A question about the blood on the silencer

[Jan]

sorry if this has been covered recently but I see in the recent newspaper articles the blood on the silencer was mentioned again .

So the judge commented that Jeremy could be convicted on the evidence of the silencer alone - and it was confirmed  to the jury when they asked that the blood was that of Sheila .

this is now known not the be the case so the jury was misled .

But if the blood could be her blood or that of RB how can that be ?

Were they only looking at blood groups ? Not DNA as they were not related ?

I am a bit confused by this at the moment ? 

[Jan]

bumping up (:

[Jan]

silence(:

Its ok I think it might be on enzymes in the blood - not DNA or blood grouping .

Not such an exact science then .

[Steve_uk]

The bottom line here, however the Jeremy supporters care to dress it up, is that there was a remote possibility at the time of the trial that the blood found in the silencer could have been a mix of June and Nevill's blood, which would mean that the Defence could argue that Sheila returned the silencer to the gun cupboard before proceeding upstairs to shoot herself.

We have since learned from the DNA sample given by Sheila's birth mother, Christine Jay, that the blood in the silencer bore a remarkable similarity (David1819 will correct me on the technical terms-markers I believe) to hers and therefore this theory can be all but discounted, whether it was ever a serious contention in the first place.

[Jan]

The bottom line here, however the Jeremy supporters care to dress it up, is that there was a remote possibility at the time of the trial that the blood found in the silencer could have been a mix of June and Nevill's blood, which would mean that the Defence could argue that Sheila returned the silencer to the gun cupboard before proceeding upstairs to shoot herself.

We have since learned from the DNA sample given by Sheila's birth mother, Christine Jay, that the blood in the silencer bore a remarkable similarity (David will correct me on the technical terms-markers I believe) to hers and therefore this theory can be all but discounted, whether it was ever a serious one in the first place.

in the legal team documents it says Robert Boutflour - not Neville and apparently that was known at the time of the trial .

[Caroline]

sorry if this has been covered recently but I see in the recent newspaper articles the blood on the silencer was mentioned again .

So the judge commented that Jeremy could be convicted on the evidence of the silencer alone - and it was confirmed  to the jury when they asked that the blood was that of Sheila .

this is now known not the be the case so the jury was misled .

But if the blood could be her blood or that of RB how can that be ?

Were they only looking at blood groups ? Not DNA as they were not related ?

I am a bit confused by this at the moment ?

DNA wasn't used in criminal cases then - just short of.

What is known 'not to be the case'?

[Jan]

But a week before the trial, the head of biology at Huntingdon Forensic Science Laboratories wrote to Essex police in a letter seen by the Guardian last year, saying the blood on the silencer “could have come from Sheila Caffell or Robert Boutflour”, another relative. That letter was not disclosed to the defence.

[Steve_uk]

in the legal team documents it says Robert Boutflour - not Neville and apparently that was known at the time of the trial .

Geoffrey Rivlin QC did venture to ask Robert Boutflour under oath whether his finger had bled whilst examining the silencer at Oak Farm. This was as close to the Defence accusing the relatives of impropriety as the trial came.

[Jan]

like I have always said the way the silencer was handled it could have been contaminated .

[Jan]

Geoffrey Rivlin QC did venture to ask Robert Boutflour under oath whether his finger had bled whilst examining the silencer at Oak Farm. This was as close to the Defence accusing the relatives of impropriety as the trial came.

so if the actual letter was not disclosed to the defence - I wonder why he asked that question ? The other blood evidence did not mention his name ?

[Caroline]

Geoffrey Rivlin QC did venture to ask Robert Boutflour under oath whether his finger had bled whilst examining the silencer at Oak Farm. This was as close to the Defence accusing the relatives of impropriety as the trial came.

RB isn't mentioned as having been at Oak farm when the silencer was examined?

[lookout]

Because neither twin had the AK1 enzyme from their mother I'm suspicious that it ever was Sheila's blood which contained the AK1 enzyme because of it being genetic.

[Steve_uk]

RB isn't mentioned as having been at Oak farm when the silencer was examined?

Then I made a mistake. The Defence must have thought he had an opportunity to plant A type blood though.

[Jan]

RB isn't mentioned as having been at Oak farm when the silencer was examined?

was he there when it was collected ?

I was not talking about the logistics just what the letter said - this is not from me its from the guardian .

[Caroline]

Then I made a mistake. The Defence must have thought he had an opportunity to plant A type blood though.

It's their job to plant ideas.