Damning evidence set to undermine paint on silencer evidence...

[Jane]

Hi jansus,

Jury never heard any of this, and jeremys legal team who represented him at the trial knew nothing at all about this...

What I find interesting, is the fact that in Cooks (RWC/1) and Davidsons (RC/1) account, Cook only took a paint sample, whereas, on 20th September 1985, paint scrapings (RWC/1) were received at the lab', one of which was a blood based exhibit. It appears that at least one of the paint samples was contaminated with blood, or both were. whereas, the other one nay not gace been...

Mike, there appear to be more and more things coming to light about which the defence seem to know nothing, The reasons, which come immediately to my mind, for this are as follows. 1. They asked for information, were told it was not available and made no attempts to find out if this was true. 2. They didn't ask the right questions. 3. They thought, as an open and shut case, an innocent verdict was assured. 4. They were intimidated by the prosecution's belief in/proof of(?) Jeremy's guilt. Was the defence incompetent or ill prepared? Your views would be appreciated.

[susan]

Hello april  sorry I am not Mike but I think the Defence team Jeremy Bamber had were ill prepared incompetent and altogether useless to put it mildly.

[Jane]

Hello april  sorry I am not Mike but I think the Defence team Jeremy Bamber had were ill prepared incompetent and altogether useless to put it mildly.

Susan, I wonder if "........and so say all of us" fits :D

[susan]

April   

[scipio_usmc]

The redesignation of exhibits has no bearing on anything.  No court is going to care about that at all.

At trial the defense needed to establish there was a reaosnable likelihood that he blood in the suppressor was not Sheila's blood or that their was a reasonable likelihood her blood was deposited in some manner other than during the course of her being shot.

On appeal the burden is greater- to establish she could not have been shot with the suppressor attached. 

The ship has sailed since the trial was long ago but here is a discussion any way of why they could not prove what they need to at trial.

The prosecution found blood inside the opening and on the first 5-7 baffles.  The expert could not remember when he was questioned if it was the first 5 baffles or first 7 baffles.  He actually scraped all visible blood off the baffles and also out of the inside opening.  This blood was dried to the inside and was dried to the baffles the blood did not consist of flakes that were floating around. 

The defense had their own expert who examined it after all visible blood had been removed.  He found miscroscopic blood drops on the first 8 baffles.  He tested such blood and it tested group A just like the prosecution's blood tested group A. 

He originally thought the prosecution tested partial blood traces and that potentially the blood could have been June and Nevill's blood that had not intimately mixed.  When he found out that the prosecution tested a single flake he said his theory was no longer valid.  Because he no longer asserted the blood could be June and Neville's he was not called to testify.  Instead the defense grilled the prosecution witness to try to get the prosecution witness to admit it was a possibility that the blood was June and Nevill's because coming from the prosecution's own witness this would sound more damning.  As hard as they tried to get the prosecution witness to admit there was a reaosnable probablity of the blood not intimately mixing and it being a mixture the expert stated that if it were  amixture he would expect to find another element from June's blood which was not present in the sample.  Moreover it would be unlikely that the gun would get hot enough to dry the blood of one before the blood of another would enter and it was unlikely either had a shot close enough.  The best the defense could elicit was the claim of a remote possiiblity which is a far cry from a reasonable probablity but it was the best the defense could do to suggest it was not Sheila's blood given the facts.

In hindsight people suggest they should have asserted the blood was planted or it was accidentally contaminated with her blood and by way of example bring up a case where he defense suggested a fingerprint had been planted and had someone testify as to how that could happen.

In that case the defendant was convicted the ploy failed. Just establishing it is possible for a fingerprint to be planted was not enough to establish there was a reasonable probability it had been planted.

The defense in this case could not find any expert would would testify that the blood could have been planted or deposited through contamination.  People critical of Rivlin ignore what the defense's own expert found- microscopic droplets of blood on the first 8 baffles that were group A blood.

