission was subsequently informed that Essex Police had destroyed all the blood based exhibits in February 1996."
[477 10.3]

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... it has been possible to obtain a sample from June Bamber's sister, Pamela Boutflour...
[490]
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

[John]

It has been brought to my attention that some posters are still using inappropriate comments and remarks towards other members on the boards. Forum rules dictate that all responses should be amicable and constructive, there is no need to express any opinion or respond to any question aggressively.

Please keep this in mind guys when posting. TY

[Holly Goodhead]

EP destroyed the blood-based samples in 1996. The scientists tested unknown fluids in 2002 and compared the DNA found with that of Pamela Boutflour and Christine (nee Jay).

Please find below cites to the official evidence.



482. No questions were asked at trial of Mr Hayward to establish what part of the blood he had tested. The position was, however, known to the defence through their own expert Dr Lincoln. Dr Lincoln had seen the evidential material upon which the group testing results were based and agreed with the conclusions. He recorded that evidence in the course of his report of 19 September 1986. He said that Mr Hayward had "found a flake of blood trapped under the first or second baffle plate" and that it was this flake that was tested and produced the groupings A, EAP BA, AK1, Hp2.1 upon which reliance was placed by the prosecution.
[number 482]

The Commission was subsequently informed that Essex Police had destroyed all the blood based exhibits in February 1996."
[477 10.3]

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... it has been possible to obtain a sample from June Bamber's sister, Pamela Boutflour...
[490]
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

Yes and I wondered until recently whether the other sources related to SC's birth father but I read recently CC was asked to handover the twin's milk teeth which I assume was for this purpose.

I wonder why the police didn't track down SC's birth father assuming CJ knew his identity.  Maybe they did track him down and he was found deceased/cremated.

I think DNA can be extracted from burial sites whether buried or cremated.  But as the scientists were concerned with attempting whose DNA was in the silencer from a finite pool ie NB, June and SC maybe they were happy to use what they had and hedge it around statistics eg:

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.

[Holly Goodhead]

What items containing June’s blood were physically handled by the jurors?  When was this blood flake examined?  Pre or post trial?

LCN DNA can produce a DNA profile from cellular material as small as 1/1,000,000 the size of a grain of salt.  When exhibits were handled by police, scientists, jurors and others in 1985/6 no safeguards were in place to protect against contamination as DNA evidence was not in use then:

487. The evidence reveals that the form of DNA testing carried out was Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA profiling. This form of DNA profiling is designated to increase the sensitivity of earlier types of DNA profiling so that, in theory, only a few cells are required for successful analysis. As a result mixed DNA profiles, (i.e. profiles containing DNA originating from more than one individual) can be anticipated. LCN DNA profiling tests do not provide any information about the type of body fluid tested or when it was deposited on the item. Because of the sensitivity of the test, the possibility of contamination must be taken into account. Rigorous procedures have been drawn up to eliminate so far as possible any contamination in the gathering and examination of items from crime scenes. Because DNA testing was not available at the time of these killings (let alone LCN DNA testing) such procedures were not in place at the time when these items were gathered and first tested. In addition, at the trial no precautions would have been considered necessary to protect the integrity of the exhibits because it was not then anticipated that further testing would take place.

[Holly Goodhead]

We also need to remember it was June's relatives who found and handled the silencer thereafter until it was handed over to the police some 2/3 days later.  June's possessions were being handled at the same time eg her jewellery. 

[Holly Goodhead]

The dried blood flake which contained 17 of Sheila’s blood markers was found on the eighth baffle: you know that.

This repetition of yours is highlighting Jeremy Bamber’s guilt: the videos you hunt through on YouTube throw even more light on how impossible it was that Sheila killed everyone, then herself.

You’ve posted a YouTube video of a man cleaning his silencer, and in doing so, you’ve thrown more evidence to show Jeremy Bamber removed that silencer after killing Sheila. He also removed the barrel protector and replaced it after slaughtering his family.

