Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on June 04, 2021, 12:31:AM
-
In rather astonishing circumstances, a document has been found, confirming that 'Essex police', and the 'CPS', were made fully aware (October, 1985), that blood found inside the silencer 'could have belonged' to 'Robert Woodwis Boutlour'!
-
In rather astonishing circumstances, a document has been found, confirming that 'Essex police', and the 'CPS', were made fully aware (October, 1985), that blood found inside the silencer 'could have belonged' to 'Robert Woodwis Boutlour'!
What are the astonishing circumstances?
-
Hi Roch..
The rather astonishing circumstances are that in October 1985, that Essex police, and the crown prosecution service, knew full well that the blood based evidence attributed to one silencer (sound moderator) or another could have belonged' to, or originated from 'Robert Woodwis Boutflour'. However, by the time the case came to trial, their case was supported by John Hayward and another expert named Elliot, who deliberately sought to mislead the court, by claiming that they were as sure as they could be that the blood in the sound moderator belonged exclusively to the victim 'Sheila Caffell' with a little mention, that there was a very remote chance, that the blood in question, could have been/was an intimate mixture of Neville and June Bamber(s) blood(excluding any reference to the scientific evidence, that the same blood group results could belong to 'Robert Woodwis Boutflour' (October 1985, findings)!
The jury were given the untrue explanation that either, the blood found in the silencer(s): was 'exclusive to Sheila' with a slight possibility that the blood could be an intimate mixture of the parents blood types! This works out at a 50% chance that the blood group results obtained by means of forensic testing, and analysis, of the blood originating, or belonging to one party (Sheila Caffell) or the other (a mixture of the parents blood)!
The blood experts 'deliberately kept silent', that back in October 1985 (a year before the start of 'Jeremy Bambers' trial, that one or other expert was/had r'eported back to Essex police', that the blood they had found/analysed could have come from 'Robert Woodwis Boutflour' who had the very same blood group types as 'Sheila Caffell'..
The Crown prosecution do not take/make any decision to either prosecute anyone/ anybody unless there is at least a 51% chance of succeeding in getting a conviction! It was a close call, when the CPS decided to mislead the court into accepting that insofar as the blood found inside the sound moderator was/is concerned that 'it equated' to a 50%/ 50% of the blood belonging to, either 'Sheila', or that it might have been an intimate mixture of the parents blood types!
The fact that the experts knew that the blood in that/this sound moderator that 'it could have belonged'/originated' from 'Robert Woodwis Boutflour' was not revealed in court, or to 'Bambers defence', which would have made it less likely that the blood originated exclusively to 'Sheila Caffell', since with 'Robert Woodwis Boutflour'(s) possible contributory factor being taken into account, there was only a 33% chance that the blood could have been, or was exclusive to 'Sheila Caffell' - that is/was a reduction of 17% prospect/chance in the possibility that the blood attributed 'exclusively' to 'Sheila,' being exclusive to her, by anybodies decision!
The defence. The jury. The trial judge. The general public at large - they all needed to be told the absolute bottom line truth, regarding this/that matter!
In my view, 'Jeremy Bambers' convictions will/should be cancelled out/quashed!
-
The fact of the matter, is that this wasn't/isn't just a case of the blood identified in the sound moderator being exclusive to ,'Sheila Caffell', or it being an intimate mixture of both parents blood,(s), there is a strong likelihood that 'Robert Woodwis Boutflour's blood was the blood found and identified inside that (those) sound moderators!
-
That 'bastardo', DCS 'Mick Ainsley' was/is a typical example of all the corrupted, lying, evil, scumbags, running and exercising Police work, in order to get a result that they set out, to prove (a corrupted, organisation)¡
You cannot trust, or believe anything a cop who operated between the mid to the late 1980's to the mid 1990's, because those who were in charge (including the home office, the secretary of state 'had to say', or 'were promoting')!
-
That 'bastardo', DCS 'Mick Ainsley' was/is a typical example of all the corrupted, lying, evil, scumbags, running and exercising Police work, in order to get a result that they set out, to prove (a corrupted, organisation)¡
You cannot trust, or believe anything a cop who operated between the mid to the late 1980's to the mid 1990's, because those who were in charge (including the home office, the secretary of state 'had to say', or 'were promoting')!
I have great.faith in the up to date modern police force - wrongs, will be righted!
-
Convictions, and sentences, will almost certainly be overturned and put right!
