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

[Jane]

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. 
   



 

Scipio, good morning. You give the impression of never sleeping. You say Jeremy wouldn't have feared DNA testing. Are you by any chance seeing that through your own eyes and with today's knowledge? Also, if the guilters are to be believed, he rode along the seawall on the way home -and if he didn't the creek was practically at the bottom of his garden- the mud in which is particularly thick and gloopy. Better, surely to put it somewhere it would never be found.

[scipio_usmc]

Scipio, good morning. You give the impression of never sleeping. You say Jeremy wouldn't have feared DNA testing. Are you by any chance seeing that through your own eyes and with today's knowledge? Also, if the guilters are to be believed, he rode along the seawall on the way home -and if he didn't the creek was practically at the bottom of his garden- the mud in which is particularly thick and gloopy. Better, surely to put it somewhere it would never be found.

You are quite right, a vestige of my military career is that I sleep 2-3 hours a day if that.

Jeremy, and more importantly his lawyers, had access to records that demonstrate his own expert removed the last vestiges of blood possible and the 1989 report confirming it where the expert could locate no blood at all. So the fix was in from the outset.  It was in even more though because the relevant issues is testing the blood that the prosecution and defense claimed was group A.
 
Sheila's DNA was in fact found so critics say this proves the group A blood found was hers not someone else's group A blood.  Are they right?  No because such DNA can't have been blood based so got their from something other than the shooting.  This was the built in escape hatch if her DNA was found.  If her DNA was not found then use the argument that this proves the blood found wasn't hers.   It's a lawyer trick simply and one that could be seen through but was worth a try, there was nothing to lose.  The court responded that only testing the blood found to be group A for DNA matters and that this exercise could not prove a thing.  So it saw though.   

Would the average person have recognized the trick?  Not until the court revealed the defense expert tests prior to trial and in 1989.  The prosecution was aware of the same thing as the defense though so highlighted it to the court.  Sometimes even when you have equal information you get people too stupid to recognize it (or too lazy to look through it all) so it is worth a try anyway doing stunts like this if you have nothing superior to resort to. 

This is what some people hate about law because they consider some of these tricks and games to be unethical.  It is not easy to explain where the line is to people who are not lawyers and to be honest not even all lawyers can recognize the line some go well beyond and some but no where near all of these get sanctioned.

Only Jeremy could answer why he didn't dispose of the suppressor.  Maybe he thought if it were missing entirely then people would suspect it had been used and disposed of so he thought it better to just leave in the closet and then tell his story how the suppressor was not attached when he left the gun to try to get police to think it need not be tested.

   
 

     
 

[maggie]

Only Jeremy could answer why he didn't dispose of the suppressor.  Maybe he thought if it were missing entirely then people would suspect it had been used and disposed of so he thought it better to just leave in the closet and then tell his story how the suppressor was not attached when he left the gun to try to get police to think it need not be tested.       

Scipio, I could just about accept an outside chance that Jeremy as murderer chose to replace the silencer/moderator back in the cupboard.

I do however find it extremely difficult to accept that he didn't even bother to WIPE it at the very least. What kind of reasoning would inspire him to replace it complete with 'blob of jam' like blood and grey hair?

Surely that is getting close to being beyond the realms of belief?? Imo

[grahameb]

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.

Who's Holly?

[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.
 

What evidence do you have other than your own biased judgment that the majority of people find claims by the Jeremy supporters are ludicrous?

[grahameb]

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.

 

I must remind you of course that that is what JM said that JB told her. There is absolutely nothing to prove that he said that other than your own biased view, because it was allegedly said in private. So in effect JM could say what she liked about him and all it takes is a mind biased towards her to believe it.

[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.
 

On the contrary the guilty side have produced so many ludicrous ways in their own pet scenarios to made Jeremy look guilty. Like riding a bike along the sea wall with a divers suit on etc. The Jeremy supporters don't have to do anything except show the lack of evidence against him. Which is in fact ziltch.

[grahameb]

You are quite right, a vestige of my military career is that I sleep 2-3 hours a day if that.

Jeremy, and more importantly his lawyers, had access to records that demonstrate his own expert removed the last vestiges of blood possible and the 1989 report confirming it where the expert could locate no blood at all. So the fix was in from the outset.  It was in even more though because the relevant issues is testing the blood that the prosecution and defense claimed was group A.
 
Sheila's DNA was in fact found so critics say this proves the group A blood found was hers not someone else's group A blood.  Are they right?  No because such DNA can't have been blood based so got their from something other than the shooting.  This was the built in escape hatch if her DNA was found.  If her DNA was not found then use the argument that this proves the blood found wasn't hers.   It's a lawyer trick simply and one that could be seen through but was worth a try, there was nothing to lose.  The court responded that only testing the blood found to be group A for DNA matters and that this exercise could not prove a thing.  So it saw though.   

Would the average person have recognized the trick?  Not until the court revealed the defense expert tests prior to trial and in 1989.  The prosecution was aware of the same thing as the defense though so highlighted it to the court.  Sometimes even when you have equal information you get people too stupid to recognize it (or too lazy to look through it all) so it is worth a try anyway doing stunts like this if you have nothing superior to resort to. 

This is what some people hate about law because they consider some of these tricks and games to be unethical.  It is not easy to explain where the line is to people who are not lawyers and to be honest not even all lawyers can recognize the line some go well beyond and some but no where near all of these get sanctioned.

Only Jeremy could answer why he didn't dispose of the suppressor.  Maybe he thought if it were missing entirely then people would suspect it had been used and disposed of so he thought it better to just leave in the closet and then tell his story how the suppressor was not attached when he left the gun to try to get police to think it need not be tested.

   
 

     
 

Are we supposed to be impressed with that?

[grahameb]

Scipio, I could just about accept an outside chance that Jeremy as murderer chose to replace the silencer/moderator back in the cupboard.

I do however find it extremely difficult to accept that he didn't even bother to WIPE it at the very least. What kind of reasoning would inspire him to replace it complete with 'blob of jam' like blood and grey hair?

Surely that is getting close to being beyond the realms of belief?? Imo

One word on the silencer Maggie: "WILD".

[maggie]

Are we supposed to be impressed with that?

Apart from anything, it's really bad for your health, it's something which needs correcting imo.