Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on February 15, 2015, 12:19:PM
-
I trust that in 1985, technology was advanced enough for scientists to determine between human and animal blood.
DNA was to become common later in the decade so surely it was easy enough to make this distinction in 1985. Experts at court were even able to state whose blood it was - Sheila's, with a remote possibilities of it being a mixture of Neville's & June's, which the 'Campaign for Freedom' team has disputed.
It was a new rifle, and doubtful anyone would be able to give a rabbit a contact shot. Jeremy said he went outside to shoot them without the silencer on, but they had all gone.
Regardless of whose blood it was, how did the silencer end up with gun shot human blood back splatter ?
Did someone give themselves a contact shot accidentally prior to the massacre, creating the blood splatter effect ? A bit careless and I thought the gun was too long to shoot yourself.
Or did Ann Eaton give Robert Boutflour a contact shot prior to giving the silencer to the police. Taking a huge and optimistic risk that someone else's blood will convict Jeremy. But then how did experts say the blood was Sheila's or Neville/June's ?
Perhaps Sheila shot everyone else with the silencer on. Then put it away in a box and underneath other boxes, dartboards and other guns. That would also mean she put the silencer on the rifle beforehand, as the rifle was left in the kitchen without it attached. The judge said this action 'would be hard to fathom'.
Jeremy also testified Sheila had 'limited' experience with guns. So she may not have been able to put the silencer on. Anyway wasn't she in too much of a 'crazy' rage to be fiddling around with silencers ? And where was Neville while Sheila was rummaging around the gun cupboard ?
Perhaps the police or lab technicians deliberately contaminated the silencer. There is no proof this happened, Jeremy has not claimed this, preferring to accuse the relatives.
Jeremy has always optimistically claimed it was not Sheila's blood in the silencer. But if it is human blood at all, and there is no proof of deliberate contamination, then surely the silencer was used on the massacre night. This again highlights Jeremy's guilt.
-
Doesn't it stand to sense and reason that while Sheila was downstairs with her father,that while she had a blooded hand when handling the silencer,that an amount of blood would find its way down the tube ?
Liquid flows downwards,not upwards.
It's called contamination------------plainly and simply. A red herring if ever there was one.
-
Doesn't it stand to sense and reason that while Sheila was downstairs with her father,that while she had a blooded hand when handling the silencer,that an amount of blood would find its way down the tube ?
Liquid flows downwards,not upwards.
It's called contamination------------plainly and simply. A red herring if ever there was one.
What wouldn't make sense in that scenario is that Jeremy said the rifle had no silencer on it when he played around with it earlier - Sheila would have had to; not only load a rifle she had never seen, but also go and look for a silencer she didn't know existed. ;D
-
What wouldn't make sense in that scenario is that Jeremy said the rifle had no silencer on it when he played around with it earlier - Sheila would have had to; not only load a rifle she had never seen, but also go and look for a silencer she didn't know existed. ;D
I know it wouldn't have been on the rifle,but picked up as it was.Because guns were all over the place,Sheila would probably have picked it up and changed her mind. She may,or may not have known what it was and put it back as it was,now bloodstained.
-
Then when the damned thing was handled again,it became cross-contaminated.
-
Doesn't it stand to sense and reason that while Sheila was downstairs with her father,that while she had a blooded hand when handling the silencer,that an amount of blood would find its way down the tube ?
Liquid flows downwards,not upwards.
It's called contamination------------plainly and simply. A red herring if ever there was one.
So it was Sheila's blood.
Human blood gun shot splatter inside the silencer baffles means it must be Sheila's, Neville's, June's, Nicholas or Daniel's blood. Unless there was deliberate contamination afterwards.
You believe the gun shot blood back splatter came from Sheila's hand.
That would mean in her rage she looked for and found the silencer. Inserted the silencer onto the rifle. Then took the silencer off and put it neatly away after killing everyone.
Blood from Sheila's hand would not create the blood splatter effect that a gun shot would.
-
I know it wouldn't have been on the rifle,but picked up as it was.Because guns were all over the place,Sheila would probably have picked it up and changed her mind. She may,or may not have known what it was and put it back as it was,now bloodstained.
Just picked it up? From? I don't think it's quite true that 'guns were all over the place'. But if she just picked it up not knowing what it was - she then would have had the thought (in her psychotic state) to then put it in the gun cupboard. Sorry Lookout, that make no sense at all.
-
So it was Sheila's blood.
Human blood gun shot splatter inside the silencer baffles means it must be Sheila's, Neville's, June's, Nicholas or Daniel's blood. Unless there was deliberate contamination afterwards.
You believe the gun shot blood back splatter came from Sheila's hand.
That would mean in her rage she looked for and found the silencer. Inserted the silencer onto the rifle. Then took the silencer off and put it neatly away after killing everyone.
Blood from Sheila's hand would not create the blood splatter effect that a gun shot would.
Not proven.
-
Just picked it up? From? I don't think it's quite true that 'guns were all over the place'. But if she just picked it up not knowing what it was - she then would have had the thought (in her psychotic state) to then put it in the gun cupboard. Sorry Lookout, that make no sense at all.
According to an officer,there were a few guns scattered about,including a shotgun which was found in the lounge area. Would Neville have allowed that ?
Just because a person is in a psychotic state doesn't mean that they're out of control altogether.Their state is focussed on what they're doing at the time,so are just " living that moment " oblivious to their actions and to anything else around them. Sheilas' focus was guns,the gun cupboard and whether the " tube " she'd picked up had anything to do with what she was doing.
-
Just confirming what Lookout was saying.
Human gun shot blood back splatter means the silencer was used on the massacre night.
Unless evidence is provided of deliberate contamination.
-
The silencer was NOT used at all,just man-handled by all and sundry.
-
The silencer was NOT used at all,just man-handled by all and sundry.
So the blood from Sheila's hand didn't go into the silencer ?
-
According to an officer,there were a few guns scattered about,including a shotgun which was found in the lounge area. Would Neville have allowed that ?
Just because a person is in a psychotic state doesn't mean that they're out of control altogether.Their state is focussed on what they're doing at the time,so are just " living that moment " oblivious to their actions and to anything else around them. Sheilas' focus was guns,the gun cupboard and whether the " tube " she'd picked up had anything to do with what she was doing.
Sorry Lookout - that's just too far fetched. Sheila wouldn't have known the gun had a silencer and if she was focused on killing someone with the rifle she wouldn't be searching for 'accessories' in order to help her do the job.
-
If Jeremy believed the silencer blood was not Sheila's, then whose 'human blood' was it ?
Oh yes, he says the relatives framed him. But has no proof.
