Author Topic: Jeremy's five suspects for planting the silencer.  (Read 5975 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47505
Re: Jeremy's five suspects for planting the silencer.
« Reply #30 on: January 12, 2019, 11:05:PM »
To put everything into perspective - John Hayward claimed he would have expected to detect June Bambers AK2-1 in the results because it was a stronger enzyme than Sheila's AK1 - but if the AK1 element of the results obtained during that crucial period between 12th to 19th September 1985, sandwiched either side of that period with the findings of Glynis Howard,  that human blood was present on the silencer in August 1985, and animal blood present there in April 1986, my natural instinct tells me that Hayward deliberately misused the AK1 part of the test result, despite knowing that he could not prove wholeheartedly that the AK1 element of the results were human, or animal orientated...

Human / animal blood - AK1...
« Last Edit: January 12, 2019, 11:23:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47505
Re: Jeremy's five suspects for planting the silencer.
« Reply #31 on: January 12, 2019, 11:28:PM »
To put everything into perspective - John Hayward claimed he would have expected to detect June Bambers AK2-1 in the results because it was a stronger enzyme than Sheila's AK1 - but if the AK1 element of the results obtained during that crucial period between 12th to 19th September 1985, sandwiched either side of that period with the findings of Glynis Howard,  that human blood was present on the silencer in August 1985, and animal blood present there in April 1986, my natural instinct tells me that Hayward deliberately misused the AK1 part of the test result, despite knowing that he could not prove wholeheartedly that the AK1 element of the results were human, or animal orientated...

Human / animal blood - AK1...
Consider the following matter - a large amount of animal blood (including AK1) found its way onto the end of the silencer (DRB/1, 22), an amount which masked the presence of June Bambers AK2-1 enzyme?

How could it have masked June Bambers AK2-1 enzyme?

Quantity of the AK1 enzyme, produced (a) by Neville Bamber (human blood), mixed with (b) animal blood, in quantities far greater than the AK2-1 blood enzyme in June Bambers make up...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47505
Re: Jeremy's five suspects for planting the silencer.
« Reply #32 on: January 12, 2019, 11:31:PM »
Seems to me that in this day and age, that scientists ought to be able to say if it is possible in any circumstances for AK1 type enzyme in a blood sample to mask the presence of the AK2-1 blood enzyme, depending upon the volumes of each in the same sample? Including any potential adverse reaction which might occur where human and animal blood inadvertently (Ak1) mix together in the same mix, as appears to have happened in this instance?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2019, 11:41:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47505
Re: Jeremy's five suspects for planting the silencer.
« Reply #33 on: January 13, 2019, 11:58:AM »
Seems to me that in this day and age, that scientists ought to be able to say if it is possible in any circumstances for AK1 type enzyme in a blood sample to mask the presence of the AK2-1 blood enzyme, depending upon the volumes of each in the same sample? Including any potential adverse reaction which might occur where human and animal blood inadvertently (Ak1) mix together in the same mix, as appears to have happened in this instance?

I am sorry to have to be so adamant regarding the misuse of the AK1 blood enzyme in the scientific presentation of the blood said to have been found inside 'the' silencer, on the basis that it should have been excluded on the grounds that both humans and animals share this blood group with no scientific possibility of it being determined between one or other - and Glynis Howard said there was human blood on the flat end cap in the vicinity of its 1/4 inch aperture in August 1985, yet in April 1986 she found animal bloods in the same, or similar areas of a silencer ( including AK1)...

This evidence was misused by the forensic science service in the prosecution of Jeremy Bamber, because without the AK1 portion of the blood group results obtained from the carrying out of blood group testing at the lab' between 12th to 19th September 1985, leaving only A, EAP BA, and HP2-1, I dare say that the jury would have been satisfied that any blood found inside the silencer as claimed could have come from June Bamber, or have been an intimate mixture of June's and Neville Bambers bloods ( on the basis that where A and O blood mix together, the A will mask the presence of O type)!

Take out the AK1, and it no longer becomes tenable for the prosecutions argument that the blood found inside the silencer was unique to Sheila Caffell..

But, and..

John Hayward deceived the court which tried this case, by behaving as though he didn't know the significance of the find of human blood and animals blood in the same silencer ( if there truly had been just the one silencer), since he was senior blood expert at Huntingdon at the time, and he would have reviewed Glynis Howard's findings arising out of her August 1985, and April 1986, examination of the silencer(s), which both fell before the commencement of the trial in October 1986...

Human blood (August 1985), animal blood (April 1986) - trial started October 1986..