-
Here is a snapshot of the all so important document, which refers to 'Robert Woodwis Boutflour(s)' blood sample ('exhibit/clot') being the same as 'Sheila Caffell'(s)..
-
In rather astonishing circumstances, a document has been found, confirming that 'Essex police', and the 'CPS', were made fully aware (October, 1985), that blood found inside the silencer 'could have belonged' to 'Robert Woodwis Boutlour'!
The defence don't strictly need a document that explicitly states that the blood could have belonged to Robert Boutflour. That was already known at trial, as the family all gave blood samples prior to the trial for this very reason, it was known that Robert and Sheila had the same blood group, and the blood was never matched to Sheila - it was only a grouping. Furthermore, the DNA captured later (1990s) was not blood-based.
Given the circumstances in which the silencer was found and passed on, you would think all this is enough for reasonable doubt, but it appears 10 of the trial jury accepted a group match on the basis that:
(i). Robert Boutflour was the only other person with that group match; and,
(ii). while it could have been Robert's blood, they could not believe Robert (or any other relative) would frame Jeremy, which I suppose is the only obvious alternative if you don't accept that Jeremy did it.
I think a family framing is possible because the silencer evidence in regard to the blood and paint seems consistent with it.
Briefly:
1. The blood distribution in the silencer and the absence of blood in the rifle may be consistent with what you would expect if the blood was planted. (Expert opinion needed on this regarding blood spatter physics/forensics, with particular reference to tension dynamics).
2. No blood was found on the floor of the den, or in the back kitchen, or in the back corridor, or in the gun cupboard itself.
3. The silencer that was examined by the FSS for paint traces could not have made the scratches on the underside of the aga mantel while attached to the rifle and pivoted during a struggle. The scratches are more consistent with what you would find if somebody deliberately made the scratches while holding the silencer only.
I believe point 1 could, with expert evidence, prove a framing. You would need an expert report and maybe also somebody to dismantle the silencer and rifle, if they are still kept by Essex Police. Point 2 is indicative but not actual proof because the silencer could have been returned by Jeremy without leaving blood anywhere. It's not very likely, but it is possible due to the latitude in the timeframe that allows for blood to dry at room temperature over maybe an hour or so.
Point 3 is not definitive of a framing because the scratches could have been made by Sheila before the incident or even by Jeremy himself during the incident, but it does help Jeremy.
But would they really frame him? I think technically it is possible, but would they do it?
If Jeremy is innocent, I think it's more likely that the blood grouping was either simply wrong and/or the tests were compromised or contaminated and/or the jury were misdirected.
I need to adhere to my own resolution and stop commenting on the Forum.
-
Hi Roch..
The rather astonishing circumstances are that in October 1985, that Essex police, and the crown prosecution service, knew full well that the blood based evidence attributed to one silencer (sound moderator) or another could have belonged' to, or originated from 'Robert Woodwis Boutflour'. However, by the time the case came to trial, their case was supported by John Hayward and another expert named Elliot, who deliberately sought to mislead the court, by claiming that they were as sure as they could be that the blood in the sound moderator belonged exclusively to the victim 'Sheila Caffell' with a little mention, that there was a very remote chance, that the blood in question, could have been/was an intimate mixture of Neville and June Bamber(s) blood(excluding any reference to the scientific evidence, that the same blood group results could belong to 'Robert Woodwis Boutflour' (October 1985, findings)!
The jury were given the untrue explanation that either, the blood found in the silencer(s): was 'exclusive to Sheila' with a slight possibility that the blood could be an intimate mixture of the parents blood types! This works out at a 50% chance that the blood group results obtained by means of forensic testing, and analysis, of the blood originating, or belonging to one party (Sheila Caffell) or the other (a mixture of the parents blood)!
The blood experts 'deliberately kept silent', that back in October 1985 (a year before the start of 'Jeremy Bambers' trial, that one or other expert was/had r'eported back to Essex police', that the blood they had found/analysed could have come from 'Robert Woodwis Boutflour' who had the very same blood group types as 'Sheila Caffell'..
The Crown prosecution do not take/make any decision to either prosecute anyone/ anybody unless there is at least a 51% chance of succeeding in getting a conviction! It was a close call, when the CPS decided to mislead the court into accepting that insofar as the blood found inside the sound moderator was/is concerned that 'it equated' to a 50%/ 50% of the blood belonging to, either 'Sheila', or that it might have been an intimate mixture of the parents blood types!
