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

[Caroline]

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.

There was more than one cop who checked the gun cupboard but as you say,  it doesn't really tell us anything - there is no reason for them to assume that it was used in the murders (unless a closer look might have revealed the blob as described by Ann Eaton). There is more than one way to skin a cat and more than one to plant a silencer - I don't for one moment think the family could have tackled something like that alone.

[Alias]

Did they look into all cupboards, drawers etc..... five times? Very busy around that cupboard.

Wouldn´t be the first time in history evidence was planted!

[lookout]

Well it certainly seems dodgy to me.

[Caroline]

Did they look into all cupboards, drawers etc..... five times? Very busy around that cupboard.

Wouldn´t be the first time in history evidence was planted!

There is a list on the forum somewhere that indicates where certain officers looked for evidence - 5 of them noted the gun cupboard.

No it wouldn't be the first time evidence was planted  but I don't buy any of the argument that it was nonchalantly discovered by the relatives 3 days after the murders. I think it's introduction was far more subtle than that and the story of how it was found was engineered later.

[Alias]

There is a list on the forum somewhere that indicates where certain officers looked for evidence - 5 of them noted the gun cupboard.

No it wouldn't be the first time evidence was planted  but I don't buy any of the argument that it was nonchalantly discovered by the relatives 3 days after the murders. I think it's introduction was far more subtle than that and the story of how it was found was engineered later.

I tend to agree, and the reason is that the stories of the relatives (and now Barbara Wilson!) vary so much as to who was there and how it was found.
You could argue that it makes it more "genuine"; argue that is was not rehearsed. I just think they got nervous and got it all wrong and mixed up.

[lookout]

 Too many cooks,springs to mind. What with the hordes of EP,the firearms teams,the relatives. Plenty of conflicting views and confusion right away. Not to mention contamination.

[Caroline]

I tend to agree, and the reason is that the stories of the relatives (and now Barbara Wilson!) vary so much as to who was there and how it was found.
You could argue that it makes it more "genuine"; argue that is was not rehearsed. I just think they got nervous and got it all wrong and mixed up.

I think they made the classic mistake of only remembering their own parts. This is why DB never mentions RB because he's too busy trying to remember the important bits of his OWN story and forgets to include the others. Whereas in a real situation, people desperately try to look for others to corroborate what they have to say. I don't understand what BW is trying to do - by admitting this late in the game to seeing the silencer and the blood, she is just making it sound more 'virtually' ludicrous than it did before.

[lookout]

 The silencer is obviously a very pressing issue for someone.

[scipio_usmc]

There is a list on the forum somewhere that indicates where certain officers looked for evidence - 5 of them noted the gun cupboard.

No it wouldn't be the first time evidence was planted  but I don't buy any of the argument that it was nonchalantly discovered by the relatives 3 days after the murders. I think it's introduction was far more subtle than that and the story of how it was found was engineered later.

They were removing the firearms from the premises, including all ammunition and the accessories.  That is how it was discovered.

If not for Jones insisting it be handled like a suicide instead of a homicide the police would probably have taken the guns, ammunition and accesories into evidence before leaving the premises. By rights they should have because guns require a license and the licensed owner was dead.  Instead the police only took the murder weapon and had to have the relatives bring them the weapons and ammo at a later date when they decided oops we should have taken everything. 

   

[grahameb]

The silencer is obviously a very pressing issue for someone.

Because it's smart, that's why. If it was thought up by someone and to my mind I can see how it could be, as it was a million to one chance that such evidence would be found in the way it was alleged to have been found.
But if it was concocted, then it was a brilliant move by the relatives. It is defended so tenaciously by some because it is in a way a beautiful concept. But in my opinion it is just too neat to be true. It appears to be so perfect as to be contrived?
Just look at the words used by DB as he allegedly found the silencer. He for some reason goes rummaging in the gun cupboard. The reason they gave was to collect all the guns and ammunition from the farmhouse. Suddenly he exclames, "This must be the silencer to the gun". Sorry but my suspicious mind is at work here. It might be true? But my suspicious mind says its too pat. Too convenient. Too perfect. What people don't seem to realise of course is that this silencer was allegedly found when the relatives were at the farm with the intent to specifically look for clues against Jeremy.

[scipio_usmc]

I think they made the classic mistake of only remembering their own parts. This is why DB never mentions RB because he's too busy trying to remember the important bits of his OWN story and forgets to include the others. Whereas in a real situation, people desperately try to look for others to corroborate what they have to say. I don't understand what BW is trying to do - by admitting this late in the game to seeing the silencer and the blood, she is just making it sound more 'virtually' ludicrous than it did before.

To many people their claims are not ludicrous at all.  There are people who strain way too hard to find a way to claim Jeremy is innocent and that is what seems quite ludicrous to the majority of people.

I have gone over the various steps need for the evidence in the suppressor to have been planted.  Not once have I seen anyone attempt to tackle such.  Instead it is the same suggestion that the finding circumstances seem suspicious and that is supposed to be sufficient to establish the evidecne was planted.

