Discussion: Robert Boutflours Blood Groupings in Sound Moderator

[Roch]

David thinks both yours and Bill's claims are erroneous. Both of your comments are just opinion, no more worthy than anyone else. There is no more understanding than before, it's just what you choose to believe.

I don't see David as being strong in the area that he disagrees with. He flounders much like your self.  Nevertheless I would choose him to attack Mugford's testimony. That is an area where he is strong. It's horses for courses.

[Zoso]

I don't see David as being strong in the area that he disagrees with. He flounders much like your self.  Nevertheless I would choose him to attack Mugford's testimony. That is an area where he is strong. It's horses for courses.

Oh Roch! 

[Roch]

Oh Roch! 

I merely meant flounder on the wounds. Not on every aspect of the case ,😏

[killingeve]

Thanks to Bill and David, we have got closer to the truth. We have unearthed the wounds and have a better understanding of the sources for Mugford's testimony.

I await your response still.

Imo Bill and David's claims re "fight wounds" and Mrs Eaton wringing Sheila's menstrual stained knickers into the silencer are utter nonsense and will rightly never get off the starting blocks.  All they do is confirm Bamber's guilt and create a circus.  Re Mugford's testimony it is all open to interpretation.  CCRC/CoA are not into 'open to interpretation'.  They're looking for slam danks. 

[killingeve]

Who said he did know?  And even if he did, why would he give that away?

This implies that Rivlin consciously let a chief prosecution witness off the hook, when he could have had him literally squirming. That is either gross incompetence or it is sinister.

The defence has to come up with a strategy it thinks will win the case.  It went with Sheila using the silencer and the flake representing a mixture of June and Nevill's blood.  As I said previously Rivlin did ask David Boutflour if he or his father cut themselves around the silencer ie sowing seeds in jurors' minds.

Yes, Arlidge and the scientist knew that the blood matched Bobby's groupings but didn't let on to the jury.
  Which of the people you refer to who knew the results let the jury in on the secret?

How could it be a secret when the defence knew about it?  As far as the prosecution was concerned Bamber used the silencer throughout and the flake originated from Sheila.  Experts answer questions put to them by the defence and prosecution. 
 

Why does anyone get fit up, if that's the case? 

Miscarriages of justice do happen yes but afaik no one has ever been convicted in connection with such?
 

We're not stuck in 1986, unfortunately.

?
 

That was a calamitous mistake, not least because the jury later demonstrated they didn't trust Robert Boutflour.

They may not have trusted RB over the 'Oh Uncle Bobby I could easily kill my parents' comment but they might not have bought him dobbing his blood into the silencer when a far more plausible argument existed.
 

Scientifically, why would he suggest such a thing?

Suggest what?

But they didn't did they?  The jury convicted because of the judge's summing up.. which was erroneous.

Only jurors know how they arrive at a verdict.  It seems from the question to the judge about the blood that this weighed heavily but no one will ever know for sure.  Had the defence beat the drum about 8% of the unrelated British population sharing the blood groups, which included Uncle Bobby, maybe a guilty man might have walked.  No one will ever know.  No point crying over spilt milk. 

[Roch]

Imo Bill and David's claims re "fight wounds" and Mrs Eaton wringing Sheila's menstrual stained knickers into the silencer are utter nonsense and will rightly never get off the starting blocks.  All they do is confirm Bamber's guilt and create a circus.  Re Mugford's testimony it is all open to interpretation.  CCRC/CoA are not into 'open to interpretation'.  They're looking for slam danks.

OK, sorry you are in the firing line.. but..

Firstly, I never said Mugford's testimony could be taken apart for the benefit of the CCRC. Personally I'm not arsed about the opinion of the CCRC.  I don't have any faith in them.

Secondly, I could take you apart on the wounds.  You have no idea which shots caused which alleged streams.  You have no explanation how gunshot wounds could cause the many variations of marks in blood, in so many different places.  I doubt you have given it any serious consideration.

Those who support guilt or are overly sceptical of the wounds have no cohesive line of defence on them; and simply provide generic waffle when challenged on specifics. It's actually embarrassing.  You have no explanation how JB could have staged Sheila while she had blood still running all over her from these aparent streams.  You have nothing to offer with regards to a number of other aspects of her crime scene. You are not interested in the truth. 

If Vanezis recorded that Sheila's hair was blonde, you would tell us that any challenge based on this being wrong, would be rightfully dismissed by the CCRC, on account of Vanezis having worked directly with Sheila's body; and not just from photographs.

Sorry you are the one in the firing line today, but I just find it all quite pathetic. 

[Steve_uk]

Here are some of my thoughts from earlier posts.