The fact that the experts knew that the blood in that/this sound moderator that 'it could have belonged'/originated' from 'Robert Woodwis Boutflour' was not revealed in court, or to 'Bambers defence', which would have made it less likely that the blood originated exclusively to 'Sheila Caffell', since with 'Robert Woodwis Boutflour'(s) possible contributory factor being taken into account, there was only a 33% chance that the blood could have been, or was exclusive to 'Sheila Caffell' - that is/was a reduction of 17% prospect/chance in the possibility that the blood attributed 'exclusively' to 'Sheila,' being exclusive to her, by anybodies decision!
The defence. The jury. The trial judge. The general public at large - they all needed to be told the absolute bottom line truth, regarding this/that matter!
In my view, 'Jeremy Bambers' convictions will/should be cancelled out/quashed!
Mike, thanks for your response. I understand the issue with groupings SC / RWB. I thought you meant that the circumstances of the actual document coming to light were astonishing. BTW, have you seen were it was posted up on here that in one of the blood group / sound moderator sketches, DB's blood group is indicated as being present?
-
I'd read that all the Boutflour's blood contained the AK 1 enzyme. It's one of those genes that passes through the family, yet neither twin had the enzyme coming from Sheila ? I find this odd !
-
The defence don't strictly need a document that explicitly states that the blood could have belonged to Robert Boutflour. That was already known at trial, as the family all gave blood samples prior to the trial for this very reason, it was known that Robert and Sheila had the same blood group, and the blood was never matched to Sheila - it was only a grouping. Furthermore, the DNA captured later (1990s) was not blood-based.
Given the circumstances in which the silencer was found and passed on, you would think all this is enough for reasonable doubt, but it appears 10 of the trial jury accepted a group match on the basis that:
(i). Robert Boutflour was the only other person with that group match; and,
(ii). while it could have been Robert's blood, they could not believe Robert (or any other relative) would frame Jeremy, which I suppose is the only obvious alternative if you don't accept that Jeremy did it.
I think a family framing is possible because the silencer evidence in regard to the blood and paint seems consistent with it.
Briefly:
1. The blood distribution in the silencer and the absence of blood in the rifle may be consistent with what you would expect if the blood was planted. (Expert opinion needed on this regarding blood spatter physics/forensics, with particular reference to tension dynamics).
2. No blood was found on the floor of the den, or in the back kitchen, or in the back corridor, or in the gun cupboard itself.
3. The silencer that was examined by the FSS for paint traces could not have made the scratches on the underside of the aga mantel while attached to the rifle and pivoted during a struggle. The scratches are more consistent with what you would find if somebody deliberately made the scratches while holding the silencer only.
I believe point 1 could, with expert evidence, prove a framing. You would need an expert report and maybe also somebody to dismantle the silencer and rifle, if they are still kept by Essex Police. Point 2 is indicative but not actual proof because the silencer could have been returned by Jeremy without leaving blood anywhere. It's not very likely, but it is possible due to the latitude in the timeframe that allows for blood to dry at room temperature over maybe an hour or so.
Point 3 is not definitive of a framing because the scratches could have been made by Sheila before the incident or even by Jeremy himself during the incident, but it does help Jeremy.
But would they really frame him? I think technically it is possible, but would they do it?
If Jeremy is innocent, I think it's more likely that the blood grouping was either simply wrong and/or the tests were compromised or contaminated and/or the jury were misdirected.
I need to adhere to my own resolution and stop commenting on the Forum.
'1. The blood distribution in the silencer and the absence of blood in the rifle may be consistent with what you would expect if the blood was planted. (Expert opinion needed on this regarding blood spatter physics/forensics, with particular reference to tension dynamics)'
---------
That is a good point. The relatives prior to framing would also need to know whether back spatter would have gone through the silencer & reached the rifle nozzle.
-
The defence don't strictly need a document that explicitly states that the blood could have belonged to Robert Boutflour. That was already known at trial, as the family all gave blood samples prior to the trial for this very reason, it was known that Robert and Sheila had the same blood group, and the blood was never matched to Sheila - it was only a grouping. Furthermore, the DNA captured later (1990s) was not blood-based.
