Potential For The Silencer To Have Been Contaminated And The Judge's Summing Up

[killingeve]

As we know the blood found in the silencer matched Sheila's blood type/group.  With conflicting opinion about a remote possibility of the sample representing an initimate mix of June and NB's blood type/group.

Here's the table which shows the blood type/group of the victims along with the sample found:

                              ABO                    PGM                    EAP                     AK                    Hp

Nevill Bamber           O                        PGM1+                EAP BA               AK1                   Hp2-1
June Bamber            A                         PGM1+                EAP BA               AK2-1                Hp2-1
Daniel Caffell            O                        PGM2+1+            EAP B                 AK1                   Hp2
Nicholas Caffell         O                        PGM2+1+           EAP B                 AK1                    Hp2
Sheila Caffell            A                        PGM1+                EAP BA               AK1                    Hp2-1
Blood Sample           A                        Nil                        EAP BA              AK1                    Hp2-1

I have been unable to find anywhere in the judge's summing up or CoA doc any reference to what % of the population share blood type/groups.  However my own perhaps rather crude methods and calculations indicate about 10% but the above results are certainly not exclusive to the individuals ie they are shared by many others.

As the relatives found the silencer they were asked to provide samples, which they did, to rule out contamination.  I am unsure as to who exactly provided samples but RB did and his sample ie blood type/group matched the sample found in the silencer and Sheila Caffell's blood type/group.

Furthermore there is no audit trail as to who had access to and handled the silencer from manufacture to it arriving at FSS for analysis.  For example at the manufacturing stage, transportation, gun shop, others that Nevill may have lent the gun/silencer to eg farm workers, friends etc

If 10% of the population share the same blood type/group then imo this should have been made clear to the jury ie spelled out in no uncertain terms.  For example:

10% of the population will share the same blood type/group found in the silencer which matched SC's blood type/group and RB's blood type/group.  Put another way 1 in 10 or statistically at least one member of the jury.

However this is part of the judge's summing up and imo is very misleading:

Page 12 of summing up

"Now I think that does complete the evidence of those experts, so it all comes down to this, does it not?  Mr Hayward says, "Well to begin with, merely analysing the blood inside the moderator, it correponds with Sheila Caffell's.

Page 13 of summing up

"then come to Mr Fletcher's evidence: "One of Sheila's wounds clearly was a contact wound", so that is entirely consistent with it being her blood in the end of the moderator".

The above statements imply that the evidence points to Sheila's blood being found in the moderator.  This is WRONG as it was impossible to conclude then that Sheila's blood was in the moderator.  It was only possible to state that the blood found in the silencer matched Sheila's blood type/group which is not exclusive to her and also matched RB's.

It appears that the possibility of contamination and the fact that it could never be proved that Sheila's blood was in the silencer was never presented to the jury? 

[Caroline R]

As we know the blood found in the silencer matched Sheila's blood type/group.  With conflicting opinion about a remote possibility of the sample representing an initimate mix of June and NB's blood type/group.

Here's the table which shows the blood type/group of the victims along with the sample found:

                              ABO                    PGM                    EAP                     AK                    Hp

Nevill Bamber           O                        PGM1+                EAP BA               AK1                   Hp2-1
June Bamber            A                         PGM1+                EAP BA               AK2-1                Hp2-1
Daniel Caffell            O                        PGM2+1+            EAP B                 AK1                   Hp2
Nicholas Caffell         O                        PGM2+1+           EAP B                 AK1                    Hp2
Sheila Caffell            A                        PGM1+                EAP BA               AK1                    Hp2-1
Blood Sample           A                        Nil                        EAP BA              AK1                    Hp2-1

I have been unable to find anywhere in the judge's summing up or CoA doc any reference to what % of the population share blood type/groups.  However my own perhaps rather crude methods and calculations indicate about 10% but the above results are certainly not exclusive to the individuals ie they are shared by many others.

As the relatives found the silencer they were asked to provide samples, which they did, to rule out contamination.  I am unsure as to who exactly provided samples but RB did and his sample ie blood type/group matched the sample found in the silencer and Sheila Caffell's blood type/group.

Furthermore there is no audit trail as to who had access to and handled the silencer from manufacture to it arriving at FSS for analysis.  For example at the manufacturing stage, transportation, gun shop, others that Nevill may have lent the gun/silencer to eg farm workers, friends etc

If 10% of the population share the same blood type/group then imo this should have been made clear to the jury ie spelled out in no uncertain terms.  For example:

10% of the population will share the same blood type/group found in the silencer which matched SC's blood type/group and RB's blood type/group.  Put another way 1 in 10 or statistically at least one member of the jury.

However this is part of the judge's summing up and imo is very misleading:

Page 12 of summing up

"Now I think that does complete the evidence of those experts, so it all comes down to this, does it not?  Mr Hayward says, "Well to begin with, merely analysing the blood inside the moderator, it correponds with Sheila Caffell's.

