Author Topic: How Reliable Is The Forensic Evidence?  (Read 1636 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Cambridgecutie

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5005
Re: How Reliable Is The Forensic Evidence?
« Reply #30 on: September 04, 2024, 12:40:PM »
Based on the facts of the case, research and tests the so-called silencer evidence was a two-pronged assault by different parties at different times all believing Bamber to be guilty.  And it doesn't include the relatives.

1.  The relatives, including AP, raised the silencer very early on in the investigation.  Hence, on 8th Aug Bamber was asked to complete a further wit stat about this very subject.  DS Jones, the only dissenter from the murder/suicide theory, who was utterly convinced Bamber was responsible, could see how incriminating the silencer could be.  DS Jones had access to WHF on 9th Aug when he handed the keys over to the relatives and briefed them on the alarm.  As an experienced officer he knew that small bloodstains were incapable of being typed so he had all the material necessary for contaminating the silencer: blood, hair, paint (scratches).  When it arrived at the lab it was incriminating for Bamber but didn't link anyone directly until the flake, aka set of test results, appeared a month later.

2.  DS Jones working away in the background knew he needed something else to bolster the case ergo the chief prosecution witness.  Now DCI Ainsley is heading up the investigation.  Believing the evidence against Bamber to be reliable he is aware it is probably not enough to secure a conviction.  He goes to head of lab, Ronald Outteridge, and hey presto a set of test results are produced said to have come from a flake of blood found inside the silencer caused by the little known phenomenon back spatter.  The test results are a match for Sheila's blood groups alone.  Bamber's back is now firmly up against the wall.  Hence he was charged and remanded in custody.  Over to defence counsel...
Patrick O'Connor, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers: "It will have to be a slam dunk.  It will have to be something of a blockbuster piece of evidence to have a chance".

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17128
Re: How Reliable Is The Forensic Evidence?
« Reply #31 on: September 04, 2024, 01:24:PM »
Based on the facts of the case, research and tests the so-called silencer evidence was a two-pronged assault by different parties at different times all believing Bamber to be guilty.  And it doesn't include the relatives.

1.  The relatives, including AP, raised the silencer very early on in the investigation.  Hence, on 8th Aug Bamber was asked to complete a further wit stat about this very subject.  DS Jones, the only dissenter from the murder/suicide theory, who was utterly convinced Bamber was responsible, could see how incriminating the silencer could be.  DS Jones had access to WHF on 9th Aug when he handed the keys over to the relatives and briefed them on the alarm.  As an experienced officer he knew that small bloodstains were incapable of being typed so he had all the material necessary for contaminating the silencer: blood, hair, paint (scratches).  When it arrived at the lab it was incriminating for Bamber but didn't link anyone directly until the flake, aka set of test results, appeared a month later.

2.  DS Jones working away in the background knew he needed something else to bolster the case ergo the chief prosecution witness.  Now DCI Ainsley is heading up the investigation.  Believing the evidence against Bamber to be reliable he is aware it is probably not enough to secure a conviction.  He goes to head of lab, Ronald Outteridge, and hey presto a set of test results are produced said to have come from a flake of blood found inside the silencer caused by the little known phenomenon back spatter.  The test results are a match for Sheila's blood groups alone.  Bamber's back is now firmly up against the wall.  Hence he was charged and remanded in custody.  Over to defence counsel...

An interesting post Cambridge.

Offline BarefootDanC

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 554
Re: How Reliable Is The Forensic Evidence?
« Reply #32 on: September 04, 2024, 09:23:PM »
Based on the facts of the case, research and tests the so-called silencer evidence was a two-pronged assault by different parties at different times all believing Bamber to be guilty.  And it doesn't include the relatives.

1.  The relatives, including AP, raised the silencer very early on in the investigation.  Hence, on 8th Aug Bamber was asked to complete a further wit stat about this very subject.  DS Jones, the only dissenter from the murder/suicide theory, who was utterly convinced Bamber was responsible, could see how incriminating the silencer could be.  DS Jones had access to WHF on 9th Aug when he handed the keys over to the relatives and briefed them on the alarm.  As an experienced officer he knew that small bloodstains were incapable of being typed so he had all the material necessary for contaminating the silencer: blood, hair, paint (scratches).  When it arrived at the lab it was incriminating for Bamber but didn't link anyone directly until the flake, aka set of test results, appeared a month later.

2.  DS Jones working away in the background knew he needed something else to bolster the case ergo the chief prosecution witness.  Now DCI Ainsley is heading up the investigation.  Believing the evidence against Bamber to be reliable he is aware it is probably not enough to secure a conviction.  He goes to head of lab, Ronald Outteridge, and hey presto a set of test results are produced said to have come from a flake of blood found inside the silencer caused by the little known phenomenon back spatter.  The test results are a match for Sheila's blood groups alone.  Bamber's back is now firmly up against the wall.  Hence he was charged and remanded in custody.  Over to defence counsel...

So why did DS Jones frame Bamber ?

Offline Bubo bubo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2898
Re: How Reliable Is The Forensic Evidence?
« Reply #33 on: September 04, 2024, 10:25:PM »
So why did DS Jones frame Bamber ?

Just a suggestion. Class envy and a remark/wise crack JB made in his presence which implied that household property might be nicked by the police. The precise wording is somewhere on the forum.

Another suggestion. There is also the possibility that he let slip to the family information about errors made by the police which might have averted or minimised the tragedy. RB's Chat with ACC PS. Stan is told/ordered that it was JB or him that would be the loser. I think that Clark might have been given a similar ultimatum.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13197
Re: How Reliable Is The Forensic Evidence?
« Reply #34 on: September 04, 2024, 11:29:PM »
So why did DS Jones frame Bamber ?