-
Sorry Lookout - that's just too far fetched. Sheila wouldn't have known the gun had a silencer and if she was focused on killing someone with the rifle she wouldn't be searching for 'accessories' in order to help her do the job.
I didn't say that she did know what a silencer was,nor did I mention her looking for accessories ? I said that her focus would have been on the gun cupboard,probably baffled by its contents and the " tube " would have been a silencer to us,but not her.
-
I didn't say that she did know what a silencer was,nor did I mention her looking for accessories ? I said that her focus would have been on the gun cupboard,probably baffled by its contents and the " tube " would have been a silencer to us,but not her.
I thought Sheila saw Jeremy leave the rifle in the kitchen. Why would she need to go to the gun cupboard ?
-
If Jeremy believed the silencer blood was not Sheila's, then whose 'human blood' was it ?
Oh yes, he says the relatives framed him. But has no proof.
Jeremy had said at first that the police shot the family.If he had thoughts on framing Sheila,wouldn't he have said it was her doing ?
Jeremy didn't know what to think because he knew,and still knows in his heart that it wasn't him.
Where's the relatives proof that it was Jeremy ? Do they have any,besides hearsay ? No,they don't.
-
Jeremy had said at first that the police shot the family.If he had thoughts on framing Sheila,wouldn't he have said it was her doing ?
Jeremy didn't know what to think because he knew,and still knows in his heart that it wasn't him.
Where's the relatives proof that it was Jeremy ? Do they have any,besides hearsay ? No,they don't.
Bamber spent all night insinuating Sheila to the police.
After the raid team entered he acted upset and said 'those men with guns did it'. He also continued insinuating Sheila. Saying she had committed child abuse on the twins.
The relatives do not need to provide proof. The police do. And they did.
Anyway. Whose 'human blood' was in the silencer if it was not Sheila's.
-
I thought Sheila saw Jeremy leave the rifle in the kitchen. Why would she need to go to the gun cupboard ?
Because for all any of us know,Neville could have put it there. As he usually did.
-
What wouldn't make sense in that scenario is that Jeremy said the rifle had no silencer on it when he played around with it earlier - Sheila would have had to; not only load a rifle she had never seen, but also go and look for a silencer she didn't know existed. ;D
Jeremy screwed himself in part with the lie that he found the gun without the moderator and left it out that way. He said that so they would not think the moderator was used and didn't think they would ever find out it was used. Upon finding out that it was used though his lie ends up hurting the suggestion he was making of Sheila simply grabbing the gun from the kitchen table/settle and running amuck with it. The lie requires her to have gone to the closet to get a moderator she didn't know about as you point out but also would not care about if she were in the throws of delusions.
Someone wanting to kill people in their sleep would attach a moderator not someone having a mental episode.
The whole theory of the crime is disjointed. On one hand you have Sheila being crazy and having a crazy episode to kill everyone. On the other you have someone depressed who decided to commit murder suicide. They don't mesh this is actually 2 different theories posited and the first doesn't account for her suicide. Saying she was going crazy doesn't help his cause because it inhibits his attorneys from suggesting she carried out a well calculated plan. That is obviously how it went down the killer planned it out. The killer wore gloves and Jeremy supporters allege Sheila washed up etc. which if true would be suggestive of planning with intent to escape liability not an intention to commit murder suicide and certainly not her just going into a crazy rage.
-
Because for all any of us know,Neville could have put it there. As he usually did.
1) If he put it away he would have unloaded the magazine. Leaving it loaded not only would make it easier for the kids to use it, it weakens the spring in the magazine to leave it loaded. She would have took her own bullet supply to load the gun with and thus the bullets in the kitchen by the phone would not have been touched and would have had around 40 rounds there because it was allegedly a full box less 10 rounds Jeremy loaded into the magazine.
2) If he had put it away that harms Jeremy's desired narrative of her finding a weapon of opportunity and requires her to go to the closet to get it though she had no interest in guns and would instinctively go for her weapon of choice the frying pan.
3) Why would they leave the bullets by the phone if they put away the gun and magazine?
-
Jeremy screwed himself in part with the lie that he found the gun without the moderator and left it out that way. He said that so they would not think the moderator was used and didn't think they would ever find out it was used. Upon finding out that it was used though his lie ends up hurting the suggestion he was making of Sheila simply grabbing the gun from the kitchen table/settle and running amuck with it. The lie requires her to have gone to the closet to get a moderator she didn't know about as you point out but also would not care about if she were in the throws of delusions.
Someone wanting to kill people in their sleep would attach a moderator not someone having a mental episode.
The whole theory of the crime is disjointed. On one hand you have Sheila being crazy and having a crazy episode to kill everyone. On the other you have someone depressed who decided to commit murder suicide. They don't mesh this is actually 2 different theories posited and the first doesn't account for her suicide. Saying she was going crazy doesn't help his cause because it inhibits his attorneys from suggesting she carried out a well calculated plan. That is obviously how it went down the killer planned it out. The killer wore gloves and Jeremy supporters allege Sheila washed up etc. which if true would be suggestive of planning with intent to escape liability not an intention to commit murder suicide and certainly not her just going into a crazy rage.
Not neccessarily. Often Schizophrenics who have urges to kill do plan their attacks - sometimes over years. Mostly, when Schizophrenics kill, they kill family members, they are their main targets.
There often is a method to the madness, a warped logic.
"Who is at risk?
When a person with schizophrenia becomes violent the victim is usually someone from their own family or someone else close to them such as a carer. Attacks against strangers are extremely rare. When the attacker is female they will almost invariably attack their own children."
http://www.livingwithschizophreniauk.org/advice-sheets/schizophrenia-and-dangerous-behaviour/
-
1) If he put it away he would have unloaded the magazine. Leaving it loaded not only would make it easier for the kids to use it, it weakens the spring in the magazine to leave it loaded. She would have took her own bullet supply to load the gun with and thus the bullets in the kitchen by the phone would not have been touched and would have had around 40 rounds there because it was allegedly a full box less 10 rounds Jeremy loaded into the magazine.
2) If he had put it away that harms Jeremy's desired narrative of her finding a weapon of opportunity and requires her to go to the closet to get it though she had no interest in guns and would instinctively go for her weapon of choice the frying pan.
3) Why would they leave the bullets by the phone if they put away the gun and magazine?
The house looked rather untidy all in all. That kitchen counter was cluttered.
-
Again,I can't see the bullets having been left where they were either.
-
Not neccessarily. Often Schizophrenics who have urges to kill do plan their attacks - sometimes over years. Mostly, when Schizophrenics kill, they kill family members, they are their main targets.
There often is a meaning to the madness, a warped logic.
"Who is at risk?