You see, after removing a silencer you then have to screw the protector back onto the rifle’s barrel. And the rifle found laying on Sheila’s lap had the protector on its barrel.

That means:

Sheila would’ve had to have shot herself in her neck the one time, with the silencer attached

That shot didn’t kill her, though. So, according to your imagination instead of her unscrewing the silencer and tossing it on the floor, then shooting herself yet again in the neck, she decided to stumble downstairs pouring with blood, half paralysed, dazed, dizzy, shocked, and psychotic.

Almost near collapse due to loss of blood — yet miraculously not one drop of blood fell down onto her nightdress, body, legs, feet, carpet — she went to the kitchen and gave the silencer a rinse under the tap and meticulously made sure no blood was left in the sink; she then walked across Nevill’s blood, sugar and glass; went to the cupboard, bent down without any blood dripping from her neck, throat, nose or mouth, placed the silencer in a box at the very back of the cupboard, and closed the box.

She THEN, in her psychotic state, decided to find the barrel protector she’d removed, managed to find it amongst all the mess and upheaval, but still in her frenzy as she struggled to breathe due to the pressure of blood ballooning in her neck and throat,  she caught sight of it, screwed it back on, and walked upstairs without leaving a single footprint...

She then walked into the master bedroom, avoided stepping on June’s blood, laid down at an angle, pressed her bloodied handprint inside the Bible, closed it, opened it again — and then shot herself a second time.

Besides all the obvious, you tell everyone WHY Sheila not only removed the silencer and put it in the cupboard  — for NO reason whatsoever — and THEN, still in her psychotic state decided to hunt for that small barrel protector which must have been uppermost in her mind (wouldn’t it yours after having blown your two sons brains out; your father’s and your mother’s), and then screw that terribly important protector back on the barrel?

What would have made that barrel protector more important to her than anything else?

The blood flake was supposedly found trapped under the first and second baffle plates.  We are told it was cut into 5 to carry out the five tests: ABO, AK, EAP, HP and PGM.  Having performed these tests in 1985 it was no longer available. 

You're conflating DNA markers with DNA in bands.

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.

In 2002 although there was no visible blood present in the silencer it was swabbed in anticipation of picking up some DNA which could be analysed by way of LCN DNA which is capable of producing a sample as small as 1/1,000,000 the size of a grain of salt. 

I do not believe the silencer was used by either JB or SC. 

What you've referred to above re SC using the silencer was the defence strategy at trial. 

[Brietta]

Human blood was located deep within the moderator where no human blood should have been and a pull through showed that the inside of the gun barrel was clear of blood.

Evidence was given at the original trial which quite clearly indicated exactly how that blood got to where it was found.

Evidence was also given about the location, possible order and distance of the victims from the shooter when they were killed.

It was probably only when he realised that it would have been impossible for Sheila to shoot herself with the moderator attached that Bamber removed it and hid it in plain view at the back of the cupboard.

In my opinion he made mistakes that night which showed his plan was not as well thought through as he imagined and the plan to fit Sheila up for his crime almost foundered in not taking the length of the rifle plus the moderator into consideration.  It could never have occurred to him that the weight of the evidence he left behind him, including the moderator, would be his downfall.




Snip
Mr Hayward added in evidence that he would be very surprised to find blood from a person, who had not been shot with a contact or very close contact shot, inside the muzzle of the moderator. He concluded that since (a) the blood inside the moderator belonged to the same group as Sheila and (b) there was no blood within the barrel of the rifle of the gun, that she had been shot whilst the moderator was fitted to the rifle.

Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert also expressed the opinion to the jury that the sound moderator had been fitted to the gun when Sheila had been shot. He attributed the presence of blood within the device to the phenomenon of “back-spatter”. This occurs when the expansion of gases created by a bullet being discharged creates back pressure which in turn propels blood from the wound back towards the weapon. This effect is only seen when the muzzle of the weapon is in contact with, or very close contact to, the victim.
http://netk.net.au/UK/Bamber1.asp