Flake that Boutflour scraped off silencer, could have been one examined, at Lab'

[Kaldin]

We are told that the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, dismantled the silencer and found the crucial flake of blood that was trapped between baffles one and two - but why wasn't the flake given his exhibit identifying mark (and a corresponding Lab' item number)?

What date did he strip the silencer down and find the flake?

I didn't know that Mr Fletcher had done that. I thought they just sent the silencer to the science lab and it was studied there.

[mike tesko]

Why is there no explanation about what the blood expert did, once the flake was presumably handed over to him, from the ballistics expert? For example, what did the blood expert do with the flake?

There is no explanation about how the flake was prepared for examination - which helped to produce the blood grouping results, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1...

There is something very wrong here...

[mike tesko]

We are told that the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, dismantled the silencer and found the crucial flake of blood that was trapped between baffles one and two - but why wasn't the flake given his exhibit identifying mark (and a corresponding Lab' item number)?

What date did he strip the silencer down and find the flake?

I didn't know that Mr Fletcher had done that. I thought they just sent the silencer to the science lab and it was studied there.

-----------------------

Yes, its very puzzling, and doesn't sound quite right, but that is what is supposed to have happened...

Once Fletcher received the silencer, he dismantled it and found the crucial flake of blood that he says was found to be trapped between baffles one and two - but on 29th August 1985, DI Cook (SOC) had performed the very same dismantling procedure, and at that stage, and on that occasion, there was no loose flake of blood at all between baffles one and two, because Cook photographed the baffle plates he removed, which shows that baffles one and two were separated on that occasion, and so we can be sure that on 29th August 1985, there was no loose flake of blood there, between baffles one and two, so therefore, how did such a loose flake get there, in the interim period?

It's all very dodgy, to say the least...

[mike tesko]

Police need to re-interview Boutflour about when and how he scraped the flake off the silencer, and what happened to the flake and the razor blade he used?

He also needs to be interviewed with a view to identifying the Essex police officers who he told about what he had done?

[Kaldin]

Why is there no explanation about what the blood expert did, once the flake was presumably handed over to him, from the ballistics expert? For example, what did the blood expert do with the flake?

There is no explanation about how the flake was prepared for examination - which helped to produce the blood grouping results, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1...

There is something very wrong here...

There's a bit about it in the appeal document. Mr Hayward divided the flake into a number of parts, dissolved each part, and then tested each part.

In fact what had happened was that the flake had been divided into a number of parts and each part had then been used for a separate group test. Thus the tests were not done on liquid drawn from the same solution made from the whole flake but on separate solutions each made from distinct parts of the flake. We have no means of knowing whether correction of this error would in any way have altered Dr Lincoln's view.

Para 462.

[Kaldin]

We are told that the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, dismantled the silencer and found the crucial flake of blood that was trapped between baffles one and two - but why wasn't the flake given his exhibit identifying mark (and a corresponding Lab' item number)?

What date did he strip the silencer down and find the flake?

I didn't know that Mr Fletcher had done that. I thought they just sent the silencer to the science lab and it was studied there.

-----------------------

Yes, its very puzzling, and doesn't sound quite right, but that is what is supposed to have happened...

Once Fletcher received the silencer, he dismantled it and found the crucial flake of blood that he says was found to be trapped between baffles one and two - but on 29th August 1985, DI Cook (SOC) had performed the very same dismantling procedure, and at that stage, and on that occasion, there was no loose flake of blood at all between baffles one and two, because Cook photographed the baffle plates he removed, which shows that baffles one and two were separated on that occasion, and so we can be sure that on 29th August 1985, there was no loose flake of blood there, between baffles one and two, so therefore, how did such a loose flake get there, in the interim period?

It's all very dodgy, to say the least...

The issue certainly deserves a lot of consideration because it was the main evidence which convicted Jeremy in my opinion. It could take some time to work it because of the confusion surrounding what happened to the silencer and who had access to it and when.

[mike tesko]

Why is there no explanation about what the blood expert did, once the flake was presumably handed over to him, from the ballistics expert? For example, what did the blood expert do with the flake?

There is no explanation about how the flake was prepared for examination - which helped to produce the blood grouping results, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1...

There is something very wrong here...

There's a bit about it in the appeal document. Mr Hayward divided the flake into a number of parts, dissolved each part, and then tested each part.

In fact what had happened was that the flake had been divided into a number of parts and each part had then been used for a separate group test. Thus the tests were not done on liquid drawn from the same solution made from the whole flake but on separate solutions each made from distinct parts of the flake. We have no means of knowing whether correction of this error would in any way have altered Dr Lincoln's view.

Para 462.

