Author Topic: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?  (Read 14908 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17252
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #60 on: June 23, 2014, 12:07:AM »
dont you ever wonder why they kept her bloodstained clothes instead of throwing them away

or why they took the silencer to bits in the first place.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 12:28:AM by nugnug »

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17252
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #61 on: June 23, 2014, 12:31:AM »
They didn't have wet blood of Sheila's to plant.  Water that had bloody clothes soaking doesn't produce blood to plant in the suppressor.  Even if they somehow obtained a vile of blood they woudl likely simply pour it in or use a dropper neither of which woudl account for the distribution of blood found in the suppressor.  The first 8 baffles had blood land on and dry on those baffles including microscopic drops consistent with high velocity spatter.  Only the lab woudl have the know how to potentially plant blood found in such manner.

are you telling me they knew nothing about blood spatter.

they shot and hunted all the time

i think they would know enough about it to get by.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 12:32:AM by nugnug »

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #62 on: June 23, 2014, 02:37:AM »
are you telling me they knew nothing about blood spatter.

they shot and hunted all the time

i think they would know enough about it to get by.

They would have no idea that they would need to take wet blood and find a way to spray it in to the barrel so it would coat the first several baffles with both visible blood and microscopic drops to simulate drawback nor would they have any idea that drawback would definitely occur from her shots and last they would have no way to know that the lab would be able to figure out it was definitely her blood and not anyone else's.  They had no way to know her blood type at all but if they did know the faily's blood type then they would know June's as well but not have any clue that she had a different adenylate kinase enzyme than June. 

   
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #63 on: June 23, 2014, 10:41:AM »
are you telling me they knew nothing about blood spatter.

they shot and hunted all the time

i think they would know enough about it to get by.
Of course they knew about it. They are all gun experts. Peter Eaton is a gun dealer They were all farmers and well acquainted with firearms. Sciptomaloo knew about it, why shouldn't they? Too much was made of this and I shouldn't have thought the lab would have been bothered with how the blood got in there anyway. They were more concerned with the grouping.
The silencer was a fake. Seems very dodgy to me the first time the family goes to the cupboard and hey presto "This MUST be the silencer". I would still like to know what Ann Eaton's brother meant when he said to her, "I've got something up my sleave".
Since every one of the family knew ways to getting into the house, just as Bamber himself did, then the house was not secure the night before, anyone could have got in and planted the silencer in the cupboard. I think it was a big red herring right from the start. And the family made far too much fuss about it to the police for it to have been genuine.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17252
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #64 on: June 23, 2014, 11:23:PM »
adam talks about droppers like there a hard thing to get hold of.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44433
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #65 on: June 23, 2014, 11:30:PM »
Read post 62.

You do not get an dropper.

How do you recreate the human blood splatter effect into a silencer ? That's right you shoot a human from close range/contact shot.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17252
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #66 on: June 23, 2014, 11:42:PM »
if you know a bit about blood spatter and you would do if your shooting animals all the time its very easy.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #67 on: June 24, 2014, 12:16:AM »
if you know a bit about blood spatter and you would do if your shooting animals all the time its very easy.

What animals let you walk up and hold the gun directly to their skin?  People shooting vermin or even hunting are unlikely to deal with drawback in any significant way.
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #68 on: June 24, 2014, 12:18:AM »
adam talks about droppers like there a hard thing to get hold of.

A dropper would not simulate the blood found.  The blood was sprayed so that tiny droplets landed on the first 8 baffles and more substantial drops also landed on the first 5 or so. 
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17252
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #69 on: June 24, 2014, 12:30:AM »
What animals let you walk up and hold the gun directly to their skin?  People shooting vermin or even hunting are unlikely to deal with drawback in any significant way.

all of them do if youve winged them already and your going to finish them off.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #70 on: June 24, 2014, 12:37:AM »
all of them do if youve winged them already and your going to finish them off.

If you winged them then they run away.  If they are immobilized but still breathing and you want to kill them you don't need to put the gun up against them in the meantime and not many people choose to do so.

In the meantime such doesn't inform one of the need or explain how to use a tool to spray blood inside in a manner to mimick drawback as opposed to jsut using a dropper liek any ordinary person woudl do.  But again a dropper would not account for the blood distribution found.

 
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #71 on: June 24, 2014, 01:16:AM »
Read post 62.

You do not get an dropper.