The evidenc ein this case makes accidental contamination not possible.  If flakes of dry blood accidentally found their way inside such blood would float aorund not stick to the inside.  The fact the blood was stuck indicates it dries inside.  Any doubt about that is eliminated with the finding of the microscropic droplets- these droplets dried to the baffles and managed to avoid being scraped off by the prosecution when the visible blood was removed from each baffle.  Soaking it in bloody water would not result in flakes of blood drying inside let alone drying on the first several baffles.  Nor would such result in the microscopic droplets adhering to the first 8 baffles. 

The finds are fully consistent with back spatter as the prosecution asserted.  Back spatter is a sray of blood that flows back into the weapon.  Depending on the nature it will go several inches into a weapon.  High velocity spatter leaves a fine spray like the defense found. The further inside the finer the spray will be.

Because it is a spray various drops go in at different angles.  Each baffle blocks the baffles behind it.  So in order to land on the first 8 baffles it means the blood drops went at different angles so that some landed on the first, some managed to bipadd it and land on the second. Some bypassed the first 2 and landed on the 3.  This process continued till the 8th and there was no more blood to pass after the 8th.  The first 8 caught everything.

Is there  away to accidentally transfer blood to these 8 baffles?  No, any transfer would have to be intentional.     

Ok so is there evidence to prove it was intentionally transferred?  first it is necessary to prove it is possible to transefer blood intentionally to duplicate what the experts found.  is there some atomizer or sprayer that potentially would be able to distribute blood in such manner?  I don't know, to date I have found no experts who point to something to use that would be capable of such.  I suspect few people would even think about trying to use something to spray it in. Someone planting blood would at best probably drip it in and get a blob inside and that's it not know that it should be sprayed inside. The reality is that most people don't know the finer details and that gets them caught.

So the defense had a big problem in trying to allege what people claim they should have. 

The defense needed an expert to establish how blood could be sprayed inside to be planted and establish a reasanable likelihood it happened. The defense needed to establish where the blood that wa splanted came from, who likely planted it, how and that it is unlikely the blood would have been deposited from a wound.

The wound in question though was one extremely likely to result in back spatter.  The testimony was tha tit wa svirtually certian to result in back spatter so spatter would be inside the weapon if the weapon had been used without a suppressor.  So that requires establishing a reaosnable likelihood that someone not only planted the blood but cleaned out the blood from the rifle before it arrived at the lab or that the lab found blood but lied and said it didn't.

So there is a great deal involved in trying to establish the blood was planted and the defense had no experts who to turn to.     

Even on appeal I don't see any experts who have been found to testify to anything even close to this.

It is easy to make claims in an informal setting where there are no rules of evidence that have to be followed in order to get evidence before others and where there are no experts to critique your claims.  It is a totally different situation when operating before a ocurt.  I think many people fail to comprehend this.

Anyway I gave the blueprint of what they really need for an expert to say to establish the blood was in fact planted.

The simple suggestions I have read here and other places simply don't even come close to dealing with the realities of the hurdle. I think it is an insurmountable one but have at it.


   


   

[lookout]

 Not a well-planned murder when the alleged murderer ( Jeremy ) puts the silencer/moderator,complete with blood,,back into the very cupboard where it would be the first place to look for clues/evidence.? 

 

[scipio_usmc]

Not a well-planned murder when the alleged murderer ( Jeremy ) puts the silencer/moderator,complete with blood,,back into the very cupboard where it would be the first place to look for clues/evidence.? 

They didn't look for it at first so obviously they were as dumb as him.

Placing a box of 30 rounds in the kitchen and claiming it had been full and this was the source of the 25 rounds used is not too bright either.

Nor telling Julie he was planning to do it and calling each stage as he was doing it.

The pretend phone call from Nevill was also a horrible idea. 

If he had just left and pretended he knew nothing and not have told a soul he would have been tremendously better off.   

