My Challenge To The Supporters

[killingeve]

So much for a "slamdunk". Just the sound of crickets so far.

I've made just short of 1.2k posts showing why I believe Bamber guilty. 

According to posts here you at one time believed Bamber guilty.  It seems you now dismiss the silencer evidence based on Mrs Eaton contaminating it with Sheila's period blood from stained knickers soaking in a bucket where the ratio would be something like about 1 part menstrual blood to a million parts water.  You seem oblivious to the fact you need good quality blood samples to yield the enzyme and protein markers identified. 

[Roch]

Why would it?

I'm not getting in to a fight but the reason why it wouldn't, is purely because you are actually a JB supporter. You are not a natural guilt theorist. Therefore, in order to play guilter, you are having to fall back on the CAL / prosecution case. You have adopted their mantel. Part of the reason for this is that you have been surrounded by guilters for years. So you know what makes them click.

[killingeve]

I'm not getting in to a fight but the reason why it wouldn't, is purely because you are actually a JB supporter. You are not a natural guilt theorist. Therefore, in order to play guilter, you are having to fall back on the CAL / prosecution case. You have adopted their mantel. Part of the reason for this is that you have been surrounded by guilters for years. So you know what makes them click.

You do come up with some bizarre stuff.  And of course it gets you out of having to respond to my posts which are quite simply unbeatable because Bamber is guilty!

Anway how's about you explaining how the blood got in the silencer if not from the drawback phenomenon?

[David1819]

I've made just short of 1.2k posts showing why I believe Bamber guilty. 

No, you have not. Please summarise your "slamdunk".

According to posts here you at one time believed Bamber guilty.  It seems you now dismiss the silencer evidence based on Mrs Eaton contaminating it with Sheila's period blood from stained knickers soaking in a bucket where the ratio would be something like about 1 part menstrual blood to a million parts water.  You seem oblivious to the fact you need good quality blood samples to yield the enzyme and protein markers identified.

You seem oblivious to the fact that menstrual blood is part clotted and coagulated. You also seem oblivious to the fact that the absorption elution testing itself involves dissolving blood in water.

[Adam]

No, you have not. Please summarise your "slamdunk".

You seem oblivious to the fact that menstrual blood is part clotted and coagulated. You also seem oblivious to the fact that the absorption elution testing itself involves dissolving blood in water.

David did initially say 'all the forensics point to Jeremy'. Together with other things.

His two reasons for a stance change were -

No blood on Nevill's side of the bed.

An alternative source regarding no blood in the rifle barrel.

[Jane]

I'm not getting in to a fight but the reason why it wouldn't, is purely because you are actually a JB supporter. You are not a natural guilt theorist. Therefore, in order to play guilter, you are having to fall back on the CAL / prosecution case. You have adopted their mantel. Part of the reason for this is that you have been surrounded by guilters for years. So you know what makes them click.

Roch, what is it with supporters that they become apoplectic at the thought of anyone changing their minds?!!! You even have the temerity to refer to it as "going over to the dark side". How much darker can it get than supporting someone who has murdered their family for financial gain? You goad CC -in fact you approach them as if you're a therapist- with constant jibes about what you claim was their previous belief, well, so bloody what if they have!!! It may have bypassed you, but the newly converted tend to be more vitriolic about a cause they'd once espoused and more loyal to their chosen one, than those who have never changed, ie previous smokers/drinkers/religious converts.  For whatever reason, everyone is entitled to change their minds and it's no business of anyone else's.

[guest7363]

Don't forget that under Ainsley, statements were re-written en mass. It could be that two different versions of the same statement are in existence.

Have you got a source for this Roch?  Why would Jeremy have a copy of the missing quote from Bews statement if he knew it existed and why hasn’t it been brought up before.  So your saying Bews was instructed to miss out the report of movement (trick of light) from one statement, but leave them both for the court to look at or for defence to look at?

[guest7363]

No, you have not. Please summarise your "slamdunk".

You seem oblivious to the fact that menstrual blood is part clotted and coagulated. You also seem oblivious to the fact that the absorption elution testing itself involves dissolving blood in water.

Does that mean it doesn’t Flake like Arterial blood?

[Roch]

Have you got a source for this Roch?  Why would Jeremy have a copy of the missing quote from Bews statement if he knew it existed and why hasn’t it been brought up before.  So your saying Bews was instructed to miss out the report of movement (trick of light) from one statement, but leave them both for the court to look at or for defence to look at?

It wouldn't surprise me if Bews had written a statement that included the content of the situation report he gave when requesting firearms team. They won't release the situation report and there is no statement regarding permission being given by whoever did so, not sure if it was Harris or Simpson and no statement from Scollan. So when Ainsley took over, he may well have got Bews to rewrite his statement or he may have simply edited out anything he didn't want in, under the guise of 'composite statements'. I do not know what the defence do or not have regarding Bews. I must admit, I am sceptical they have something which nails him on any sighting.

