What REALLY Convinces You That Jeremy Is Innocent/Guilty?

[lookout]

Right----okay,,I'll plump for a mixture of June and Neville.

Though there was nothing to say that the rabbit couldn't have been " finished off " with a contact shot if it hadn't died immediately in the first place. I think of everything.

[scipio_usmc]

There's every possibility that the AK1 enzyme is rabbits blood. The jury were told that Sheilas' was the only blood that contained the AK1 enzyme too,,so take your pick-------Sheilas' or a rabbits ? Very debateable,,but almost likely to be from a rabbit. In actual fact there were two types of animal blood found,,but the jury weren't told about that at the trial,,nor was it entered into the forensic reports. Apparently it wasn't thought of as being relevant to the case.?? I know the matter was put to the CCRC at one time,,and no doubt it will crop up again at some point as there seemed to be a degree of uncertainty as to whether it was Sheilas' blood or not.
To be as indecisive as this doesn't sit well with the key " evidence " that got him convicted in the first place,,hence the reason why the trial was an unfair one.
A silencer wasn't used in the murders,,but possibly last used for killing vermin. ( rabbits )

The blood was tested and determined to be human blood not animal blood.  The defense had their own expert go through the suppressor.  He found microscopic blood droplets on the first 8 baffles.  He determined it to be human blood not animal blood

He found the following components EAP BA, AK1, Hp2.1 and determined this meant it was group A human blood.  these components can't be explained away as animal blood.

Sheila- EAP BA, AK1, Hp2-1
Neville- BAP BA AK1, Hp2-1
June- EAP BA, AK2-1, Hp2-1

The difference between June's blood and Sheilas is that Sheila had AK1 while June had AK2-1.  That is why the distinction was significant.   

[guest154]

Right----okay,,I'll plump for a mixture of June and Neville.

Though there was nothing to say that the rabbit couldn't have been " finished off " with a contact shot if it hadn't died immediately in the first place. I think of everything.

All you need to read is on here :
http://www.forensic-science.co.uk/bamber.html

By Mark Webster.
Explaining it fully and explaining why/how so many Bamber supporters believed there was/is a chance that it could be animal blood.
It can not be animal blood, the tests have shown this.

Hopefully this is the last time that people try and peddle the myth, but I doubt it.

[grahameb]

The blood was tested and determined to be human blood not animal blood.  The defense had their own expert go through the suppressor.  He found microscopic blood droplets on the first 8 baffles.  He determined it to be human blood not animal blood

He found the following components EAP BA, AK1, Hp2.1 and determined this meant it was group A human blood.  these components can't be explained away as animal blood.

Sheila- EAP BA, AK1, Hp2-1
Neville- BAP BA AK1, Hp2-1
June- EAP BA, AK2-1, Hp2-1

The difference between June's blood and Sheilas is that Sheila had AK1 while June had AK2-1.  That is why the distinction was significant.

AK1 is an animal enzime.

[guest154]

AK1 is an animal enzime.

Grahame, it's not. Check out the link I posted - it explains it.

[scipio_usmc]

AK1 is an animal enzime.

Well since humans are animals not plants you are technically right but you are using animal in the slang sense not technical so your intended point is not correct.

[grahameb]

Well since humans are animals not plants you are technically right but you are using animal in the slang sense not technical so your intended point is not correct.

That is probably because I don't accept the silencer evidence as real. Plus the fact that as it sat on Taff Jones' desk for two weeks before being sent to the lab (this is why he was taken off the case I believe?) there is every possibility that it had been contaminated. Indeed the officer who picked up the silencer from Ann Eaton commented in court that the condition of the silencer was in a very dirty state than when it was handed to him. This is the reason I reject the silencer as evidence.

[grahameb]

Grahame, it's not. Check out the link I posted - it explains it.

Thank you mat for that link. Very interesting reading.

[Jan]

yes it is interesting reading - but I am not sure I get the bit at the end ? which seems to indicate that the flakes of blood may have given a false reading ? I am going to have to try and read the whole thing again.

[Jan]

from the report:

The CCRC were underestimating the possibility of contamination. The commissioners had either not seen or had ignored a note recording that the sound moderator had been fully dismantled on the 29th April 1986, under conditions that could have caused accidental transfer of DNA.They ignored or were unaware that the sound moderator might have been dismantled by the jury at the trial judge's invitation. The commissioners did not understand the way that DNA profiling tests had been carried out: pooling possible DNA-containing materials from mulitiple baffles at different depths in the moderator. They discounted the significance that no blood had been detected on and in the moderator when it was examined before the DNA profiling and the advice of their experts that the DNA could not be implicitly linked with blood.