That is not how it works in court or even the real world.

The simple truth is what someone suggested the other day (someone who advocates that Jeremy is innocent mind you said it).  He noted that if someone wanted to plant blood they would most likely use a dropper.  They would not have the foresight to spray blood inside figuring that unless they sprayed it inside someone would be able to figure out that it was planted with a dropper.  You need someone with very detailed knowledge to come up with such.

The most detailed claims I have ver seen as far as planting allegations in response to my posts is the claim that the crime lab planted the blood and hid the blood in the rifle not the family and that the family just agreed to lie about finding the suppressor and claiming it had blood when they found it.

The implicating being that yes the family would lack the knowledge necessary but the lab would know exactly what to do.  That allegation can be made in any case though, the lab always has the opportunity to plant evidence that is not evidence they did so.

Moreover, they had no need to falsely claim the family found it.  Saying a cop took it into evidence on the day of the murders or a few days later upon final inspection of the premises is not suspicious.  It doesn't warrant making up a claim the family found it. 

If the reality were that police collected it, sent it to the lab and then the lab doctored it why would they need to say the family collected it?  How does that help any?  It is not necessary to make up such a lie to further the conspiracy.  In fact a conspiracy of such nature is better in house with as few people involved or knowing about it as possible because the more people in the know the more people to leak. 

That is in part what did Jeremy in he blabbed to Julie before and after.
   

[grahameb]

To many people their claims are not ludicrous at all.  There are people who strain way too hard to find a way to claim Jeremy is innocent and that is what seems quite ludicrous to the majority of people.

I have gone over the various steps need for the evidence in the suppressor to have been planted.  Not once have I seen anyone attempt to tackle such.  Instead it is the same suggestion that the finding circumstances seem suspicious and that is supposed to be sufficient to establish the evidecne was planted.

That is not how it works in court or even the real world.

The simple truth is what someone suggested the other day (someone who advocates that Jeremy is innocent mind you said it).  He noted that if someone wanted to plant blood they would most likely use a dropper.  They would not have the foresight to spray blood inside figuring that unless they sprayed it inside someone would be able to figure out that it was planted with a dropper.  You need someone with very detailed knowledge to come up with such.

The most detailed claims I have ver seen as far as planting allegations in response to my posts is the claim that the crime lab planted the blood and hid the blood in the rifle not the family and that the family just agreed to lie about finding the suppressor and claiming it had blood when they found it.

The implicating being that yes the family would lack the knowledge necessary but the lab would know exactly what to do.  That allegation can be made in any case though, the lab always has the opportunity to plant evidence that is not evidence they did so.

Moreover, they had no need to falsely claim the family found it.  Saying a cop took it into evidence on the day of the murders or a few days later upon final inspection of the premises is not suspicious.  It doesn't warrant making up a claim the family found it. 

If the reality were that police collected it, sent it to the lab and then the lab doctored it why would they need to say the family collected it?  How does that help any?  It is not necessary to make up such a lie to further the conspiracy.  In fact a conspiracy of such nature is better in house with as few people involved or knowing about it as possible because the more people in the know the more people to leak. 

That is in part what did Jeremy in he blabbed to Julie before and after.
 

I don't recall Jeremy saying anything at all about the silencer to JM? Perhaps you could direct us to where he said it?

[scipio_usmc]

I don't recall Jeremy saying anything at all about the silencer to JM? Perhaps you could direct us to where he said it?

Who said anything about her talking about the suppressor?  He blabbed to her prior to the murders how he wanted to kill her, that tonight is the night he was killing her then afterwards that he had her killed.  She is the only one we know he told this too and she blabbed.

Supposedly there is a big conspiracy among cops and the family that all know about this wide ranging conspiracy without anyone supposedly talking.

People involved in conspiracies usually get caught because someone talks.  The least number of people who know about wrongdoing the better.

 

[Caroline]

To many people their claims are not ludicrous at all.  There are people who strain way too hard to find a way to claim Jeremy is innocent and that is what seems quite ludicrous to the majority of people.

I have gone over the various steps need for the evidence in the suppressor to have been planted.  Not once have I seen anyone attempt to tackle such.  Instead it is the same suggestion that the finding circumstances seem suspicious and that is supposed to be sufficient to establish the evidecne was planted.

That is not how it works in court or even the real world.

The simple truth is what someone suggested the other day (someone who advocates that Jeremy is innocent mind you said it).  He noted that if someone wanted to plant blood they would most likely use a dropper.  They would not have the foresight to spray blood inside figuring that unless they sprayed it inside someone would be able to figure out that it was planted with a dropper.  You need someone with very detailed knowledge to come up with such.

The most detailed claims I have ver seen as far as planting allegations in response to my posts is the claim that the crime lab planted the blood and hid the blood in the rifle not the family and that the family just agreed to lie about finding the suppressor and claiming it had blood when they found it.