[killingeve]

No, you have not. Please summarise your "slamdunk".

You seem oblivious to the fact that menstrual blood is part clotted and coagulated. You also seem oblivious to the fact that the absorption elution testing itself involves dissolving blood in water.

You seem oblivious the fact that absorption elution testing was only used to identify the antigens ie A,B,O groups.  The blood serology testing for enzymes and proteins ie Adenylate Kinase (AK), Erythrocyte Acid Phosphtase (EAP), Haptogoblin (HP) and Phosphoglucomutase (PGM) are identified by gel electrophoresis which requires a good quality blood sample to yield results. 

Conventional serological analysis

Analysis of the proteins, enzymes, and antigens present in the blood. These substances are more susceptible to degradation than DNA and this type of testing usually requires a "large" sample (quarter size) in good condition for optimal results. This type of testing is rarely statistically individualizing.

https://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/blood.html

[Bubo bubo]

You do come up with some bizarre stuff.  And of course it gets you out of having to respond to my posts which are quite simply unbeatable because Bamber is guilty!

Anway how's about you explaining how the blood got in the silencer if not from the drawback phenomenon?

Have you completed your analysis of the McKenzie report. It suggests some very worrying points. I will not list them all since it is only a few pages and readers can see the claims for themselves.

1 There was never a flake of blood in the silencer.

2 As expounded by Holly Goodhead on Red and her analysis of the serological components being unable to remain viable over time, the blood on the baffles is not conclusively Sheila's.

3 MF dismantled the SM on the 13/08/85. I have seen no GER for this and it is claimed the HOLAB 5 form is a fake. Why would RC dismantle it again if he knew this?

4 JH did not conduct the tests on the flake but testified as if he had.

[guest7363]

It wouldn't surprise me if Bews had written a statement that included the content of the situation report he gave when requesting firearms team. They won't release the situation report and there is no statement regarding permission being given by whoever did so, not sure if it was Harris or Simpson and no statement from Scollan. So when Ainsley took over, he may well have got Bews to rewrite his statement or he may have simply edited out anything he didn't want in, under the guise of 'composite statements'. I do not know what the defence do or not have regarding Bews. I must admit, I am sceptical they have something which nails him on any sighting.

What did he omit Roch?  Because according to Roland it was in his court statement about the movement, maybe Ainsley said, you’ve missed the part about you seeing movement in the window, please make sure you include it for court?

[killingeve]

You seem oblivious the fact that absorption elution testing was only used to identify the antigens ie A,B,O groups.  The blood serology testing for enzymes and proteins ie Adenylate Kinase (AK), Erythrocyte Acid Phosphtase (EAP), Haptogoblin (HP) and Phosphoglucomutase (PGM) are identified by gel electrophoresis which requires a good quality blood sample to yield results. 

Conventional serological analysis

Analysis of the proteins, enzymes, and antigens present in the blood. These substances are more susceptible to degradation than DNA and this type of testing usually requires a "large" sample (quarter size) in good condition for optimal results. This type of testing is rarely statistically individualizing.

https://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/blood.html

There's a statement here from Sheila's GP regarding her medical history where advice was sought for minor physical issues. If she suffered from heavy periods then its likely she would have sought advice for such.  As she didn't I am assuming her periods were within the normal range which produces some 30ml to 72ml of menstrual blood over 3 to 8 days.  Therefore the amount of blood, little more than staining to the fabric, contained within a pair of knickers soaking in a bucket of water is completely out of the question as a means of contaminating the silencer.  Even if you tipped 72ml of blood into a bucket of water it would be insufficient to yield the results relevant to this case. 

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/periods/

[guest7363]

There's a statement here from Sheila's GP regarding her medical history where advice was sought for minor physical issues. If she suffered from heavy periods then its likely she would have sought advice for such.  As she didn't I am assuming her periods were within the normal range which produces some 30ml to 72ml of menstrual blood over 3 to 8 days.  Therefore the amount of blood, little more than staining to the fabric, contained within a pair of knickers soaking in a bucket of water is completely out of the question as a means of contaminating the silencer.  Even if you tipped 72ml of blood into a bucket of water it would be insufficient to yield the results relevant to this case. 

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/periods/

I think it’s absolutely rubbish and to link Ann with this sort of behaviour without a shred of evidence is very very wrong and Libellous,I would have thought?

[killingeve]

David1819 I am assuming you're male so perhaps the unfamiliartity with the montly cycle has blindsided you regarding this matter. 

As I said above the typical woman will produce about 30ml to 72ml of blood per cycle with a cycle running from 3 to 8 days. 

A man produces about 1.25ml to 5ml each time he ejaculates so the amount of stain in the knickers under questions is unlikely to amount to much more than the semen produced per ejaculation. 

Hope this helps putting it into persepctive!