When a person with schizophrenia becomes violent the victim is usually someone from their own family or someone else close to them such as a carer. Attacks against strangers are extremely rare. When the attacker is female they will almost invariably attack their own children."
http://www.livingwithschizophreniauk.org/advice-sheets/schizophrenia-and-dangerous-behaviour/
Sticking to the facts, whose 'human' gun shot back splattered blood do you think was in the silencer ?
Experts at court said it was Sheila's with a remote possibility of it being a mixture of Neville's/June's. Jeremy refutes this but has not proved otherwise.
The fact is there was'human blood' in the silencer. There is no proof of deliberate contamination by the relatives or police.
So going by the facts, not theories, whose blood was it ?
-
Sticking to the facts, whose 'human' gun shot back splattered blood do you think was in the silencer ?
Experts at court said it was Sheila's with a remote possibility of it being a mixture of Neville's/June's. Jeremy refutes this but has not proved otherwise.
The fact is there was'human blood' in the silencer. There is no proof of deliberate contamination by the relatives or police.
So going by the facts, not theories, whose blood was it ?
The Forensic Science Service (FSS) could not establish if the DNA was blood based
http://www.forensic-science.co.uk/bamber5.html (http://www.forensic-science.co.uk/bamber5.html)
Overall the silencer is not going to solve anything its very possible Jeremy could have committed the murders without it. Hence why he keeps wanting it tested.
The silencer does not seem to prove guilt or innocence. Thou in a legal sense a pillar of the prosecution case will have collapsed.
-
Jeremy screwed himself in part with the lie that he found the gun without the moderator and left it out that way. He said that so they would not think the moderator was used and didn't think they would ever find out it was used. Upon finding out that it was used though his lie ends up hurting the suggestion he was making of Sheila simply grabbing the gun from the kitchen table/settle and running amuck with it. The lie requires her to have gone to the closet to get a moderator she didn't know about as you point out but also would not care about if she were in the throws of delusions.
Someone wanting to kill people in their sleep would attach a moderator not someone having a mental episode.
The whole theory of the crime is disjointed. On one hand you have Sheila being crazy and having a crazy episode to kill everyone. On the other you have someone depressed who decided to commit murder suicide. They don't mesh this is actually 2 different theories posited and the first doesn't account for her suicide. Saying she was going crazy doesn't help his cause because it inhibits his attorneys from suggesting she carried out a well calculated plan. That is obviously how it went down the killer planned it out. The killer wore gloves and Jeremy supporters allege Sheila washed up etc. which if true would be suggestive of planning with intent to escape liability not an intention to commit murder suicide and certainly not her just going into a crazy rage.
Sometimes suicide victims do engage in ritualistic washing before they commit that act. As for the silencer,why not just dispose of it in one of the fields he was supposed to have traversed,instead of leaving it bloodied in a place which was bound to be searched? Were the murders just a cruel game to him and the silencer just one more clue to drop for the relatives when they discovered Macavity wasn't there..
-
Sometimes suicide victims do engage in ritualistic washing before they commit that act. As for the silencer,why not just dispose of it in one of the fields he was supposed to have traversed,instead of leaving it bloodied in a place which was bound to be searched? Were the murders just a cruel game to him and the silencer just one more clue to drop for the relatives when they discovered Macavity wasn't there..
If you read Boutflour's statement he found all three silencers and the scope neatly packed in the manufactures boxes and wrapped up in a bag.
It does not really add up in my view
-
The Forensic Science Service (FSS) could not establish if the DNA was blood based
http://www.forensic-science.co.uk/bamber5.html (http://www.forensic-science.co.uk/bamber5.html)
Overall the silencer is not going to solve anything its very possible Jeremy could have committed the murders without it. Hence why he keeps wanting it tested.
The silencer does not seem to prove guilt or innocence. Thou in a legal sense a pillar of the prosecution case will have collapsed.
AT LAST!! An ally! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The Forensic Science Service (FSS) could not establish if the DNA was blood based
http://www.forensic-science.co.uk/bamber5.html (http://www.forensic-science.co.uk/bamber5.html)
Overall the silencer is not going to solve anything its very possible Jeremy could have committed the murders without it. Hence why he keeps wanting it tested.
The silencer does not seem to prove guilt or innocence. Thou in a legal sense a pillar of the prosecution case will have collapsed.
Once again you ignore the facts after being spoon-fed with the correct information the last time you made this claim.
There was no DNA used at trial. Serology was used at trial, the blood in the moderator was group A human blood and a flake of this blood that was stuck between baffles 1 and 2 had an enzyme exclusive to Sheila so that both the crime lab experts and the defense's own blood expert said it could not have come from any individual except Sheila.
The depositing of the blood on the first 8 baffles is consistent with drawback. Sheila's fatal wound was determined to be virtually certain to result in drawback so her blood would have been found in the rifle if the moderator had not been attached when she was shot.
Her blood wasn't in the rifle but was in the moderator and thus establishes the moderator was used to shoot Sheila.
The DNA tests done in 2000 doesn't affect the above. The only DNA tests that could affect the above would be DNA tests of the blood removed 1985 and 1986 by the lab and defense expert Lincoln. But that blood was not DNA tested so there are no DNA tests to reference.
-
Not neccessarily. Often Schizophrenics who have urges to kill do plan their attacks - sometimes over years. Mostly, when Schizophrenics kill, they kill family members, they are their main targets.
There often is a method to the madness, a warped logic.
"Who is at risk?
When a person with schizophrenia becomes violent the victim is usually someone from their own family or someone else close to them such as a carer. Attacks against strangers are extremely rare. When the attacker is female they will almost invariably attack their own children."
http://www.livingwithschizophreniauk.org/advice-sheets/schizophrenia-and-dangerous-behaviour/
A planned attack would not enable Nevill to make a call for help and if he did call he would not be suggesting she was going crazy and running around with the gun. His lawyers could have suggested in a planned attack she installed the moderator, went into the bedroom and tried to shoot them in their sleep but that Nevill escaped to the kitchen... There still would be the problem of the killer wearing gloves and trying to explain what she did with gloves that no one found any and other detail issues but the claim that Nevill was able to make the call claiming she was going crazy ruins the ability to argue a planned attack.
-
AT LAST!! An ally! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Not a useful one since he is discussing worthless DNA tests done in 2000 and suggesting erroneously suggesting these worthless tests mean the blood found in the moderator is meaningless.
-
The Forensic Science Service (FSS) could not establish if the DNA was blood based
http://www.forensic-science.co.uk/bamber5.html (http://www.forensic-science.co.uk/bamber5.html)
Overall the silencer is not going to solve anything its very possible Jeremy could have committed the murders without it. Hence why he keeps wanting it tested.
