Human blood in the silencer:

[David1819]

Jeremy going on lots of jolly ups after the funeral is what inheritance killers do. Perhaps not straight away like Jeremy did.

They decided Sheila didn't do it from looking at the evidence,  so there was only suspect. Although Jeremy later said Neville may have said 'she' to him !

How do you know what he done afterwards all you hear is rumour.

What evidence Adam? Jeremy breaking Into a caravan site and having jolly ups?

[lookout]

 It's not unusual for any 24 year old to do that,Adam. What's your problem ?

[Jan]

How do you know what he done afterwards all you hear is rumour.

What evidence Adam? Jeremy breaking Into a caravan site and having jolly ups?

please don't start him on that He gets all his dates wrong and elaborates  in his mind exactly what was happening.

[scipio_usmc]

http://www.forensic-science.co.uk/bamber5.html

The DNA was not blood based as Mark Webster testified.

How could DNA have got in the silencer?

Silencers are designed to be taken apart, they must be cleaned to remove soot, The youtube link below demonstrates

http://youtu.be/C9UwBsynZ3M?t=21s

1. Neville could have taken it apart to clean it at some stage

2. The boultflours took the silencer apart themselves.  The day they collected blood stained clothing from WHF I might add.

No matter how many times corrected you still keep making the same errors demonstrating you either have no idea what you are talking about or are intentionally distorting and don't care about the truth.

Anytime someone discusses the human blood that was DEFINITELY blood and was DEFINITELY removed from the moderator by the lab in 1985 and the defense expert in 1986 you  cite the DNA test in 2000 for the BS proposition that what was removed in 1985 and 1986 was not blood. 

The DNA tests done in 2000 have no ability at all to disprove blood was removed in 1985 and 1986.  They are not relevant at all to the issue at hand.

As for blood stained clothing there is no way to take dried blood stains, turn the stains into wet blood and then to transfer wet blood to something else. 

[David1819]

please don't start him on that He gets all his dates wrong and elaborates  in his mind exactly what was happening.

In other words doing a Scippy 

[Alias]

It's not unusual for any 24 year old to do that,Adam. What's your problem ?

That he didn´t have any when he was young back in the day? 

[Alias]

No matter how many times corrected you still keep making the same errors demonstrating you either have no idea what you are talking about or are intentionally distorting and don't care about the truth.

Anytime someone discusses the human blood that was DEFINITELY blood and was DEFINITELY removed from the moderator by the lab in 1985 and the defense expert in 1986 you  cite the DNA test in 2000 for the BS proposition that what was removed in 1985 and 1986 was not blood. 

The DNA tests done in 2000 have no ability at all to disprove blood was removed in 1985 and 1986.  They are not relevant at all to the issue at hand.

As for blood stained clothing there is no way to take dried blood stains, turn the stains into wet blood and then to transfer wet blood to something else.

What are you talking about?

[David1819]

No matter how many times corrected you still keep making the same errors demonstrating you either have no idea what you are talking about or are intentionally distorting and don't care about the truth.

Anytime someone discusses the human blood that was DEFINITELY blood and was DEFINITELY removed from the moderator by the lab in 1985 and the defense expert in 1986 you  cite the DNA test in 2000 for the BS proposition that what was removed in 1985 and 1986 was not blood. 

The DNA tests done in 2000 have no ability at all to disprove blood was removed in 1985 and 1986.  They are not relevant at all to the issue at hand.

As for blood stained clothing there is no way to take dried blood stains, turn the stains into wet blood and then to transfer wet blood to something else.

The prosecution could not prove it was blood all they could establish it was the enzyme AK1. If the silencer was drenched in back splatter from baffles 1 to 8 as you claim there would still be an abundance of traces of blood for the 1999 DNA test to pick up. More importantly the Appeal court agreed it was not Shelia rather June or Neviles DNA plus an unknown males DNA.

Why can't you ever consider the possibility that Jeremy could have committed the crime without the silencer?

The Truth is only Jeremy Knows I am not distorting anything

[Mr. Gee]

The prosecution could not prove it was blood all they could establish it was the enzyme AK1. If the silencer was drenched in back splatter from baffles 1 to 8 as you claim there would still be an abundance of traces of blood for the 1999 DNA test to pick up. More importantly the Appeal court agreed it was not Shelia rather June or Neviles DNA plus an unknown males DNA.

Why can't you ever consider the possibility that Jeremy could have committed the crime without the silencer?

The Truth is only Jeremy Knows I am not distorting anything

They never tested the silencer to see if it were possible that so called back spatter would have occurred. I doubt very much if blood would have entered the silencer naturally? It would rather have spattered outwardly. Come to think of it none here who insist that back spatter would have taken place have ever had the confidence to test it even today in order to back up their theory.

[scipio_usmc]

So I have found documents that say the tests were done on one single flake of blood . That is all

So as we are all so unbiased - lets consider JB is innocent

What could have happened

1) There was no test to establish it was back splatter - documented
2) There was one single flake - tested - documented
3) It could have been contaminated by the family
4) it could have been contaminated at the lab
5) it was never human blood.
6) the blood flake was not tested correctly.
7)the tests were misinterpreted
the tests were done after a firing of the rifle and the blood was pushed into the silencer whilst in the lab


Let me make it clear I am not saying any of the above did happen - but keep this in mind because in the future this may have to be explained if it is proven that JB is innocent

I am being objective and rational while you are not.

