The campaign against Jeremy Bamber

[scipio_usmc]

This is one aspect I can't change my mind on - IF it was used by Jeremy, it would be a feared piece of evidence, especially when DNA testing was made available and yet he pushed to have the tests done. So to me, he either KNOWS it wasn't used or he (as Jansus said), isn't guilty.

Your position is flawed though.

If he was innocent and the moderator not used at all then there should have been no blood based DNA found at all on the moderator.  Assuming that was the expectation and if that had been found then what good is it?  All that proves is no blood remains on it that doesn't prove there wasn't blood previously.  Being guilty and using the moderator is a reaosn to want it tested because in that case maybe just maybe there is a chance June and Nevill's blood will be found and you can try saying this means it likely was their blood that had been found by the experts.   

A guilty person would still prefer a DNA test to no DNA test because without the DNA test for sure there is no grounds for appeal but with a DNA test hopefully the results can be spun in some manner to provide a ground to appeal on.

Guilty people routinely ask for DNA tests hoping that DNA will have deteriorated to the point where a match cannot be made.  They also hope other DNA might have somehow found its way on to be used as a diversion.  Since they are already not getting out and can't get more time based on the results they have absolutely nothing at all to lose.

The defense did in fact spin the results but the Court of Appeals didn't fall for it.  That spinning involved pretending that SHeila's DNA wasn't found though unquestionably it was, and insisting that June's DNA proves it was her blood not Sheila's that had been in the moderator.  But as the court polinted out there is no reason at all to think that the DNA was blood based but rather non-bloodbased and could have  resulted from contamination.

The evidence it was not blood based is:

1) in 1986 after the prosecution removed all visible blood the defense found microscopic drops of blood on the first 8 baffles but none beyond that.

2) in 1999 the moderator was tested for the presence of blood but none was detected suggesting the defense had removed the remaining traces of blood that the prosecution missed

3) the test found DNA well beyond the first 8 baffles though blood was never found that far even through testing. So in all likelihood it is not blood based but rather DNA that resulted from contamination. 

All these things combined means there is no way at all the DNA could establish the blood of the DNA donors was inside.  So the defense had a ready made excuse to dismiss the findings anyway if Sheila's DNA were the only DNA found.  But if they could argue her DNA was not found and that someone else's DNA was then they would argue it is blood based and ignore the above.

So Jeremy had nothing at all to lose by having the tests conducted.  Long term prisoners arrested before DNA became commonplace who are guilty request DNA tests as often as people who are innocent.  While cases where people are relased are published those confirmed guilty rarely are mentioned by the press. One of the rare exceptions ot this rule is this recent example that the press actually published:

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article342326/DNA-testing-confirms-guilt-in-1987-sexual-assault-near-the-Plaza.html

So much for your notion a guilty person would not request DNA testing...

[Caroline]

Be that as it may, but I disagree for the reasons mentioned above. 

As do I for the reasons I have mentioned in the past :D

[Caroline]

Your position is flawed though.

If he was innocent and the moderator not used at all then there should have been no blood based DNA found at all on the moderator.  Assuming that was the expectation and if that had been found then what good is it?  All that proves is no blood remains on it that doesn't prove there wasn't blood previously.  Being guilty and using the moderator is a reaosn to want it tested because in that case maybe just maybe there is a chance June and Nevill's blood will be found and you can try saying this means it likely was their blood that had been found by the experts.   

A guilty person would still prefer a DNA test to no DNA test because without the DNA test for sure there is no grounds for appeal but with a DNA test hopefully the results can be spun in some manner to provide a ground to appeal on.

Guilty people routinely ask for DNA tests hoping that DNA will have deteriorated to the point where a match cannot be made.  They also hope other DNA might have somehow found its way on to be used as a diversion.  Since they are already not getting out and can't get more time based on the results they have absolutely nothing at all to lose.

The defense did in fact spin the results but the Court of Appeals didn't fall for it.  That spinning involved pretending that SHeila's DNA wasn't found though unquestionably it was, and insisting that June's DNA proves it was her blood not Sheila's that had been in the moderator.  But as the court polinted out there is no reason at all to think that the DNA was blood based but rather non-bloodbased and could have  resulted from contamination.

The evidence it was not blood based is:

1) in 1986 after the prosecution removed all visible blood the defense found microscopic drops of blood on the first 8 baffles but none beyond that.

2) in 1999 the moderator was tested for the presence of blood but none was detected suggesting the defense had removed the remaining traces of blood that the prosecution missed

3) the test found DNA well beyond the first 8 baffles though blood was never found that far even through testing. So in all likelihood it is not blood based but rather DNA that resulted from contamination. 

All these things combined means there is no way at all the DNA could establish the blood of the DNA donors was inside.  So the defense had a ready made excuse to dismiss the findings anyway if Sheila's DNA were the only DNA found.  But if they could argue her DNA was not found and that someone else's DNA was then they would argue it is blood based and ignore the above.

So Jeremy had nothing at all to lose by having the tests conducted.  Long term prisoners arrested before DNA became commonplace who are guilty request DNA tests as often as people who are innocent.  While cases where people are relased are published those confirmed guilty rarely are mentioned by the press. One of the rare exceptions ot this rule is this recent example that the press actually published:

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article342326/DNA-testing-confirms-guilt-in-1987-sexual-assault-near-the-Plaza.html

So much for your notion a guilty person would not request DNA testing...

I have told you what I think on this score and you won't shift me.

[scipio_usmc]

I have told you what I think on this score and you won't shift me.

I don't care if you want to believe something ill advised. Saying nothign can change your mind simply confirms your opinion is no tevidence based but simply somethign you schoose to beleive regardless of facts and evidence.  My goal is to simply demonstrate your position has no rational basis in fact and thus should be discounted by others.  Your position rests upon the notion that someone who used a moderator would not want it to be DNA tested and I demonstrated why such claim has no validity at all. 