[grahameb]

They didn't look for it at first so obviously they were as dumb as him.

Placing a box of 30 rounds in the kitchen and claiming it had been full and this was the source of the 25 rounds used is not too bright either.

Nor telling Julie he was planning to do it and calling each stage as he was doing it.

The pretend phone call from Nevill was also a horrible idea. 

If he had just left and pretended he knew nothing and not have told a soul he would have been tremendously better off.

Not the cunning and clever murderer that some try and convince us of then? It have to take Miss Marple and friends to crack the case with their "silencer" that the police supposedly missed?

[lookout]

 Why did AE refuse to allow the police to test-fire a rifle inside WHF,,before Jeremy attended the trial ? It was Jeremys' request in order to test the sound from outside the farmhouse.

AE was only too willing to offer her assistance beforehand,,so why the refusal ? Even back then Jeremy was fighting his corner and wanting to prove that the rifle wouldn't be heard from the outside,even without a silencer.

The guy out walking his dog, allegedly heard a shot,or shots coming from the farmhouse. Those shots would have come from a shotgun,and not a rifle,,if he'd heard when passing.

As Jeremy had stated,,he left the rifle minus the silencer after he'd handled it before he left for home that night. He also asked why Sheila would go to the cupboard,take out the silencer,put it on the rifle,,then take it back off and put it away again.

Of course,,there is proof that the silencer was never used on the rifle,,but it was handled,swapped and above all,contaminated.

[lookout]

The silencer is part of the next appeal,,as is something else which was found by officers,,  that was also subject to contamination.
3 silencers were taken from WHF,but only one had Sheilas' blood on it,,which was used at the trial.

As Jeremy once said,,quote " It's possible to make fact from fiction ",unquote. How right he is.

[lookout]

Why was the prosecution so sure that it was Sheilas' blood in the silencer ? RWB had the same grouping.

[lookout]

 An analyst examining what he thought was red paint left by a silencer which had scraped the kitchen wall,,was found to be nail varnish matching that of Sheilas' toenails.Further analysis revealed a missing area of her toenail.


I wonder who the former Essex PC was who told newspapers that the  original case was badly handled ?

[Caroline]

The redesignation of exhibits has no bearing on anything.  No court is going to care about that at all.

At trial the defense needed to establish there was a reaosnable likelihood that he blood in the suppressor was not Sheila's blood or that their was a reasonable likelihood her blood was deposited in some manner other than during the course of her being shot.

On appeal the burden is greater- to establish she could not have been shot with the suppressor attached. 

The ship has sailed since the trial was long ago but here is a discussion any way of why they could not prove what they need to at trial.

The prosecution found blood inside the opening and on the first 5-7 baffles.  The expert could not remember when he was questioned if it was the first 5 baffles or first 7 baffles.  He actually scraped all visible blood off the baffles and also out of the inside opening.  This blood was dried to the inside and was dried to the baffles the blood did not consist of flakes that were floating around. 

The defense had their own expert who examined it after all visible blood had been removed.  He found miscroscopic blood drops on the first 8 baffles.  He tested such blood and it tested group A just like the prosecution's blood tested group A. 

He originally thought the prosecution tested partial blood traces and that potentially the blood could have been June and Nevill's blood that had not intimately mixed.  When he found out that the prosecution tested a single flake he said his theory was no longer valid.  Because he no longer asserted the blood could be June and Neville's he was not called to testify.  Instead the defense grilled the prosecution witness to try to get the prosecution witness to admit it was a possibility that the blood was June and Nevill's because coming from the prosecution's own witness this would sound more damning.  As hard as they tried to get the prosecution witness to admit there was a reaosnable probablity of the blood not intimately mixing and it being a mixture the expert stated that if it were  amixture he would expect to find another element from June's blood which was not present in the sample.  Moreover it would be unlikely that the gun would get hot enough to dry the blood of one before the blood of another would enter and it was unlikely either had a shot close enough.  The best the defense could elicit was the claim of a remote possiiblity which is a far cry from a reasonable probablity but it was the best the defense could do to suggest it was not Sheila's blood given the facts.