Page 13 of summing up

"then come to Mr Fletcher's evidence: "One of Sheila's wounds clearly was a contact wound", so that is entirely consistent with it being her blood in the end of the moderator".

The above statements imply that the evidence points to Sheila's blood being found in the moderator.  This is WRONG as it was impossible to conclude then that Sheila's blood was in the moderator.  It was only possible to state that the blood found in the silencer matched Sheila's blood type/group which is not exclusive to her and also matched RB's.

It appears that the possibility of contamination and the fact that it could never be proved that Sheila's blood was in the silencer was never presented to the jury?

Great post NN with some very valid points!! Where did you get the summing up info from?

[killingeve]

Great post NN with some very valid points!! Where did you get the summing up info from?

Thanks Caroline.  From the transcript in the library/archives 

[susan]

Hi N/N  I was just going to echo Caroline's words excellent well researched post.  Well done

[Jane]

A truly splendid piece of work, NaNu. Well done.

[Bridget]

The transcript you are reading is not the full summing up. It is only the part which applies to the questions from the jury. I don't think I've ever seen the full summing up.

If the jury were mistakenly of the belief that the blood in the silencer could only have been sheiia's on the basis of the tests why did they ask about the chances if it being an intimate mixture of Neville and June's? And, why would the judge say that the nature of the wound is consistent with Sheila's blood being in the silencer (which us perfectly correct) as opposed to saying that Sheila's blood is in the silencer.

As I've said before the normal level of public understanding in the 80's was that blood could not be differentiated sufficiently so as to determine exactly the person from whom it came. Rather, it could only be narrowed down to groups of people with the same type or types. I don't see anything wrong at all with this small extract of the total summing up. If you want to make the case that someone else bled into the silencer prior to the murders that's up to you, but I don't think it's going anywhere personally.

[Jane]

The transcript you are reading is not the full summing up. It is only the part which applies to the questions from the jury. I don't think I've ever seen the full summing up.

If the jury were mistakenly of the belief that the blood in the silencer could only have been sheiia's on the basis of the tests why did they ask about the chances if it being an intimate mixture of Neville and June's? And, why would the judge say that the nature of the wound is consistent with Sheila's blood being in the silencer (which us perfectly correct) as opposed to saying that Sheila's blood is in the silencer.

As I've said before the normal level of public understanding in the 80's was that blood could not be differentiated sufficiently so as to determine exactly the person from whom it came. Rather, it could only be narrowed down to groups of people with the same type or types. I don't see anything wrong at all with this small extract of the total summing up. If you want to make the case that someone else bled into the silencer prior to the murders that's up to you, but I don't think it's going anywhere personally.

Bridget, I appreciate where you're coming from and if I was in a situation in which I felt that such evidence as there was, was adequate to ensure the right person was convicted, I would undoubtedly concur with what you say. However, those of us who feel that Jeremy MAY have been wrongly convicted, because so much has been destroyed and is no longer available, HAVE to grab at the tiniest of straws when we feel they may be of use.

[Bridget]

Bridget, I appreciate where you're coming from and if I was in a situation in which I felt that such evidence as there was, was adequate to ensure the right person was convicted, I would undoubtedly concur with what you say. However, those of us who feel that Jeremy MAY have been wrongly convicted, because so much has been destroyed and is no longer available, HAVE to grab at the tiniest of straws when we feel they may be of use.

Well I understand that, but there are about 94 pages missing from the summing up and until they're posted in full I don't really see how it's possible to criticise.

[Patti]

As we know the blood found in the silencer matched Sheila's blood type/group.  With conflicting opinion about a remote possibility of the sample representing an initimate mix of June and NB's blood type/group.

Here's the table which shows the blood type/group of the victims along with the sample found:

                              ABO                    PGM                    EAP                     AK                    Hp

Nevill Bamber           O                        PGM1+                EAP BA               AK1                   Hp2-1
June Bamber            A                         PGM1+                EAP BA               AK2-1                Hp2-1
Daniel Caffell            O                        PGM2+1+            EAP B                 AK1                   Hp2
Nicholas Caffell         O                        PGM2+1+           EAP B                 AK1                    Hp2
Sheila Caffell            A                        PGM1+                EAP BA               AK1                    Hp2-1
Blood Sample           A                        Nil                        EAP BA              AK1                    Hp2-1

I have been unable to find anywhere in the judge's summing up or CoA doc any reference to what % of the population share blood type/groups.  However my own perhaps rather crude methods and calculations indicate about 10% but the above results are certainly not exclusive to the individuals ie they are shared by many others.

As the relatives found the silencer they were asked to provide samples, which they did, to rule out contamination.  I am unsure as to who exactly provided samples but RB did and his sample ie blood type/group matched the sample found in the silencer and Sheila Caffell's blood type/group.

