Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Patti on November 26, 2012, 12:43:PM
-
DNA is unique. Your DNA is like a fingerprint but better... If you took 6 lottery numbers and the winning combination is 23, 27, 32, 40, 43, 50 many people will have two three or four numbers only a limited number of one or two might have the 6 numbers, this making it unique to those that have the lottery numbers
If you only had 5 numbers then this is not unique to you.
The LCN DNA test is less reliable that of the SGM test.
If you compare the test results done in the Madeleine M case her markers were set at 19/20 this was one short of it being unique to her.
If you take Shelia's result at 17/20 then this is less likely to be unique with her. However, it does not rule out that there was a mixture of DNA in the silencer. What is does confirm is that the DNA was not unique to Shelia. If this is the case and, based on this evidence alone then the evidence that was submitted in court in 1996 falls....because the jury that asked questions about Shelia's blood being on the silencer were told that it belonged to Sheila.
The outcome of the LCN DNA should therefore be deemed inconclusive like in the MM case. :) :) :)
-
DNA is unique. Your DNA is like a fingerprint but better... If you took 6 lottery numbers and the winning combination is 23, 27, 32, 40, 43, 50 many people will have two three or four numbers only a limited number of one or two might have the 6 numbers, this making it unique to those that have the lottery numbers
If you only had 5 numbers then this is not unique to you.
The LCN DNA test is less reliable that of the SGM test.
If you compare the test results done in the Madeleine M case her markers were set at 19/20 this was one short of it being unique to her.
If you take Shelia's result at 17/20 then this is less likely to be unique with her. However, it does not rule out that there was a mixture of DNA in the silencer. What is does confirm is that the DNA was not unique to Shelia. If this is the case and, based on this evidence alone then the evidence that was submitted in court in 1996 falls....because the jury that asked questions about Shelia's blood being on the silencer were told that it belonged to Sheila.
The outcome of the LCN DNA should therefore be deemed inconclusive like in the MM case. :) :) :)
DNA testing was not available in 1986 (is that what you meant when you said 1996?). DNA evidence was presented in the 2002 appeal, and it was deemed inconclusive, as you suggest it should have been.
-
I was thinking out loud Bridget and what happened to my call....More fridge work? lol ;)
-
I was thinking out loud Bridget and what happened to my call....More fridge work? lol ;)
Aww you said you were sick and I didn't want to bother you :)
-
DNA is unique. Your DNA is like a fingerprint but better... If you took 6 lottery numbers and the winning combination is 23, 27, 32, 40, 43, 50 many people will have two three or four numbers only a limited number of one or two might have the 6 numbers, this making it unique to those that have the lottery numbers
If you only had 5 numbers then this is not unique to you.
The LCN DNA test is less reliable that of the SGM test.
If you compare the test results done in the Madeleine M case her markers were set at 19/20 this was one short of it being unique to her.
If you take Shelia's result at 17/20 then this is less likely to be unique with her. However, it does not rule out that there was a mixture of DNA in the silencer. What is does confirm is that the DNA was not unique to Shelia. If this is the case and, based on this evidence alone then the evidence that was submitted in court in 1996 falls....because the jury that asked questions about Shelia's blood being on the silencer were told that it belonged to Sheila.
The outcome of the LCN DNA should therefore be deemed inconclusive like in the MM case. :) :) :)
Hello Patti
As far as I'm aware the outcome of the LCN DNA has been confirmed by all concerned as inadmissable as evidence as a % cannot be applied to the 17/20 rendering it meanginless.
Chapters 44 and 45 of Roger Wilkes' book provide an excellent explanation re the blood/silencer. I will endeavour to re-read them in the next few days and provide a summary explanation. According to the book the blood might not have been exclusive to Sheila but a combination of June and Nevill's as previously discussed on the forum. However, assuming Jeremy is innocent, which is what I believe, I can't get my head round how the silencer was used and then replaced back in the gun cupboard before Sheila took her own life. Bearing in mind that the silencer was said to be tucked away neatly at the back of the cupboard. That to me is too far fetched. I personally do not think the silencer was used period as per the recent submissions to the ccrc. Still begs the questions of what the substance was in the silencer and how did it get there? :-\
I found this interesting too:
"The Home Office forensic science laboratory at Huntingdon was opened two years before the Bamber case in May 1983 by the then Home Secreatary, William Whitelaw. The new laboratory cost £4million and was built to serve ten police forces in the east of England, from East Anglia to Leicester, Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire. When it opened, it employed nearly seventy experts in all brances of forensic science, including biology, chemistry, toxicology, blood sereology and the examination of firearms. In theory, the service provided at Huntingdon is equally available to prosecution and defence teams in a criminal case. But in practice, because of the structural and informal links with the police, the service at Huntingdon (as at the five other regional Home Office laboratories) is identified almost exclusively with the prosecution. Defence lawyers trying to gain access to laboratory resources often find themselves thwarted at every turn. Even obtaining samples for independent testing can be very difficult." :o >:(
-
Hello Patti
As far as I'm aware the outcome of the LCN DNA has been confirmed by all concerned as inadmissable as evidence as a % cannot be applied to the 17/20 rendering it meanginless.