I do not believe it would be impossible for any wet blood to go as far as the 8th baffle. In the Sion Jenkins case a mere expulsion of the dead Billy J’s breath managed to spray the whole of the front of his fleece and his shoe with miniscule droplets. If there was a small amount of wet blood in or around the muzzle area the gasses forced through the barrel would be sufficient to cause a similar spray/mist effect over a distance of say 6 inches.

 author=Bubo bubo link=topic=10740.msg505360#msg505360 date=1639504190]
Can I suggest we discuss the case and move well away from the immature behaviour that has recently been on display? IMO no one comes out of these spats without reputational damage. I am not a moderator but feel the forum has descended into a pit of vipers. Let’s keep it civil.

BLOOD WORKS

[/size]

I think this subject might be right up CC’s street.

I thought it might be useful to set out more clearly how I believe the SM came to have blood inside. I will set them out individually. I have already outlined my thinking on DB1 being found by DB on the day. It should be noted that this exhibit was on DB’s list, which was later headed N/R as outlined in the COLP DB interview. The COLP suggested this meant Not Required or Not Relevant. DB offered no explanation. I argue he was collecting items that were used or produced in the cover up otherwise they would have been assigned to other SOCO officers. Taff wanted them kept apart and I have set out the reasons for this before. The most important may have been a suspicion he held that it could have been contaminated by the TFG which might bring JB into the frame.

1 Sheila contaminated it by her actions.

This could have been caused by a nose bleed when adding or removing the SM blood drips on the SM or muzzle. Another possibility is that she had blood on her hand which transferred to the muzzle during handling. It is also possible some blood dripped onto the SM around the exit. It is also possible that SC ‘prodded dead victims putting blood on the muzzle.

2 The TFG unwittingly contaminated it.

If there was blood on the muzzle and maybe a small incursion into the barrel and they then fitted the SM to make at least one shot (say the first or second shot as outlined in evidence). The action would possibly cause minute particles/mist size droplets to be distributed on the baffle plates and inside the main SM’s barrel/bore as far as that noted in the evidence.

3 A deliberate action at the lab

They, MDF in particular, could have created a flake or they obtained it from the receptacle containing PV20 and blood. As noted by Taylor on his GER. (QC I believe this is another document dated 12/09/85). Since there is a distinct possibility that he swapped PV20 to help create the one-gun crime, the creation of a flake or a flake from the PV20 receptacle would hold no fear.

4 A mistake by MDF who test fired the rifle.

Though he says he did a pull through and found no blood he might have come to the conclusion that he had caused it when small quantities were found by testing for bloods. He may have test fired before the blood tests. A mistake by a ‘novice’? Any earlier contamination would be blasted into the SM. If he visually inspected, it before both the test fire and/or the pull through. It is unlikely he could see the blood because JH and PJL asserted that the blood was not visible to the naked eye.
This suggestion comes into play if 2 above is excluded.

I would suggest that you read this to engage with my thinking.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action\attach;topic=4779.0;attach=34386;image

It seems to me that in the initial stages the mixed group theory was a possibility. JH did not do the tests himself someone, initials ALB did the tests. JH presented on behalf of the FSS at trial.

Try reading this.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34390;image

and this

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34392;image

It could be argued that PJL’s first report was sent to the FSS. (It would have been seen as a matter of curtesy and professional behaviour) as well as presenting findings to the defence. JH said he needed two matching sources to confirm SC’s blood. Low and behold PJL’ s reasoning is undermined by the finding of a flake. This caused him to adjust his advice.

I have severe reservations about this as previously outlined. See this

SILENCER SAGA reply 2 Was there a flake of blood.

I have seen the McKenzie report which says the same. It is a pity I had not read this when first posting this suggestion.

The flake provided additional evidence to support an otherwise highly contestable finding from the SM bore and baffle plates. This is similar to JM’s testimony bolstering the SM evidence.

There many who say that these nuanced issues were used to mislead the Jury about the veracity of the blood evidence. The flake result was not easy to contest and could not be verified by a subsequent test because the all the flake was consumed in the original test. The testing method was called into question later.

The flake was not discovered by RC when he dismantled it and it is clear he was not seeking quick tests because he did not send it to the lab for another nine days. MF did not find the flake when according to some he dismantled it on 13/08/85, (some claim this is a lie and is connected to a forged HOLAB 5 form), was it him who found the flake? Did he dismantle it before passing it to JH and his team? In any case it would seem that neither RC or MF saw blood as would be the case, if it was invisible to the naked eye.

I do not know which if any of the four scenarios I favour but I feel it could be an amalgam of any 2 or 3 from the total. All these scenarios place blood on the muzzle and a strong likelihood that this fact resulted in stronger blood findings which were found on the female screw head. A condition that cannot occur in normal operating conditions. They (SM’s) are designed and built so as not to leak in this area.

I strongly agree with David1819’s take on the back spatter issue. For me the amount of material (blood) was very small indeed, some might say minute and there was no other material like bone or tissue which are characteristic elements of the phenomenon. The quantities were so small I cannot see how any deliberate attempt to introduce blood into the silencer could be achieved. It would be extremely difficult because the actor would have to apply such a small amount as that found in the testing. The flake is different in that making one would be more easily achieved.