How do you recreate the human blood splatter effect into a silencer ? That's right you shoot a human from close range/contact shot.
In actual fact the lab only looked at one flake of blood. There is nothing to state that they even examined the silencer for blood spatter.
Also scipio gives the false impression that the relatives were quite ignorant country folk who weren't bright enough to reproduce any kind of blood spatter. Apparently he likes to give the impression that he is the only one in the world who knows about such things. Well believe me the reletives were very knowledgeable about guns. They could probably tell you as much as master scipio can?

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #72 on: June 24, 2014, 02:28:AM »
In actual fact the lab only looked at one flake of blood. There is nothing to state that they even examined the silencer for blood spatter.
Also scipio gives the false impression that the relatives were quite ignorant country folk who weren't bright enough to reproduce any kind of blood spatter. Apparently he likes to give the impression that he is the only one in the world who knows about such things. Well believe me the reletives were very knowledgeable about guns. They could probably tell you as much as master scipio can?

As usual Grahame is clueless. A substantial amount of blood was removed from the suppressor. The lab tested a flake of blood AS WELL as blood taken from the first several baffles.  In addition the defense found microscopic blood on the first 8 baffles. Both the flake as well as the blood on the baffles was exclusive to Sheila's.

"In dealing with this evidence, the defence were limited by the evidence available from their own expert. They called no such evidence at trial but the material that they had obtained pre-trial has been disclosed in the course of this appeal. The defence had instructed Dr Patrick Lincoln, whose expertise in such matters was well known. On 29 April 1986, he visited the forensic science laboratory and examined the relevant material. He carried out tests on all seventeen baffles. The first eight plates all gave weak or very weak positive reactions for blood. There was no blood clearly visible to the naked eye...The other nine plates "did not produce any evidence for the presence of blood".

No questions were asked at trial of Mr Hayward to establish what part of the blood he had tested. The position was, however, known to the defence through their own expert Dr Lincoln. Dr Lincoln had seen the evidential material upon which the group testing results were based and agreed with the conclusions. He recorded that evidence in the course of his report of 19 September 1986. He said that Mr Hayward had "found a flake of blood trapped under the first or second baffle plate" and that it was this flake that was tested and produced the groupings A, EAP BA, AK1, Hp2.1

Dr Lincoln further recorded: "Mr Hayward states that he could detect visible staining on the "upper baffle plates" and that he swabbed these plates so that the blood was taken onto cotton material which could subsequently be used in grouping tests. On this material Mr Hayward successfully determined the ABO and EAP groups and showed the blood to be groups A, EAP BA."

He agreed with Mr Hayward's conclusion that the combination of blood groups revealed in his testing of the inside of the moderator could have come solely from Sheila Caffell but did not come from any one of the other individuals."

That is from the 2002 Appeal.

The blood they were looking at was believed to be back spatter specifically drawback which is back spatter theat goes into the weapon when the weapon is fired less than 2mm from the flesh. 

They found a considerable amount of blood several inches into the suppressor. The blood typed the flake as well as blood obtained from the upper baffles.  There was also microscopic drops that remained to be found by the defense expert even though the prosecution had removed all visible blood.


Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17252
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #73 on: June 24, 2014, 09:47:AM »
Of course they knew about it. They are all gun experts. Peter Eaton is a gun dealer They were all farmers and well acquainted with firearms. Sciptomaloo knew about it, why shouldn't they? Too much was made of this and I shouldn't have thought the lab would have been bothered with how the blood got in there anyway. They were more concerned with the grouping.
The silencer was a fake. Seems very dodgy to me the first time the family goes to the cupboard and hey presto "This MUST be the silencer". I would still like to know what Ann Eaton's brother meant when he said to her, "I've got something up my sleave".
Since every one of the family knew ways to getting into the house, just as Bamber himself did, then the house was not secure the night before, anyone could have got in and planted the silencer in the cupboard. I think it was a big red herring right from the start. And the family made far too much fuss about it to the police for it to have been genuine.

id bet they know more about they know more about the subject than anyone on this forum.

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #74 on: June 24, 2014, 10:05:AM »
Read post 62.

You do not get an dropper.

How do you recreate the human blood splatter effect into a silencer ? That's right you shoot a human from close range/contact shot.
I cannot recall the lab ever recording the pattern of blood spatter. Only that they scraped off a flake from the second baffle? Believe me you can fake anything and I'll tell you another thing magicians have had expert scientists fooled.