Given the circumstances in which the silencer was found and passed on, you would think all this is enough for reasonable doubt, but it appears 10 of the trial jury accepted a group match on the basis that:
(i). Robert Boutflour was the only other person with that group match; and,
(ii). while it could have been Robert's blood, they could not believe Robert (or any other relative) would frame Jeremy, which I suppose is the only obvious alternative if you don't accept that Jeremy did it.
I think a family framing is possible because the silencer evidence in regard to the blood and paint seems consistent with it.
Briefly:
1. The blood distribution in the silencer and the absence of blood in the rifle may be consistent with what you would expect if the blood was planted. (Expert opinion needed on this regarding blood spatter physics/forensics, with particular reference to tension dynamics).
2. No blood was found on the floor of the den, or in the back kitchen, or in the back corridor, or in the gun cupboard itself.
3. The silencer that was examined by the FSS for paint traces could not have made the scratches on the underside of the aga mantel while attached to the rifle and pivoted during a struggle. The scratches are more consistent with what you would find if somebody deliberately made the scratches while holding the silencer only.
I believe point 1 could, with expert evidence, prove a framing. You would need an expert report and maybe also somebody to dismantle the silencer and rifle, if they are still kept by Essex Police. Point 2 is indicative but not actual proof because the silencer could have been returned by Jeremy without leaving blood anywhere. It's not very likely, but it is possible due to the latitude in the timeframe that allows for blood to dry at room temperature over maybe an hour or so.
Point 3 is not definitive of a framing because the scratches could have been made by Sheila before the incident or even by Jeremy himself during the incident, but it does help Jeremy.
But would they really frame him? I think technically it is possible, but would they do it?
If Jeremy is innocent, I think it's more likely that the blood grouping was either simply wrong and/or the tests were compromised or contaminated and/or the jury were misdirected.
I need to adhere to my own resolution and stop commenting on the Forum.
2. No blood was found on the floor of the den, or in the back kitchen, or in the back corridor, or in the gun cupboard itself.
----------
The small drops of blood inside the silencer are not going to leave the silencer once inside.
-
The defence don't strictly need a document that explicitly states that the blood could have belonged to Robert Boutflour. That was already known at trial, as the family all gave blood samples prior to the trial for this very reason, it was known that Robert and Sheila had the same blood group, and the blood was never matched to Sheila - it was only a grouping. Furthermore, the DNA captured later (1990s) was not blood-based.
Given the circumstances in which the silencer was found and passed on, you would think all this is enough for reasonable doubt, but it appears 10 of the trial jury accepted a group match on the basis that:
(i). Robert Boutflour was the only other person with that group match; and,
(ii). while it could have been Robert's blood, they could not believe Robert (or any other relative) would frame Jeremy, which I suppose is the only obvious alternative if you don't accept that Jeremy did it.
I think a family framing is possible because the silencer evidence in regard to the blood and paint seems consistent with it.
Briefly:
1. The blood distribution in the silencer and the absence of blood in the rifle may be consistent with what you would expect if the blood was planted. (Expert opinion needed on this regarding blood spatter physics/forensics, with particular reference to tension dynamics).
2. No blood was found on the floor of the den, or in the back kitchen, or in the back corridor, or in the gun cupboard itself.
3. The silencer that was examined by the FSS for paint traces could not have made the scratches on the underside of the aga mantel while attached to the rifle and pivoted during a struggle. The scratches are more consistent with what you would find if somebody deliberately made the scratches while holding the silencer only.
I believe point 1 could, with expert evidence, prove a framing. You would need an expert report and maybe also somebody to dismantle the silencer and rifle, if they are still kept by Essex Police. Point 2 is indicative but not actual proof because the silencer could have been returned by Jeremy without leaving blood anywhere. It's not very likely, but it is possible due to the latitude in the timeframe that allows for blood to dry at room temperature over maybe an hour or so.
Point 3 is not definitive of a framing because the scratches could have been made by Sheila before the incident or even by Jeremy himself during the incident, but it does help Jeremy.
But would they really frame him? I think technically it is possible, but would they do it?
If Jeremy is innocent, I think it's more likely that the blood grouping was either simply wrong and/or the tests were compromised or contaminated and/or the jury were misdirected.
I need to adhere to my own resolution and stop commenting on the Forum.
3. The silencer that was examined by the FSS for paint traces could not have made the scratches on the underside of the aga mantel while attached to the rifle and pivoted during a struggle. The scratches are more consistent with what you would find if somebody deliberately made the scratches while holding the silencer only.
