The Blood in the Silencer

[tyler]

I know I have mentioned this before,but I am still confused! It has been denied that two (or more) silencers were forensically tested,but there are conflicting statements as to what was actually found inside the silencer that incriminated JB. I have read it as a 'flake' of blood trapped between the first and second baffle plate,but also as "lots" of blood at the bottom end of the silencer. If the latter were true then why didn't they use the "lots" of blood at the lab to establish the blood groupings? Why dissect one tiny flake of blood instead? Is this in truth all they had available? This can hardly be described as backspatter surely? Didn't DB state he saw a flake of blood on the end of the silencer? Whilst fiddling with it could he not have accidentally pushed it down into the silencer?

[Caroline R]

Hi Tyler, I have asked the same question. According to Wilkes's book - Hayward said that there were 'traces' of blood on the outside but inside there was a 'considerable' quantity of blood in the baffles. The 'blob' isn't mentioned (which is odd, given that it survived being unscrewed from the rifle. Was still preserved 3 days later after being found by RB and continued to hold tight for a further two days - even after all the handling and travelling it endured in the process). If there was a considerable quantity why were the tests basically inconclusive and why only test the flake for DNA when they had a 'considerable quantity' at their fingertips??

[tyler]

Glad I'm not the only one confused Caroline! They only referred to a "flake" of blood at the 2002 appeal. And although Sheila's DNA was not found in the silencer,they decided that it was because it had all been swabbed away! And yet the DNA from June and the unknown male had not. Funny that! Unknown male couldn't have been any of the twins as they too would have shared DNA with Sheila's biological mother (source of the DNA sample)? So it had to be Neville's DNA. Surely this signifies the 'intimate mixture' of Neville and June that was put forward at trial by Hayward as a "remote possibility"? JB should have won that appeal!

[Patti]

I think what Webster was trying to say in 2002 was that a forensic scientist would not be able to analyse a flake of less than 1/4 of an inch. So this was the size that Webster assumed it was, because according to Webster when reading Hayward's notes he does not write the size of the flake down.

I think the flake was found on the 5th baffle...maybe someone can confirm to us which baffle it was, please.   :D

What Webster goes on to tell the court and this was very important. He asked Hayward whether precautions were taken to ensure that the different people carrying out the blood test were testing the same material?  The reason for asking this is because if not it can give and erroneous result.

What Webster said was good practise is that the flake should have been dissolved and ground up to a powder thus, giving each individual that tested it equivalent material to work with.  In this case it was not done therefore it could have been an erroneous reading.

***It was the Crown's case that the blood in the silencer was that of 3 people, like Caroline has pointed out, Sheila, June's and Nevill's.  Now anyone with any sense can see this is impossible....What are the CHANCES of 3 drops of blood from 3 individuals caused by drawback/backspatter landing in the same place on the same baffle?  It's also a fact that this is very unlikely that drawback/backsppatter occurs from one person let alone 3.....More tests in this department and I am surprised that this has not been done....

[Caroline R]

Glad I'm not the only one confused Caroline! They only referred to a "flake" of blood at the 2002 appeal. And although Sheila's DNA was not found in the silencer,they decided that it was because it had all been swabbed away! And yet the DNA from June and the unknown male had not. Funny that! Unknown male couldn't have been any of the twins as they too would have shared DNA with Sheila's biological mother (source of the DNA sample)? So it had to be Neville's DNA. Surely this signifies the 'intimate mixture' of Neville and June that was put forward at trial by Hayward as a "remote possibility"? JB should have won that appeal!

So how can Sheila's blood be found in the silencer and NOT her DNA?? The very fact that the blood evidence is a mess should have been enough to make the conviction unsafe. I really don't get it!!

[Patti]

Glad I'm not the only one confused Caroline! They only referred to a "flake" of blood at the 2002 appeal. And although Sheila's DNA was not found in the silencer,they decided that it was because it had all been swabbed away! And yet the DNA from June and the unknown male had not. Funny that! Unknown male couldn't have been any of the twins as they too would have shared DNA with Sheila's biological mother (source of the DNA sample)? So it had to be Neville's DNA. Surely this signifies the 'intimate mixture' of Neville and June that was put forward at trial by Hayward as a "remote possibility"? JB should have won that appeal!