While arguments such as this maybe wrong or right, there seems little possibility that this aspect will lead to a CCRC referral. The blood evidence is a dead end I am afraid.

I believe the CT should proceed with this case on the basis that it is a ‘frame up’ following a cover-up. A case could be constructed explaining the framing of JB as part of a whole new narrative, citing the lack of disclosure as a deliberate attempt to hide pertinent evidence and the mistakes that were made. The outcome of this behaviour eventually leading to the diabolical framing of an innocent man.

I thought most people realized the Sion Jenkins blood expiration theory was a cop out. As for Sheila using a silencer at all during the murders, there was no need if she were going to commit suicide thereafter.

[Bubo bubo]

I thought most people realized the Sion Jenkins blood expiration theory was a cop out. As for Sheila using a silencer at all during the murders, there was no need if she were going to commit suicide thereafter.

If you are attempting to outline an argument it is required that you list all possibilities. I do not think it was that reason and said so. However since I believe she was in a psychotic state it was incumbent that this possibility was included since her condition meant it was a possibility. I notice you do not address any of the other possibilities or arguments advanced.

[Steve_uk]

If you are attempting to outline an argument it is required that you list all possibilities. I do not think it was that reason and said so. However since I believe she was in a psychotic state it was incumbent that this possibility was included since her condition meant it was a possibility. I notice you do not address any of the other possibilities or arguments advanced.

Well you included far too much information to assimilate in one post. Maybe you could summarize the main points. Sheila having a nose bleed is a bit of a stretch, as is her opening another box of Eley ammunition, though admittedly it wasn't you yourself who advanced that theory.

[Roch]

The defence has to come up with a strategy it thinks will win the case.  It went with Sheila using the silencer and the flake representing a mixture of June and Nevill's blood.  As I said previously Rivlin did ask David Boutflour if he or his father cut themselves around the silencer ie sowing seeds in jurors' minds

Why would Rivlin want to plant a seed about David Boutflour, who isn't mentioned in the letter?

How could it be a secret when the defence knew about it?  As far as the prosecution was concerned Bamber used the silencer throughout and the flake originated from Sheila.

We know the prosecution deliberately withheld the fact from the jury, when the scientist was questioned.  What you are implying is Rivlin knowingly allowed to that happen.

Experts answer questions put to them by the defence and prosecution.

Which gives them the right to knowingly hoodwink the jury?
 

?

Your take on the case is like you have 1986 concrete shoes on.
 

They may not have trusted RB over the 'Oh Uncle Bobby I could easily kill my parents' comment but they might not have bought him dobbing his blood into the silencer when a far more plausible argument existed

.

This view is woeful.  They weren't told the science. You are tacitly approving that Rivlin was correct to go with a weaker scientific argument, than a far stronger scientific argument at his disposal.  Please remind me again, who was present at the alleged discovery of the SM?  It's as if you think the jury would be caught up in the silly games you play, rather than have the capacity to join the dots for themselves, when presented with facts and science.
 

Suggest what?

That RB or DB cut themselves while handling the SM. How does planting a seed about that fit in with a strategy based on a claim that June and Nevill's blood mingled in the SM?

Only jurors know how they arrive at a verdict.  It seems from the question to the judge about the blood that this weighed heavily

Which question?

[Steve_uk]

If you are attempting to outline an argument it is required that you list all possibilities. I do not think it was that reason and said so. However since I believe she was in a psychotic state it was incumbent that this possibility was included since her condition meant it was a possibility. I notice you do not address any of the other possibilities or arguments advanced.

I have read the post fully now, including the references. Leaving aside I may need a new prescription from my optometrist, what is your opinion on it being difficult to introduce blood into the silencer, I assume with a chemical pipette?

[Roch]

I have read the post fully now, including the references. Leaving aside I may need a new prescription from my optometrist, what is your opinion on it being difficult to introduce blood into the silencer, I assume with a chemical pipette?

Is that a teat pipette?  Do you think it's strange the Rivlin asked if DB or RB might have cut themselves when handling the SM?

[Steve_uk]

Is that a teat pipette?  Do you think it's strange the Rivlin asked if DB or RB might have cut themselves when handling the SM?

I thought the question was addressed to Robert Boutflour only. It was as far as Rivlin went in attacking the Establishment. Of course Jeremy Bamber played the Establishment card for all it was worth.

[Bubo bubo]

I have read the post fully now, including the references. Leaving aside I may need a new prescription from my optometrist, what is your opinion on it being difficult to introduce blood into the silencer, I assume with a chemical pipette?

Even with a pipette it would be difficult because the blood was not visible to the naked eye and with such an approach it would be tricky to control the volume. A small air brush might do the trick but that is a bit too technical. We are talking about something akin to a fine mist IMO. A small amount of blood on the muzzle or in the end of the gun combined with the gasses on firing would I suggest be more realistic

[Zoso]

I thought the question was addressed to Robert Boutflour only. It was as far as Rivlin went in attacking the Establishment. Of course Jeremy Bamber played the Establishment card for all it was worth.

It was.