CCRC Watch article written by Jeremy Bamber

[Bill Robertson]

1) Yes, if the ballistics expert Fletcher testified that it was a back-splatter pattern, that proves that the blood got into the sound moderator by a contact shot. If the blood had been planted, it would not have formed a back-splatter.
2) Few people know both their own blood group and the blood group of a relative. Without this knowledge, Robert Boutflour couldn't have known that his blood would be taken to be Sheila's
3) The point here is the other witnesses to the finding of the moderator corroborate that it was genuinely found and not planted.

1. It’s called blood spatter, not splatter. There is no reliable evidence that any blood spatter occurred. No blood on the outside of the silencer, just a single small drop inside.
2. Boutflour didn’t need to know anything about SC’s blood group, all he needed was to ensure that the police continued to investigate the case and that was aided by the discovery of a drop of blood in the silencer. The blood group was never scientifically proven to be from SC. Only one person, John Hayward, testified as to what blood group was found in the silencer and he 'lied' by not revealing (a) that he did not conduct the test himself and (b) that the results were inconclusive. The blood in the silencer could have been from SC or RB, or neither of them.
3. No witness has ever testified that RB did not contaminate the silencer with his own blood; they were never asked.

[BarefootDanC]

1. It’s called blood spatter, not splatter. There is no reliable evidence that any blood spatter occurred. No blood on the outside of the silencer, just a single small drop inside.
2. Boutflour didn’t need to know anything about SC’s blood group, all he needed was to ensure that the police continued to investigate the case and that was aided by the discovery of a drop of blood in the silencer. The blood group was never scientifically proven to be from SC. Only one person, John Hayward, testified as to what blood group was found in the silencer and he 'lied' by not revealing (a) that he did not conduct the test himself and (b) that the results were inconclusive. The blood in the silencer could have been from SC or RB, or neither of them.
3. No witness has ever testified that RB did not contaminate the silencer with his own blood; they were never asked.

1. It is actually called "back-splatter". Why do you keep saying there was no reliable evidence that blood splatter occurred? Fletcher said it did, and have Bamber supporters ever obtained any expert opinion to the contrary? Blood was found on the outside of the moderator.

2. John Hayward didn't lie. What possible motives did he have for lying? (a) any testing carried out by his colleagues was under his supervision (b) Hayward stated that it was a match for SC with an outside possibility that it could have been a mixture of June and Nevill Bamber's blood. Dr Lincoln for the difference agreed. At the 2002 appeal, Philip Webster agreed that it was either SC's blood or the parents, but attempted to argue that the probability that it was a mixture of the parents was higher than "remote".

3. They were never asked because it wouldn't have been a sensible question. At both the original trial and the 2002 appeal, both sides agreed that the sound moderator was on the gun.

[Zoso]

Yes thanks.
The story related by the relatives is that after returning to Oak Farm later that afternoon after the alleged discovery of the silencer, the booty they had retrieved from White House Farm was laid out on Ann’s kitchen table. After a quick assessment the jewellery and the guns were locked away while the carrier bag of assorted gun related items was left on the kitchen table. Upon the arrival home from work by Peter Eaton it was decided that they could wait no longer to have a peek what the carrier bag contained. David, Ann and Peter all gathered round the table in eager anticipation.

Peter Eaton stated that care was taken with the contents of the carrier bag when they were examined; he informed the City of London Police in 1991: 
“David took the sights out and then the silencer and placed them on the table slightly away from the plastic bag. I do not remember how he piled the items up. However, I can remember Ann telling us to be careful because of fingerprints. I remember that now that in order to get to the things inside the plastic bag, David rolled the sides down.” Peter Eaton then explained that he didn’t handle the silencer himself  and that David Boutflour “hardly touched it” only carefully doing so to remove it from the carrier bag and to put it back in . When asked how they physically examined the silencer, Peter Eaton stated: “In order to look at the silencer we moved around the table and it, to be able to get a good look.”

This revealing evidence by Ann Eaton directly contradicted what David Boutflour stated to the Court. In fact, David admitted that he had been ordered by Ann to be careful because of leaving his fingerprints on the silencer but David confessed that he had handled the silencer in an aggressive manner during this examination at Oak Farm. David admits in his evidence that he forcibly attempted to undo the knurl end of the silencer and had used some degree of force in his attempts and in 1991 stated:  ”I was holding it in my left hand and gripping the knurled ring tightly with my right hand trying to unscrew it”. However, he was unable to succeed unscrewing the silencer. When questioned about this during the trial he was asked if he was wearing gloves whilst he did this: “Mr Rivlin: What did you do next with the silencer? You were not wearing gloves, I take it?  A.  No, my fingerprints would be all over it.”

It is of significant interest that the silencer SBJ/1, submitted to Huntingdon Forensic Lab on the 13th August 1985, which Essex Police claimed was the silencer found by David was, on the 15th August, sent for super glue fume testing in order to retrieve fingerprints from it. No fingerprints were found on the silencer SBJ/1, and one would imagine that from the evidence David gave at Trial that his fingerprints, “all over it”, would have been recovered.  The beneficiaries claimed that Robert Boutflour was not present during the examination of the silencer and yet he was able to describe to the police the actions of his son‘s attempts to undo the silencer : “I didn’t even look closely as David later produced the telescopic sights, and that was put with the silencer and was taken to Oak Farm that evening. When there David’s curiosity got the better of him and he tried to take the end off to examine inside, but immediately spotted a drop of what looked like blood the size of a match head near the exit hole.” Extract from Robert Boutflours Diary Version 2 entry dated 10th August.
So, Robert Boutflour was present when the silencer was dismantled at the kitchen table; they all lied about his presence - I wonder why?

There is nothing there that states it was 'dismantled'.

[Steve_uk]

1. It is actually called "back-splatter". Why do you keep saying there was no reliable evidence that blood splatter occurred? Fletcher said it did, and have Bamber supporters ever obtained any expert opinion to the contrary? Blood was found on the outside of the moderator.

2. John Hayward didn't lie. What possible motives did he have for lying? (a) any testing carried out by his colleagues was under his supervision (b) Hayward stated that it was a match for SC with an outside possibility that it could have been a mixture of June and Nevill Bamber's blood. Dr Lincoln for the difference agreed. At the 2002 appeal, Philip Webster agreed that it was either SC's blood or the parents, but attempted to argue that the probability that it was a mixture of the parents was higher than "remote".

3. They were never asked because it wouldn't have been a sensible question. At both the original trial and the 2002 appeal, both sides agreed that the sound moderator was on the gun.

In your context it's back spatter:

A type of *bloodstain pattern that occurs when blood is projected backwards relative to the direction of a force. For example, a gun fired at close range to a victim may collect back spatter, with the blood travelling backwards relative to the path of the bullet...

The difference between spatter and splatter:

When using the words 'spatter' and 'splatter', remember that the former is used for a liquid that is scattered in small drops, while the latter is used for a liquid that is sprayed in large amounts in a random or careless manner. 2. 'Small drops spatter, larger drops splatter.