The silencer does not seem to prove guilt or innocence. Thou in a legal sense a pillar of the prosecution case will have collapsed.
The silencer proved guilt at trial.
Experts saying it was Sheila's blood. Other experts saying Sheila could not shoot herself.
There was only one way to vote.
-
A planned attack would not enable Nevill to make a call for help and if he did call he would not be suggesting she was going crazy and running around with the gun. His lawyers could have suggested in a planned attack she installed the moderator, went into the bedroom and tried to shoot them in their sleep but that Nevill escaped to the kitchen... There still would be the problem of the killer wearing gloves and trying to explain what she did with gloves that no one found any and other detail issues but the claim that Nevill was able to make the call claiming she was going crazy ruins the ability to argue a planned attack.
That is not an absolute truth. The shootings could have commenced in a number of ways - we don´t know how. She might have been mulling over her next move, hesitating, then suddenly acting.
-
That is not an absolute truth. The shootings could have commenced in a number of ways - we don´t know how. She might have been mulling over her next move, hesitating, then suddenly acting.
'Crazy', 'planned', 'mulling'. I certainly won't be inviting any future daughters over for a free holiday.
-
'Crazy', 'planned', 'mulling'. I certainly won't be inviting any future daughters over for a free holiday.
Well, Sheila was troubled, everyone knew that.
The "free holiday" as you like calling it was nothing Sheila or the boys wanted. June more or less forced them to come. In fact all three of them were desperate not to go there, the boys were devastated when Colin left, they tried to talk him into staying the night. They clung to him like he had never experienced before, they cried inconsolably.
"Free holiday"?
-
Well, Sheila was troubled, everyone knew that.
The "free holiday" as you like calling it was nothing Sheila or the boys wanted. June more or less forced them to come. In fact all three of them were desperate not to go there, the boys were devastated when Colin left, they tried to talk him into staying the night. They clung to him like he had never experienced before, they cried inconsolably.
"Free holiday"?
Guess Neville and June should have just paid for Sheila, Nicholas and Daniel and Sheila's medical bills. Rather than also trying to see their daughter and grandchildren.
Neville and June not expecting to end up dead.
-
That is not an absolute truth. The shootings could have commenced in a number of ways - we don´t know how. She might have been mulling over her next move, hesitating, then suddenly acting.
Claiming she went and got the moderator out to kill them in their sleep then couldn't go through with the plan and instead went around acting crazy which enabled Nevill to go make a call and then she caught him and merely hung up the phone then took it off the hook and marched him upstairs to shoot him in the bedroom with June makes no sense at all.
Either she was crazy and grabbed a wepaon of opportunity or she carried out a planned attack you can't have it both ways. Jeremy's claim he received a call that she grabbed the gun and was crazy along with his story of how he left the gun out painted his lawyers into a corner of what they could reasonably suggest occurred.
I realize Jeremy's supporters are so biased they will accept anything no matter how absurd in order to avoid facing his guilt but his lawyers had to argue before a jury and convince a jury. The jury heard his own words about Nevill calling to say she grabbed the gun and had gone crazy and his own claims of the state he supposedly left the weapon in. That created a conflict because he framed is as her going crazy and grabbing a weapon of opportunity but the prosecution's evidence related to the silencer being used meant that the best defense would have been to argue a planned killing but his own statements inhibited them from successfully making that argument.
-
Guess Neville and June should have just paid for Sheila, Nicholas and Daniel and Sheila's medical bills. Rather than also trying to see their daughter and grandchildren.
Neville and June not expecting to end up dead.
Ain't hindsight just THE most wonderful thing :D
-
Ain't hindsight just THE most wonderful thing :D
Since you understand what he wrote maybe you can translate.
-
Not a useful one since he is discussing worthless DNA tests done in 2000 and suggesting erroneously suggesting these worthless tests mean the blood found in the moderator is meaningless.
Not only does he accuse lawyers of being stupid and compare experts to Laurel and Hardy now he accuses the FSS (forensic science service) findings as worthless and meaningless.
This image is Scipio to a Tee
(http://lexfridman.com/blogs/thoughts/files/2014/08/homer-everyone-is-stupid-except-me.jpg)
-
Not only does he accuse lawyers of being stupid and compare experts to Laurel and Hardy now he accuses the FSS (forensic science service) findings as worthless and meaningless.
This image is Scipio to a Tee
(http://lexfridman.com/blogs/thoughts/files/2014/08/homer-everyone-is-stupid-except-me.jpg)
He must be related to the conscript who wrote to his mother, from the front, that he thought everything was going well, the only problem being that when they did drill HE was the only one in step.
-
If you read Boutflour's statement he found all three silencers and the scope neatly packed in the manufactures boxes and wrapped up in a bag.
It does not really add up in my view
Nor in my mind, David.
-
Since you understand what he wrote maybe you can translate.
Sarcasm and gobbledygook, Scipio, sarcasm and gobbledygook. Who knows the workings of his mind? If the Old Nan of the Mountains knows, he sure ain't telling :D
-
Not only does he accuse lawyers of being stupid and compare experts to Laurel and Hardy now he accuses the FSS (forensic science service) findings as worthless and meaningless.
This image is Scipio to a Tee
(http://lexfridman.com/blogs/thoughts/files/2014/08/homer-everyone-is-stupid-except-me.jpg)
You continue to distort.
I said the DNA testing was worthless and FSS agrees with that. You noted how FSS said they could not establish there was any blood in the moderator at the time the DNA tests were done hence could not establish any of the DNA was blood based. Thus the DNA tests would not be able to prove anything and were worthless.
I also quoted form the COA about why they declared the DNA tests were worthless.
This completely and totally demolishes you nonsense claim about the evidence found in the moderator not being reliable. The DNA tests failed to have an impact at all on such evidence.
-
The silencer proved guilt at trial.
Experts saying it was Sheila's blood. Other experts saying Sheila could not shoot herself.
There was only one way to vote.
If that was so then why did 2 of the jury vote not guilty?
It is an illusion to say that the silencer proved guilt for reasons I have consistently explained for a long time obviously to willingly deaf ears.
-
If that was so then why did 2 of the jury vote not guilty?
It is an illusion to say that the silencer proved guilt for reasons I have consistently explained for a long time obviously to willingly deaf ears.
The silencer doesn't prove anything either way. Only one thing would prove innocence and that's evidence of the phone calls (Nevill to Jeremy and/or Nevill to police).
-
The silencer doesn't prove anything either way. Only one thing would prove innocence and that's evidence of the phone calls (Nevill to Jeremy and/or Nevill to police).
Maybe not Caroline. But the silencer evidence was accepted over Bambers statement of the phone call just because he could not offer evidence that it was made.
