Questions from a newcomer

[tbl]

This is my first post, so please be gentle!

I've watched various programmes about the Bamber case and read many of the threads on this site. I am really impressed by the detailed knowledge of so many posters.

It strikes me Bamber was convicted for 3 main reasons:

1. the evidence of Julie Mugford
2. the forensic evidence that Sheila's blood was in the silencer
3. JB's call to police

On 1 I don't feel able to comment, the jury heard both Julie and Jeremy and chose to believe her.

On 2, I am troubled by the fact the silencer was found by relatives with a financial interest in JB's conviction. Was this clear to the jury? I see that it is mentioned in the 2002 Court of Appeal hearing, but I am not clear if the original jury knew this? The Court of Appeal transcript states that the jury specifically asked for information on who benefited financially if JB was convicted. Was this in the context of the silencer or more generally around evidence from JB's relatives?

On 3, the police logs published on JB's site appear to show 2 separate calls, one from JB, one from Neville. The 'call from Neville' refers to 'daughter' and 'one of my guns' implying that the writer is noting verbatim what was said.  I note that evidence was given at the trial that only one call was made and that Neville could not have made any calls given his injuries but I cannot see how this reconciles to the logs. Can anyone explain this?

5

[Caroline]

This is my first post, so please be gentle!

I've watched various programmes about the Bamber case and read many of the threads on this site. I am really impressed by the detailed knowledge of so many posters.

It strikes me Bamber was convicted for 3 main reasons:

1. the evidence of Julie Mugford
2. the forensic evidence that Sheila's blood was in the silencer
3. JB's call to police

On 1 I don't feel able to comment, the jury heard both Julie and Jeremy and chose to believe her.

On 2, I am troubled by the fact the silencer was found by relatives with a financial interest in JB's conviction. Was this clear to the jury? I see that it is mentioned in the 2002 Court of Appeal hearing, but I am not clear if the original jury knew this? The Court of Appeal transcript states that the jury specifically asked for information on who benefited financially if JB was convicted. Was this in the context of the silencer or more generally around evidence from JB's relatives?

On 3, the police logs published on JB's site appear to show 2 separate calls, one from JB, one from Neville. The 'call from Neville' refers to 'daughter' and 'one of my guns' implying that the writer is noting verbatim what was said.  I note that evidence was given at the trial that only one call was made and that Neville could not have made any calls given his injuries but I cannot see how this reconciles to the logs. Can anyone explain this?

When Jeremy called the police, he spoke to PC West (call sign CD 1990) who recorded the call on one of the logs. West then called the control room and passed on Jeremy's information to Malcolm Bonnett. It is clear from this log that the information was passed to Bonnett by CD 1990, which is West. Had the call been reported by Nevill Bamber, it would have said so. Also, if things were serious enough for Nevill to have made another call after his initial call to Jeremy, things must have escalated and yet, this call is an exchange call and not an emergency 999 call.

Jeremy and the CT are trying to suggest that one of the logs that proves Nevill called the police had only just been discovered and many people think it is the Bonnett log (the one with Nevill's details) - however, it's the West log that they are referring to but wasn't newly discovered at all - BOTH logs were available at trial. The jury had access to the Bonnett log and West read from his log at trial.

It was argued at trial that Jeremy called the police at 03:36 (because that's the time on West's log) but Jeremy argued against this and said it was earlier. Now that he is trying to pass one of the logs off as a call from Nevill, he is now saying that it was 03:36 when he called the police. However, if this is so (which it isn't), Jeremy said he got the call from his father at 03:10 - so what was he doing for the 26 minutes between his fathers call and his call to the police?

[Holly Goodhead]

This is my first post, so please be gentle!

I've watched various programmes about the Bamber case and read many of the threads on this site. I am really impressed by the detailed knowledge of so many posters.

It strikes me Bamber was convicted for 3 main reasons:

1. the evidence of Julie Mugford
2. the forensic evidence that Sheila's blood was in the silencer
3. JB's call to police

On 1 I don't feel able to comment, the jury heard both Julie and Jeremy and chose to believe her.

On 2, I am troubled by the fact the silencer was found by relatives with a financial interest in JB's conviction. Was this clear to the jury? I see that it is mentioned in the 2002 Court of Appeal hearing, but I am not clear if the original jury knew this? The Court of Appeal transcript states that the jury specifically asked for information on who benefited financially if JB was convicted. Was this in the context of the silencer or more generally around evidence from JB's relatives?