There is no such thing as a test to determine if a single drop of blood is drawback.  Such has to be evaluated based on the TOTALITY of the circumstances:

A) was there a contact wound that would result in drawback
B) was it found more than 5mm deep but not deeper int he weapon than drawback could account for
C) was there other blood in there and how was it distributed.

You want to ignore the other blood removed by the prosecution and defense that was human group A blood because the only way such blood could have gotten in the moderator was drawback and it thus goes against what you want to contend. The volume of blood on each successive baffle decreasing is what would result from blood being sprayed inside.

There is no way the family could have innocently deposited blood on the first 8 baffles with it reducing as it gets deeper inside.  There is no way to take blood from a dried stain and to transfer a flake into the moderator period let alone to do so by an innocent accident.

If blood is wet in a barrel then firing the gun can result in some being removed though not all would be removed.  When blood dries the grooves of a barrel shooting the gun alone will not extricate it all from the grooves let alone will the bullet propel it out.

The only way for blood to have been planted would be by someone who knows all about drawback and how to mimmick it including finding a device to spray blood inside so that it deposited on the first 8 baffles and did so in a manner that the volume on each successive baffle decreased.  The only people with such expertise were in the lab and only they had access to Sheila's blood type.  The family didn't know her blood type nor did police initially.

That is why the defense was unable to make ANY arguments to the courts OTHER than to suggest that the blood inside was Nevill and June's blood that got there from drawback.

 

[Jan]

As for blood stained clothing there is no way to take dried blood stains, turn the stains into wet blood and then to transfer wet blood to something else. 


but as you say it was dry blood - and there was apparently one small flake in the end of the moderator and there were no tests to show it was back splatter - so it did not have to be made wet - it could just be a planted flake of blood by anyone who knew how to take the moderator apart.

again - not saying that happened - but it is POSSIBLE.

[scipio_usmc]

Claims of the public handling evidence only help when the evidence is of a type that can result from contamination.  If it is simple DNA evidence that can be transferred it is one thing.  We are talking about evidence that merely establishes someone was murdered as opposed to killing herself.  That alone doesn't establish who killed her.  The blood in the moderator could not have gotten there from innocent contamination so the whole argument that the public contaminated it doesn't work.  Planting it would require far too much knowledge and effort than the family was capable of including them not having access to remove her blood from the rifle.  The effort required to plant the evidence is substantial and requires proof, just an allegation it happened means nothing.

The evidence that Sheila was murdered is just half the puzzle the other half is who did commit the murders and that case was made by Jeremy himself and Julie.

Sorry Scipio. I have to pull you up one one point you make. Someone on the television has just said that by age 8 he could name and strip down 12 different guns. Peter Eton, to the best of my knowledge was a gun dealer.

What you posted has no relevance to the argument I made.

Even if true that by age 8 someone TAUGHT him how to disassemble 12 different guns that can't enable a DNA test of the moderator to be able to disprove the blood removed from the moderator was Sheila's.  The ONLY way a DNA test could disprove the blood was Sheila's would be if that blood that were removed had already been DNA tested or remained available for DNA testing and then DNA testing were done on it.

If the argument instead were over whether Eaton would know about drawback your points would still fail.  Gun dealers don't have any special expertise regarding drawback.  Nor does the fact a kid can be taught how to field strip guns somehow equate to drawback- an unrelated issue to field stripping guns- equate to drawback being common knowledge.

IN order to plant evidence to make it look like drawback one needs to:

1) know there is a contact wound that would have resulted in drawback
2) have a source of wet blood that is of the same type as the person you want to plant the blood of so you need to know the person's blood type and find a source of such blood or have the exact person's wet blood already
3) know drawback is sprayed and thus find something to spray it inside so that it coated the first 8 baffles with the volume decreasing the deeper it gets inside 
4) to know there is blood in the rifle itself which has to be removed and doing that then concealing such was done.

None of this relates to being a gun dealer or being taught how to field strip a weapon.  Nor does it directly relate to the issues I spoke to above which is that the only way for any DNA testing to prove the blood that was removed wasn't Sheila's is to DNA test the blood in question and since whatever was not destroyed by the 1985/86 testing wasn't retained by either the defense lab or the prosecution lab there is nothing to test.

[Alias]

As for blood stained clothing there is no way to take dried blood stains, turn the stains into wet blood and then to transfer wet blood to something else. 


but as you say it was dry blood - and there was apparently one small flake in the end of the moderator and there were no tests to show it was back splatter - so it did not have to be made wet - it could just be a planted flake of blood by anyone who knew how to take the moderator apart.

again - not saying that happened - but it is POSSIBLE.

Wonder what happened to that flake of blood DB scraped off the silencer.

[David1819]

Wonder what happened to that flake of blood DB scraped off the silencer.

More importantly how could he have known it was Blood?

[Alias]

More importantly how could he have known it was Blood?

He could have had experience with animal blood on a silencer - that is not impossible.
Says I who knows nothing about guns!!