On the same terms the silencer evidence was offered and accepted on the presumption that it was true although it co7uld not be proved that the relatives found it except by their own word.
-
If that was so then why did 2 of the jury vote not guilty?
It is an illusion to say that the silencer proved guilt for reasons I have consistently explained for a long time obviously to willingly deaf ears.
I have asked this question several times on here.
At trial, the defence did not dispute it was Sheila's blood. The jury were told the gun was too long for her to shoot herself with the silencer on.
These two facts alone is enough to get a 12-0 guilty verdict. Who else could have shot Sheila ? However there was also a mountain of other incriminating evidence.
The jury reached their guilty verdict quickly. Quite why two woman voted not guilty I will never know.
-
Maybe not Caroline. But the silencer evidence was accepted over Bambers statement of the phone call just because he could not offer evidence that it was made.
On the same terms the silencer evidence was offered and accepted on the presumption that it was true although it co7uld not be proved that the relatives found it except by their own word.
The silencer was evidence. It was a physical item which had blood on it.
Neville's phone call is not evidence. Just an allegation.
Who else was going to find the silencer ? It would have been better if the police said they found it. They had no reason to rope in the relatives.
-
I have asked this question several times on here.
At trial, the defence did not dispute it was Sheila's blood. The jury were told the gun was too long for her to shoot herself with the silencer on.
These two facts alone is enough to get a 12-0 guilty verdict. Who else could have shot Sheila ? However there was also a mountain of other incriminating evidence.
The jury reached their guilty verdict quickly. Quite why two woman voted not guilty I will never know.
Maybe those women had a bit more insight than the others, Adm. Just because they saw things differently doesn't mean they are stupid or that they were overwhelmed by his pretty face.
-
Maybe not Caroline. But the silencer evidence was accepted over Bambers statement of the phone call just because he could not offer evidence that it was made.
On the same terms the silencer evidence was offered and accepted on the presumption that it was true although it co7uld not be proved that the relatives found it except by their own word.
Sometimes it just comes down to who the jury believe and the majority didn't believe Jeremy.
-
Sometimes it just comes down to who the jury believe and the majority didn't believe Jeremy.
As the case went,and it was a massive one,you have to also question why two people did actually believe Jeremy,as it was most unusual in such a high profile case for it not to have been unanimous.?
-
The silencer doesn't prove anything either way. Only one thing would prove innocence and that's evidence of the phone calls (Nevill to Jeremy and/or Nevill to police).
The moderator evidence does indeed prove something and what it proves it that Sheila could not have killed herself. Your refusal to believe the moderator was used is not based on anything rational but rather the irrational argument that Jeremy would not have allowed his legal team to request DNA testing if he had used the moderator. You ignore that he had nothing to lose, an automatic way out and that DNA tests requested by convicts have confirmed the guilt of such convicts in a large number of cases. The only rational way to be able to refute the moderator evidence is to prove the blood inside was planted. You have no such evidence so have no rational basis upon which to ignore it let alone to keep insisting it is a fact it wasn't used which is basically a tactic of Jeremy's supporters. His supporters refuse to characterize their unsupported opinions as unsupported opinions and instead mis-characterize them as facts.
The moderator evidence which you discount was no doubt critical to the jurors and it critical to the judges who have upheld his sentence. Indeed it has been relied upon by the judges to discount the alternative speculations put forth by the defense on appeal. COAs have repeatedly stated the alternatives put forth by the defense have failed to deal with the blood in the moderator and lack of blood in the rifle. These issues are a critical part of the conviction and need to be dealt with in order for the conviction to be vacated.
-
nothing is straight forward
-
I have asked this question several times on here.
At trial, the defence did not dispute it was Sheila's blood. The jury were told the gun was too long for her to shoot herself with the silencer on.
These two facts alone is enough to get a 12-0 guilty verdict. Who else could have shot Sheila ? However there was also a mountain of other incriminating evidence.
The jury reached their guilty verdict quickly. Quite why two woman voted not guilty I will never know.
But it didn't and that doubt in the jury's minds produced instead a 10-2 verdict.
In any case w3hat makes you think it was two women?
-
The silencer was evidence. It was a physical item which had blood on it.
Neville's phone call is not evidence. Just an allegation.
Who else was going to find the silencer ? It would have been better if the police said they found it. They had no reason to rope in the relatives.
Wrong. It was a piece of evidence that was allegedly found by a party who had an intertest in finding Bamber guilty.
-
nothing is straight forward
So a coin was tossed and they decided that Jeremy must have been responsible ::)
-
so was it one small flake - or blood splatter?
Was it a mixture or not?
Why did Hayward not make it clear he had not done the tests himself
Apparently as well there was NO test done to see if it was "back splatter " interesting that.
-
The plain facts are these: The silencer evidence was accepted by the court as evidence without question and it should have been questioned as it was allegedly found by interested parties. To my mind a disgraceful state of affairs. Why people on here accept the silencer evidence so blindly really surprises me?
-
so was it one small flake - or blood splatter?
Was it a mixture or not?
Why did Hayward not make it clear he had not done the tests himself
Apparently as well there was NO test done to see if it was "back splatter " interesting that.
It is just another thing that is illogical in this case that goes on and on unquestioned by seemingly intelligent people?
-
The plain facts are these: The silencer evidence was accepted by the court as evidence without question and it should have been questioned as it was allegedly found by interested parties. To my mind a disgraceful state of affairs. Why people on here accept the silencer evidence so blindly really surprises me?
Me too. Welcome back btw.
It was handled so unprofessionally that the mind boggles. Not one, but many factors surrounding the find of the silencer should have rendered it an unsafe piece of evidence, yet it was a corner stone in the whole case against JB.
-
it was a corner stone in the whole case against JB.
Simply because they had diddly-squat to go on. They had to cobble together anything,and cobble they did,albeit that it was made so obvious to those of us who realise that nothing they did held water.
-
so was it one small flake - or blood splatter?
Was it a mixture or not?
Why did Hayward not make it clear he had not done the tests himself
Apparently as well there was NO test done to see if it was "back splatter " interesting that.
1) Fletcher was the expert who explained all about drawback and how the blood got there as a result of drawback so the person who decided to question Hawward's credentials and lack of explanation was worthless. That explains why during the actual appeal they didn't raise any such claims. The observations in the defense report were just bouncing ideas the defense shoudl investigate further and what approaches they should consider.
The defense attacked that he didn't record in WRITING everything observed, he VERBALLY stated what was observed in full. What was observed in full was visible blood that dried onto at least the first 6 baffles. Fletcher testified he saw visible blood on at least the first 5 and it might have extended to the first 7. They said the blood extended several inches in. All visible blood was removed from the baffles and some was tested. It was identified as group A blood.