On 3, the police logs published on JB's site appear to show 2 separate calls, one from JB, one from Neville. The 'call from Neville' refers to 'daughter' and 'one of my guns' implying that the writer is noting verbatim what was said.  I note that evidence was given at the trial that only one call was made and that Neville could not have made any calls given his injuries but I cannot see how this reconciles to the logs. Can anyone explain this?

Hi and welcome to the forum tbl.  We're all gentle here!

On 1 we don't really know whether the jury viewed JM's testimony as credible or not.  Journalist David Connett who attended much of the trial found her unreliable:

"Personally, I couldn't understand how she could be relied upon as a witness, but others, particularly women, thought the contradictions in her evidence made her more compelling".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/past-crimes-the-bamber-files-2046383.html

On 2 are you asking whether the jury were aware that the relatives found the silencer?  I believe they were aware.  I'm sure today an exhibit with such a chequered 'chain of custody' would not find its way inside a court.   Blame Geoffrey Rivlin QC for not beating the drum hard re the potential for contamination.  The beneficiary aspect at trial sounded opaque but I don't think juries are daft and must have appreciated the relatives would inherit by default if JB was convicted.  I don't think its ever been made clear what tax was paid (inheritance) and exactly who benefited from what.  I believe the Pargeters ended up in court with the Boutflours/Eatons.

On 3 as per Caroline above.

[tbl]

Caroline and Holly, many thanks for your replies

On the silencer, yes I was asking whether the jury were aware that the relatives found the silencer. Given the potential for contamination I am surprised that it was allowed in evidence at all.

On the call logs, I understand that the 'call from Neville' shows PC West as the sender and Malcolm Bonnett as the receiver. The references to 'daughter' and 'one of my guns' are confusing - only Neville would have used those words so they could imply a call from Neville being taken down verbatim by the author (Malcolm Bonnett?). I am also puzzled it refers to an exchange line, whereas wouldn't a call between 2 police stations have taken place via radio or on an internal line. Did West and Bonnett give evidence at JB's trial that there was no call from Neville?

[Caroline]

Caroline and Holly, many thanks for your replies

On the silencer, yes I was asking whether the jury were aware that the relatives found the silencer. Given the potential for contamination I am surprised that it was allowed in evidence at all.

On the call logs, I understand that the 'call from Neville' shows PC West as the sender and Malcolm Bonnett as the receiver. The references to 'daughter' and 'one of my guns' are confusing - only Neville would have used those words so they could imply a call from Neville being taken down verbatim by the author (Malcolm Bonnett?). I am also puzzled it refers to an exchange line, whereas wouldn't a call between 2 police stations have taken place via radio or on an internal line. Did West and Bonnett give evidence at JB's trial that there was no call from Neville?

Bonnet wrote the words as if they were from the caller/victim. West received the call from Jeremy and passed it on via the exchange line. Yes they both gave evidence and stated what I have already told you - one call from Jeremy. Look at the times of the calls - what JB said back then and what he is saying now. It doesn't take much to realise  that there was only one call - from Jeremy.

Had Nevill called followed by Jeremy he would have been told that a call had already been received and was being dealt with - that didn't happen. If Nevill called, the police would have knowingly framed an innocent man - what would their motive have been for that?

[John]

This is my first post, so please be gentle!

I've watched various programmes about the Bamber case and read many of the threads on this site. I am really impressed by the detailed knowledge of so many posters.

It strikes me Bamber was convicted for 3 main reasons:

1. the evidence of Julie Mugford
2. the forensic evidence that Sheila's blood was in the silencer
3. JB's call to police

On 1 I don't feel able to comment, the jury heard both Julie and Jeremy and chose to believe her.

On 2, I am troubled by the fact the silencer was found by relatives with a financial interest in JB's conviction. Was this clear to the jury? I see that it is mentioned in the 2002 Court of Appeal hearing, but I am not clear if the original jury knew this? The Court of Appeal transcript states that the jury specifically asked for information on who benefited financially if JB was convicted. Was this in the context of the silencer or more generally around evidence from JB's relatives?

On 3, the police logs published on JB's site appear to show 2 separate calls, one from JB, one from Neville. The 'call from Neville' refers to 'daughter' and 'one of my guns' implying that the writer is noting verbatim what was said.  I note that evidence was given at the trial that only one call was made and that Neville could not have made any calls given his injuries but I cannot see how this reconciles to the logs. Can anyone explain this?