Furthermore there is no audit trail as to who had access to and handled the silencer from manufacture to it arriving at FSS for analysis.  For example at the manufacturing stage, transportation, gun shop, others that Nevill may have lent the gun/silencer to eg farm workers, friends etc

If 10% of the population share the same blood type/group then imo this should have been made clear to the jury ie spelled out in no uncertain terms.  For example:

10% of the population will share the same blood type/group found in the silencer which matched SC's blood type/group and RB's blood type/group.  Put another way 1 in 10 or statistically at least one member of the jury.

However this is part of the judge's summing up and imo is very misleading:

Page 12 of summing up

"Now I think that does complete the evidence of those experts, so it all comes down to this, does it not?  Mr Hayward says, "Well to begin with, merely analysing the blood inside the moderator, it correponds with Sheila Caffell's.

Page 13 of summing up

"then come to Mr Fletcher's evidence: "One of Sheila's wounds clearly was a contact wound", so that is entirely consistent with it being her blood in the end of the moderator".

The above statements imply that the evidence points to Sheila's blood being found in the moderator.  This is WRONG as it was impossible to conclude then that Sheila's blood was in the moderator.  It was only possible to state that the blood found in the silencer matched Sheila's blood type/group which is not exclusive to her and also matched RB's.

It appears that the possibility of contamination and the fact that it could never be proved that Sheila's blood was in the silencer was never presented to the jury?

Great post trouble  

No sure if this helps you in your analysis, but I have gone to great lengths to get this information.  However, the information is from a book, but the person that wrote it was a master in crime and criminology. This is dated 1967. 

*In Britain blood groups in the population are roughly distributed as:  O 46% A 42% B 9% and AB 3%   

Based on the above figures, we could safely say that half the Country was either ABO A or B in 1985.

I think the summing up is purely based on the fact that there were 5 people with either blood group O or A....So in theory the blood found in the silencer had to belong to one or more of the victims.  I suppose looking back, compared to today's modern science, it was a guess at who's blood was in the silencer, it was of course said it was Sheila's blood with her having a contact wound, but I think the jury was mislead by this, because there were 4 contact wounds, therefore it could have belonged to any of the victims with the same blood group, which of course was June. 

In the COA it was said that it MAY be Sheila's but it was deemed now to have been June's this was of course after the LCN DNA test.  There was another persons DNA found that of a male, which remains unidentified.

I doubt the jury were blood experts in 1986 and nor would a jury be an expert of DNA today. It is a complex subject of maybe's or could be's.......No one gives a definitive answer and categorically says that Shelia's DNA was in the silencer, thus making the idea it was void and meaningless. 

[killingeve]

The transcript you are reading is not the full summing up. It is only the part which applies to the questions from the jury. I don't think I've ever seen the full summing up.

If the jury were mistakenly of the belief that the blood in the silencer could only have been sheiia's on the basis of the tests why did they ask about the chances if it being an intimate mixture of Neville and June's? And, why would the judge say that the nature of the wound is consistent with Sheila's blood being in the silencer (which us perfectly correct) as opposed to saying that Sheila's blood is in the silencer.

As I've said before the normal level of public understanding in the 80's was that blood could not be differentiated sufficiently so as to determine exactly the person from whom it came. Rather, it could only be narrowed down to groups of people with the same type or types. I don't see anything wrong at all with this small extract of the total summing up. If you want to make the case that someone else bled into the silencer prior to the murders that's up to you, but I don't think it's going anywhere personally.

Lol still haven't mastered the quote splitting yet    I blame it on your instructions 

Perhaps because they were not convinced of JB's guilt.  Also I believe the jury understood that the results were exclusive to an individual.  Or in the case of June and NB an intimate mix as a result of the way the tests were carried out ie blood drawn from different parts of the sample to carry out the ABO, PGM, EAP, AK and Hp tests. (See lower down).

To my mind the judge saying "that the nature of the wound is consistent with Sheila's blood being in the silencer" is misleading and ambigious.  However my interpretation is not important.  In order for courts of law to deliver justice it is important that the jury have all the facts and figures stated clearly, concisely and consistently.  Imo this did not happen with regard to how the blood test/group results were communicated.  There's no standard language used with clear definitions given.  I find it muddled, misleading and ambiguous.

I would like to see:

Standard language/terminology used throughout the whole process.

A clear definition of what exactly the blood type/group results represented:

 - % of population sharing blood type/group or some other numeric expression
 - the fact that the test results do not prove conclusively that SC's blood was in silencer

The possibility of contamination from manufacture to FSS

Which relatives were tested and the results

The fact that RB's blood type/group matched the blood sample found in the silencer and Sheila's blood type/group

Page 1, 2nd para of summing up/questions from jury

"We need to hear blood expert's evidence regarding the blood in the silencer, (a) a perfect match of Sheila's blood, (b) what was the chance of the blood group being June and Ralph's mixing together"

The Jury sound confused, very confused    "Perfect match" 

CoA, P.151. vi) a)

a) "The blood grouping analysis proved (on the particular facts of the case) that Sheila Caffell's blood was inside the moderator; and"...

