Nobody can answer how he would know, or whether he did or didn't know. That would be for a jury to ponder and a defence barister to ponder, if it was relevant to bother do so. Fact of the matter is it was a match and he was a key prosecution witness and patriarch of the inheritors, whom the jury were already suspicious of. We both know what would have happened if they had been told the truth. Bamber was already set to walk free anyway.
Lying to the jury on scientific evidence doesn't make the conviction sound. It's shithouse behaviour from the prosecution barister, that blemishes the scientist's trustworthiness.
Realistically how many of us can identify our enzyme and protein groups? How would Robert Boutflour know his groups matched Sheila's?
You do understand that Rivlin had before him, pre-trial, all the test results: flake, 5 victims, Bamber and relatives. The prosecution did not withhold the information. The judge even made a point of saying to Rivlin, the biologist was going to provide testimony about a number of blood stained exhibits is there anything the court needs to know about the way they were transported or words to this effect. Rivlin replied no.
How could Rivlin accuse Robert Boutflour of accidentally or deliberately contaminating the silencer when his main line of defence was to argue the flake represented an intimate mix of Nevill and June's blood which together potentially could have generated the same test result as Sheila's?
No idea why you are sounding off about the prosecution barrister and scientist? Are you now saying the scientist deliberately misled the jury much the same way you have accused Vanezis of doing?
You are beginning to sound like a crank/conspiracy theorist. Why are all these people going to perjure themselves running the risk of a custodial sentence, ruined reputation and career, loss of livelihood etc just to put a half-witted Essex farmer behind bars?
I'm not sure you understand Rivlin's main line of defence and the blood evidence. Rivlin told the court Sheila used the silencer to kill her parents and sons before removing it, returning it to the gun cupboard and then going upstairs to shoot herself. Rivlin argued the flake was generated by back spatter from Nevill and June wherby their blood overlapped and when the scientist cut the flake into 5 for each test he inadvertently took parts of blood from Nevill and parts from June which generated effectively a false reading representing Sheila's results. Rivlin obviously thought there was more chance of a jury believing this than Robert Boutflour dobbing his blood in. That said he did put it to David Boutflour that either he or his father may have cut themselves around the silencer.
If the prosecution has strong evidence the jury are going to find guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