Actually, it comes down to this.  The crimescene was created to make it look like Sheila shot her adoptive parents and her twin sons before turning the gun on herself.  The forensic evidence however rules this out.

The forensic evidence also rules out any possibility that Sheila had a scuffle with her father in the kitchen and was able to fight him off before beating him around the head with the stock end of the rifle.

We must then ask the question as to who was able to gain access to a farmhouse which still appeared locked up and secure when the police arrived. The answer to that question is Jeremy Bamber.

Again, we must ask, who telephoned the police and told them that his sister was psychotic and had a rifle?  Who briefed the police outside the farmhouse as to Sheilas supposed mental state?  The answer is again Jeremy Bamber.

In the final analysis Sheila couldn't have done it so that leaves only one person who could have.

[Holly Goodhead]

Caroline and Holly, many thanks for your replies

On the silencer, yes I was asking whether the jury were aware that the relatives found the silencer. Given the potential for contamination I am surprised that it was allowed in evidence at all.

On the call logs, I understand that the 'call from Neville' shows PC West as the sender and Malcolm Bonnett as the receiver. The references to 'daughter' and 'one of my guns' are confusing - only Neville would have used those words so they could imply a call from Neville being taken down verbatim by the author (Malcolm Bonnett?). I am also puzzled it refers to an exchange line, whereas wouldn't a call between 2 police stations have taken place via radio or on an internal line. Did West and Bonnett give evidence at JB's trial that there was no call from Neville?

Yes the jury were aware that the relatives found the silencer as per DS Jones' trial testimony.  I'm not sure whether or not they were aware that the 'flake' of blood was not identified and analysed until 10th Sept ie it was missed when Glynis Howard first examined it on 13th Aug!

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1056.0;attach=2214

JB/CT claim the call from NB to EP can be evidenced by the logs from PC West and Malcolm Bonnett but it seems clear to me they are based on one call from JB to EP.  JB/CT refer to different addresses and tel no's, along with references to "daughter" and "sister" and a description of the firearms at WHF. 

PC West's trial testimony confirms during his conversation with JB he obtained NB's tel no as he arranged a GPO check on the line.  He also asked about firearms at WHF.  It seems to me PC West has simply written the log based on his conversation with JB referring to "sister" and Malcolm Bonnett has written it based on NB's call to JB referring to "daughter".  Surely it's common sense that PC West would elicit as much info from JB as possible eg JB and NB address and tel no, firearms at WHF etc.  JB may have been thrown about SC's age and given an approximate year and they calculated her age incorrectly.  PC West has 27 yoa and Malcolm Bonnett 26 yoa.  SC was in fact 28 yoa born in 1957.  It seems obvious to me in such a scenario you end up with Chinese Whispers to some degree hence "crazy" and then "berserk".  JB's WS's and the WS's of others eg AE refer to NB/JB as using the word "crazy" which is contained in PC West's log.  Malcolm Bonnett used the word "berserk" in his log.

PC West's trial testimony

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=170.msg1779#msg1779

JB's WS referrring to "crazy"

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5631.0;attach=4566

CT's vid showing the two logs with "crazy" and "berserk"

https://youtu.be/Wu6L4Kvql9s

This whole idea NB called EP is a complete nonsense imo.  There's no evidence for it whatsover whether you look at the hard facts ie the logs or the soft facts ie the fact no one mentioned it to JB at the time and why would EP knowingly frame an innocent man?

tbl do you believe NB phoned EP and if so why?

[tbl]

No, I don't believe Neville called the police. I was confused by the references to 'daughter' and 'one of my guns' but your and Caroline's explanations below make sense.

[scipio_usmc]

Yes the jury were aware that the relatives found the silencer as per DS Jones' trial testimony.  I'm not sure whether or not they were aware that the 'flake' of blood was not identified and analysed until 10th Sept ie it was missed when Glynis Howard first examined it on 13th Aug!

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1056.0;attach=2214

The flake wasn't "missed"  In order to be missed she would have to have analyzed the entire moderator ad described ever drop of blood inside of it. She described blood inside the  opening and tested some of that blood.  She also tested various stains outside the moderator. Short of taking it apart to test the inside there was no way to assess in full what was inside.  The lab did not take it apart because that would require extensive handling that could destroy prints so first it had to be printed before they did anything more extensive to it.

Cook could and should have transferred it back to the lab more quickly but said he didn't expect the moderator to have any value beyond prints. After he transferred it to lab, the lab took its time to finally analyze the evidence. On TV shows labs do things immediately.  In real life there are multiple cases they handle and it takes them time. If taking too long and then they are pressed by police brass then they will act quicker in some instances.