-----------------------

I know, but this is not what he originally told the defense blood expert, Professor Lincoln - John Hayward gave a different explanation to Professor Lincoln when he visited the lab' and had access to the working notes from the lab. For example, Lincoln was led to believe that the flake had been made into one solution, and that five separate pots were filled up from the solution, and that each pot was only tested for the presence or otherwise of a particular blood group?

A different procedure and process to the one mentioned during the appeal...

[ngb1066]

I'm sorry to bring this up again but I think it's an important point. The blood grouping of Robert Boutflour was known to Mr Hayward, the forensic scientist. In a document dated 3rd October 1986 he said that the blood in the silencer could have come from Sheila Caffell or Robert Boutflour, and I'm not sure why that statement was made. It's on SFJ so I can't copy it here.

Does that suggest that the possibility of contamination of the blood on or in the silencer had been considered?

-----------------

Yes, of course - there is evidence contained in the working notes from the lab' (which I will try to make available for viewing) that it was a possibility that blood could have been dripped into the silencer...

Mike

It would not be necessary for blood to be dripped into the silencer for contamination to occur.  It is very easy to dismantle the silencer without the use of tools.  The baffle plates drop out of the tube. Blood in either fluid or dried form could then be placed onto or into a baffle plate. They are non specific, i.e. they can be reasembled and inserted back into the tube in any order.  Therefore the presence of blood on an individual baffle plate when examined at the laboratory is not proof that the baffle plate was in that position when the blood came into contact with it.  This may be important in relation to arguments about backspatter.

A further issue that has concerned me is the suggestion at some stage that the baffle plates in one of the silencers (I forget which) had been reversed.  This is strongly suggestive of someone unfamiliar with firearms having dismantled the silencer and reassembled it - the baffles will still fit in the tube even if the wrong way around.  The question then arises, why would someone wish to interfere with a potentially important item of evidence and apparently not disclose that he/she had done so?  Was this more than simple curiosity?

[Kaldin]

Why is there no explanation about what the blood expert did, once the flake was presumably handed over to him, from the ballistics expert? For example, what did the blood expert do with the flake?

There is no explanation about how the flake was prepared for examination - which helped to produce the blood grouping results, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1...

There is something very wrong here...

There's a bit about it in the appeal document. Mr Hayward divided the flake into a number of parts, dissolved each part, and then tested each part.

In fact what had happened was that the flake had been divided into a number of parts and each part had then been used for a separate group test. Thus the tests were not done on liquid drawn from the same solution made from the whole flake but on separate solutions each made from distinct parts of the flake. We have no means of knowing whether correction of this error would in any way have altered Dr Lincoln's view.

Para 462.

-----------------------

I know, but this is not what he originally told the defense blood expert, Professor Lincoln - John Hayward gave a different explanation to Professor Lincoln when he visited the lab' and had access to the working notes from the lab. For example, Lincoln was led to believe that the flake had been made into one solution ,and that five separate pots were filled up from the solution, and that each pot was only tested for the presence or otherwise of a particular blood group?

A different procedure and process to the one mentioned during the appeal...

It's not clear if Mr Hayward misled Mr Lincoln or if Mr Lincoln misunderstood what Mr Hayward told him. It's covered quite extensively in the appeal, but one needs to be very wide awake to follow it all. 

[mike tesko]

We are told that the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, dismantled the silencer and found the crucial flake of blood that was trapped between baffles one and two - but why wasn't the flake given his exhibit identifying mark (and a corresponding Lab' item number)?

What date did he strip the silencer down and find the flake?

I didn't know that Mr Fletcher had done that. I thought they just sent the silencer to the science lab and it was studied there.

-----------------------

Yes, its very puzzling, and doesn't sound quite right, but that is what is supposed to have happened...

Once Fletcher received the silencer, he dismantled it and found the crucial flake of blood that he says was found to be trapped between baffles one and two - but on 29th August 1985, DI Cook (SOC) had performed the very same dismantling procedure, and at that stage, and on that occasion, there was no loose flake of blood at all between baffles one and two, because Cook photographed the baffle plates he removed, which shows that baffles one and two were separated on that occasion, and so we can be sure that on 29th August 1985, there was no loose flake of blood there, between baffles one and two, so therefore, how did such a loose flake get there, in the interim period?

It's all very dodgy, to say the least...

The issue certainly deserves a lot of consideration because it was the main evidence which convicted Jeremy in my opinion. It could take some time to work it because of the confusion surrounding what happened to the silencer and who had access to it and when.

----------------------

It doesn't help, with so many different silencers in police possession at and from different dates, which they made into one and the same silencer, so it becomes all the more confusing when you are trying to reconstruct what took place, because you have to try and work it out differently, depending upon whether you are working with only one silencer, as opposed to two or three different ones?

[mike tesko]

Why is there no explanation about what the blood expert did, once the flake was presumably handed over to him, from the ballistics expert? For example, what did the blood expert do with the flake?

