The brutal beating of Nevill in the kitchen.

[John]

Thank you for the KM link John and Scipio for bringing to our attention.  I am confused.  It appears the KM test was available from 1903 and yet the LCN DNA testing carried out in 2001/02 on the silencer was unable to identify the source of DNA ie blood etc  8-)(--)  Does this mean KM and LCN DNA cannot be used together to at least rule in/out blood being the source of DNA?  This is all getting beyond me and I think I am getting confused.

The KM test seemingly only determines if the blood was human.  There was insufficient sample material collected from the silencer baffles for any further testing beyond that which occurred in 2001.  That said however, it is beyond much doubt that the DNA found within the silencer came from Sheila since the odds of it being someone elses is several million to one.  Additionally, given that only a very small number of people could have handled the rifle/silencer and given that Sheila was not related to any of them, those odds become so small as to make it a dead cert that the DNA found within the silencer had to come from Sheila.

My earlier point however was directed at the several smears and spots of blood found on the rifle itself.  Has anyone ever come across any documents which show that this blood was DNA tested?

[Holly Goodhead]

Hi

What does KM positive mean. Does it mean human blood or blood from a certain type of blood for example A.  >@@(*&)

Hi Patti.  I meant to say hi earlier.  Hope all is going well with your new venture  I will endeavour to give you a call before I go away on hol.

What may I ask brings you to Red?  Would it by any chance be the drop dead gorgeous guys we are blessed with here?  They are all mine Patti.  You have Mike, Gladys and Nelly don't be greedy 

[Holly Goodhead]

The KM test seemingly only determines if the blood was human.  There was insufficient sample material collected from the silencer baffles for any further testing beyond that which occurred in 2001.  That said however, it is beyond much doubt that the DNA found within the silencer came from Sheila since the odds of it being someone elses is several million to one.  Additionally, given that only a very small number of people could have handled the rifle/silencer and given that Sheila was not related to any of them, those odds become so small as to make it a dead cert that the DNA found within the silencer had to come from Sheila.

My earlier point however was directed at the several smears and spots of blood found on the rifle itself.  Has anyone ever come across any documents which show that this blood was DNA tested?

I support the findings of the scientists and appeal court judges in that the LCN DNA testing were rendered "completely meaningless" from both a prosecution and defence perspective due to the potential for contamination.

504. Mr Webster then reviewed in detail the history of the handling of the moderator and the various opportunities for contamination. He considered the fact that Dr Lincoln had taken out all the baffles and tested them all. He referred to the fact that both Mr Hayward and Mr Fletcher had handled the moderator in the witness box, a place where other exhibits were produced without any precautions being taken to avoid contact. He pointed to the fact that the judge specifically told the jury that they could "empty the baffles out later" and that it could not be established what use had been made of the moderator by the jury during their deliberations or what other exhibits may have been in their possession. He observed that the judge had told the jury that if they handled any of the clothing, they should put on plastic gloves for their own protection, thus giving rise to the possibility that blood stained items were examined by the jury with no precautions being taken to ensure that if they then went to handle the baffles there was not contamination.

505. Mr Webster concluded at paragraph 102:

"The CCRC, in their statement of reasons, more or less excluded the possibility of contamination. In my opinion, the Commission was wrong to do so."

506. We have no doubt at all that if this evidence had been placed before a jury, they would have concluded, as we do, that in accordance with the emphasised part of Mr Webster's report quoted above, the DNA testing results were rendered completely "completely meaningless".

[scipio_usmc]

The KM test seemingly only determines if the blood was human.  There was insufficient sample material collected from the silencer baffles for any further testing beyond that which occurred in 2001.  That said however, it is beyond much doubt that the DNA found within the silencer came from Sheila since the odds of it being someone elses is several million to one.  Additionally, given that only a very small number of people could have handled the rifle/silencer and given that Sheila was not related to any of them, those odds become so small as to make it a dead cert that the DNA found within the silencer had to come from Sheila.

My earlier point however was directed at the several smears and spots of blood found on the rifle itself.  Has anyone ever come across any documents which show that this blood was DNA tested?

The blood exhibits were not retained so could not be tested for DNA.  At any rate the tests done to such blood destroy DNA and the age in combo with this meant there would have been little chance of successfully doing so.  The main complain about destruction of exhibits was blood samples like June's but June's sister voluntarily agreed ot provide her DNA since the mitochondrial DNA would match (So myuch for her being invovle din a plot to plant evidence).

Unless Jeremy's blood were found on it, DNA would accomplish nothing anyway.  The blood of every victim could have been on it, but Nevill and June's would definitely be based on the spatter in the bedroom and the nature of the beating in the kitchen.  I would expect some blood from sheila as well given the nature of the first shot.  Since the some of the blood was smeared that means it was touched by the killer in some way and could have been transferred by the killer.