The flake trapped between baffles 1 and 2 was tested and it was not only group A but the AK1 enzyme which June lacked.
2) Blood is consistent with drawback when it is found more than 5mm deep in the weapon but not too deep in the weapon. This is because medium and high velocity spatter can't travel more than 5mm into a barrel EXCEPT that high velocity spatter can travel more than 5mm deep when the barrel of the weapon is fired 1mm or less from the skin. The caliber, type of weapon and factors specific to the wound area determine the maximum distance the blood could travel inside. Blood found too deep to be drawback would presumably have to have gotten there by a different method.
Blood is sprayed inside during drawback. A spray would deposit the blood on the walls as well as each of the initial baffles with less blood as you got further away from the opening still it stopped entirely.
That is exactly what was observed the largest amount of blood was found on the initial baffles and the volume of blood diminished as it went down.
Defense expert Lincoln found microscopic blood traces of group A blood on the first 8 baffles which again supports the finding of drawback because there would not be blood on the first 8 baffles through any other natural process and using a dropper to plant blood or pouring it in from a test tube or something would result in the blood going deep inside or splashing 1-2 baffles on the first 8.
Thus the defense idea to investigate whether the blood was consistent with drawback ended up with the defense finding out it was consistent with drawback and there was no argument they could make otherwise. That is why they instead decided to try seeking a DNA test in hope they could find a way to spin the results to say the results suggest the blood inside was June and Nevill's blood as opposed to arguing it was blood that was planted or got there by contamination since there was no way for contamination to account for it and no way for the murder process outside of drawback to account for it.
-
I bet if skippy was accused of murder and the evidence was
found by members of the public
Handled without gloves by those persons
Removed from the crime scene by those persons
Removed along with bloodied clothes
Handled again
Put in a wardrobe.
No one can agree who called the police
When the police arrive they put in in a cardboard tube and again don't use gloves.
The police have a few whiskys with the people who find the evidence
The blood evidence is then misinterpreted in the summing up .
Later another expert says he cant 100% confirm it is not animal blood
A document appears that shows animal blood was on the piece of evidence but that was not revealed to the jury
What do you think skippy would be doing? Fighting - or giving in and accepting it as evidence?
-
I bet if skippy was accused of murder and the evidence was
found by members of the public
Handled without gloves by those persons
Removed from the crime scene by those persons
Removed along with bloodied clothes
Handled again
Put in a wardrobe.
No one can agree who called the police
When the police arrive they put in in a cardboard tube and again don't use gloves.
The police have a few whiskys with the people who find the evidence
The blood evidence is then misinterpreted in the summing up .
Later another expert says he cant 100% confirm it is not animal blood
A document appears that shows animal blood was on the piece of evidence but that was not revealed to the jury
What do you think skippy would be doing? Fighting - or giving in and accepting it as evidence?
Nice, but you forgot that one of the finders of the silencer found a flake of blood on it so "fascinating" that he used a razor blade to scrape it off. ::)
-
He'd be talking that much that everyone would leg-it, screaming " no more,no more". Only too glad to see the back of him. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Me too. Welcome back btw.
It was handled so unprofessionally that the mind boggles. Not one, but many factors surrounding the find of the silencer should have rendered it an unsafe piece of evidence, yet it was a corner stone in the whole case against JB.
The only way to undermine the moderator evidence would have been to establish a reasonably likelihood the blood got there as a result of natural contamination- which there is no natural way for wet blood to be sprayed inside so that it is deposited on the first 8 baffles- or evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood the blood was planted.
The defense lacked the ability to establish any reasonable prospect either happened and thus went with a Hail Mary play hoping that enough jurors would be willing to believe it was June and Nevill's blood mixed and that Sheila had put the moderator away after she killed everyone with it.
They got the prosecution expert to admit it is a remote possibility he was wrong and that it was Nevill and June's blood mixed. So they had evidence to make the claim it was their blood mixed though the evidence failed to amount to a reasonable possibility.
They had no evidence at all to support any other natural way for the blood to have gotten there than drawback. There isn't even a remote possibility for it to have gotten there naturally by some other operation it is impossible.
While it theoretically is possible for blood o get there by intentional planting there was no evidence to establish even a remote chance of that having occurred. Plenty of evidence existes to refute such a notion while not exists to support it having happened.
The defense chose not to make the allegation it was planted since they had nothing to support the allegation and went with the admission it was drawback but argued it was June and Nevill's blood.
On appeal they can raise the claim that the evidence was planted only if they can produce evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood it was planted. All their efforts to find evidence of planting failed. They found no such evidence. So they were unable to make the claim and making the claim without evidence would be futile anyway.
So on appeal they stuck with the same argument and claimed the DNA results prove the blood in the moderator was June and Nevill's blood though the DNA results proved no such thing.
They need evidence that Sheila's blood was in the rifle and not in the moderator. That is what is needed to undermine the moderator evidence which in turn would result in the conviction being overturned. They need to prove her blood was in the rifle itself not in the moderator. The blood removed from the moderator was destroyed by testing and whatever wasn't destroyed by the testing itself was not retained. So there is nothing to scientifically test to prove the blood removed from the moderator wasn't Sheila's. Similarly there is no scientific test that could prove they removed Sheila's blood from the rifle and concealed the finding. Only someone's admission that they found her blood in the rifle and concealed such finding could help to establish such and that would require the claim being credible with the person having opportunity to do such motive etc.
Similarly only a credible admission of planting evidence in the moderator could help establish such occurred. No scientific testing can accomplish this only testimonial admissions. Realists would face these facts.
-
I bet if skippy was accused of murder and the evidence was
found by members of the public
Handled without gloves by those persons
Removed from the crime scene by those persons
Removed along with bloodied clothes
Handled again
Put in a wardrobe.
No one can agree who called the police
When the police arrive they put in in a cardboard tube and again don't use gloves.
The police have a few whiskys with the people who find the evidence
The blood evidence is then misinterpreted in the summing up .
Later another expert says he cant 100% confirm it is not animal blood
A document appears that shows animal blood was on the piece of evidence but that was not revealed to the jury
What do you think skippy would be doing? Fighting - or giving in and accepting it as evidence?
LOL
What do I think skippy would be doing? He would Dismiss his own defence team and represent himself and stand in the dock informing all the court how stupid they are. Then drag out his trial for many month by writing tones of folders worth of testimony.
-
I bet if skippy was accused of murder and the evidence was
found by members of the public
Handled without gloves by those persons
Removed from the crime scene by those persons
Removed along with bloodied clothes
Handled again
Put in a wardrobe.
