Flaws in David1819's Sheila scenario.

[killingeve]

Thanks Steve,so was it A negative or A positive?

?

[killingeve]

It's possible that blood groupings were mentioned when Sheila charred for Ann, or just woman to woman talk about hospital stays whilst pregnant. Sheila did visit Oak Farm with Daniel and Nicholas. She asked Ann on that occasion to take a photograph of her to show to Christine. I don't say Ann knew definitively and I don't believe it myself, though the Bamberettes will claim anything which suits their case, as the guilters know from old.

Why would Sheila have any understanding or knowledge of her enzyme and protein groups as a result of her pregnancy?  And even if she did who exactly would be able to recall and relay such information?

PGM   = Phosphoglucomutase (enzyme)
EAP     = Erthrocyte Acid Phosphatase (Enzyme)
AK    = Adenylate Kinase (Enzyme)
HP    = Haptoglobin (Protein)

Does anyone here know their groups?

[killingeve]

Mysterious to say the least. Neither twin had the same group as their mother, which I thought strange as a child or children of the same parents has the same blood grouping of one of the parents.

Have you not answered your own query? 

[killingeve]

Why would Sheila have any understanding or knowledge of her enzyme and protein groups as a result of her pregnancy?  And even if she did who exactly would be able to recall and relay such information?

PGM   = Phosphoglucomutase (enzyme)
EAP     = Erthrocyte Acid Phosphatase (Enzyme)
AK    = Adenylate Kinase (Enzyme)
HP    = Haptoglobin (Protein)

Does anyone here know their groups?

Actually I should have said Sheila's actual groups within the above are as follows:

ABO - A
PGM - PGM1+
EAP - EAP BA
AK - AK1
HP - HP2-1

[snow66!]

?

Yes,I did not realise there were specific proteins and enzymes for each person Cutie.I thought it was as simple as having the same general blood group ie.O,A,B,or whatever.I will have to read more about the blood evidence from both sides.I dont know enough to comment at the moment.

[killingeve]

Yes,I did not realise there were specific proteins and enzymes for each person Cutie.I thought it was as simple as having the same general blood group ie.O,A,B,or whatever.I will have to read more about the blood evidence from both sides.I dont know enough to comment at the moment.

I would recommend reading Dr Lincoln's letters/reports for the defence, John Hayward's (biologist at FSS) notes and trial testimony all of which can be found in the libarary here I think.  If not I have copies.  Other useful sources of info are the report compiled by the FSS for the defence at the 1989 appeal and the CoA doc points 14 and 15. 

[snow66!]

I would recommend reading Dr Lincoln's letters/reports for the defence, John Hayward's (biologist at FSS) notes and trial testimony all of which can be found in the libarary here I think.  If not I have copies.  Other useful sources of info are the report compiled by the FSS for the defence at the 1989 appeal and the CoA doc points 14 and 15.

Thanks Cutie,will check it all out.

[killingeve]

Thanks Cutie,will check it all out.

The blood evidence is arguably the most compelling against Bamber.  Supporters try to brush it off with 2 or more silencers involved (NGB has said several were examined so no idea how this supports Bamber's case), RWB dobbing his blood in and AE wringing out Sheila's soaking in a bucket menstrual stained knickers into the silencer.  All of these theories are utterly abusurd and have no basis to them whatsoever. 

[snow66!]

The blood evidence is arguably the most compelling against Bamber.  Supporters try to brush it off with 2 or more silencers involved (NGB has said several were examined so no idea how this supports Bamber's case), RWB dobbing his blood in and AE wringing out Sheila's soaking in a bucket menstrual stained knickers into the silencer.  All of these theories are utterly abusurd and have no basis to them whatsoever.

Well,if only the silencer had been found on the day and kept the same exhibit number throughout,then it would have stood up to scrutiny better.There's nothing straight forward in this case Cutie,is there?

[Steve_uk]

How does any of this relate to the lab identifying a blood flake within the silencer which matched Sheila's blood groupings as detailed below?

We are discussing theoretically whether it was possible the relatives discovered Sheila's blood type.

[Rob_]

Why would Sheila have any understanding or knowledge of her enzyme and protein groups as a result of her pregnancy?  And even if she did who exactly would be able to recall and relay such information?

PGM   = Phosphoglucomutase (enzyme)
EAP     = Erthrocyte Acid Phosphatase (Enzyme)
AK    = Adenylate Kinase (Enzyme)
HP    = Haptoglobin (Protein)

Does anyone here know their groups?

Why would anyone need to know the actual grouping names?

All you need to know is which group you are such as A+, A- etc.

[Rob_]

Well,if only the silencer had been found on the day and kept the same exhibit number throughout,then it would have stood up to scrutiny better.There's nothing straight forward in this case Cutie,is there?

And the scratches and the hacksaw blade Snow.

[Rob_]

The blood evidence is arguably the most compelling against Bamber.  Supporters try to brush it off with 2 or more silencers involved (NGB has said several were examined so no idea how this supports Bamber's case), RWB dobbing his blood in and AE wringing out Sheila's soaking in a bucket menstrual stained knickers into the silencer.  All of these theories are utterly abusurd and have no basis to them whatsoever.

Why is the blood evidence compelling Cc? I have posted a extract of one of my old posts:

Extract of David Boutflour’s statement 12.9.85

“Also in the box was a sound moderator for a .22 rifle. I picked up the sound moderator and saw what I believe to be blood on it. Also there was red paint or something similar on it as well. There was one quite deep scratch which was bright and appeared to be new. I took these items together with the other firearms to my sister’s home.

I latter informed the Police of the finding of the telescopic sight and the sound moderator.”

Court Testimony

MR. RIVLIN: When you took the box which contained the silencer out of the gun cupboard, whichever that box may have been, is it right you actually looked at the silencer then and there?  A. I looked at the silencer then and there, but did not come to any conclusion until a latter date, because I looked at the silencer at a latter date at my sister’s home.

Q. Where did you look at it when you were in White House Farm? In which room where you when you looked at it?   A. I looked at it in the confines of the office in the den.

Q. Is this right: Did you see anything of significance at the time in the den on the silencer?   A. I cannot remember whether I noticed the fact it had the red paint on it and the undermentioned spot of blood at the time of inspecting it in the office, or on further investigation at my sister’s house. The notability of the damage to the silencer, i.e. the protective coating to the silencer.

Q. So you have no memory of noticing anything significant on the silencer at White House Farm?   A. I have the memory of noticing the damage to the silencer, but not the spot of blood.

Q. Not blood and not red paint?   A. I cannot recollect so far back now, sorry.

Then Latter:
Q. You rang to tell them about the silencer?  A. I did not ring them somebody did.

Nothing compelling as far as I can see?

[snow66!]

And the scratches and the hacksaw blade Snow.

Exactly Rob,how can you have faith in evidence found days or maybe weeks after the crime scene was vacated by the police.Its hardly normal procedure by any means.

[killingeve]

Well,if only the silencer had been found on the day and kept the same exhibit number throughout,then it would have stood up to scrutiny better.There's nothing straight forward in this case Cutie,is there?

But many important exhibits at criminal trials are not found on the day.  Sometimes they are found days, weeks, months and even years later.  There's a simple and straightforward explanation for the changing of the exhibit id; an exhibit I might add that has stood up to scrutiny hence Bamber is still behind bars.