Evidence relatives dismantled silencer & Robert Boutflour's blood contaminated?

[Roch]

Sorry but I don't see the point of your question? about the only evidence that will stand up in a court of law is a DNA test which is not possible now.

The CT claim he was the only relative who declined a DNA test.

[Rob_]

The CT claim he was the only relative who declined a DNA test.

Yes I read that also Roch, why would he refuse no reason I can think of?

Is there any DNA left from the blood found in the silencer? I believe brothers/close relatives DNA can be compared though not sure how certain the result would be?

[Adam]

The CT claim he was the only relative who declined a DNA test.

The CT also claim Sheila dialled 999. While the police were outside!

[killingeve]

The CT claim he was the only relative who declined a DNA test.

The CT claim a lot of things but doesn't make them remotely reliable. 

DNA testing was not available in 1985/6 hence the reason for the referral to appeal court in 2002.

I believe Robert Boutflour is now deceased but not sure when he died. 

[killingeve]

Sorry but I don't see the point of your question? about the only evidence that will stand up in a court of law is a DNA test which is not possible now.

Some claimed on here yesterday that the relatives dismantled the silencer and Robert Boutflour poured his blood  inside    I was trying to establish the origins of this and whether there was any basis to it at all eg they might have said we dismantled the silencer but it seems its just wishful thinking on the part of those who make such claims.

[killingeve]

Yes I read that also Roch, why would he refuse no reason I can think of?

Is there any DNA left from the blood found in the silencer? I believe brothers/close relatives DNA can be compared though not sure how certain the result would be?

Where did you read that Robert Boutflour refused a DNA test?

There was no visible blood on the silencer in 2002 hence the test used was low copy number dna and you can see how that ended up by referring to the court of appeal deciision 2002.

[Roch]

The CT claim a lot of things but doesn't make them remotely reliable. 

It doesn't make them always wrong either. Therefore, in reality, they are partially reliable. If Jeremy Bamber is innocent, then by default you must agree that our entire justice system from Bews upwards, including Dickinson, COLP, Stokenchurch, the 2002 appeal judges, the 2012 CCRC etc, are all unreliable sources.

[Roch]

Yes I read that also Roch, why would he refuse no reason I can think of?

Is there any DNA left from the blood found in the silencer? I believe brothers/close relatives DNA can be compared though not sure how certain the result would be?

Not sure Rob tbh. But the authorities in this case are never going to announce any scientific findings that benefit the defence. There is too much at stake - because of all the different enquiries and appeal related matters. The question would arise, 'what on earth is the point in all such agencies, if they are unable to spot a wrongful conviction?'. It undermines trust in public authorities. They would rather that the question isn't asked.. until 2054 or afterwards.

[Rob_]

Not sure Rob tbh. But the authorities in this case are never going to announce any scientific findings that benefit the defence. There is too much at stake - because of all the different enquiries and appeal related matters. The question would arise, 'what on earth is the point in all such agencies, if they are unable to spot a wrongful conviction?'. It undermines trust in public authorities. They would rather that the question isn't asked.. until 2054 or afterwards.

My opinion does not really matter, but to me there is serious doubt at everything I look at, it is clearly a wrongful conviction. I think the case will be referred and if it's not I will lose all faith in the authorities.

[lookout]

My opinion does not really matter, but to me there is serious doubt at everything I look at, it is clearly a wrongful conviction. I think the case will be referred and if it's not I will lose all faith in the authorities.

It certainly was a wrongful conviction, without any doubt,

I too have read somewhere that RWB refused a DNA test and also that Rivlin had questioned RWB about the finger injury, which I believe was quickly passed off.

[Adam]

It certainly was a wrongful conviction, without any doubt,

I too have read somewhere that RWB refused a DNA test and also that Rivlin had questioned RWB about the finger injury, which I believe was quickly passed off.

I too have read somewhere.

----------

Best find the source.

[Adam]

Doubtful RB could refuse a DNA test. If the legal system wanted one.

His DNA may be on the silencer. He did handle it.

[Rob_]

Doubtful RB could refuse a DNA test. If the legal system wanted one.

His DNA may be on the silencer. He did handle it.

You can't refuse if you have been arrested I believe, but a witness I don't know but why refuse?

He has nothing to worry about does he??

[Adam]

You can't refuse if you have been arrested I believe, but a witness I don't know but why refuse?

He has nothing to worry about does he??

No evidence he did refuse.

Just more hot air from the mind numbing CT podcasts.

[lookout]

I too have read somewhere.

----------

Best find the source.

Why don't you find it for a change ? Afterall, the search facility is easy enough.