Chapters 44 and 45 of Roger Wilkes' book provide an excellent explanation re the blood/silencer. I will endeavour to re-read them in the next few days and provide a summary explanation. According to the book the blood might not have been exclusive to Sheila but a combination of June and Nevill's as previously discussed on the forum. However, assuming Jeremy is innocent, which is what I believe, I can't get my head round how the silencer was used and then replaced back in the gun cupboard before Sheila took her own life. Bearing in mind that the silencer was said to be tucked away neatly at the back of the cupboard. That to me is too far fetched. I personally do not think the silencer was used period as per the recent submissions to the ccrc. Still begs the questions of what the substance was in the silencer and how did it get there? :-\
I found this interesting too:
"The Home Office forensic science laboratory at Huntingdon was opened two years before the Bamber case in May 1983 by the then Home Secreatary, William Whitelaw. The new laboratory cost £4million and was built to serve ten police forces in the east of England, from East Anglia to Leicester, Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire. When it opened, it employed nearly seventy experts in all brances of forensic science, including biology, chemistry, toxicology, blood sereology and the examination of firearms. In theory, the service provided at Huntingdon is equally available to prosecution and defence teams in a criminal case. But in practice, because of the structural and informal links with the police, the service at Huntingdon (as at the five other regional Home Office laboratories) is identified almost exclusively with the prosecution. Defence lawyers trying to gain access to laboratory resources often find themselves thwarted at every turn. Even obtaining samples for independent testing can be very difficult." :o >:(
Hi Naughty Nun, can I call you naughty rather than Naughty Nun. :)
Yes you are correct, but some people still claim that SC's blood was in the moderator. The test were conclusive enough to say that there wasn't her DNA in the silencer, but a mixture of blood.
Later tests to me are irrelevant because there is grounds for contamination. In my opinion the DNA test can be argued upon; purely on the grounds that the rifle had the moderator attached to it after the crime and was test fired, this causes the DNA of JB to fall.....A jury of today again in my opinion would not convict on this evidence at all.....
I must get Roger's book..... :) :) :) :)
-
Hi Naughty Nun, can I call you naughty rather than Naughty Nun. :)
Yes you are correct, but some people still claim that SC's blood was in the moderator. The test were conclusive enough to say that there wasn't her DNA in the silencer, but a mixture of blood.
Later tests to me are irrelevant because there is grounds for contamination. In my opinion the DNA test can be argued upon; purely on the grounds that the rifle had the moderator attached to it after the crime and was test fired, this causes the DNA of JB to fall.....A jury of today again in my opinion would not convict on this evidence at all.....
I must get Roger's book..... :) :) :) :)
Blood of Sheila's type, or a more remote possibility, a combination of June and Neville's blood, was found in the silencer. They couldn't test DNA in 1986 and no test since has been held as conclusive either way for Sheila's DNA, for the reasons both you and NN have given (% and potential for contamination).
-
Blood of Sheila's type, or a more remote possibility, a combination of June and Neville's blood, was found in the silencer. They couldn't test DNA in 1986 and no test since has been held as conclusive either way for Sheila's DNA, for the reasons both you and NN have given (% and potential for contamination).
Morning Bridget
Thank you for that.... ;) ;) ;)
-
Hi Naughty Nun, can I call you naughty rather than Naughty Nun. :)
Yes you are correct, but some people still claim that SC's blood was in the moderator. The test were conclusive enough to say that there wasn't her DNA in the silencer, but a mixture of blood.
Later tests to me are irrelevant because there is grounds for contamination. In my opinion the DNA test can be argued upon; purely on the grounds that the rifle had the moderator attached to it after the crime and was test fired, this causes the DNA of JB to fall.....A jury of today again in my opinion would not convict on this evidence at all.....
I must get Roger's book..... :) :) :) :)
Hello Patti
Sure 'Naughty' is fine. But I would prefer 'NN' as 'Naughty' may become a self-fulfilling prophecy ;) .
According to Wilkes the judge misled the jury regarding the blood evidence. But as I said I will go through the relevant chapters and explain as best I can.
-
Hello Patti
Sure 'Naughty' is fine. But I would prefer 'NN' as 'Naughty' may become a self-fulfilling prophecy ;) .
According to Wilkes the judge misled the jury regarding the blood evidence. But as I said I will go through the relevant chapters and explain as best I can.
