New silencer tests set to cast serious doubt upon safety of convictions...

[mike tesko]

Breaking news

New tests are to be carried out using the sound moderator (silencer) subject of DNA profiling in 2000. It is understood that part of the proposed tests, will include work which will establish that rounds fired through rifle 18 with and without a sound moderator fitted to the barrel of the rifle, produce significantly different features present upon bullet cases, fired and ejected via the rifle when configured differently. These features are linked to the differing amounts of back pressure present inside the breach of the weapon when a silencer is fitted and in use, as opposed to when one is not fitted. The additional level of back pressure produced when a silencer is in use, creates bulging at the base of cartridge cases ejected after firing, that are noticeably different to similar cartridge cases ejected when no silencer is fitted at the time of use...

Prosecution ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, has already gone on record as saying that he was unable to tell if any of the 25 bullets had been fired through a silencer, but the new work is expected to show that if any bullets had been fired through the silencer that it would have been noticeable...

Since, no differences were detected or present upon any of the crime scene cartridge cases, it strongly suggests that a silencer could not have been used in the shootings, and doubt is cast upon the presence of blood found on, and inside the silencer. Key examination of bullet cases, DRH/1 and DRH/2 and a failure to detect any additional bulging on either of these, when examined by Fletcher in September 1985, will be relied upon to suggest that neither of the two bullet cases found on the bedroom floor next to Sheila's body had been fired and ejected through the rifle with a silencer fitted to its barrel...

[mike tesko]

Additionally...

It will also be argued that in view of the substitution of the original badly fragmented bullet PV/20 (as of 7th August 1985), being substituted with a test fired whole bullet (by 20th September 1985), that the substituted whole bullet could not have been attached to either of the two bullet cases (DRH/1 and DRH/2) found on the bedroom floor next to where Sheila Caffells body was eventually photographed - unless one or other of the original bullet cases (DRH/1 and or DRH/2) had also been substituted...

[mike tesko]

In any event, tampering with the batch of crime scene ammunition, dramatically affected the prospect of the defense being able to show that at silencer had not been fitted to rifle 18 (DRH/15) at the time Sheila Caffell was shot and killed - one way or the other police / prosecutions ballistic expert, tampered with the batch of crime scene ammunition, which must render any convictions unsafe...

[mike tesko]

The ammunition was tampered with, so that the dodgy sound moderator introduced by relatives could be incorporated as the main plank of the prosecutions case. You cannot get away from the fact that the original badly fragmented PV/20 bullet had to have been fired through the Bamber family owned silencer, but for some reason or other, police had to swap it for a test fired whole bullet, and calling this substituted bullet PV/20, so that Fletcher could accommodate the use of the silencer in the shootings, by declaring that it was not possible to tell if any of the bullets had been fired through the sound moderator, but at the same time bullets must have been fired through the silencer because of the blood found inside its baffles plate, which could only have got there if the silencer was attached to the barrel of the rifle at the time Sheila was shot...

For some reason, the original badly fragmented bullet (PV/20) would have prevented Fletcher from making out the argument that the Bamber family silencer had been used in the shootings, hence the reason for substitution of the original badly fragmented bullet PV/20, for a whole test fired one...

[mike tesko]

Nobody can be allowed to tamper with crime scene ammunition and get away with it, surely...

These criminals who were all involved in this conspiracy to frame Jeremy Bamber should all be prosecuted and given lengthy jail terms, nay once they are sent to prison the keys should be thrown away - lets see how they will cope with being in prison for something they HAVE done...

Crooks, the lot of them, evil crooks...

[Roch]

Mike,

Guilters & authorities will simply point out that there was blood / DNA  (to some extent) of victim/s in silencer.  It wont matter that in reality, most case knowledgeable people are of the opinion that these findings are for the police / relatives to explain, rather than the defence.

You your self realised as much, in the aftermath of the CCRC's rejection of USA/UK ballistics experts reports.

