How to prove Jeremy was framed for the murders, with dodgy silencer evidence...

[Steve_uk]

I thought the Defence's case was that a silencer was not used. The evidence regarding June's DNA is satisfactory as far as I am concerned.

[Patti]

Hi Mike check this out. We have two experts who disagree on the findings of the DNA in the moderator.
The real answer to this is that Mr Clayton disagreed with the conclusions of his colleague Ms Groombridge.   He felt that it was unsafe to draw any conclusions form her findings. 

496. In the interpretation of the results, Dr Clayton called on behalf of the appellant and Miss Groombridge, called on behalf of the prosecution disagreed to a limited extent. Both agreed that Sheila Caffell could have contributed to this mixture of DNA but Miss Groombridge was prepared to go further and say that the findings provided support for the proposition that she had contributed to the mixture. She was, however, unable to determine the level of support provided. In her evidence to the court she explained her reasoning. Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided some support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator. However, Miss Groombridge was unable to perform any sort of statistical evaluation of the likelihood of this happening and hence unable to assess the strength of the support. Dr Clayton, whilst acknowledging the respect that he had for Miss Groombridge's views and whilst recognising the possible validity of the point that she made, felt that it was unsafe to draw any such conclusion. Whilst we recognise that there may very well be merit in Miss Groombridge's evidence in this regard, we doubt very much whether a jury would have been prepared to place any significant reliance upon it so that it might have altered any view which they otherwise would have reached.

So here we have it. Although Mr Groombridge was unable to evaluate her finding the CCRC said that this would not in their view change the result of a jury.....How on earth could they decide that?  It is clear to me that it would, for the conclusion was and still is in doubt and not conclusive enough to convince a jury.   

[Patti]

I thought the Defence's case was that a silencer was not used. The evidence regarding June's DNA is satisfactory as far as I am concerned.

But is is not Steve, that is the point....read R v Jeremy Bamber...it is only likely, therefore it is insufficient evidence and not reliable to say conclusively that is was JB or SC's blood in the silencer.  The results can only determine if there were male of female LCN in their analysis and cannot say if this was from blood.  It could have been from saliva or sweat...

[Steve_uk]

I don't have the book in front of me but wasn't the DNA found in the silencer a close match to Pamela's?Why would June's sweat or saliva be found in the silencer?

[Patti]

I don't have the book in front of me but wasn't the DNA found in the silencer a close match to Pamela's?Why would June's sweat or saliva be found in the silencer?

Steve, the very evidence that was required for the LCN DNA testing were destroyed by police.  There wasn't any of Sheila's DNA and there wasn't any of June's DNA to compare the tests with.  They took blood samples from relatives.  That is why the LCN was done in the first place.  The argument behind that is simple and it reflects that they are no conclusive results of either June's or Sheila's blood in the moderator, however it could be likely, but in real terms it is not plausible to categorically say that there was....It would be unsafe to peruse the likelihood that the DNA belonged to either of them...and the results cannot determine if the LCN DNA results came from blood at all....It can only determine that is came from male or female...

Put the book away, it is not real.    Read the real evidence and draw your conclusions from that.

[Steve_uk]

Steve, the very evidence that was required for the LCN DNA testing were destroyed by police.  There wasn't any of Sheila's DNA and there wasn't any of June's DNA to compare the tests with.  They took blood samples from relatives.  That is why the LCN was done in the first place.  The argument behind that is simple and it reflects that they are no conclusive results of either June's or Sheila's blood in the moderator, however it could be likely, but in real terms it is not plausible to categorically say that there was....It would be unsafe to peruse the likelihood that the DNA belonged to either of them...and the results cannot determine if the LCN DNA results came from blood at all....It can only determine that is came from male or female...

Put the book away, it is not real.    Read the real evidence and draw your conclusions from that.

The book has been back on the shelf for many weeks at the Manchester branch of Waterstones. It doesn't surprise me that Scott Lomax's book has yet to be purchased..

[Patti]

Steve, the very evidence that was required for the LCN DNA testing were destroyed by police.  There wasn't any of Sheila's DNA and there wasn't any of June's DNA to compare the tests with.  They took blood samples from relatives.  That is why the LCN was done in the first place.  The argument behind that is simple and it reflects that they are no conclusive results of either June's or Sheila's blood in the moderator, however it could be likely, but in real terms it is not plausible to categorically say that there was....It would be unsafe to peruse the likelihood that the DNA belonged to either of them...and the results cannot determine if the LCN DNA results came from blood at all....It can only determine that is came from male or female...

Put the book away, it is not real.    Read the real evidence and draw your conclusions from that.

Don't you think for one minute that the evidence may have been destroyed for a reason and thus, resulting in Jeremy Bamber not being able to use this evidence in the likelihood of modern science. This action was of gross misconducted in the fact it halted the plight of someone who may be innocent to the crime he was originally accused of. 

If the evidence had not been destroyed then it clearly would be a different matter, would it not? 

[Patti]

The book has been back on the shelf for many weeks at the Manchester branch of Waterstones. It doesn't surprise me that Scott Lomax's book has yet to be purchased..

Lol.....................

[Steve_uk]

Don't you think for one minute that the evidence may have been destroyed for a reason and thus, resulting in Jeremy Bamber not being able to use this evidence in the likelihood of modern science. This action was of gross misconducted in the fact it halted the plight of someone who may be innocent to the crime he was originally accused of. 