OK NN :)
But is this book factual? I would hate to think I had based my evidence on a book. But, I would like to hear what he says.... :) :) :)
-
Hello Patti
Lol my friend I'm a bloody nun not a scientist ;D. It sounds the business with input from various top players. It's complex but written in such a way, along with diagrams and tables, that the layperson can make some sense of it. I will need to spend some time re-reading it to summarise it before posting. You and your friend Bridget can then let me know what you think :).
-
OK NN :)
But is this book factual? I would hate to think I had based my evidence on a book. But, I would like to hear what he says.... :) :) :)
Patti and NN (actually, I thought NaNu worked quite well) Hi and good morning. I think our Steve looks on RW's book as the bible. Forgive my Sister, I meant no offence :) :)
-
I think it was available in 1986 but only just because it was used to catch Colin Pitchfork, he was arrested in 1987 and a paper written on DNA profiling techniques was issued in 1985.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Pitchfork
-
Blood of Sheila's type, or a more remote possibility, a combination of June and Neville's blood, was found in the silencer. They couldn't test DNA in 1986 and no test since has been held as conclusive either way for Sheila's DNA, for the reasons both you and NN have given (% and potential for contamination).
In the 2002 appeal document (regards blood in the silencer) there are no firm conclusions made in regard to June and Neville's blood being present in the silencer and it still all seems very inconclusive.
"508. In our judgment having reviewed the whole of the evidence about the blood, there is nothing to suggest that the evidence of Mr Hayward in this regard is wrong. The evidence did point to the blood being that of Sheila Caffell but he was right to acknowledge the remote possibility that there was a mixture of blood from June Bamber and Nevill Bamber"
-
Thanks for that Joanne. Having read it if could only determine the blood group of the person....More advanced today. But, I did not know that DNA fingerprinting was available then....
I had to paste this bit...
On 14 May 2009, after an initial adjournment on 30 April 2009, Pitchfork’s legal appeal was heard at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. He won a two-year reduction in his original sentence of a minimum 30 years' imprisonment. As a consequence, Pitchfork will now be eligible for release in 2016. The Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge stated, however, that "he cannot be released unless and until the safety of the public is assured." The court heard that Pitchfork is now educated to degree level and had become expert at the transcription of printed music into Braille, hoping one day to be able to help the blind. This evidence was presented by his legal representatives as evidence of the development of his character while incarcerated.
In April 2009, a sculpture that Pitchfork had produced in prison was exhibited at the Royal Festival Hall. Following outrage in The Daily Mail, it was removed from display.[4][5]
-
Patti and NN (actually, I thought NaNu worked quite well) Hi and good morning. I think our Steve looks on RW's book as the bible. Forgive my Sister, I meant no offence :) :)
Hello April1
Yes NaNu is cool. Naughty Nun is a bit of typeful so either NaNu or NN is fine.
I have recently read Roger Wilkes and Colin Caffell's book and find Steve_uk's posts so prone to embellishment that I no longer think he believes what he posts. Think he enjoys playing devil's advocate ;).
-
Hello Patti
Lol my friend I'm a bloody nun not a scientist ;D. It sounds the business with input from various top players. It's complex but written in such a way, along with diagrams and tables, that the layperson can make some sense of it. I will need to spend some time re-reading it to summarise it before posting. You and your friend Bridget can then let me know what you think :).
Really? Which convent do you belong to? More to the point who let you out....hahahahahahahaha :) :) :)
We will....wont we Bridget???????? :) :) :)
-
Hello April1
Yes NaNu is cool. Naughty Nun is a bit of typeful so either NaNu or NN is fine.
I have recently read Roger Wilkes and Colin Caffell's book and find Steve_uk's posts so prone to embellishment that I no longer think he believes what he posts. Think he enjoys playing devil's advocate ;).
Hi NN, I have read both books recently too and have to admit I was not particularly impressed by either... Roger Wilkes' book says a lot without backing much up, if that makes sense. The Colin Caffell book I found very moving but I almost found it a bit ... fanciful may be the right word. I think it is important to question everything, and neither book helped me to back up my mind about this case.
-
Hi NN, I have read both books recently too and have to admit I was not particularly impressed by either... Roger Wilkes' book says a lot without backing much up, if that makes sense. The Colin Caffell book I found very moving but I almost found it a bit ... fanciful may be the right word. I think it is important to question everything, and neither book helped me to back up my mind about this case.
Hello Boo
Yes I agree with the above. Neither book comes close to providing any firm evidence but I picked up some useful bits and pieces. Certainly chapters 42 - 45 of Wilkes' book helped my understanding of the silencer/blood aspects of the case. Anyway going off the title of the thread so I might start a couple on the individual books. I would say though having read the books they only served to futher reinforce my belief in Jeremy's innocence.