As per usual you deflect. Forget all this nonsense about "burden of proof". Its an internet forum where we are debating/discussing an historic crime not a court of law. Are you able to answer my questions please:
Where is the signature from Alexander Allen?
The one deflecting is you. It doesn't matter if we are arguing in court or on the street. The proponent bears the burden of proof. You are the proponent alleging that the evidence used at trial was planted.
To estaboish you opinion has some valid foundation requires you to detail the evidence you rely upon for your assertions.
The fact of the matter is you have NONE, ZILCH, ZERO. Your suspicions are founded upon nothing, it is naked suspicion nothing more.
To try to deal with your complete absence of any evidence you try to PRETEND the offical story is different from what it is. You want to pretend that the blood smaples were not received by the lab on 8/9/85 so you demand to know why the statement posted on the internet by Allen is not signed. There are originals with signatures and then there are copies that are unsigned that are used for everything other than the official file. That is the reality.
Why is the statement dated 12th November 1985?
I already answered that. A statement is liek an affidavit. They are secured when needed and contian the relevant information needed. Statements they are not prepared every step of the way anytime somethign occurs. Otherwise ther ewould be dozens of statements for each person involved in a case. You don't seem to knwo the first thing about procedures no wonder you are so willing to believe nonsense without even a shred of evidence to back up absurd claims.
Why is there nothing dated around 8th/9th Aug when you claim the blood samples were handed over? Why is the statement dated some 3 months later?
There are such documents. I noted one such document- the Holab form. Davidson filled out Holab forms to be transferred with the blood. 1 form is kept at HQ, then HQ transfers the other 2 forms along with the blood by courier to the lab. The lab signs the tow Holab forms to confirm receipt keeping 1 in the lab record files and returning the other to the officers who submitted the samples. There are also notes form the lab personnel concerning receipt and testing. This is WHY the official record is that the blood was received by the lab on 8/9/85, that is the official record.
If you want to contest this date you need to do so with evidence. Saying you choose not to believe the people doesn't cut it. That just makes you a bigger joke than you already demonstrate yourself to be.
Its not necessary for me to name names. The fact that all those involved were employees of EP it is sufficient for me to say EP as EP/The Home Office/Government/State are ultimately responsible for their employees/agents.
It is indeed necessary to lay out who suppoedly did what and when. If you can't get that far then it means you don't even have enough evidence to fathom a guess of who did what and why. You need to name names and explain when such people had access and why they would act not merely prove that blood was taken which you can't do either. The lack of any specificity means you have not thought htings out at all, you jsut took what seems like a convenient excuse to try to pretend Jeremy is innocent so you can rattle on with your quackery about Sheila's mental issues that you say were caused by June and adoption.
I have no idea how much blood was in the containers as I've never seen any measurements. If you know then why not provide the information with documentary evidence that supports an audit trail?
The point is that you are admitting you have no CLUE if any blood was missing so you have NO basis at all to assert that police took blood from the samples and planted it. You are making charges with a reckless disregard for the truth.
What you should be saying is this because this is the truth, "I am aware of no evidence at all to establish any seals on the blood samples were broken or that any blood from the samples was missing nor any evidence that establishes blood was planted in the moderator but I choose to believe it anyway that police planted blood in the moderator and used blood from the samples transferred to the lab from the morgue."
That is your real position, an opinion that is not based on any evidence whatsoever. That is how you avoid committing defamation but also woudl result in no one at all paying attention to your opinion or giving it any credence because why would anyone give credence to a wild conspiracy claim that is based on no evidence?
I've never claimed you have been unfair to me? Why would I?
Can you provide evidence of the blood found in the silencer being distributed in some sort of complex way that negates simple contamination by means other than back spatter/blow back? I have discussed this with you previously. The CoA confirm the distribution of the blood in the silencer as follows. There's no evidence it was distributed in some complicated way as you claim that corresponds exclusively with back spatter/blow back?
76. Inside the moderator, on the four or five baffles nearest to the end from which the bullet would exit, there was a considerable amount of blood. At one point blood had pooled to form a flake when it dried, and this flake was subjected to group testing. Results were obtained for four of the five tests performed. Mr Hayward, the forensic scientist said that they showed that the blood could have come from Sheila Caffell but not from any of the other individuals involved. Mr. Hayward said that there was a possibility that the blood could be a mixture of blood from more than one person and if it was, a mixture of blood from Nevill Bamber and June Bamber could account for the findings in the grouping tests. However he judged that possibility to be a "remote" one.
77. 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 Caffell 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.
78. Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert also expressed the opinion to the jury that the sound moderator had been fitted to the gun when Sheila Caffell 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.