« Last Edit: January 13, 2019, 12:02:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47505
Re: Jeremy's five suspects for planting the silencer.
« Reply #34 on: January 13, 2019, 01:12:PM »
I am sorry to have to be so adamant regarding the misuse of the AK1 blood enzyme in the scientific presentation of the blood said to have been found inside 'the' silencer, on the basis that it should have been excluded on the grounds that both humans and animals share this blood group with no scientific possibility of it being determined between one or other - and Glynis Howard said there was human blood on the flat end cap in the vicinity of its 1/4 inch aperture in August 1985, yet in April 1986 she found animal bloods in the same, or similar areas of a silencer ( including AK1)...

This evidence was misused by the forensic science service in the prosecution of Jeremy Bamber, because without the AK1 portion of the blood group results obtained from the carrying out of blood group testing at the lab' between 12th to 19th September 1985, leaving only A, EAP BA, and HP2-1, I dare say that the jury would have been satisfied that any blood found inside the silencer as claimed could have come from June Bamber, or have been an intimate mixture of June's and Neville Bambers bloods ( on the basis that where A and O blood mix together, the A will mask the presence of O type)!

Take out the AK1, and it no longer becomes tenable for the prosecutions argument that the blood found inside the silencer was unique to Sheila Caffell..

But, and..

John Hayward deceived the court which tried this case, by behaving as though he didn't know the significance of the find of human blood and animals blood in the same silencer ( if there truly had been just the one silencer), since he was senior blood expert at Huntingdon at the time, and he would have reviewed Glynis Howard's findings arising out of her August 1985, and April 1986, examination of the silencer(s), which both fell before the commencement of the trial in October 1986...

Human blood (August 1985), animal blood (April 1986) - trial started October 1986..

And, as if that isn't enough to warrant sending Bambers case back to the appeal court, there is then the mischievous manner with which the senior blood expert, John Hayward testified during the trial - whilst being examined the following exchanges between himself and Mr Arlidge QC:-


Arlidge QC - ' can you say from your experience anything about the appearance of the blood that you saw inside the moderator'?

Hayward - ' there was nothing to suggest to me that there was more than one blood from more than one person present, or in my grouping results, to suggest that there was more than one'.

Arlidge QC - ' it may be of limited value but is it possible at all to judge it by appearance'?

Hayward - ' not really, no'. I certainly would not want to offer an opinion on the basis of appearance alone'.

Arlidge QC - '  but in this case you say you were putting together appearance and your grouping tests'?

Hayward - ' and also my reading of the statements of other Witnesses which perhaps I should not refer to at the moment'.

Arlidge QC - ' can you just tell us who those other Witnesses are'?

Hayward - ' Dr Vanezis and Mr Fletcher'.

(short adjournment during the proceedings)..

Arlidge QC - ' when you were dealing with the remoteness of the possibility that this blood in the moderator could be the result of two people's blood, you mentioned that there were things in other Witnesses statements that had affected your view: were those other people expert Witnesses or lay Witnesses'?

Hayward - ' they were expert Witnesses, sir'.

Arlidge QC - ' can you tell us just for the moment, what it was in the statements that affected your view'?

Hayward - ' yes sir, it was a case of whether or not individuals had suffered contact or very close contact shots'.

Arlidge QC - ' and in whose statement did you see that'?

Hayward - ' I was referring to Mr Fletcher's statement and Dr Vanezis' statement.

Arlidge QC - ' how does whether it is a contact wound or not affect the position'?

Hayward - ' I would be very surprised to find blood from a person who has not had a contact or very close range shot inside the muzzle of the silencer, Sir'.

Arlidge QC - ' when you say "very close range", what do you mean'?

Hayward - ' I cannot elaborate, Sir. I am not a firearms expert'.


« Last Edit: January 13, 2019, 01:14:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47505
Re: Jeremy's five suspects for planting the silencer.
« Reply #35 on: January 13, 2019, 01:19:PM »
And, as if that isn't enough to warrant sending Bambers case back to the appeal court, there is then the mischievous manner with which the senior blood expert, John Hayward testified during the trial - whilst being examined the following exchanges between himself and Mr Arlidge QC:-


Arlidge QC - ' can you say from your experience anything about the appearance of the blood that you saw inside the moderator'?

Hayward - ' there was nothing to suggest to me that there was more than one blood from more than one person present, or in my grouping results, to suggest that there was more than one'.

Arlidge QC - ' it may be of limited value but is it possible at all to judge it by appearance'?

Hayward - ' not really, no'. I certainly would not want to offer an opinion on the basis of appearance alone'.

Arlidge QC - '  but in this case you say you were putting together appearance and your grouping tests'?

Hayward - ' and also my reading of the statements of other Witnesses which perhaps I should not refer to at the moment'.

Arlidge QC - ' can you just tell us who those other Witnesses are'?

Hayward - ' Dr Vanezis and Mr Fletcher'.

(short adjournment during the proceedings)..