Tyler I don't think further test can be made on the silencer.  The test they did had insufficient markers to conclusively say that it belonged to Sheila, so the court excepted  that it might not have been Sheila's.  The other two results were that of an unidentified male?  and June's DNA but on saying that the test were not that conclusive because DNA from her sister was used in the test....Also that the LCN DNA test which was done cannot determine if the test was from blood...so if that being the case then its likely that someone dropped a bit of snot on it at some point 

[lookout]

It was probably old animal blood in those baffles.Rabbits/Hare,foxes,rats.

[Patti]

It was probably old animal blood in those baffles.Rabbits/Hare,foxes,rats.

Or contamination by other means.  I don't think the silencer should have been allowed in court. The bloody thing had an history of travels. If the lab had known it was in a car boot along with other guns/rifles they would have rejected it based on contamination, but here we have a court excepting it as evidence...

[lookout]

Or contamination by other means.  I don't think the silencer should have been allowed in court. The bloody thing had an history of travels. If the lab had known it was in a car boot along with other guns/rifles they would have rejected it based on contamination, but here we have a court excepting it as evidence...

And a bucket of bloodied clothes.Why,,I don't know.! You'd have thought those sort of things would have been left to join the other rubbish in one of the bins at WHF,,not taken to somewhere else.

[Caroline R]

Or contamination by other means.  I don't think the silencer should have been allowed in court. The bloody thing had an history of travels. If the lab had known it was in a car boot along with other guns/rifles they would have rejected it based on contamination, but here we have a court excepting it as evidence...

But they know now and have still upheld his conviction?? Like I said, I just don't get it.

[Patti]

this is interesting girls. Did you know that Hayward dropped a drop of blood into the sound moderator prior to the 2002 appeal and fired bullets through it? And guess what? The blood didn't dry. 

[Alias]

The silencer evidence is problematic from beginning to end, and I cannot understand it was allowed into evidence and was actually very central in the conviction of JB. (That, and Julie´s testimony, which the judge instructed the jury to be cautious about. They really had nothing, did they?!)
Just the way it was found was very problematic. First overlooked by the EP - and some time after found by relatives who would benefit from Jeremy´s conviction.

[Patti]

The silencer evidence is problematic from beginning to end, and I cannot understand it was allowed into evidence and was actually very central in the conviction of JB. (That, and Julie´s testimony, which the judge instructed the jury to be cautious about. They really had nothing, did they?!)
Just the way it was found was very problematic. First overlooked by the EP - and some time after found by relatives who would benefit from Jeremy´s conviction.

I totally agree and because Hayward has dropped some of his blood inside it, the thing could never be sworn in at court again surely....I wonder if this is the unidentified males DNA. 

[killingeve]

The silencer evidence is problematic from beginning to end, and I cannot understand it was allowed into evidence and was actually very central in the conviction of JB. (That, and Julie´s testimony, which the judge instructed the jury to be cautious about. They really had nothing, did they?!)
Just the way it was found was very problematic. First overlooked by the EP - and some time after found by relatives who would benefit from Jeremy´s conviction.

It's almost beyond comprehension that the silencer evidence was allowed as an exhibit in the first place.  The fact it has stood the test of time beggars belief.

I think there's something about having family members fighting a MoJ or police wrongdoing eg:

Guilford 4, Birmingham 6, Magiire 7 = Many family members.

Barry George = Sister

Stefan Kiszko = Mother

Stephen Lawrence = Mother

Hillsborough = Many family members

IMO JB's attempts to get the judiciary to look seriously at his case have been severely hampered by not having any family support.  No one could have done more for JB than Mike over the years but IMO it doesn't have the same impact with the powers that be than a demanding family would. 

[Caroline R]

this is interesting girls. Did you know that Hayward dropped a drop of blood into the sound moderator prior to the 2002 appeal and fired bullets through it? And guess what? The blood didn't dry.

Where did you read that Patti?