In hindsight people suggest they should have asserted the blood was planted or it was accidentally contaminated with her blood and by way of example bring up a case where he defense suggested a fingerprint had been planted and had someone testify as to how that could happen.

In that case the defendant was convicted the ploy failed. Just establishing it is possible for a fingerprint to be planted was not enough to establish there was a reasonable probability it had been planted.

The defense in this case could not find any expert would would testify that the blood could have been planted or deposited through contamination.  People critical of Rivlin ignore what the defense's own expert found- microscopic droplets of blood on the first 8 baffles that were group A blood.

The evidenc ein this case makes accidental contamination not possible.  If flakes of dry blood accidentally found their way inside such blood would float aorund not stick to the inside.  The fact the blood was stuck indicates it dries inside.  Any doubt about that is eliminated with the finding of the microscropic droplets- these droplets dried to the baffles and managed to avoid being scraped off by the prosecution when the visible blood was removed from each baffle.  Soaking it in bloody water would not result in flakes of blood drying inside let alone drying on the first several baffles.  Nor would such result in the microscopic droplets adhering to the first 8 baffles. 

The finds are fully consistent with back spatter as the prosecution asserted.  Back spatter is a sray of blood that flows back into the weapon.  Depending on the nature it will go several inches into a weapon.  High velocity spatter leaves a fine spray like the defense found. The further inside the finer the spray will be.

Because it is a spray various drops go in at different angles.  Each baffle blocks the baffles behind it.  So in order to land on the first 8 baffles it means the blood drops went at different angles so that some landed on the first, some managed to bipadd it and land on the second. Some bypassed the first 2 and landed on the 3.  This process continued till the 8th and there was no more blood to pass after the 8th.  The first 8 caught everything.

Is there  away to accidentally transfer blood to these 8 baffles?  No, any transfer would have to be intentional.     

Ok so is there evidence to prove it was intentionally transferred?  first it is necessary to prove it is possible to transefer blood intentionally to duplicate what the experts found.  is there some atomizer or sprayer that potentially would be able to distribute blood in such manner?  I don't know, to date I have found no experts who point to something to use that would be capable of such.  I suspect few people would even think about trying to use something to spray it in. Someone planting blood would at best probably drip it in and get a blob inside and that's it not know that it should be sprayed inside. The reality is that most people don't know the finer details and that gets them caught.

So the defense had a big problem in trying to allege what people claim they should have. 

The defense needed an expert to establish how blood could be sprayed inside to be planted and establish a reasanable likelihood it happened. The defense needed to establish where the blood that wa splanted came from, who likely planted it, how and that it is unlikely the blood would have been deposited from a wound.

The wound in question though was one extremely likely to result in back spatter.  The testimony was tha tit wa svirtually certian to result in back spatter so spatter would be inside the weapon if the weapon had been used without a suppressor.  So that requires establishing a reaosnable likelihood that someone not only planted the blood but cleaned out the blood from the rifle before it arrived at the lab or that the lab found blood but lied and said it didn't.

So there is a great deal involved in trying to establish the blood was planted and the defense had no experts who to turn to.     

Even on appeal I don't see any experts who have been found to testify to anything even close to this.

It is easy to make claims in an informal setting where there are no rules of evidence that have to be followed in order to get evidence before others and where there are no experts to critique your claims.  It is a totally different situation when operating before a ocurt.  I think many people fail to comprehend this.

Anyway I gave the blueprint of what they really need for an expert to say to establish the blood was in fact planted.

The simple suggestions I have read here and other places simply don't even come close to dealing with the realities of the hurdle. I think it is an insurmountable one but have at it.