Much like your suggestion police siphoned blood from the samples Vanezis provided before being sent to the lab does not have any evidentiary support.

The blood was housed at the police station evidence room for about 15 hours between August 7-8 and then transported to HQ.  It was then conveyed to the lab and arrived at the lab on Augst 9.  So that provides a very short window for police to have decided Jeremy was guilty and that they should take blood and save it to plant at some later date if they could find a suitable place to plant it.  The whole idea of taking blood to use for a later date makes no sense though. 

In the meantime though there is no evidence that such blood was tampered with.  Each sample had 2 different seals.  The lab found no evidence of the seals having been compromised or any missing blood.  COLP was takes with investigating the allegations of blood being planted and found no evidence of any kind.   

Worse yet, once police because aware of the moderator they considered the vlaue to be in the form of potential fingerprints. The moderator arrived at the lab 8/13/85 and yet by 8/14/85 the lab had already determined the moderator had human blood in it and notified police of the findings.  What was the police reaction to this?  They still only cared about fingerprinting it they didn't recognize the blood would help prove Sheila did not kill herself.  The lab came up with that through the firearms and biological experts coordinating their efforts. 

If you still choose to stick with theories that you have no evientiary basis for that's your business but your theories have no valid basis and thus are of no consequence.

[Roch]

If you still choose to stick with theories that you have no evidentiary basis for.. that's your business but your theories have no valid basis and thus are of no consequence.

Well I think that's Caroline well and truly told.  Perhaps you should have told her to empty her desk by close of day?

[guest154]

Caroline, are you any closer to posting the topic we're all waiting for?

[susan]

Roch and not to forget her pot plant.

[Caroline]

Caroline, are you any closer to posting the topic we're all waiting for?

Depends what you're waiting for Mat?

[guest154]

Depends what you're waiting for Mat?

I thought I'd seen you twice say you'd post a topic with your reasons for guilt - I thought you had said you would post it a few days ago - either that or I've been seeing things. 

[Caroline]

I don't care if you want to believe something ill advised. Saying nothign can change your mind simply confirms your opinion is no tevidence based but simply somethign you schoose to beleive regardless of facts and evidence.  My goal is to simply demonstrate your position has no rational basis in fact and thus should be discounted by others.  Your position rests upon the notion that someone who used a moderator would not want it to be DNA tested and I demonstrated why such claim has no validity at all. 

Much like your suggestion police siphoned blood from the samples Vanezis provided before being sent to the lab does not have any evidentiary support.

The blood was housed at the police station evidence room for about 15 hours between August 7-8 and then transported to HQ.  It was then conveyed to the lab and arrived at the lab on Augst 9.  So that provides a very short window for police to have decided Jeremy was guilty and that they should take blood and save it to plant at some later date if they could find a suitable place to plant it.  The whole idea of taking blood to use for a later date makes no sense though. 

In the meantime though there is no evidence that such blood was tampered with.  Each sample had 2 different seals.  The lab found no evidence of the seals having been compromised or any missing blood.  COLP was takes with investigating the allegations of blood being planted and found no evidence of any kind.   

Worse yet, once police because aware of the moderator they considered the vlaue to be in the form of potential fingerprints. The moderator arrived at the lab 8/13/85 and yet by 8/14/85 the lab had already determined the moderator had human blood in it and notified police of the findings.  What was the police reaction to this?  They still only cared about fingerprinting it they didn't recognize the blood would help prove Sheila did not kill herself.  The lab came up with that through the firearms and biological experts coordinating their efforts. 

If you still choose to stick with theories that you have no evientiary basis for that's your business but your theories have no valid basis and thus are of no consequence.

And I don't care if you care! It's only in your opinion it's ill advised and I doubt I'll lose sleep over that 

[Alias]

I thought I'd seen you twice say you'd post a topic with your reasons for guilt - I thought you had said you would post it a few days ago - either that or I've been seeing things. 

Mat, look at The Last Trailer thread.

[guest154]

Mat, look at The Last Trailer thread.

Oh, I saw that. But I thought there would be more reasons that that. I thought a topic was forthcoming with all reasons?

[Caroline]

I thought I'd seen you twice say you'd post a topic with your reasons for guilt - I thought you had said you would post it a few days ago - either that or I've been seeing things. 

I've already said why I think he may be guilty. If you mean you're waiting for me to reply to Scipio's essay, I won't be doing that - he believes one thing, I believe another but we share some opinions on other things. There was a whole thread dedicated to why I believe he may be guilty which included the wallet incident and he evasiveness. Didn't you read it? I sure you commented on it? I'm still not sure either way but I do lean towards guilty.

[guest154]

I've already said why I think he may be guilty. If you mean you're waiting for me to reply to Scipio's essay, I won't be doing that - he believes one thing, I believe another but we share some opinions on other things. There was a whole thread dedicated to why I believe he may be guilty which included the wallet incident and he evasiveness. Didn't you read it? I sure you commented on it? I'm still not sure either way but I do lean towards guilty.

No I don't mean replying to Scipio at all. I read the thread about the wallet and the tractor - I just thought you'd said you were posting a topic with all your reasons. Must have imagined it sorry. 

[Caroline]

No I don't mean replying to Scipio at all. I read the thread about the wallet and the tractor - I just thought you'd said you were posting a topic with all your reasons. Must have imagined it sorry. 

I did, but as I've already mentioned them, what's the point? Most people know if they were interested enough. However, once you have doubts, you begin to look at things in a different way. The only thing that doesn't seem to fit, is the silencer.