[mike tesko]

Mike,

Guilters & authorities will simply point out that there was blood / DNA  (to some extent) of victim/s in silencer.  It wont matter that in reality, most case knowledgeable people are of the opinion that these findings are for the police / relatives to explain, rather than the defence.

You your self realised as much, in the aftermath of the CCRC's rejection of USA/UK ballistics experts reports.

Hi Roch,

I believe the new approach will render the blood and limited DNA found inside the sound moderator as being present there through contamination, in the same way the judgemnt of appeal, came to the conclusion that DNA got into the silencer by a process of mishandling and contamination...

There you have it then, Human DNA got into the silencer by contamination, but the blood got in by a process of backspatter - yet none of the DNA mixed with the blood...

Seems to me, that once it is shown, that the Bamber family owned sound moderator was never fitted to the rifle during the shootings, by a reliance on the original bullet (PV/20) being swapped over, it now seems likely that blood got into the silencer by a process of contamination, not backspatter...

[Reader]

When you present such news, can you let us know the source of your information? Also, what did you mean by "none of the DNA mixed with the blood"?

[mike tesko]

When you present such news, can you let us know the source of your information? Also, what did you mean by "none of the DNA mixed with the blood"?

Hi Reader,

Essex police have agreed to release the Bamber family owned sound moderator to experts so that it can be proven that by attaching a silencer to the barrel of a semi automatic rifle, that increased backpressure is generated inside the breech of the weapon, that is capable of altering the shape and form of bullet cases which are fired and ejected. It should be possible to produce measurement of the additional  distortions that are created when a silencer is used, opposed to when one is not in use. These results will significantly undermine Fletchers testimony...

There is no evidence that any DNA was found in any specific area inside the baffles where blood was also present, otherwise, blood and DNA would have merged one to the other. The truth of the matter is that any human blood found inside the silencer would have had its own mixture of DNA, but we are brainwashed into thinking that all the blood was tested to destruction along with any DNA associated to it - which I find hard to accept, since traces of DNA must have been left in parts of the silencer where blood had originally been found. Furthermore, how odd that June Bambers DNA should be present inside the silencer, and that at trial the defense argued that the blood found in the silencer was a mixture of the parents bloods. More importantly, there were two types of blood in the silencer, (1) static, and (2) loose. It begs the question, that the loose flake (2) may have deposited June Bambers DNA in various places around the inside of the silencer, as it tumbled here, there and everywhere, during handling and movement between the occasion the blood got into the silencer, and much later when the flake was removed from the silencer by Fletcher around 12th September 1985...

The loose flake could easily be the reason why June Bambers DNA was found in different parts of the silencer, it was a small flek of dried blood, so small it could fall between the apertures of each of the 17 internal baffles and deposit June Bambers DNA in all the places it was later discovered - this process could not have happened with (1) all the static bloodstains...

[mike tesko]

Hi Reader,

Essex police have agreed to release the Bamber family owned sound moderator to experts so that it can be proven that by attaching a silencer to the barrel of a semi automatic rifle, that increased backpressure is generated inside the breech of the weapon, that is capable of altering the shape and form of bullet cases which are fired and ejected. It should be possible to produce measurement of the additional  distortions that are created when a silencer is used, opposed to when one is not in use. These results will significantly undermine Fletchers testimony...

There is no evidence that any DNA was found in any specific area inside the baffles where blood was also present, otherwise, blood and DNA would have merged one to the other. The truth of the matter is that any human blood found inside the silencer would have had its own mixture of DNA, but we are brainwashed into thinking that all the blood was tested to destruction along with any DNA associated to it - which I find hard to accept, since traces of DNA must have been left in parts of the silencer where blood had originally been found. Furthermore, how odd that June Bambers DNA should be present inside the silencer, and that at trial the defense argued that the blood found in the silencer was a mixture of the parents bloods. More importantly, there were two types of blood in the silencer, (1) static, and (2) loose. It begs the question, that the loose flake (2) may have deposited June Bambers DNA in various places around the inside of the silencer, as it tumbled here, there and everywhere, during handling and movement between the occasion the blood got into the silencer, and much later when the flake was removed from the silencer by Fletcher around 12th September 1985...