This is obviously quite an exceptional post which makes quite a compelling argument and given the confident way you have written, it could make it quite difficult for people to challenge the issues you have set out. That said, I think you are OVER confident with some of your claims and just because we aren't able to say with 100% accuracy how the silencer might have been contaminated, that doesn't mean it wasn't (you have used this argument yourself in other posts to answer other points). try to forget the arguments which would 'stand up in a court of law' because we are debating the possibilities of what might have occurred not the legal ranglings necessary to play the 'Law game'.

I have to admit that I myself, don't know a great deal about firearms - but lets just say that 'I know a man that does!' And in his MUCH experienced view neither backspatter nor drawback can be said to have definitely occurred.  Drawback only occurs with a contact or very near contact shot however, it has not even been demonstrated that a .22 rifle with a sound moderator fitted could/would experience drawback.  Tests should have been carried out to verify this (which I am sure you would welcome?).  In my friends view backspatter, which I (and he) accept is possible -  argues the it could not have caused the amount of blood found well inside the sound moderator.

Further - previous discussion on this matter have found no support for your suggestion that blood would certainly have been found in the barrel of the rifle and the fact that no blood was found inside the barrel means absolutely nothing, for several reasons.   First, if some blood found it way into the barrel as a result of a shot, the next shot could eject or burn the blood there.  Second, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that backspatter or drawback would have occurred with any of the shots.  Third, the method used by the FSS to check for blood in the barrel was flawed.  They used a simple cloth pull through.  A few years ago the defence instructed an expert on this.  He said that any blood would have been deposited deep within the grooves of the barrel's internal rifling and would be dried on as a result of heat.  A simple pull through would not dislodge it.  Either a solvent or a fine brass wire brush would be needed to dislodge any blood residues.   

[grahameb]

An analyst examining what he thought was red paint left by a silencer which had scraped the kitchen wall,,was found to be nail varnish matching that of Sheilas' toenails.Further analysis revealed a missing area of her toenail.


I wonder who the former Essex PC was who told newspapers that the  original case was badly handled ?

Doesn't that rather point to the silencer having been used?

[maggie]

This is obviously quite an exceptional post which makes quite a compelling argument and given the confident way you have written, it could make it quite difficult for people to challenge the issues you have set out. That said, I think you are OVER confident with some of your claims and just because we aren't able to say with 100% accuracy how the silencer might have been contaminated, that doesn't mean it wasn't (you have used this argument yourself in other posts to answer other points). try to forget the arguments which would 'stand up in a court of law' because we are debating the possibilities of what might have occurred not the legal ranglings necessary to play the 'Law game'.

I have to admit that I myself, don't know a great deal about firearms - but lets just say that 'I know a man that does!' And in his MUCH experienced view neither backspatter nor drawback can be said to have definitely occurred.  Drawback only occurs with a contact or very near contact shot however, it has not even been demonstrated that a .22 rifle with a sound moderator fitted could/would experience drawback.  Tests should have been carried out to verify this (which I am sure you would welcome?).  In my friends view backspatter, which I (and he) accept is possible -  argues the it could not have caused the amount of blood found well inside the sound moderator.

Further - previous discussion on this matter have found no support for your suggestion that blood would certainly have been found in the barrel of the rifle and the fact that no blood was found inside the barrel means absolutely nothing, for several reasons.   First, if some blood found it way into the barrel as a result of a shot, the next shot could eject or burn the blood there.  Second, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that backspatter or drawback would have occurred with any of the shots.  Third, the method used by the FSS to check for blood in the barrel was flawed.  They used a simple cloth pull through.  A few years ago the defence instructed an expert on this.  He said that any blood would have been deposited deep within the grooves of the barrel's internal rifling and would be dried on as a result of heat.  A simple pull through would not dislodge it.  Either a solvent or a fine brass wire brush would be needed to dislodge any blood residues.

Hi Adam, have you read Caroline's post about the back spatter/drawback?  You may learn something which could help you to have a better understanding of the whole concept and how it relates to the case.