Arlidge QC - ' when you were dealing with the remoteness of the possibility that this blood in the moderator could be the result of two people's blood, you mentioned that there were things in other Witnesses statements that had affected your view: were those other people expert Witnesses or lay Witnesses'?

Hayward - ' they were expert Witnesses, sir'.

Arlidge QC - ' can you tell us just for the moment, what it was in the statements that affected your view'?

Hayward - ' yes sir, it was a case of whether or not individuals had suffered contact or very close contact shots'.

Arlidge QC - ' and in whose statement did you see that'?

Hayward - ' I was referring to Mr Fletcher's statement and Dr Vanezis' statement.

Arlidge QC - ' how does whether it is a contact wound or not affect the position'?

Hayward - ' I would be very surprised to find blood from a person who has not had a contact or very close range shot inside the muzzle of the silencer, Sir'.

Arlidge QC - ' when you say "very close range", what do you mean'?

Hayward - ' I cannot elaborate, Sir. I am not a firearms expert'.


First things first, just let me say that John Haywood would have known that the three adult victims, that is Neville, June and Sheila, all had contact or near contact wounds...

Secondly, Hayward admits that he wasn't referring to the witness statements made by Glynis Howard, only that he was influenced by Mr Fletcher's and Dr Venezis' witness statements - but why would he choose to ignore the damning witness statements of Glynis Howard, and her findings arising out of her examination of a silencer in August 1985 (human blood) and in April 1986  (animal blood)?
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47505
Re: Jeremy's five suspects for planting the silencer.
« Reply #36 on: January 13, 2019, 01:22:PM »
First things first, just let me say that John Haywood would have known that the three adult victims, that is Neville, June and Sheila, all had contact or near contact wounds...

Secondly, Hayward admits that he wasn't referring to the witness statements made by Glynis Howard, only that he was influenced by Mr Fletcher's and Dr Venezis' witness statements - but why would he choose to ignore the damning witness statements of Glynis Howard, and her findings arising out of her examination of a silencer in August 1985 (human blood) and in April 1986  (animal blood)?

By taking that approach, it enabled him to include the AK1 blood enzyme found in the silencer as being the determining factor by which he could conclude that the blood found in the silencer was unique to Sheila Caffell, when in reality he was wrong!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47505
Re: Jeremy's five suspects for planting the silencer.
« Reply #37 on: January 13, 2019, 01:28:PM »
By taking that approach, it enabled him to include the AK1 blood enzyme found in the silencer as being the determining factor by which he could conclude that the blood found in the silencer was unique to Sheila Caffell, when in reality he was wrong!

Both Sheila and June had A, EAP BA, and HP2-1, blood groups, and additionally very relevant was the fact that in Neville Bambers case, although he had O, EAP BA, and HP2-1 blood types, his O type blood would have been masked by the A type bloods of both June and Sheila - paving the way for (a) a possible intimate mixture of the parents bloods, (b) Sheila's and Neville's bloods, (c) Sheila's and June's bloods, and (d) an intimate mixture of all three adults bloods, rather than it simply have been (e) a case of the blood results being unique, and or exclusive to Sheila alone!
« Last Edit: January 13, 2019, 01:31:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47505
Re: Jeremy's five suspects for planting the silencer.
« Reply #38 on: January 13, 2019, 01:36:PM »
So, when the jury retired, and sent out a note asking whose blood was found inside the silencer (setting aside, the issue regarding whether the blood in question had been the flake scraped from the outside of the silencer using a razor blade by David Boutflour), the jury were deceived by the response which the trial judge gave to them. I am not saying the trial judge deliberately deceived the jury with the response he gave to the question which was concerning them, only that what he told them (recited to them from what Hayward had said in the witness box) was not factual in light of what we now know about the value of blood type AK1 in the circumstances of this case..
« Last Edit: January 13, 2019, 01:38:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47505
Re: Jeremy's five suspects for planting the silencer.
« Reply #39 on: January 13, 2019, 01:48:PM »
The true value of blood type AK1 has a direct bearing upon whether the verdict of the jury was the right decision based upon them being reassured by the trial judge, after they had already retired to consider their verdict and had sent out a hand written note to the judge, asking the pertinent question, amongst other things which are of no value to this particular issue, 'who's blood was in the silencer'?

The correct answer was not given to them, since the true value of AK1 had been deliberately kept from the court by John Hayward, who deliberate chose to ignore the findings made by Glynis Howard in August 1985 (human blood), and April 1986 (animal bloods), in particular with reference to the AK1 blood enzyme she found to be present on or in 'the' silencer. Hayward must have known about the significance of the value of the AK1 blood enzyme, and rather than include it in his own findings, he should ordinarily have excluded it for all the reasons given!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47505
Re: Jeremy's five suspects for planting the silencer.
« Reply #40 on: January 13, 2019, 01:50:PM »

The correct answer was not given to them, since the true value of AK1 had been deliberately kept from the court by John Hayward, who deliberate chose to ignore the findings made by Glynis Howard in August 1985 (human blood), and April 1986 (animal bloods), in particular with reference to the AK1 blood enzyme she found to be present on or in 'the' silencer. Hayward must have known about the significance of the value of the AK1 blood enzyme, and rather than include it in his own findings, he should ordinarily have excluded it for all the reasons given!