No one can agree who called the police
When the police arrive they put in in a cardboard tube and again don't use gloves.
The police have a few whiskys with the people who find the evidence
The blood evidence is then misinterpreted in the summing up .
Later another expert says he cant 100% confirm it is not animal blood
A document appears that shows animal blood was on the piece of evidence but that was not revealed to the jury
What do you think skippy would be doing? Fighting - or giving in and accepting it as evidence?
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.
-
The only way to undermine the moderator evidence would have been to establish a reasonably likelihood the blood got there as a result of natural contamination- which there is no natural way for wet blood to be sprayed inside so that it is deposited on the first 8 baffles- or evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood the blood was planted.
The defense lacked the ability to establish any reasonable prospect either happened and thus went with a Hail Mary play hoping that enough jurors would be willing to believe it was June and Nevill's blood mixed and that Sheila had put the moderator away after she killed everyone with it.
They got the prosecution expert to admit it is a remote possibility he was wrong and that it was Nevill and June's blood mixed. So they had evidence to make the claim it was their blood mixed though the evidence failed to amount to a reasonable possibility.
They had no evidence at all to support any other natural way for the blood to have gotten there than drawback. There isn't even a remote possibility for it to have gotten there naturally by some other operation it is impossible.
While it theoretically is possible for blood o get there by intentional planting there was no evidence to establish even a remote chance of that having occurred. Plenty of evidence existes to refute such a notion while not exists to support it having happened.
The defense chose not to make the allegation it was planted since they had nothing to support the allegation and went with the admission it was drawback but argued it was June and Nevill's blood.
On appeal they can raise the claim that the evidence was planted only if they can produce evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood it was planted. All their efforts to find evidence of planting failed. They found no such evidence. So they were unable to make the claim and making the claim without evidence would be futile anyway.
So on appeal they stuck with the same argument and claimed the DNA results prove the blood in the moderator was June and Nevill's blood though the DNA results proved no such thing.
They need evidence that Sheila's blood was in the rifle and not in the moderator. That is what is needed to undermine the moderator evidence which in turn would result in the conviction being overturned. They need to prove her blood was in the rifle itself not in the moderator. The blood removed from the moderator was destroyed by testing and whatever wasn't destroyed by the testing itself was not retained. So there is nothing to scientifically test to prove the blood removed from the moderator wasn't Sheila's. Similarly there is no scientific test that could prove they removed Sheila's blood from the rifle and concealed the finding. Only someone's admission that they found her blood in the rifle and concealed such finding could help to establish such and that would require the claim being credible with the person having opportunity to do such motive etc.
Similarly only a credible admission of planting evidence in the moderator could help establish such occurred. No scientific testing can accomplish this only testimonial admissions. Realists would face these facts.
That's a good point.
The defence didn't bring up accidental silencer contamination at trial as it was too far fetched. How could Sheila's blood so convincingly and perfectly be sprayed into the silencer by accident ?
Decades later Bamber has claimed his cousins did it. Then again Bamber also said Neville phoned Chelmsford.
;D ;D ;D
-
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.
Well I do salute you scipio in your recent posts,but didn't Defence suggest that Robert Boutflour might have cut his finger whilst examining the silencer? Wasn't one of the relatives also knowledgeable about guns,so I wouldn't underestimate their capabilities in that regard.
-
That's a good point.
The defence didn't bring up accidental silencer contamination at trial as it was too far fetched. How could Sheila's blood so convincingly and perfectly be sprayed into the silencer by accident ?
Decades later Bamber has claimed his cousins did it. Then again Bamber also said Neville phoned Chelmsford.
;D ;D ;D
The prosecution never proved it was Shelia's blood all they found where enzymes that belong to her blood group so they attributed the enzyme to Shelia. The more advanced tests done in 1999 on the silencer allegedly drenched in splattered blood from baffles 1 to 8 found no evidence of any blood based DNA what so ever and that the DNA was not even Shelia's. Scippy then has the audacity to claim this DNA test the most advanced test carried out means nothing, surprise surprise ::)
-
Well I do salute you scipio in your recent posts,but didn't Defence suggest that Robert Boutflour might have cut his finger whilst examining the silencer? Wasn't one of the relatives also knowledgeable about guns,so I wouldn't underestimate their capabilities in that regard.
and why did the police explain to Anne how important it was in court to explain exactly where the blood on the clothes came from because she may have been implicated.
And I did just post a document that said the blood could have come from RB.
-
Steve,I bet the " cut finger " thing will fall on deaf ears. I've mentioned it a few times,but it's gone unnoticed. ;D ;D Same blood group as Sheila too :o
-
nothing is straight forward
The possibility of a mixture of June and Neville's blood. Interesting.
How an earth did their blood get into the silencer ? Oh yes the relatives.
-
Maybe those women had a bit more insight than the others, Adm. Just because they saw things differently doesn't mean they are stupid or that they were overwhelmed by his pretty face.
A bit less insight you mean
When the evidence shows you can only vote one way. You vote that way.
-
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.
-
The possibility of a mixture of June and Neville's blood. Interesting.
How an earth did their blood get into the silencer ? Oh yes the relatives.
http://www.forensic-science.co.uk/bamber5.html (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 (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.
-
http://www.forensic-science.co.uk/bamber5.html (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 (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.
Do you think the relatives framed Jeremy with the silencer.
So they could sit around their dining table going 'ha ha ha ha....ha ha ha ha ha... ha ha ha ha'. Counting their newly acquired money. While Jeremy rotted in prison ?
-
Do you think the relatives framed Jeremy with the silencer.
So they could sit around their dining table going 'ha ha ha ha....ha ha ha ha ha... ha ha ha ha'. Counting their newly acquired money. While Jeremy rotted in prison ?
That was an odd post. Seeking attention? Well, I gave you some.
-
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
8) 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 :)
-
Do you think the relatives framed Jeremy with the silencer.
So they could sit around their dining table going 'ha ha ha ha....ha ha ha ha ha... ha ha ha ha'. Counting their newly acquired money. While Jeremy rotted in prison ?
In regards to your question. If Jeremy is innocent my view is -
I very much doubt they deliberately framed him knowing he was innocent Thou Its not impossible
Put it this way its far less evil beyond belief than what Jeremy has been accused of. If you believe Jeremy can blast his entire family away frame his psychotic sister act sad at the funeral write "love uncle Jeremy x" on the twins coffins, Then go on holiday going ha ha ha ha ha....ha ha ha ha counting the same money that is far more crazy evil and bizzare than his relatives framing him for money.
I believe they decided Shelia could not have done it then as they kept thinking along those lines convinced themselves Jeremy done it and as a result convinced the police aswell.