There is no explanation about how the flake was prepared for examination - which helped to produce the blood grouping results, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1...

There is something very wrong here...

There's a bit about it in the appeal document. Mr Hayward divided the flake into a number of parts, dissolved each part, and then tested each part.

In fact what had happened was that the flake had been divided into a number of parts and each part had then been used for a separate group test. Thus the tests were not done on liquid drawn from the same solution made from the whole flake but on separate solutions each made from distinct parts of the flake. We have no means of knowing whether correction of this error would in any way have altered Dr Lincoln's view.

Para 462.

-----------------------

I know, but this is not what he originally told the defense blood expert, Professor Lincoln - John Hayward gave a different explanation to Professor Lincoln when he visited the lab' and had access to the working notes from the lab. For example, Lincoln was led to believe that the flake had been made into one solution ,and that five separate pots were filled up from the solution, and that each pot was only tested for the presence or otherwise of a particular blood group?

A different procedure and process to the one mentioned during the appeal...

It's not clear if Mr Hayward misled Mr Lincoln or if Mr Lincoln misunderstood what Mr Hayward told him. It's covered quite extensively in the appeal, but one needs to be very wide awake to follow it all. 

----------------

Thats a good point, its all down to interpretation of what is known, what was said, and what the records say, or appear to say...

[Kaldin]

It doesn't help, with so many different silencers in police possession at and from different dates, which they made into one and the same silencer, so it becomes all the more confusing when you are trying to reconstruct what took place, because you have to try and work it out differently, depending upon whether you are working with only one silencer, as opposed to two or three different ones?

Yes, it would help if it could be established for sure that the silencer with the scratch on it was the one in which the blood was found.

[mike tesko]

I'm sorry to bring this up again but I think it's an important point. The blood grouping of Robert Boutflour was known to Mr Hayward, the forensic scientist. In a document dated 3rd October 1986 he said that the blood in the silencer could have come from Sheila Caffell or Robert Boutflour, and I'm not sure why that statement was made. It's on SFJ so I can't copy it here.

Does that suggest that the possibility of contamination of the blood on or in the silencer had been considered?

-----------------

Yes, of course - there is evidence contained in the working notes from the lab' (which I will try to make available for viewing) that it was a possibility that blood could have been dripped into the silencer...

Mike

It would not be necessary for blood to be dripped into the silencer for contamination to occur.  It is very easy to dismantle the silencer without the use of tools.  The baffle plates drop out of the tube. Blood in either fluid or dried form could then be placed onto or into a baffle plate. They are non specific, i.e. they can be reasembled and inserted back into the tube in any order.  Therefore the presence of blood on an individual baffle plate when examined at the laboratory is not proof that the baffle plate was in that position when the blood came into contact with it.  This may be important in relation to arguments about backspatter.

A further issue that has concerned me is the suggestion at some stage that the baffle plates in one of the silencers (I forget which) had been reversed.  This is strongly suggestive of someone unfamiliar with firearms having dismantled the silencer and reassembled it - the baffles will still fit in the tube even if the wrong way around.  The question then arises, why would someone wish to interfere with a potentially important item of evidence and apparently not disclose that he/she had done so?  Was this more than simple curiosity?

------------------

These are very good points, but they need to be considered in light of the fact that some of the baffle plates were stained with blood, whilst the loose flake could have got there by different means - if it was ever found inside the silencers baffle plates at all...

The case for blood being found inside the silencer has been treated as though all of it got into the silencer by the same process, but I feel that that approach could have been the wrong one to adopt. I arrive at this view, because I cannot see how a flake can be found inside a silencer where other blood which was found in the form of bloodstains on surrounding baffle plates, did not contain the same four blood group results (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) found or obtained from the loose flake?

If these four blood group results (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) had also been found in the blood-staining found on the surrounding Baflle plates, then I would be more inclined to believe or accept that it could have got into the silencer by the same process, but because the results were different between the blood-staining found upon the first 8 baffle plates, as opposed to the flake, I think the flake got there by other means, in an unnatural way...

The results from the examination of the bloodstains found on the first 8 baffle plates, appear to be consistent with the same type of blood being distributed over each of the first 8 baffles - so why are the results from the flake differently conformed?

Why didn't the flake in its original wet format, mingle with the other blood on the surrounding baffle Plates, and vice versa?

[Kaldin]

I'm sorry to bring this up again but I think it's an important point. The blood grouping of Robert Boutflour was known to Mr Hayward, the forensic scientist. In a document dated 3rd October 1986 he said that the blood in the silencer could have come from Sheila Caffell or Robert Boutflour, and I'm not sure why that statement was made. It's on SFJ so I can't copy it here.

Does that suggest that the possibility of contamination of the blood on or in the silencer had been considered?