They didn't do the ballistic testing and match the casings and bullets to the murder weapon until September either.  Testing within a month of a crime is considered a decent speed to most. Some labs are backed up by months which most consider not acceptable but do little to help alleviate the problem.  A sad reality is that because of backlogs many rape kits did even get processed. Outrage caused some jurisdictions to hire extra help or farm out so that backlogs were eliminated so that new cases can be processed in a timely manner.  Others eliminated backlogs by simply not testing old ones.

The Bamber testing seems a decent speed in comparison to some of the other horrors that were found to exist.   

JB/CT claim the call from NB to EP can be evidenced by the logs from PC West and Malcolm Bonnett but it seems clear to me they are based on one call from JB to EP.  JB/CT refer to different addresses and tel no's, along with references to "daughter" and "sister" and a description of the firearms at WHF. 

PC West's trial testimony confirms during his conversation with JB he obtained NB's tel no as he arranged a GPO check on the line.  He also asked about firearms at WHF.  It seems to me PC West has simply written the log based on his conversation with JB referring to "sister" and Malcolm Bonnett has written it based on NB's call to JB referring to "daughter".  Surely it's common sense that PC West would elicit as much info from JB as possible eg JB and NB address and tel no, firearms at WHF etc.  JB may have been thrown about SC's age and given an approximate year and they calculated her age incorrectly.  PC West has 27 yoa and Malcolm Bonnett 26 yoa.  SC was in fact 28 yoa born in 1957.  It seems obvious to me in such a scenario you end up with Chinese Whispers to some degree hence "crazy" and then "berserk".  JB's WS's and the WS's of others eg AE refer to NB/JB as using the word "crazy" which is contained in PC West's log.  Malcolm Bonnett used the word "berserk" in his log.

PC West's trial testimony

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=170.msg1779#msg1779

JB's WS referrring to "crazy"

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5631.0;attach=4566

CT's vid showing the two logs with "crazy" and "berserk"

https://youtu.be/Wu6L4Kvql9s

This whole idea NB called EP is a complete nonsense imo.  There's no evidence for it whatsover whether you look at the hard facts ie the logs or the soft facts ie the fact no one mentioned it to JB at the time and why would EP knowingly frame an innocent man?

tbl do you believe NB phoned EP and if so why?

The notion of Nevill calling police was made up by desperate supporters.  They misrepresented that Bonnett's log was hidden from the jury and that his log clearly suggests Nevill had called him.  As you pointed out it suggests no such thing it reflects receiving a call from West and worse yet this log was a court trial exhibit.

If Nevill had actually called police to report Sheila going crazy with the gun then this would offer substantial support to Jeremy's defense. For this reason they distort the log and insist it happened. They ignore that if this actually happened police would have been told of his call and sent before Jeremy called, ignore that Jeremy would have been told about Nevill's call and how they were already responding as a result and wound not have bothered asking Jeremy for Nevill's address etc.  Nor would they have done the phone check which was done because of Jeremy's claim his call got cut off but he was unable to phone back.

Before the initial firearms team responded they were informed of the situation. They were told they were responding because of Jeremy calling police and claiming he received a distress call from Nevill.  A briefing was held for the second firearms team.  They were told the same thing but in additionally told police failed to ever make contact with anyone inside WHF.

A call from Nevill to Bonnett would have been recorded. The notion Bonnett or other police police intentionally decided to conceal receiving such call and erased all record of it is ludicrous.  But it is even more ludicrous to suggest they did so right away and thus failed to tell Jeremy about receiving such call and also failed to tell the firearms teams.  This is why so few people take this allegation seriously. Those who do take it seriously are mainly the biased people who made it up and it is less a case of actually believing it but more a case of using anything they can to pretend their position has support.  Their hope is to fool some people ignorant of the facts who won't evaluate the claim as we just did but rather will simply accept it.

[Holly Goodhead]

The flake wasn't "missed"  In order to be missed she would have to have analyzed the entire moderator ad described ever drop of blood inside of it. She described blood inside the  opening and tested some of that blood.  She also tested various stains outside the moderator. Short of taking it apart to test the inside there was no way to assess in full what was inside.  The lab did not take it apart because that would require extensive handling that could destroy prints so first it had to be printed before they did anything more extensive to it.

