Point(1) True Point(2) So, you accept that there was blood in one of the silencers... Point(3) Surely you are arguing against yourself here? They were suspicious so they called in the silencers but when they got them they used them to convict bamber?
I accept that by the time a silencer was examined at the lab' by blood expert, John Hayward, on 11th September 1985, that there was a presence of blood inside that particular silencer, but I do not know if it was blood from Sheila, or which originated from one of the other relat ives who had the same blood group activbity as Sheila - I also do not discount the possibility that any such blood found in that silencer at that time could have been, or was, or is, a mixture of different types of blood, from the parents, and rabbits blood, or blood from another animal, or animals. I am not happy with the blood experts explanation about why in his view the blood in that silencer was unqiue to Sheila - he claims that if the blood had been as a result of an intimate mixture of the parents bloods he would have expected to find June bambers AK 2-1 blood enzyme in the mixture of blood from the flake, but he got AK1, which he said makes it blood unique and exclusive to Sheila. The way I see it, and because animals share the same AK1 blood enzyme as that found in humans, and the fact that the lab' confirmed the presence of two lots of anim,als blood on / in that silencer, I think it was / is more likely that the AK1 part of the result originated from an animal, such as a rabbit / rat, or whatever...
Because of this, you can no longer seek to rely upon that part of the argument to justify saying the blood from the flake found inside the silencer originated exclusively from Sheila, because the remaining results (A, EAP BA HP 2-1) does not justify anyone being able to say that with any degree of certainty...
Next, there is no guarantee that the silencer sent to the lab' (SBJ/1, lab' item number 22) on 13th August 1985, and (DB/1, lab' item number 23) was / is the self same silencer which ended up becoming court exhibit 9 during the trial, bearing an identification mark of DRB/1. There is no way of distinguishing one of these silencers from the other simply by looking at the outside of the silencers, there are no serial numbers, it becomes a somewhat difficult task to sepaparte one from the otjher, and so on evening of 12th August 1985, when Peter Eaton handed over a silencer to DS Jones, how did he know to whom that silencer belonged? Not only that but if Peter Eaton handed over the only silencer in the case to the police on 12th August 1985, how come DS Jones took possession of the other silencer (SBJ/1) from the scene on 7th August 1985, along with three other exhibits marked SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4? Furthermore, how could Ann Eaton hand over a silencer to the police on 11th September 1985, and if she did hiow could that silencer which she handed over on that occasion, be the silencer which was already at the lab', where it had been ever since police sent it there on 30th August 1985?
(a) - What happened to the silencer which Ann Eaton handed over to the police on 11th September 1985?
(b) - What happened to the other silencer kept on top of DCI Jones desk at his office at Witham police station?
(c) - What happened to the silencer DI Cook kept in his possession for 17 days that he carried around everywhere?
How is it possible for these three different identical looking parker hale silencers to all be one and the same? To have blood inside them, paint upon them, be at the lab' and not at the lab' at the same time, and with the police producing three different identical looking parker hale silencers at court during the trial, and that there exists three different identifying marks, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, and three different lab' item reference numbers at one time or another, namely 22, 23 and then back to 22 again?
So, I don't really understand how you are trying to make out that I am arguing against myself...