Mr Fletcher attributed the presence of blood within the silencer to the phenomenon of back-spatter. A natural assumption given the narrative he was fed. Where has he ruled out deliberate contamination? Of course this would not have even entered his head. Was Mr Fletcher aware of when and how the silencer was found and how it was handled prior to arriving at FSS? Eg found by the relatives who based on RWB's diary had a deep dislike for JB for no reason other than he was different from them. It was then tampered with at Oak Farm, home of the Eatons, and scraped at with a razor blade. EP were advised of the find and DS Jones called to collect it. He did not take an exhibit bag but instead improvised using the inner of a kitchen roll holder and taped both ends with sellotape. He then sat drinking whisky with PE until late at night. I understand the silencer then sat on a policeman's desk and used as a paper weight. Was Mr Fletcher aware of all of this? I doubt it.
You are taking more claims from Mike so what little credibility you might have had with me is totally gone. The moderator was not used as a paperweight it was kept in the evidence room except when it was taken for examinations.
Blood was removed right away upon reaching the lab and by 8/14/85 police had been notified from the lab that the blood was detemrined to be human blood.
We already went over this issue of accidental contamination being impossible. You fled the debate because you lost it.
You left out the appeal decision parts related to defense expert Lincoln who found mircroscopic drops of group A human blood on the first 8 baffles and how he agreed the blood he found as well as the blood the prosecution found could have come from Sheila but no other individuals. You seem to become mor eliek Mike daily, not really surprising though since you steal all your arguments from the blue board that you trash so much.
"The evidence of Mr Hayward was not to the effect that all the blood in the moderator had been tested but rather that some of that blood had been tested. Thus this was not a case where the scientist was saying that the only blood in the moderator came from Sheila Caffell. His evidence was that the blood tested came from Sheila Caffell although he acknowledged the remote possibility that even that blood was a mixture of blood from Nevill Bamber and June Bamber.
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. Dr Lincoln further recorded:
"Mr Hayward states that he could detect visible staining on the "upper baffle plates" and that he swabbed these plates so that the blood was taken onto cotton material which could subsequently be used in grouping tests. On this material Mr Hayward successfully determined the ABO and EAP groups and showed the blood to be groups A, EAP BA."
"The defence had instructed Dr Patrick Lincoln, whose expertise in such matters was well known. On 29 April 1986, he visited the forensic science laboratory and examined the relevant material. He carried out tests on all seventeen baffles. The first eight plates all gave weak or very weak positive reactions for blood...the other nine plates "did not produce any evidence for the presence of blood". He agreed with Mr Hayward's conclusion that the combination of blood groups revealed in his testing of the inside of the moderator could have come solely from Sheila Caffell but did not come from any one of the other individuals."
"Inside the moderator, on the four or five baffles nearest to the end from which the bullet would exit, there was a considerable amount of blood. At one point
blood had pooled to form a flake when it dried, and this flake was subjected to group testing. Results were obtained for four of the five tests performed. Mr Hayward, the forensic scientist said that they showed that the blood could have come from Sheila Caffell but not from any of the other individuals involved."
These are all from the 2002 Appeal decision
So the blood was found as follows:
1) the flake which had dried inside between the first and second baffle
2) a considerable amount of blood on the first 4-6 baffles that had been removed by the lab
3) invisible drops of blood on the first 8 baffles that was found by the defense.
While Mike lies and claims the flake of blood was floating around loose the court and personnel who found it disagree and characterize it as blood that dried inside the moderator and was thus attached to the moderator. It had to be scraped up just liek all the other visible blood.
So the claim this flake is consistent with a flake that could have resulted from simple contamination is wrong. It was not a flake that could have been lying around and simply blew inside. Where would a blood flake be anywhere to have been floating around loose and simply fell inside? Loose blood flakes don't just appear.
But worse the dried blood on the baffles, especially the microscopic drops found by the defense could not have resulted from accidental transfer.
What blood was tested?
1) the flake
2) some of the blood scraped off the first 4-6 baffles
3) the microscopic drops of blood foudn by the defense on the 1st eight baffles
All 3 came back as group A blood and as blood consistent with Sheila but no other individual. The defense chose not to use their expert because these findings of their own expert were bad for the defense.
In order for the blood to have been planted it had to be sprayed inside the moderator in a manner which deposited blood drops on the first 8 baffles. Spraying of blood is the only way to account for the distribution of blood flound. Accidental transfer can't account for a flake of blood drying inside let alone a large quantity of blood on the first 4-8 baffles including icroscopic drops consistent with high velocity spatter. You alreayd admitted in our past debates you had no idea that spatter of blood is a spray so you alreayd admitted this is way out of your league.
You could of course actually make an attempt to inform yorself but as they say ignorance is bliss and you have demonstrated little desire to study anything in detial instead preferring to level wild accusations you have no evidence at all to back up.