The loose flake could easily be the reason why June Bambers DNA was found in different parts of the silencer, it was a small flek of dried blood, so small it could fall between the apertures of each of the 17 internal baffles and deposit June Bambers DNA in all the places it was later discovered - this process could not have happened with (1) all the static bloodstains...

It is also very interesting that full blood group results were not obtained from examination of any static bloodstain found inside the sound moderator, yet four blood group results were obtained from examination of the small loose flek which the prosecution attributed as blood that was unique to Sheila Caffell, whereas, the defense argued that it could be an intimate mixture of the parents bloods. Since, the loose flek of dried blood which produced the key blood group results was capable of having passed from one place to another inside the silencer, it seems highly probable that as this small flek of blood was being banged about from pillar to post within the silencer, that it left traces of DNA everywhere it landed, or touched, or was hurtled against inside the silencer (however small these DNA amounts might have been), and that traces of June Bambers DNA found inside the silencer in 2000, originated from mobility of the loose flake to anywhere and everywhere within the confines of the sound moderator, which had been occurring over a number of weeks before and until Fletcher discovered it there on or prior to 12th September 1985...

If the small flek of dried blood did originate from an intimate mixture of the parents bloods, how can anyone argue that as this loose flek was being thrown around inside the silencer, that it did not deposit traces of its DNA anywhere and everywhere it came into contact with - sure, if this is what did happen, it has to be said that June Bambers DNA had got into those remote parts of the silencer by a process of contamination, but rather than the significance of its presence inside the silencer simply be dismissed because someone has introduced the term, 'contamination', does it not strengthen defense arguments that the blood of the flek was an intimate mixture of the parents bloods, rather than be unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell?

[mrstiggywinkle]

The question I would be asking, regardless of which persons blood it was; is how did a dried fleck of blood get inside the silencer? Did it jump in there by itself? No, someone put it in there.

The fleck of blood on the outside of the silencer looks nothing like a backsplash from a close shot either and again, it appears to me that someone wiped the end of the silencer in a sticky residue of blood, probably after the main mess had been cleared up.

[Jane]

The question I would be asking, regardless of which persons blood it was; is how did a dried fleck of blood get inside the silencer? Did it jump in there by itself? No, someone put it in there.

The fleck of blood on the outside of the silencer looks nothing like a backsplash from a close shot either and again, it appears to me that someone wiped the end of the silencer in a sticky residue of blood, probably after the main mess had been cleared up.

So the question, which seems to be a natural follow on, would be as this action would appear to be deliberate, what was hoped to be achieved by it?

[mrstiggywinkle]

So the question, which seems to be a natural follow on, would be as this action would appear to be deliberate, what was hoped to be achieved by it?

To make absolutely certain that Sheila's blood (and possibly the other family members' blood) was on it togetherwith Jeremy's fingerprints.

Also to ensure it appeared there was no possibity of Sheila having shot herself because the silencer would have made it difficult, if not impossible.

In other words, to ensure the finger was pointed firmly at Jeremy.

[Jane]

To make absolutely certain that Sheila's blood (and possibly the other family members' blood) was on it togetherwith Jeremy's fingerprints.

Also to ensure it appeared there was no possibity of Sheila having shot herself because the silencer would have made it difficult, if not impossible.

In other words, to ensure the finger was pointed firmly at Jeremy.

I have RWB's diary entry ringing in my ears. "How I loathe that boy" would seem to suggest a very long held dislike of his nephew It seems to have been he who dripped every available drop of poison regarding Jeremy into Nevill's ear. Might it have been that there was acrimony between Bambers and Boutflowers that we know nothing of?

[grahameb]

I have RWB's diary entry ringing in my ears. "How I loathe that boy" would seem to suggest a very long held dislike of his nephew It seems to have been he who dripped every available drop of poison regarding Jeremy into Nevill's ear. Might it have been that there was acrimony between Bambers and Boutflowers that we know nothing of?

And we are lead to believe that this family is unbiased.