Discussion: Robert Boutflours Blood Groupings in Sound Moderator

[Cambridgecutie]

Sorry iv'e only just seen this, No i wasn't Chastising you, i don't even Know you, i attacked your post and i say again it is absolutly Rubbish the thought of giving Prisoners air time on TV when they Appeal and i gave my reasons why.  Lucy Letby is appealing, should we give her air time to put the families through hell again.

I think snow was thinking along the lines of 'I'm a Prisoner... Get Me Out Of Here'!

[Cambridgecutie]

Shelias leg pulled - I have ismails report in my possession. About the bedside cabinet. It is junk science. And will not effect a court of appeal hearing in any effect as it wasnt called as original evidence in the trial.

Really?  Seems to have the background for the task?

The esteemed and learned judges were impressed with what you refer to as 'junk science' whilst acknowledging the evidence did not meet the criteria based on the judicial system:

519. Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial. However, we were not satisfied that evidence of this kind was not available at the date of trial if the prosecution had sought to explore these matters and more importantly we thought that Mr Turner was right in his submission that it was very difficult to gauge with sufficient certainty the reaction of a jury to it particularly when we could not judge it against all the related evidence in the trial, which we had not heard.

520. Our conclusion was that we should not therefore admit the evidence and we have had no regard to it in reaching our conclusion. It can, however, be said about it that if it had been called at trial, it may well have represented yet another formidable string to the prosecution's bow in a case where even without any regard to that evidence, it has to be said that the prosecution were able to put forward a very strong case pointing to guilt.

[Jane]

Realistically how would blood from approx 8% of unrelated white British population end up in the silencer?  Bearing in mind the scratches and hair support the theory the silencer was used during the murders.  And how would RB know his blood groups matched those contained within the flake?

Added to which, how totally beyond belief, are the methods -and materials!!- said to have been employed to get it there.

[Cambridgecutie]

Are you happy Cc that a .22 rifle using low velocity ammunition would result in a flake of blood due to blood spatter being found in the silencer?

The evidence is what it is.  If not blood spatter how do you explain how blood matching Sheila's groups ended up inside the silencer?  Bearing in mind this was further supported by the scratches and hair. 

[Cambridgecutie]

How does back spatter explain how blood was detected on the threaded (hidden) part of the silencer?

The blood found on the threaded part was insufficient in quantity for grouping.  But tests were able to conclude it was blood and human in origin.  I guess a small amount could have seeped in when Nevill was bashed about with it and bleeding heavily?  Or Bamber may have had some blood on his hands and transferred it when unscrewing?

[Cambridgecutie]

Added to which, how totally beyond belief, are the methods -and materials!!- said to have been employed to get it there.

Well David's theory of Mrs Eaton wringing out Sheila's left to soak menstrual stained knickers into the silencer surely still has to take the biscuit!?

[Cambridgecutie]

Really?  Seems to have the background for the task?

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/martyn-ismail-293b8518

The esteemed and learned judges were impressed with what you refer to as 'junk science' whilst acknowledging the evidence did not meet the criteria based on the judicial system:

519. Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial. However, we were not satisfied that evidence of this kind was not available at the date of trial if the prosecution had sought to explore these matters and more importantly we thought that Mr Turner was right in his submission that it was very difficult to gauge with sufficient certainty the reaction of a jury to it particularly when we could not judge it against all the related evidence in the trial, which we had not heard.

520. Our conclusion was that we should not therefore admit the evidence and we have had no regard to it in reaching our conclusion. It can, however, be said about it that if it had been called at trial, it may well have represented yet another formidable string to the prosecution's bow in a case where even without any regard to that evidence, it has to be said that the prosecution were able to put forward a very strong case pointing to guilt.

[Adam]

What's the full passage of text Adam?

The most clear cut of which was that Mr Ismail had referred to a bloodstain on the upper right thigh of Sheila Caffell's nightdress that was clearly caused by a bloody hand print.

He said that he understood that Dr Vanezis, the pathologist, had given evidence that there was no blood on the palm side of Sheila Caffell's hands. Therefore, he concluded, this staining must have been deposited by another individual.

[ILB]

Really?  Seems to have the background for the task?

The esteemed and learned judges were impressed with what you refer to as 'junk science' whilst acknowledging the evidence did not meet the criteria based on the judicial system:

519. Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial. However, we were not satisfied that evidence of this kind was not available at the date of trial if the prosecution had sought to explore these matters and more importantly we thought that Mr Turner was right in his submission that it was very difficult to gauge with sufficient certainty the reaction of a jury to it particularly when we could not judge it against all the related evidence in the trial, which we had not heard.

520. Our conclusion was that we should not therefore admit the evidence and we have had no regard to it in reaching our conclusion. It can, however, be said about it that if it had been called at trial, it may well have represented yet another formidable string to the prosecution's bow in a case where even without any regard to that evidence, it has to be said that the prosecution were able to put forward a very strong case pointing to guilt.

Will never be used as evidence so not detrimental.

It is science, it's about a bedside cabinet and where blood would fall. It's a predication. It's not one hundred percent accurate

[Roch]

Realistically how would blood from approx 8% of unrelated white British population end up in the silencer?  Bearing in mind the scratches and hair support the theory the silencer was used during the murders.  And how would RB know his blood groups matched those contained within the flake?

Where is supporting evidence that Sheila's blood group is as stated? Her medical records are sealed.

There was no hair.

A scratch can occur at any time?

[ILB]

Realistically how would blood from approx 8% of unrelated white British population end up in the silencer?  Bearing in mind the scratches and hair support the theory the silencer was used during the murders.  And how would RB know his blood groups matched those contained within the flake?

The AK1 enzyme is also linked with blood of game such as cattle, rabbits etc. It's highly likely the blood could have been animal. Had this been put to the trial in 86 things may have differed

[ILB]

The most clear cut of which was that Mr Ismail had referred to a bloodstain on the upper right thigh of Sheila Caffell's nightdress that was clearly caused by a bloody hand print.

He said that he understood that Dr Vanezis, the pathologist, had given evidence that there was no blood on the palm side of Sheila Caffell's hands. Therefore, he concluded, this staining must have been deposited by another individual.

If that handprint hasn't proven to be Jeremy Bambers, that means little. Plenty interpretations open

[Adam]

If that handprint hasn't proven to be Jeremy Bambers, that means little. Plenty interpretations open

Probably too feint for it to be matched. Obviously not Sheila's.

PV says Rigor Mortais was well established on Sheila. So the blood would have dried by the time the police entered.

CAL says the neck blood photos were doctored by the CT.

[Cambridgecutie]

Will never be used as evidence so not detrimental.

It is science, it's about a bedside cabinet and where blood would fall. It's a predication. It's not one hundred percent accurate

The emphasis is on Sheila's found position.  Ismail's evidence supports the theory Sheila was pulled by her feet after sustaining the second instantly fatal gunshot wound.  It does not need to be 100% just beyond reasonable doubt.  Even DNA evidence is not 100%.

518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress.[/b]

[Cambridgecutie]

The AK1 enzyme is also linked with blood of game such as cattle, rabbits etc. It's highly likely the blood could have been animal. Had this been put to the trial in 86 things may have differed

You are wrong.  All blood stained exhibits first underwent a test for a positive reaction for blood.  They then underwent a second test to determine the blood was human in origin.  These tests preceded tests to determine blood groups: antigens, enzymes and proteins.