Continued...


There is also a section that says the AK1 was probably not from animal blood - Not that it absolutely was not.

I am still confused.

[Jan]

All you need to read is on here :
http://www.forensic-science.co.uk/bamber.html

By Mark Webster.
Explaining it fully and explaining why/how so many Bamber supporters believed there was/is a chance that it could be animal blood.
It can not be animal blood, the tests have shown this.

Hopefully this is the last time that people try and peddle the myth, but I doubt it.

Mat - genuine question - so why does it say this?

Rabbit AK1 is quite similar to human AK1, but it is not identical. About 5% of the structure differs between the two species. I cannot exclude the possibility that rabbit or some other animal AK1 could be mistaken for one of the human AK1 types using starch gel electrophoresis, but I think this is extremely unlikely. It should also be noted that the blood flake gave a positive result in a test for human proteins and other enzyme typing tests gave typically human results.

The ABO blood grouping system - familiar from blood transfusions - splits most of the population into the blood groups A, B, O and AB. The ABO system was also used to characterise blood in the sound moderator. The ABO blood groups reflect the structure of antigens attached to red blood cell membranes and antibodies in the blood. ABO antigens and antibodies are unrelated to the AK enzymes. The statement "The blood flake was analyzed and found to contain the AK1 enzyme therefore it came from someone with blood group A." is gibberish. A person's AK type does not predict that person's ABO group.





So the report is not saying it is impossible ? Also it is discounting the fact if it was human it was definitely group A.

And am I reading it right that later on it is saying the DNA may have not come from the blood - as there was no blood on the moderator when it was tested in 1999.

I am genuinely confused - but that is not difficult.

[Jan]

And what does this bit mean?

It is still my opinion that an incriminatory combination of blood groups could result from sequentially removing parts of a "heterogeneous" blood flake made of an imperfect mixture of blood from more than one person.

So is he saying even if there was a blood flake - it could not be the blood group that has been implicated?   - So it could be someone elses blood  and the DNA may have come from contamination when the moderator was dismantled?


I still don't think it was even used - but I am still curious - this might change my mind?

[grahameb]

from the report:

The CCRC were underestimating the possibility of contamination. The commissioners had either not seen or had ignored a note recording that the sound moderator had been fully dismantled on the 29th April 1986, under conditions that could have caused accidental transfer of DNA.They ignored or were unaware that the sound moderator might have been dismantled by the jury at the trial judge's invitation. The commissioners did not understand the way that DNA profiling tests had been carried out: pooling possible DNA-containing materials from mulitiple baffles at different depths in the moderator. They discounted the significance that no blood had been detected on and in the moderator when it was examined before the DNA profiling and the advice of their experts that the DNA could not be implicitly linked with blood.

Continued...


There is also a section that says the AK1 was probably not from animal blood - Not that it absolutely was not.

I am still confused.

Well simply put it means that the CCRC did not consider the possibility of contamination, because of the conditions in which it was dismantled. And I agree with it. The problem is that the report doesn't go far enough. I contend that if the silencer was found as it is stated that it was, the way in which it was handled by carious people in my opinion rendered it unfit to be presented as evidence. Why the defence did not pick up on this but itself accepted it as evidence is a puzzle to me and I should think others as well?

[guest154]

I'll try and find the topic on here where it was originally talked about - it was believed for some time it could be animals blood, until an expert pointed out that the report saying AK1 couldn't be as animal blood is AK
        1


Or something similair. I'll have a look for the topic but it was a while ago, they will explain it a lot better than I could begin to - because it does get quite complicated and it's old news.

[Jan]

Its ok Mat

I think what I get from reading the link is :

It is not IMPOSSIBLE that it was animal blood - but highly unlikely
There appeared to be some human protein
It was most likely that the assumption that the blood was blood group A was incorrect
By the time the DNA testing happened there was NO blood in the moderator - but they assumed the DNA came from blood? But this expert is saying that is an incorrect assumption because the moderator had been dismantled so the DNA could have come from contamination.
He was also putting the way the "flake" of blood was tested into question.
The DNA - that was not from blood - could have been SHeilas - but the expert could only show probability.

So basically not much information proven really