-----------------

Yes, of course - there is evidence contained in the working notes from the lab' (which I will try to make available for viewing) that it was a possibility that blood could have been dripped into the silencer...

Mike

It would not be necessary for blood to be dripped into the silencer for contamination to occur.  It is very easy to dismantle the silencer without the use of tools.  The baffle plates drop out of the tube. Blood in either fluid or dried form could then be placed onto or into a baffle plate. They are non specific, i.e. they can be reasembled and inserted back into the tube in any order.  Therefore the presence of blood on an individual baffle plate when examined at the laboratory is not proof that the baffle plate was in that position when the blood came into contact with it.  This may be important in relation to arguments about backspatter.

A further issue that has concerned me is the suggestion at some stage that the baffle plates in one of the silencers (I forget which) had been reversed.  This is strongly suggestive of someone unfamiliar with firearms having dismantled the silencer and reassembled it - the baffles will still fit in the tube even if the wrong way around.  The question then arises, why would someone wish to interfere with a potentially important item of evidence and apparently not disclose that he/she had done so?  Was this more than simple curiosity?

------------------

These are very good points, but they need to be considered in light of the fact that some of the baffle plates were stained with blood, whilst the loose flake could have got there by different means - if it was ever found inside the silencers baffle plates at all...

The case for blood being found inside the silencer has been treated as though all of it got into the silencer by the same process, but I feel that that approach could have been the wrong one to adopt. I arrive at this view, because I cannot see how a flake can be found inside a silencer where other blood which was found in the form of bloodstains on surrounding baffle plates, did not contain the same four blood group results (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) found or obtained from the loose flake?

If these four blood group results (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) had also been found in the blood-staining found on the surrounding Baflle plates, then I would be more inclined to believe or accept that it could have got into the silencer by the same process, but because the results were different between the blood-staining found upon the first 8 baffle plates, as opposed to the flake, I think the flake got there by other means, in an unnatural way...

Was the other blood in the silencer actually tested for grouping? I get the impression that it wasn't and that only the flake was tested.

[mike tesko]

I'm sorry to bring this up again but I think it's an important point. The blood grouping of Robert Boutflour was known to Mr Hayward, the forensic scientist. In a document dated 3rd October 1986 he said that the blood in the silencer could have come from Sheila Caffell or Robert Boutflour, and I'm not sure why that statement was made. It's on SFJ so I can't copy it here.

Does that suggest that the possibility of contamination of the blood on or in the silencer had been considered?

-----------------

Yes, of course - there is evidence contained in the working notes from the lab' (which I will try to make available for viewing) that it was a possibility that blood could have been dripped into the silencer...

Mike

It would not be necessary for blood to be dripped into the silencer for contamination to occur.  It is very easy to dismantle the silencer without the use of tools.  The baffle plates drop out of the tube. Blood in either fluid or dried form could then be placed onto or into a baffle plate. They are non specific, i.e. they can be reasembled and inserted back into the tube in any order.  Therefore the presence of blood on an individual baffle plate when examined at the laboratory is not proof that the baffle plate was in that position when the blood came into contact with it.  This may be important in relation to arguments about backspatter.

A further issue that has concerned me is the suggestion at some stage that the baffle plates in one of the silencers (I forget which) had been reversed.  This is strongly suggestive of someone unfamiliar with firearms having dismantled the silencer and reassembled it - the baffles will still fit in the tube even if the wrong way around.  The question then arises, why would someone wish to interfere with a potentially important item of evidence and apparently not disclose that he/she had done so?  Was this more than simple curiosity?

------------------

These are very good points, but they need to be considered in light of the fact that some of the baffle plates were stained with blood, whilst the loose flake could have got there by different means - if it was ever found inside the silencers baffle plates at all...

The case for blood being found inside the silencer has been treated as though all of it got into the silencer by the same process, but I feel that that approach could have been the wrong one to adopt. I arrive at this view, because I cannot see how a flake can be found inside a silencer where other blood which was found in the form of bloodstains on surrounding baffle plates, did not contain the same four blood group results (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) found or obtained from the loose flake?

If these four blood group results (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) had also been found in the blood-staining found on the surrounding Baflle plates, then I would be more inclined to believe or accept that it could have got into the silencer by the same process, but because the results were different between the blood-staining found upon the first 8 baffle plates, as opposed to the flake, I think the flake got there by other means, in an unnatural way...

Was the other blood in the silencer actually tested for grouping? I get the impression that it wasn't and that only the flake was tested.

------------------------------

All the blood was tested, including the bloodstains on the first 8 baffles, and the flake (separately), I will repost the Lab' document and diagram which was produced on 29th April 1986:-

Why didn't the flake include the HP2 result, found on bloodstained baffle plates around it?