If the evidence had not been destroyed then it clearly would be a different matter, would it not? 

No because in Mr. Justice Drake's summing up the silencer evidence,the telephone call and Julie's testimony could all form the basis of a conviction quite separate from one another.

[Patti]

No because in Mr. Justice Drake's summing up the silencer evidence,the telephone call and Julie's testimony could all form the basis of a conviction quite separate from one another.

So did the judge that summed all of these up, but they were completley innocent and exonerated of their crimes, some of them served nearly 30 years in jail.  This is just a few.

Abbitt   Joseph   NC   1995   2009
Abdal   Habib Wahir   NY   1983   1999
Adams   Kenneth   IL   1979   1996
Alejandro   Gilbert   TX   1990   1994
Alexander   Richard   IN   1998   2001
Anderson   Marvin   VA   1982   2002
Atkins   Herman   CA   1988   2000
Avery   Steven   WI   1985   2003
Avery   William D.   WI   2004   2010
Ayers   David   OH   2000   2011
Bain   James   FL   1974   2009
Barbour   Bennett   VA   1978   2012
Barnes   Steven   NY   1989   2009
Barr   Jonathan   IL   1997   2011
Bauer   Chester   MT   1983   1997
Beaver   Antonio   MO   1997   2007
Bibbins   Gene   LA   1987   2003
Bivens   Phillip   MS   1980   2010
Blair   Michael   TX   1994   2008
Bloodsworth   Kirk   MD   1985   1993
Booker   Donte   OH   1987   2005
Boquete   Orlando   FL   1983   2006
Bostic   Larry   FL   1989   2007
Bradford   Marcellius   IL   1988   2001
Bradford   Ted   WA   1996   2010
Bravo   Mark Diaz   CA   1990   1994
Brewer   Kennedy   MS   1995   2008
Briscoe   Johnny   MO   1983   2006
Brison   Dale   PA   1990   1994
Bromgard   Jimmy Ray   MT   1987   2002
Brown   Dennis   LA   1985   2005
Brown   Danny   OH   1982   2001
Brown   Roy   NY   1992   2007
Brown   Keith   NC   1993   1997
Brown   Patrick   PA   2002   2010
Bryson   David Johns   OK   1983   2003
Bullock   Ronnie   IL   1984   1994
Buntin   Harold   IN   1986   2005
Burnette   Victor   VA   1979   2009
Butler   A.B.   TX   1983   2000
Byrd   Kevin   TX   1985   1997
Cage   Dean   IL   1996   2008
Callace   Leonard   NY   1987   1992
Capozzi   Anthony   NY   1987   2007
Caravella   Anthony   FL   1986   2010
Chalmers   Terry   NY   1987   1995
Charles   Clyde   LA   1982   1999
Charles   Ulysses Rodriguez   MA   1984   2001
Chatman   Charles   TX   1981   2008
Clark   Robert   GA   1982   2005
Coco   Allen   LA   1997   2006
Cole   Timothy   TX   1986   2009
Cotton   Ronald   NC   1985, 1987   1995
Courtney   Sedrick   OK   1996   2012
Cowans   Stephan   MA   1998   2004
Criner   Roy   TX   1990   2000
Cromedy   McKinley   NJ   1994   1999
Crotzer   Alan   FL   1981   2006
Cruz   Rolando   IL   1985   1995
Cunningham   Calvin Wayne   VA   1981   2011
Dabbs   Charles   NY   1984   1991
Dail   Dwayne Allen   NC   1989   2007
Danziger   Richard   TX   1990   2002
Davidson   Willie   VA   1981   2005
Davis   Gerald   WV   1987   1995
Davis   Dewey   WV   1987   1995
Davis   Cody   FL   2006   2007
Davis   Larry W.   WA   1993   2010
Daye   Frederick   CA   1984   1994
Dean   James   NE   1990   2009
Dedge   Wilton   FL   1982   2004
Deskovic   Jeff   NY   1990   2006
Dewey   Robert   CO   1996   2012
Diaz   Luis   FL   1980   2005
Dillon   William   FL   1981   2008
Dixon   John   NJ   1991   2001
Dixon   Bobby Ray   MS   1980   2010
Dominguez   Alejandro   IL   1990   2002
Doswell   Thomas   PA   1986   2005
Dotson   Gary   IL   1979   1989
Dupree   Cornelius   TX   1980   2011
Durham   Timothy   OK   1993   1997
Echols   Douglas   GA   1987   2002
Edwards   James   IL   1996   2012
Elkins   Clarence   OH   1999   2005
Erby   Lonnie   MO   1986   2003
Evans   Michael   IL   1977   2003
Evans   Jerry Lee   TX   1987   2009
Fain   Charles Irvin   ID   1983   2001
Fappiano   Scott   NY   1985   2006
Fears Jr.   Joseph   OH   1984   2009
Fountain   Wiley   TX   1986   2003
Fritz   Dennis   OK   1988

[susan]

Patti  Well Done for all that research wonder what stevie will say to that.

[Patti]

Patti  Well Done for all that research wonder what stevie will say to that.

He will refer to his book....lol 

[lookout]

Steve would be better reading Old Moores Almanac. Would you not,Steve.?

[Jane]

He will refer to his book....lol 

But not necessarily respond

[susan]

april/Patti