Cook could and should have transferred it back to the lab more quickly but said he didn't expect the moderator to have any value beyond prints. After he transferred it to lab, the lab took its time to finally analyze the evidence. On TV shows labs do things immediately.  In real life there are multiple cases they handle and it takes them time. If taking too long and then they are pressed by police brass then they will act quicker in some instances.

They didn't do the ballistic testing and match the casings and bullets to the murder weapon until September either.  Testing within a month of a crime is considered a decent speed to most. Some labs are backed up by months which most consider not acceptable but do little to help alleviate the problem.  A sad reality is that because of backlogs many rape kits did even get processed. Outrage caused some jurisdictions to hire extra help or farm out so that backlogs were eliminated so that new cases can be processed in a timely manner.  Others eliminated backlogs by simply not testing old ones.

The Bamber testing seems a decent speed in comparison to some of the other horrors that were found to exist.   

Given blood was found very close to the openings I am surprised Glynis Howard did not take it upon herself to open up the moderator.  I can't see how this would adversely affect the recovery of any latent fingerprints?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1026.msg29566#msg29566

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGrGCnStmrk

The silencer still exists and as far as I'm aware it has never been necessary to cut open down the middle, end to end, to recover blood and dna?

The reason DI Cook took the silencer to the lab before fingerprinting was probably to preserve the visible blood.  This would need analysing quickly to preserve its integrity by way of environmental factors eg temp, bacteria etc.  I'm not sure of the cyanoacrylate fuming method used but all have the potential to adversely affect the 'flake' of blood further.  By further I mean heat from the discharge of cartridges, hot gasses, ambient temperature over a month, and then the fuming technique.

[scipio_usmc]

Given blood was found very close to the openings I am surprised Glynis Howard did not take it upon herself to open up the moderator.  I can't see how this would adversely affect the recovery of any latent fingerprints?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1026.msg29566#msg29566

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGrGCnStmrk

The silencer still exists and as far as I'm aware it has never been necessary to cut open down the middle, end to end, to recover blood and dna?

The reason DI Cook took the silencer to the lab before fingerprinting was probably to preserve the visible blood.  This would need analysing quickly to preserve its integrity by way of environmental factors eg temp, bacteria etc.  I'm not sure of the cyanoacrylate fuming method used but all have the potential to adversely affect the 'flake' of blood further.  By further I mean heat from the discharge of cartridges, hot gasses, ambient temperature over a month, and then the fuming technique.

In order to open it one has to unscrew it.  You have to hold the tube very strongly in order to unscrew it and if the cap it is tight enough need to use pliers on the cap. Holding the tube will indeed have a strong chance of damaging any existing prints.

They wanted to know if the apparent blood was in fact blood and if so was it human blood.  If it wasn't human blood then they felt it would not even be relevant at all.  Knowing there was human blood it was decided to print it. Cook hoped to find Sheila's prints to further implicate her.  He didn't think finding Nevill or Jeremy's prints would mean anything since they handled it so one would expect their prints to be on it.

It failed to occur to him (or other police) that if it was used this implicates Jeremy given he claimed the gun was left out without the moderator attached and it would be unlikely for Sheila to go get the moderator attach it, use it then removed it after using it on everyone.  Nor did it occur to them that it might be proven that the moderator was used to kill Sheila and thus that she was murdered.  Only the lab had enough experience and foresight to figure such possibilities out.  The police in this case lacked the experience and training to appreciate such.  After this case they certainly appreciated such and would know for future investigations.  That is why experience matters.  People with experience will be aware of more things. 

Superglue fuming doesn't damage blood that is why it is used. Sometimes superglue fuming will pick up fingerprints left in blood that is missed by police.  Not all components of blood dry in red/brown.  Sometimes prints are clear.  Sometimes it is caught using uv light and other light sources but sometimes it is only found through superglue fuming.  If it damaged blood then they would not be able to use it when blood could be in play.

[Holly Goodhead]

In order to open it one has to unscrew it.  You have to hold the tube very strongly in order to unscrew it and if the cap it is tight enough need to use pliers on the cap. Holding the tube will indeed have a strong chance of damaging any existing prints.

They wanted to know if the apparent blood was in fact blood and if so was it human blood.  If it wasn't human blood then they felt it would not even be relevant at all.  Knowing there was human blood it was decided to print it. Cook hoped to find Sheila's prints to further implicate her.  He didn't think finding Nevill or Jeremy's prints would mean anything since they handled it so one would expect their prints to be on it.

