Author Topic: PS Saxby - the unanswered question:-  (Read 7927 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: PS Saxby - the unanswered question:-
« Reply #90 on: September 11, 2012, 05:35:AM »
Is the DNA still available Mike ?
The DNA profile of the unidentified male found in the silencer was documented at the time. At the 2002 appeal judgement the court said that it was prepared to accept that it could have been Ralph Bambers DNA (because his body gad been cremated and there were/was no direct family members available from who a DNA sample could be taken for comparuson). Nevertheless, even though the court was prepared to accept that DNA from both parents was found inside the silencer, it rejected this evidence as being proof the the original blood obtained from inside the same silencer, had originated from them. Instead it preferred to accept that a presence of the parents DNA in the silencer came about as a result of contamination, through mishandling by the experts whilst they carried out tests upon it. Imagine that, the ciurt of appeal bending over backwards to accommodate the presence if the unidentified male DNA found in the silencer as belonging to Ralph Bamber, so that it became a possibility that the blood obtained from inside the silencer had not been unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell, but that it could have been an intimate mixture of the parents blood, in keeping with defence arguments at trial, but despite this, rejected at the appeal stage by the argument of contamination...
Imagine if at the time of the trial, this DNA evidence in its contaminated form gad been availabke to the defence and the jury? It would then have been possible to argue as part of the defence case, that if the parents DNA got into the silencer by a process of contamination through mishandling, the chances are that the blood found in the silencer also got there by contamination also...

I find it hard to imagine where a court would have allowed blood group evidence found inside the same silencer as DNA profiles, that got into the silencer by a process of contamination would accept the blood group evidrnce, yet reject the corresponding DNA evidence...

There is also the possibikity that the unidentified male DNA found on the baffles where the crucial blood group evidence came into contact, being Robert Woodwis Boutflourss, which can still be checjed because his children are still alive...

I have copies of the DNA profiling tests, results, and conclusions, and no cgecks have yet been carried out to see if the unidentifiable male DNA found in the silencer was/is his...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: PS Saxby - the unanswered question:-
« Reply #91 on: September 11, 2012, 02:14:PM »
The DNA profile of the unidentified male found in the silencer was documented at the time. At the 2002 appeal judgement the court said that it was prepared to accept that it could have been Ralph Bambers DNA (because his body gad been cremated and there were/was no direct family members available from who a DNA sample could be taken for comparuson). Nevertheless, even though the court was prepared to accept that DNA from both parents was found inside the silencer, it rejected this evidence as being proof the the original blood obtained from inside the same silencer, had originated from them. Instead it preferred to accept that a presence of the parents DNA in the silencer came about as a result of contamination, through mishandling by the experts whilst they carried out tests upon it. Imagine that, the ciurt of appeal bending over backwards to accommodate the presence if the unidentified male DNA found in the silencer as belonging to Ralph Bamber, so that it became a possibility that the blood obtained from inside the silencer had not been unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell, but that it could have been an intimate mixture of the parents blood, in keeping with defence arguments at trial, but despite this, rejected at the appeal stage by the argument of contamination...
Imagine if at the time of the trial, this DNA evidence in its contaminated form gad been availabke to the defence and the jury? It would then have been possible to argue as part of the defence case, that if the parents DNA got into the silencer by a process of contamination through mishandling, the chances are that the blood found in the silencer also got there by contamination also...

I find it hard to imagine where a court would have allowed blood group evidence found inside the same silencer as DNA profiles, that got into the silencer by a process of contamination would accept the blood group evidrnce, yet reject the corresponding DNA evidence...

There is also the possibikity that the unidentified male DNA found on the baffles where the crucial blood group evidence came into contact, being Robert Woodwis Boutflourss, which can still be checjed because his children are still alive...

I have copies of the DNA profiling tests, results, and conclusions, and no cgecks have yet been carried out to see if the unidentifiable male DNA found in the silencer was/is his...
A lot of mental gymnastics by the court on this issue certainly Mike .
  DNA tests and comparisons would as you say at least provide clarity .
  Is there any prospect of anyone doing these checks ?