The wepaon was still being used and handled by the killer which means some could have been removed and transferred.  The bottom line is that testing the blood found outside of the gun for DNA could hurt Jeremy but not help so that why his lawyers made no big deal about it that was helpful.  No one knows if he cuts his hand and bled on it or not.  He was not carefully inspected until September when it would be too late.

I have small cuts and scratches all over my hands. You have to look carefully to find them.  Not even Julie looked carefully at his hands she was looking for major wounds.  All it takes is a drop of blood to be found by the prosecution that you don't know you left and you can be screwed.

[John]

I support the findings of the scientists and appeal court judges in that the LCN DNA testing were rendered "completely meaningless" from both a prosecution and defence perspective due to the potential for contamination.

504. Mr Webster then reviewed in detail the history of the handling of the moderator and the various opportunities for contamination. He considered the fact that Dr Lincoln had taken out all the baffles and tested them all. He referred to the fact that both Mr Hayward and Mr Fletcher had handled the moderator in the witness box, a place where other exhibits were produced without any precautions being taken to avoid contact. He pointed to the fact that the judge specifically told the jury that they could "empty the baffles out later" and that it could not be established what use had been made of the moderator by the jury during their deliberations or what other exhibits may have been in their possession. He observed that the judge had told the jury that if they handled any of the clothing, they should put on plastic gloves for their own protection, thus giving rise to the possibility that blood stained items were examined by the jury with no precautions being taken to ensure that if they then went to handle the baffles there was not contamination.

505. Mr Webster concluded at paragraph 102:

"The CCRC, in their statement of reasons, more or less excluded the possibility of contamination. In my opinion, the Commission was wrong to do so."

506. We have no doubt at all that if this evidence had been placed before a jury, they would have concluded, as we do, that in accordance with the emphasised part of Mr Webster's report quoted above, the DNA testing results were rendered completely "completely meaningless".

I totally disagree, you cannot get a 13 marker match from contamination since Sheila's DNA had very little in common with anyone who ever handled the silencer. Under UK law a 13 marker match has no significance but in the real world it means the chances of it not matching Sheila are millions to one.  Given that the blood found in the silencer in 1985 was the same group as Sheila I find the 'just a coincidence theory' to be a theory too far.

 

[Holly Goodhead]

I totally disagree, you cannot get a 13 marker match from contamination since Sheila's DNA had very little in common with anyone who ever handled the silencer. Under UK law a 13 marker match has no significance but in the real world it means the chances of it not matching Sheila are millions to one.  Given that the blood found in the silencer in 1985 was the same group as Sheila I find the 'just a coincidence theory' to be a theory too far. 

Good morning John

Even if the DNA was a 20/20 match it could still be there as a result of contamination.  Eg I invite you round for a cuppa.  You leave skin cells, sweat/fingerprints and saliva on mug.  You leave.  I put the mug you drank out of in the dishwasher.  As a result I end up with your skin cells and sweat/fingerprints on my hand.  My neighbour then calls to invite me round for a cuppa.  I accept and as I handle the neighbour's mug I transfer your DNA on my hand to the neighbour's mug.  Your DNA is now on a mug you have never touched or been anywhere near.  

As the CoA doc states, as DNA testing was not even envisaged in 85/86 no precautions were taken to protect exhibits from contamination eg jurors handling SC's and June's bloody nighties alongside the silencer/emptying baffles.  Therefore it is highly likely jurors contaminated the silencer/baffles with June and SC's DNA whether that be skin cells, blood etc.

As you probably know different techniques are available to identify DNA.  One being LCN DNA.  This technique was chosen as it is capable of producing a result from just a few skin cells and as the blood from the original sample 85/86 had all but been swabbed away it offered a possibility.  The downside is the risk of contamination as outlined above.  Also LCN DNA is incapable of identifying the source eg blood, sweat, skin cells etc.

Had the CCRC have been switched on they would not have referred the case to CoA.

It really is "utterly meaningless" as per the scientists and 3 appeal court judges.  If you personally choose to believe otherwise that's obviously your prerogative.  I like a man with an independent mind.  *

This link explains the incredibly small amounts of biological matter required for a LCN DNA result.  As you will see we are talking amounts so small they are not even visible to the naked eye.  Talking of naked must jump in the shower. *

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number

* Would like to have  but it appears that your good self and Myster do not appreciate my coquettishness 

[patti]

The KM test seemingly only determines if the blood was human.  There was insufficient sample material collected from the silencer baffles for any further testing beyond that which occurred in 2001.  That said however, it is beyond much doubt that the DNA found within the silencer came from Sheila since the odds of it being someone elses is several million to one.  Additionally, given that only a very small number of people could have handled the rifle/silencer and given that Sheila was not related to any of them, those odds become so small as to make it a dead cert that the DNA found within the silencer had to come from Sheila.

