Either we are going to opt for the silencer being used. Or we opt for it not being used. If we opt for the silencer not being used isn't it rather inconsistent to argue the blood types allegedly found in the silencer? This is where the defence counsel slipped up. They got carried away as indeed did the judge when they got bogged down about whose blood was in the silencer, when they should have emphasised the facts that it was the relatives who "CLAIMED" to have found the silencer. Then to have allegedly TAKEN IT HOME with them. Plus the fact of possible contamination through everything the relatives did or did not do.
It isn't blaming the relatives for faking evidence. It is a matter of law and of the correct way of gathering evidence. It may be all true that they found the silencer. It may be all true that Bamber did it. But if evidence is not handled in the correct way then in my opinion that evidence must not be used even if it means that a guilty man will walk free. I know it sucks. But if evidence had been handled properly, then quite probably we would not be discussing it today. It would have been done and dusted and we would know for sure that Bamber is banged up for murder.
First of all it is good you are not a lawyer because you would miss arguments that can be made.
It is perfectly acceptible to suggest the suppressor was used during the murders but then removed before the suicide. The suppressor was needed to try to prevent victims from waking up right away so that all could be killed in bed and not have to worry about some escaping. It was not needed for the suicide and in fact prevented her from reaching the trigger so she would have reason to remove it. Is this a perfect argument? No but there were no perfect arguments that could be made under the facts the defense had to contend with.
Making this argument in conjunction with the argument that the blood in the suppressor was June and Nevill's not Sheila's was the best chance the defense had at establishing reasonable doubt. If they got the prosecution's expert to say (or found their own expert willing to say) there was a reaosnable probability of the blood belonging to June and Nevill then it is game over so far as the suppressor evidence is concerned. But all he coudl get him to say was a remote chance and their own expert considered that no longer a possibility at all so they chose not to call their expert. They hoped the jury would give more weight than due to the remote possibility but the gambit failed.
This was their best chance.
People suggesting they should have insisted it was planted don't comprehend how courts operate. Lawyers don't present evidence witnesses do.
Holly posted a statement by a lawyer who said they should have done the same thing that the defense did in a case where the evidence against the defendant was a fingerprint at the crime scene. The defense had a witness testify it is possible to plan a fingerprint and explained how such can be accomplished using powder and tape among other things.
Likewise in this case an expert witness would have to testify it was possible to plant the blood that was tested and to explain how. It would have to account for the exact distribution of blood that was found. Their own expert didn't believe the blood was planted or could be. He found microscopic drops of blood on the first 8 baffles and this blood was group A. In his mind this was consistent with back spatter. The defense thus needed to find a new expert that would testify the blood could be planted. Like with the fingerprint this expert would have to provide a detailed explanation of the process needed to deliver the blood inside so it would be distributes exactly in the manner found. They didn't find any expert who would state such nor has his appeal lawyers found anyone.
Mind you the defendant whose fingerprint implicated him was convicted. It is not sufficient to establish the evidence could have been planted it is necessary to prove there is a reasonable likelihood it was planted. So first you have to prove it is possible and then prove it likely occurred.
They could not even meet the first test of establishing it is possible because they found no witness to use. Their witness would not agree to such and he even changed his assessment about the blood possibly being June and Nevill's. They actually did a decent job by cross examining the prosecution witness so that everyone could hear the prosecution witness say there was a remote possibility that the blood was June and Nevill's. The prosecution did poor followup left this dangling.
Unless the blood of one dried before wet blood from the other got inside then there is no change of the blood not intimately mixing. In order for it to be their blood one had to fail to intimately mix with the other. The heat in the rifle would not be enough to instantly dry the blood onyl a sizable gap in time of the shots coudl cause such. There is no evidence to support tha there so the chance of them not intimately mixing is pretty much nonexistent. This is why the defense' own expert said it wasn't their blood. On redirect, the prosecution should have had the expert detail this but never did such. So the defense won the argument sort of. By rights a jury should be able to tell a remote possibility is not a reasonable probability but jurors often have difficulty with the concept of "reaosnableness". The defense did better than it could have hoped for under the circumstances.
Implying that the family found it so they could have planted the blood is not an argument that can be made unless you first establish through a witness that such was possible and they had no witness to explain how blood could be planted so that it would be disributed as found. Saying they found it is not enough either to prove a reasonable likelihood they planted it.
What is evidence that establishes a reasonable likelihood blod was planted? Well one example is if a chemical to preserve blood is present. Such chemical is a foreign substance. Either containation occurred in the lab somehow or a blood sample that was being stored (hence had such chemical to preserve it) was tapped and used to plant evidence. Mere opportuninty and motive to plant evidence is no tenough you need something like this to suggest it actually occurred. Testomonial evidence where someone admits to planting evidence, witnessed it or heard someone make an admission to planting evidence is great as well.
None of that is the case here at all we are treated to the claim:
1) Police in general did a bad job
2) the family found the suppressor
3) the family had a reason to frame Jeremy
4) the police and family thus jointly framed Jeremy
That doesn't come close to meeting what is necessary for court purposes and doesn't come close to convincing anyone objective either that the evidence was planted. it falls well short.
If the cop who inspected the closet testified the suppressor was not in there when he looked that would be one thing. He testified he only looked for certain things and didn't care about the rest so paid no mind to the rest and didn't record the rest. That's not enough to suggest the family placed the suppressor there later. And even that would still not prove they planted the blood that again needs proof it is possible and how. The suppressor could have been found behind a couch instead of in the closet that still would not establish the blood inside was planted.