Because he didn't like the way Jeremy ate breakfast?

https://streamable.com/pvlqt6

On a serious note, he strikes me as someone who would struggle to frame a photograph.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2024, 11:30:PM by David1819 »

Online ILB

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11277
Re: How Reliable Is The Forensic Evidence?
« Reply #35 on: September 05, 2024, 04:47:AM »
Because he didn't like the way Jeremy ate breakfast?

https://streamable.com/pvlqt6

On a serious note, he strikes me as someone who would struggle to frame a photograph.

Old school police officer. A product of his time. Whether right or wrong.

His comment to Jeremy about " your family is dead, the quicker you come to terms with it the better" illustrates that. Rightly or wrongly. In 2024 he'd be probably subject to disciplinary matters for it.

Drink driving on the job et al.

Different era completely. Policing of the 70s and 80s was akin to the BBC series Life on Mars.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2024, 04:50:AM by ILB »
If yesterday you hated me. Then today you can not stop the love that binds from me to you. And you to me

Offline Curiosity

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: How Reliable Is The Forensic Evidence?
« Reply #36 on: September 05, 2024, 07:23:AM »
Nothing wrong with Stan the Man!  He stood up to Taff the Clueless and EP came good in the end as a result.

https://www.mediafire.com/file/2oru6ltbryglhhs/DI_David_Bright_of_Essex_Police_on_DS_Stan_Jones.mp3/file
« Last Edit: September 10, 2024, 12:14:PM by Curiosity »
I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and furballs.

Online Cambridgecutie

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5005
Re: How Reliable Is The Forensic Evidence?
« Reply #37 on: September 05, 2024, 08:24:AM »
So why did DS Jones frame Bamber ?

Did you miss the bit in the post where I said "DS Jones, the only dissenter from the murder/suicide theory, who was utterly convinced Bamber was responsible...?

He comes over to me as dogmatic.  Maybe he felt the need to show everyone he was right and they were wrong?!

You can hear it from the horse's mouth at various point in the following.  Particularly at 26 mins in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcTvqLk0MWU&t=1652s

DS Jones refers to "knowing" he had committed all these murders and in the next breath saying he prayed something would turn up to prove him right.  In other words he didn't know at all.  He had a hunch, a belief, a thought but nothing concrete.  He wanted to be proved right and he set about doing just that.
Patrick O'Connor, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers: "It will have to be a slam dunk.  It will have to be something of a blockbuster piece of evidence to have a chance".

Online Cambridgecutie

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5005
Re: How Reliable Is The Forensic Evidence?
« Reply #38 on: September 05, 2024, 08:28:AM »
Nothing wrong with Stan the Man!  He stood up to Taff the Clueless and EP came good in the end as a result.

https://jmp.sh/s/VnDYoU69LvkyQYPa3a4f

If what you're saying was true it rather begs the question why DCI Jones was DS Jones' superior?  And remember it wasn't DCI Jones that signed the scene off as murder/suicide it was Chief Sup Harris. 
Patrick O'Connor, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers: "It will have to be a slam dunk.  It will have to be something of a blockbuster piece of evidence to have a chance".

Online Cambridgecutie

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5005
Re: How Reliable Is The Forensic Evidence?
« Reply #39 on: September 05, 2024, 08:31:AM »
Because he didn't like the way Jeremy ate breakfast?

https://streamable.com/pvlqt6

On a serious note, he strikes me as someone who would struggle to frame a photograph.

And yet according to you AE was!  According to you AE took Sheila's menstrual stained knickers, found soaking in a bucket of water, and wrung them out into the silencer thus contaminating it with Sheila's blood! 
Patrick O'Connor, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers: "It will have to be a slam dunk.  It will have to be something of a blockbuster piece of evidence to have a chance".

Offline BarefootDanC

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 554
Re: How Reliable Is The Forensic Evidence?
« Reply #40 on: September 06, 2024, 10:05:PM »
And yet according to you AE was!  According to you AE took Sheila's menstrual stained knickers, found soaking in a bucket of water, and wrung them out into the silencer thus contaminating it with Sheila's blood!

Or alternatively (on his view), AE got the blood from stains in the carpet or her clothes

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13197
Re: How Reliable Is The Forensic Evidence?
« Reply #41 on: September 06, 2024, 11:10:PM »
Or alternatively (on his view), AE got the blood from stains in the carpet or her clothes

Both are possible, there was a lot of blood still at the crime scene that AE had unsupervised access to.

There was still blood there when the FSS visited some 15 years later.

Offline BarefootDanC

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 554
Re: How Reliable Is The Forensic Evidence?
« Reply #42 on: September 07, 2024, 12:37:PM »
Both are possible, there was a lot of blood still at the crime scene that AE had unsupervised access to.

There was still blood there when the FSS visited some 15 years later.

Do you think AE had the scientific knowledge and skills to use blood from the house (Sheila's clothes, carpets etc or menstrual blood) and plant it into the sound moderator?

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13197
Re: How Reliable Is The Forensic Evidence?
« Reply #43 on: September 07, 2024, 06:14:PM »
Do you think AE had the scientific knowledge and skills to use blood from the house (Sheila's clothes, carpets etc or menstrual blood) and plant it into the sound moderator?

What scientific knowledge and skills are needed?

Offline BarefootDanC

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 554
Re: How Reliable Is The Forensic Evidence?
« Reply #44 on: September 07, 2024, 09:39:PM »
What scientific knowledge and skills are needed?

Think about it.

The family had no knowledge about blood groups, forensics, back spatter or the length of Sheila's arm.