----------
How do you know this?
-
3. The silencer that was examined by the FSS for paint traces could not have made the scratches on the underside of the aga mantel while attached to the rifle and pivoted during a struggle. The scratches are more consistent with what you would find if somebody deliberately made the scratches while holding the silencer only.
----------
How do you know this?
I was there, Adam, and I know what Peggy and Pat got up to. I know the truth. I don't know how you can stay loyal to EastEnders after all this!
-
Thank you, everyone, for giving your honest opinions regarding this matter!
As things stand now, I know that the wrong summing up given to the jury regarding what the prosecution's blood expert said whilst testifying on oath, that he was satisfied that the blood discovered in (a) the sound moderator was 'exclusive' to having belonged to 'SheilaCaffell', with only a remote possibility that the blood type results arrived at, when the analysis was completed, could/might be 'an intimate mixture of the parents bloods!
This/that testimony, and the choices by which the trial judge told the jury that they should/could decide who was responsible for all of these murders, could only relate to either, 'Sheila', or 'Jeremy', with no 'third party involvement', whatsoever...
Well, the prosecution's blood expert ('John Hayward') misled the jury who were primarily in charge of either finding in favour of the defendant ('Jeremy Bamber'), or not. With this/that in mind, 'John Hayward' should have included the fact that 'the blood found in (a) the sound moderator, could have on one hand, originated exclusively from 'Robert Woodwis Boutflour', or indeed, even exclusively from 'Sheila Caffell', as well as the possibility that 'the blood could have been an intimate mixture of both parents blood(s)'...
In other words, it was 'impossible to say w, a year prior to the start of the trial?
ith a degree of certainty, who the blood test results belonged to, or originated from!
The other major discrepancy which springs to mind, is that the relatives (including 'Robert Woodwis Boutflour', did not give, or be requested to provide voluntary blood samples, until the 1991 'COLP Investigation'! So with this in mind, what are we not being told, why Essex police had confirmation that 'Robert Woodwis Boutflour' had the same blood groups as 'Sheila Caffell'?.
Based on what we know, because we have documentary proof that the 'city of London police', did not request for blood to be taken until on or after 1991, or thereabouts! So the key question is now, why did Essex police request, or obtain a blood sample from the subject ('Robert Woodwis Boutflour', back in October 1985)?
-
The defence don't strictly need a document that explicitly states that the blood could have belonged to Robert Boutflour. That was already known at trial, as the family all gave blood samples prior to the trial for this very reason, it was known that Robert and Sheila had the same blood group, and the blood was never matched to Sheila - it was only a grouping. Furthermore, the DNA captured later (1990s) was not blood-based.
A distant relative went on record saying that he/she/they thought the Boutflour'/Eaton family members were trying to frame 'Jeremy Bamber' for the murders!
'Robert Woodwis Boutflour' had his blood tested (pre-trial), which coincidences with it being established that both 'Sheila', and 'himself' had 'the same blood group results' ! This was at a time when 'DNA' had not yet come into play in the form of scientific evidence capable of turning the verdict of a jury, one way or another! He also had 'his blood' taken (again) when 'COLP' investigated in the 1990's! On this/that occasion, the blood sample taken from 'Pamela Boutflour', 'Robert Woodwis Boutflour', 'David Boutflour', 'Ann Eaton', and 'Peter Eaton' were taken with the view of 'testing/analysing blood group activity' , and 'DNA' comparison, of the key 'relatives' possible, 'deliberate contamination' of (a) the 'sound moderator' !
The 'DNA' profiling 'test/ results' obtained during the 1990's investigation, cast doubt on any suggestion that 'the blood' (attributed to the original/ earlier findings, was not unique to 'Sheila Caffell', or to anyone else who was being 'DNA' profiled') ! However, it was 'accepted' , that some 'DNA' belonging to 'an unidentified Male person' was found to be present upon some of 'the internalised baffle plates' !
Well, we now know that 'David Boutflour', 'Robert Woodwis Boutflour', 'Peter Eaton', plus Ann Eaton, 'all handled the silencer' , at 'one time' or 'another'(1st time/or/and 2nd time, around). 'How come' , there are 'no Lab' documents/ reports/documentation' concerning 'the 1st lot of blood sample blood group testing/analysis/proven results' only 'the 2nd lot' of blood sample 'DNA' testings after 'the beginning' of 'COLPS' 1990 enquiry?