The implicating being that yes the family would lack the knowledge necessary but the lab would know exactly what to do.  That allegation can be made in any case though, the lab always has the opportunity to plant evidence that is not evidence they did so.

Moreover, they had no need to falsely claim the family found it.  Saying a cop took it into evidence on the day of the murders or a few days later upon final inspection of the premises is not suspicious.  It doesn't warrant making up a claim the family found it. 

If the reality were that police collected it, sent it to the lab and then the lab doctored it why would they need to say the family collected it?  How does that help any?  It is not necessary to make up such a lie to further the conspiracy.  In fact a conspiracy of such nature is better in house with as few people involved or knowing about it as possible because the more people in the know the more people to leak. 

That is in part what did Jeremy in he blabbed to Julie before and after.
 

But I don't necessarily think he is innocent but DO believe 100% that the silencer was never used. Of course if Jeremy is guilty, he would know whether it was used or not - if he knew it was, he certainly wouldn't have wanted any DNA analysis carrying out and yet that's exactly what happened. And for ALL of the blood contained in the silencer, they were unable to identify Sheila Caffell's DNA.

If the silencer was planted, it wouldn't have needed a cast of thousands to pull it off , as previously stated, just a few of the main characters and the cooperation of a few civilians. Having the family say that they found the silencer has the advantage, that if caught out,the police can distance themselves from any wrong doing.

[scipio_usmc]

But I don't necessarily think he is innocent but DO believe 100% that the silencer was never used. Of course if Jeremy is guilty, he would know whether it was used or not - if he knew it was, he certainly wouldn't have wanted any DNA analysis carrying out and yet that's exactly what happened. And for ALL of the blood contained in the silencer, they were unable to identify Sheila Caffell's DNA.

If the silencer was planted, it wouldn't have needed a cast of thousands to pull it off , as previously stated, just a few of the main characters and the cooperation of a few civilians. Having the family say that they found the silencer has the advantage, that if caught out,the police can distance themselves from any wrong doing.

If I were guilty I would not fear a DNA test.  You ignore that the prosecution removed all visible blood and then the defense expert removed all microcsopic blood traces.  In 1989 a test was done for blood and found no blood evidence left, it all had been removed previously.  So of course no blood based DNA of Sheila's would be found from a DNA test performed after that.  He had nothing to fear at all the fix was in which is why the court considered the results worthless.  None of the DNA tested could have come from blood it had to come from ordinary contamination it had to be non-blood based.

The DNA tests needed to be performed on the blood that the prosecution and defense experts found to be group A.  But the blood from such tests is long gone it could not be tested.

In the meantime you are wrong about Sheila's DNA not being found it was.  17 markers matched hers which is enought to statisticly say it was hers.  But since there was no blood left this means if had to be DNA from another source not blood just like June's could not have been from a blood source.  Other DNA didn't match anyone in the family and could have belonged to anyone involed in the case.

The DNA method used is so sensitive that even a tiny particle cane be tested which means that even the tiniest contamination presents a problem.  It is why labs and police today must be so careful if they intend to use such.

The bottom line is that the dice were loaded and Bamber knew no blood based DNA of Sheila remained so tha tis why he had no fear in requesting the DNA test but the same thing that gave him no fear made the findings worthless. But his team tried anyway to make an argument to the court, they had nothing to lose in trying.   

As for planting it would need a wide cast of characters to pull it off including eliminating the blood that would have been inside the rifle.  Those planting it has to know how to pull it off as well.  Involving the family creates more danger not less because it means the fmaily could rat them out.  Far from being scapegoats it makes mor epeopel who could mess up and leak the truth.  Moreover, eliminating the blood in the rifle could not be accomplished by the family it still would have to have been done by the lab.  The family would not be likely to know the significance of blood spatter let alone know how to spray it inside so again they would not make good scapegoats. 

There is no doubt in my mind at all that if anyone planted it they would have simply taken a vial and poured it in or used a dropper not have sprayed it inside.  Nor would they have take the extra step of planting paint. It makes no sense.

None of the police in question were ever caught planting evidence in any other case and those who plan evidence rarely do it one which is why when something hits the fan so many cases are scrutinized.  There simply is nothing in this case that is similar to cases where evidence was actually demonstrated to have been planted.

On one hand you suggest the fmaily finding it was helpful to them but that is what most people seize upon to question it.  The most tidy planting would feature police saying they took the suppressor while searching it, hat they saw blood when picking it up and then transferred it to the lab and after the lab finally tested it then it revealed the group A blood.  There would be less questions in that case.  The tale they told was rather embarrassing abou how supid they were and opened the up to more attacks than would have been the case.  I don't see the advantage in this especially since the family could trip up if they were involved in the conspiracy. Even if the faily did not mess up and reveal the blood had bene planted by accident, if the blood were proved to be planted would the faily take the blame or rat out the police?   The fewer people involved the better that is the rule of thumb.