Why would (and did) John Hayward, ignore the findings of Glynis Howard?
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47505
Re: Jeremy's five suspects for planting the silencer.
« Reply #41 on: January 13, 2019, 01:53:PM »
Why would (and did) John Hayward, ignore the findings of Glynis Howard?

Perhaps the answer to this rests with the fact that by reference to his trial transcript, he was influenced by Mr Fletcher's, witness statement..

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47505
Re: Jeremy's five suspects for planting the silencer.
« Reply #42 on: January 13, 2019, 02:21:PM »
Fletcher, supposedly Dismantled a silencer at the Lab' on 12th September 1985, something which was an impossibility because there wasn't a silencer at the lab' on that occasion, or by that date..

The silencer (SJ/1, 22) had been returned to Essex police on 13th August 1985, and the other silencer (DRB/1, 22) was not submitted to the lab' until 20th September 1985. Exhibit DB/1 (23) which got sent to the Lab' on 30th August 1985, was the dried flake of blood which David Boutflour had scraped from the outside of the silencer (SJ/1, 22) prior to that silencer having been handed over to police and the provisional examination of it by Glynis Howard at the Lab' on the 13th August 1985..

What Howard knew was the true value of AK1, in a one silencer scenario - if there was only one silencer, which had had all these different exhibit references at one time or another, and different lab' item numbers at different times, Howard knew that the AK1 blood enzyme couldn't be allocated to Sheila Caffell, alone. Howard knew the secret significance of the silencers. John Hayward knew Howard's secret, because he (Hayward) was a party to the same secret..

Hayward and Fletcher, they were both different to Glynis Howard, different because she was committed to telling the truth, and saying it as it was, and is - "human blood" on the silencer (SJ/1, 22) August 1985, and "animal blood" on the silencer (DRB/1, 22) April 1986 - her findings capable of seriously undermining the expert opinions of both Hayward and Fletcher, where the former claimed the blood found in the silencer was unique to Sheila, and where the latter, based his expert opinion on the opinion of the former, by declaring that the only way that Sheila Caffell's blood could have got into the silencer, was if the silencer was fitted to the end of the guns barrel at the time she was shot and killed!

This in turn had the knock on effect of enabling the prosecution to "ambush" the defendants case, by gleefully declaring that Sheila couldn't have taken her own life, therefore, because when the police found her body that silencer with her unique blood inside it, wasn't still attached on to the end of the guns barrel, it had been removed and carried off to another part of the farmhouse and concealed in a cupboard, and allegedly not found or recovered by the police, but by the relatives later on...

Hayward, and Fletcher, knew Glynis Howard's secret...

That secret, will come back to haunt both of them, and all the others who took part in its concealment, as sure as night follows day, and death follows birth..



« Last Edit: January 13, 2019, 02:24:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47505
Re: Jeremy's five suspects for planting the silencer.
« Reply #43 on: January 13, 2019, 02:31:PM »
Ann Eaton knows the secret, so does her brother David Boutflour, so to does her husband Peter, and her father, Robert Woodwis Boutflour. DS Jones knew Glynis Howard's secret, so too did DI Cook, and PI Miller..

The COLP investigators not only knew the truth regarding this secret, but they gathered together two entirely separate reports after completing their findings into complaints listed by Jeremy Bamber in 1990, one report favouring four murders and a suicide, the other report based on the one that Bamber stands convicted of - the existence and misuse of two different identical looking silencers in one report, and a single silencers involvement in the other report...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47505
Re: Jeremy's five suspects for planting the silencer.
« Reply #44 on: January 13, 2019, 02:37:PM »
Ann Eaton knows the secret, so does her brother David Boutflour, so to does her husband Peter, and her father, Robert Woodwis Boutflour. DS Jones knew Glynis Howard's secret, so too did DI Cook, and PI Miller..

The COLP investigators not only knew the truth regarding this secret, but they gathered together two entirely separate reports after completing their findings into complaints listed by Jeremy Bamber in 1990, one report favouring four murders and a suicide, the other report based on the one that Bamber stands convicted of - the existence and misuse of two different identical looking silencers in one report, and a single silencers involvement in the other report...

Report one - two silencers (SJ/1, )22 - four murders, and a suicide

Report two - one silencer (DRB/1, 22 and SJ/1, 22), five murders
« Last Edit: January 13, 2019, 02:38:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...