You assert "normal level of public understanding in the 80's was about type/groups etc."  I don't believe it is for anyone to assume the level of public understanding.  In order for courts of law to deliver justice it is important that the jury has placed before them all the facts and figures stated clearly, concisely and consistently.  Imo this did not happen with regard to how the blood test/group results were communicated.  There's no standard language used with clear definitions given.  I find it muddled, misleading and ambiguous.

[maggie]

Lol still haven't mastered the quote splitting yet    I blame it on your instructions 

Perhaps because they were not convinced of JB's guilt.  Also I believe the jury understood that the results were exclusive to an individual.  Or in the case of June and NB an intimate mix as a result of the way the tests were carried out ie blood drawn from different parts of the sample to carry out the ABO, PGM, EAP, AK and Hp tests. (See lower down).

To my mind the judge saying "that the nature of the wound is consistent with Sheila's blood being in the silencer" is misleading and ambigious.  However my interpretation is not important.  In order for courts of law to deliver justice it is important that the jury have all the facts and figures stated clearly, concisely and consistently.  Imo this did not happen with regard to how the blood test/group results were communicated.  There's no standard language used with clear definitions given.  I find it muddled, misleading and ambiguous.

I would like to see:

Standard language/terminology used throughout the whole process.

A clear definition of what exactly the blood type/group results represented:

 - % of population sharing blood type/group or some other numeric expression
 - the fact that the test results do not prove conclusively that SC's blood was in silencer

The possibility of contamination from manufacture to FSS

Which relatives were tested and the results

The fact that RB's blood type/group matched the blood sample found in the silencer and Sheila's blood type/group

Page 1, 2nd para of summing up/questions from jury

"We need to hear blood expert's evidence regarding the blood in the silencer, (a) a perfect match of Sheila's blood, (b) what was the chance of the blood group being June and Ralph's mixing together"

The Jury sound confused, very confused    "Perfect match" 

CoA, P.151. vi) a)

a) "The blood grouping analysis proved (on the particular facts of the case) that Sheila Caffell's blood was inside the moderator; and"...

You assert "normal level of public understanding in the 80's was about type/groups etc."  I don't believe it is for anyone to assume the level of public understanding.  In order for courts of law to deliver justice it is important that the jury has placed before them all the facts and figures stated clearly, concisely and consistently.  Imo this did not happen with regard to how the blood test/group results were communicated.  There's no standard language used with clear definitions given.  I find it muddled, misleading and ambiguous.

I agree with you NN on all those points.  How can a member of the jury make such an important decision to the best of their ability without a clear explanation of what they are supposed to be judging??

[Bridget]

There are at least 94 pages completely missing from the transcript of the summing up which you are reading. To me it is completely pointless to attempt to evaluate the jury's question, the judge's response to it (which was incidentally agreed with both prosecution and defence counsel) or the totality of the summing up without ever having read the rest of it.

[killingeve]

There are at least 94 pages completely missing from the transcript of the summing up which you are reading. To me it is completely pointless to attempt to evaluate the jury's question, the judge's response to it (which was incidentally agreed with both prosecution and defence counsel) or the totality of the summing up without ever having read the rest of it.

Yes but the point is at the end of the trial and summing up and after hours of deliberation the jury are wanting confirmation that the blood in the silencer was a "perfect match".  They have obviously been misled.  Why did they not query RB's blood being in the silencer?  Perhaps because it was never mentioned throughout the trial?  Imo it is an utter shambles.

The CoA doc is the same littered with various terms used etc, etc.  No mention of contamination.  No numeric expression given re number of population sharing blood type/group found in silencer.  Implies SC's blood found in silencer.  All very confusing.

[Caroline R]

Yes but the point is at the end of the trial and summing up and after hours of deliberation the jury are wanting confirmation that the blood in the silencer was a "perfect match".  They have obviously been misled.  Why did they not query RB's blood being in the silencer?  Perhaps because it was never mentioned throughout the trial?  Imo it is an utter shambles.

The CoA doc is the same littered with various terms used etc, etc.  No mention of contamination.  No numeric expression given re number of population sharing blood type/group found in silencer.  Implies SC's blood found in silencer.  All very confusing.

HI NN,

I agree, some people here still refer to the blood as though there can be no doubt that it originated from Sheila and that isn't true!!

[Patti]

HI NN,

I agree, some people here still refer to the blood as though there can be no doubt that it originated from Sheila and that isn't true!!

False False False!