My earlier point however was directed at the several smears and spots of blood found on the rifle itself.  Has anyone ever come across any documents which show that this blood was DNA tested?

That actually is a good point.  I've not seen any document that relates to any tests of DNA from the rifle.  It would be interesting to see the results.

What happened to the rifle? Has it been destroyed?

[John]

Good morning John

Even if the DNA was a 20/20 match it could still be there as a result of contamination.  Eg I invite you round for a cuppa.  You leave skin cells, sweat/fingerprints and saliva on mug.  You leave.  I put the mug you drank out of in the dishwasher.  As a result I end up with your skin cells and sweat/fingerprints on my hand.  My neighbour then calls to invite me round for a cuppa.  I accept and as I handle the neighbour's mug I transfer your DNA on my hand to the neighbour's mug.  Your DNA is now on a mug you have never touched or been anywhere near. 

As the CoA doc states, as DNA testing was not even envisaged in 85/86 no precautions were taken to protect exhibits from contamination eg jurors handling SC's and June's bloody nighties alongside the silencer/emptying baffles.  Therefore it is highly likely jurors contaminated the silencer/baffles with June and SC's DNA whether that be skin cells, blood etc.

As you probably know different techniques are available to identify DNA.  One being LCN DNA.  This technique was chosen as it is capable of producing a result from just a few skin cells and as the blood from the original sample 85/86 had all but been swabbed away it offered a possibility.  The downside is the risk of contamination as outlined above.  Also LCN DNA is incapable of identifying the source eg blood, sweat, skin cells etc.

Had the CCRC have been switched on they would not have referred the case to CoA.

It really is "utterly meaningless" as per the scientists and 3 appeal court judges.  If you personally choose to believe otherwise that's obviously your prerogative.  I like a man with an independent mind.  *

This link explains the incredibly small amounts of biological matter required for a LCN DNA result.  As you will see we are talking amounts so small they are not even visible to the naked eye.  Talking of naked must jump in the shower. *

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number

* Would like to have  but it appears that your good self and Myster do not appreciate my coquettishness 

I do understand how cross contamination works Holly and thank you for the example.  My question to you is how would Sheila's DNA get deep into the silencer in the first place?  Surely there would be several other DNA profiles found there too if as you suggest it was contaminated?

The fact that only one profile was found, a match with Sheila Caffell is significant don't you think?

[John]

That actually is a good point.  I've not seen any document that relates to any tests of DNA from the rifle.  It would be interesting to see the results.

What happened to the rifle? Has it been destroyed?

I wouldn't have thought it would be destroyed, it is probably still in storage or has been given to its rightful owner.

[Myster]

Where does anyone think this Anschutz 525 (first page, bottom left) came from?  It's a contemporary photo related to the case from the Anglia Press Agency, possibly taken by the same photographer who shot the other APA ones in the magazine. Don't think it was taken at the gunsmiths, but possibly at WHF because the white-painted panelling behind the holder (maybe a plain clothes policeman) is similar to woodwork there. Or was this man known to the family, a relative or friend perhaps? Why does it have an undamaged stock and a cylindrical light-shield missing from over the end sight, unlike the actual murder weapon? I've been unable to find any reference to this rifle anywhere.

[John]

The rifle being held by the guy in the jumper was probably a rifle similar to that used in the murders and photographed simply for media purposes.  Clearly, it's not the murder weapon imo.

[scipio_usmc]

I wouldn't have thought it would be destroyed, it is probably still in storage or has been given to its rightful owner.

It is in a police museum

[Myster]

It is in a police museum

Which museum, scipio?

Don't think it will be on display to the public any time soon, if ever, because of concern for the sensitivities of surviving relatives.

The only one I know of is Room 101 at Scotland Yard, although exhibits there only relate to London-based crimes...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/met-polices-infamous-black-museum-2133820

Think the Anschutz is more likely to be bagged under lock and key should it be required for any future forensic examination. Read once that his support team had asked for it to be released re the USA tests, although I may be mistaken about this.

[Mr Justice K]

It is in a police museum

If what you claim is correct, I find it difficult to comprehend how an item of evidence could find its way into a police museum when further testing was inevitable.  That is unless it has been accepted that the rifle and sound moderator has been so contaminated so as to be beyond any further use as evidence.

[John]

If what you claim is correct, I find it difficult to comprehend how an item of evidence could find its way into a police museum when further testing was inevitable.  That is unless it has been accepted that the rifle and sound moderator has been so contaminated so as to be beyond any further use as evidence.

I would say you are correct in the latter observation Mr K., the contamination factor must put all testing beyond doubt at this stage and for ever more.  Not that I have any doubts about the conviction given the mountain of evidence against him.