It failed to occur to him (or other police) that if it was used this implicates Jeremy given he claimed the gun was left out without the moderator attached and it would be unlikely for Sheila to go get the moderator attach it, use it then removed it after using it on everyone.  Nor did it occur to them that it might be proven that the moderator was used to kill Sheila and thus that she was murdered.  Only the lab had enough experience and foresight to figure such possibilities out.  The police in this case lacked the experience and training to appreciate such.  After this case they certainly appreciated such and would know for future investigations.  That is why experience matters.  People with experience will be aware of more things. 

Superglue fuming doesn't damage blood that is why it is used. Sometimes superglue fuming will pick up fingerprints left in blood that is missed by police.  Not all components of blood dry in red/brown.  Sometimes prints are clear.  Sometimes it is caught using uv light and other light sources but sometimes it is only found through superglue fuming.  If it damaged blood then they would not be able to use it when blood could be in play.

But on Blue you posted the following:

"Since a moderator is open on both sides light can get inside the back while you are looking at the front so long as you hold it in a manner other than looking at the ground. Obviously holding it up to the light or a window with light coming in is the best.  Doing this enabled the family to see the blood inside. They also saw the blood on the face of the moderator when looking at the opening because the face is the aspect containing the opening.  Normally you just see the outside wall."

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7075.msg333646.html#msg333646

So if the relatives identified blood inside the silencer then why wasn't this communicated to EP and the lab? 

It's all irrelevant anyway as we now know the 'flake' of blood 'found' in the silencer was incapable of withstanding the environment from the claimed 'draw-back' on 7th Aug to 13th Sep when it was analysed by John Hayward at the lab:

- Heat from discharge of 25 cartridges fired in quick succession

- Hot gasses from fatal wound

- Ambient temperature from 7th Aug to 13th Sept

- Cyanoacrylate fuming at Sandridge using the prototype cabinet evaporating ethyl cyanoacrylate at 120 degrees celsius and venting to the atmosphere. 

I'm afraid its game over for the 'flake' 

[scipio_usmc]

But on Blue you posted the following:

"Since a moderator is open on both sides light can get inside the back while you are looking at the front so long as you hold it in a manner other than looking at the ground. Obviously holding it up to the light or a window with light coming in is the best.  Doing this enabled the family to see the blood inside. They also saw the blood on the face of the moderator when looking at the opening because the face is the aspect containing the opening.  Normally you just see the outside wall."

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7075.msg333646.html#msg333646

So if the relatives identified blood inside the silencer then why wasn't this communicated to EP and the lab? 

It's all irrelevant anyway as we now know the 'flake' of blood 'found' in the silencer was incapable of withstanding the environment from the claimed 'draw-back' on 7th Aug to 13th Sep when it was analysed by John Hayward at the lab:

- Heat from discharge of 25 cartridges fired in quick succession

- Hot gasses from fatal wound

- Ambient temperature from 7th Aug to 13th Sept

- Cyanoacrylate fuming at Sandridge using the prototype cabinet evaporating ethyl cyanoacrylate at 120 degrees celsius and venting to the atmosphere. 

I'm afraid its game over for the 'flake' 

Your claim that the heat environment would not enable blood to form into a flake and to survive to be tested is not in the least bit based on science.  You have no scientific support at all you simply say this because you want to dismiss the flake though you have no legitimate means to do so.  Saying the defense tested for such but you don't know the results doesn't help you it hurts.  If the results were favorable they would have used them for the appeals. Like Jeremy's lawyers you have nothing whatsoever to challenge the blood evidence.

[Holly Goodhead]

Your claim that the heat environment would not enable blood to form into a flake and to survive to be tested is not in the least bit based on science.  You have no scientific support at all you simply say this because you want to dismiss the flake though you have no legitimate means to do so.  Saying the defense tested for such but you don't know the results doesn't help you it hurts.  If the results were favorable they would have used them for the appeals. Like Jeremy's lawyers you have nothing whatsoever to challenge the blood evidence.

I think I'll rely on tests/conclusions of independent forensic scientists    Lets see if we can make it front page instead of just online.  Watch this space 

[scipio_usmc]

I think I'll rely on tests/conclusions of independent forensic scientists    Lets see if we can make it front page instead of just online.  Watch this space 

What tests?  The ones that failed to undermine the blood evidence thus the defense failed to cite hem at trial and on appeal?

You ignore not only tests but worse real world circumstances where it was shown that drawback can be successfully tested for blood type and DNA even.