Put It this way if Jeremy was the psychotic one and the twins where his while Shelia lived in the cottage down the village, Then they are all found dead one morning Jeremy lying their with the rifle on his chest totally lifeless would Shelia ever be suspected? I doubt it, Allot of gender sterotyping influenced peoples decisions.
-
The " something up his sleeve " scenario was written by AE in her notes.It was said during Jeremy's first arrest when he was applying for bail in 1985 when suddenly the silencer came into play after being handed in,in September. The rellies must have been hopping mad at that point and not happy bunnies at all.
Now prior to all this,the police would have admitted that they had nothing on Jeremy at all. Relatives became tetchy and uneasy,so to use a bloodied silencer would be the answer to their prayers. I wouldn't have put it past any of them to have found out what Sheila's blood group was,as afterall,that's all they needed in which for EP to make a conviction,Sheila's blood on the silencer------------except that it wasn't Sheila's,it would be RWB's who was of the same group. Job done.
How did RWB cut his finger ?
-
A bit less insight you mean
When the evidence shows you can only vote one way. You vote that way.
Is that a fact?
-
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
8) 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 :)
A lot of wishful thinking.
Just before DNA became common, they would surely be able to determine between the human and animal blood.
The rifle was fired and then the blood tests were done ? This must be something a 17 year old wouldn't understand ?
-
Is that a fact?
Obviously not a fact as it didn't happen.
-
The " something up his sleeve " scenario was written by AE in her notes.It was said during Jeremy's first arrest when he was applying for bail in 1985 when suddenly the silencer came into play after being handed in,in September. The rellies must have been hopping mad at that point and not happy bunnies at all.
Now prior to all this,the police would have admitted that they had nothing on Jeremy at all. Relatives became tetchy and uneasy,so to use a bloodied silencer would be the answer to their prayers. I wouldn't have put it past any of them to have found out what Sheila's blood group was,as afterall,that's all they needed in which for EP to make a conviction,Sheila's blood on the silencer------------except that it wasn't Sheila's,it would be RWB's who was of the same group. Job done.
How did RWB cut his finger ?
I bet there was smoke coming from AE's pen when Jeremy was allowed bail. ;D
-
In regards to your question. If Jeremy is innocent my view is -
I very much doubt they deliberately framed him knowing he was innocent Thou Its not impossible
Put it this way its far less evil beyond belief than what Jeremy has been accused of. If you believe Jeremy can blast his entire family away frame his psychotic sister act sad at the funeral write "love uncle Jeremy x" on the twins coffins, Then go on holiday going ha ha ha ha ha....ha ha ha ha counting the same money that is far more crazy evil and bizzare than his relatives framing him for money.
I believe they decided Shelia could not have done it then as they kept thinking along those lines convinced themselves Jeremy done it and as a result convinced the police aswell.
Put It this way if Jeremy was the psychotic one and the twins where his while Shelia lived in the cottage down the village, Then they are all found dead one morning Jeremy lying their with the rifle on his chest totally lifeless would Shelia ever be suspected? I doubt it, Allot of gender sterotyping influenced peoples decisions.
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 !
-
A lot of wishful thinking.
Just before DNA became common, they would surely be able to determine between the human and animal blood.
The rifle was fired and then the blood tests were done ? This must be something a 17 year old wouldn't understand ?
They did test the gun with the moderator on - so if there was blood in the rifle would it have been pushed through?
I have shown you a document that says there was animal blood apparently on the outside of the silencer
I have shown a document where a blood expert said he could not 100% say the tests did not show animal blood.
If you read my post - it is not wishful thinking I am just saying if he is innocent then surely it must be one of the above -
oh one more - highly unlikely but still possible - it was a mixture of blood - and Sheila did use the silencer and then put it away . As I say unlikely but not impossible.
-
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?
-
It's not unusual for any 24 year old to do that,Adam. What's your problem ?
-
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.
-
http://www.forensic-science.co.uk/bamber5.html (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 (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.
-
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 ;D
-
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? 8)
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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
8) 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Wonder what happened to that flake of blood DB scraped off the silencer.
More importantly how could he have known it was Blood?
-
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!! :-X
-
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.
There was no test to prove it was drawback.
-
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.
Imagine (if you can) another silencer and another gun and a blood source of some kind. One could easily manufacture evidence to conform to the specifications that you detail. Add to that an evil intent and people who had a great intimate knowledge of guns and their effects and hey presto you have a piece of manufactured evidence.
-
He could have had experience with animal blood on a silencer - that is not impossible.
Says I who knows nothing about guns!! :-X
Why would you have animal blood on a silencer? you would have to kill it up very close. The only way to know if its blood is by doing a lab test.
Here is a photo I found of dried blood samples. How can anyone look at that and say that's blood without being told before hand?
(http://www.kdheks.gov/neonatal/images/wrinkled_blood_spots.jpg)
-
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.
Your record of being hopelessly wrong about the blood evidence is safely intact. The prosecution proved that group A human blood was found on at least the first 5-7 baffles. They didn't just find an enzyme they found group A blood. The defense's own expert found microscopic traces of group A blood on the first 8 baffles. He agreed that the results obtained by the police lab was correct that the blood on the baffles was group A blood. No enzymes were detected in such blood they just figured out it was group A.
June and Sheila had group A blood so in theory it could belong to either of them. Other evidence has to be looked at to see who it belonged to. The evidence they looked at was who had a contact wound to deposit such blood and the answer is that June didn't have any contact wounds but Sheila did have a contact wound and it was determined it would result in drawback. In additional flake of Sheila's blood was found which supports the conclusion the other group a blood found inside was hers as well.
The defense expert agreed that the flake trapped between baffles 1 and 2 was group A blood and that this flake had an enzyme which helped establish it was Sheila's blood.
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
Because the evidence proves he used it. I follow the evidence.
-
Wonder what happened to that flake of blood DB scraped off the silencer.
He didn't scrape it off, he said it 'looked as though it could be easily scraped off with razor blade'. He did say that he tried to unscrew the end though.
-
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.
There was a flake of blood that DRIED onto the moderator between baffles 1 and 2. How could the family take dried blood from fabric and turn it into a flake of blood that dried onto the moderator?
As for your broken record nonsense about testing a flake to see if it is drawback I am going to do the same and just cut and paste the following response:
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.
-
There was no test to prove it was drawback.
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.
-
Your record of being hopelessly wrong about the blood evidence is safely intact. The prosecution proved that group A human blood was found on at least the first 5-7 baffles. They didn't just find an enzyme they found group A blood. The defense's own expert found microscopic traces of group A blood on the first 8 baffles. He agreed that the results obtained by the police lab was correct that the blood on the baffles was group A blood. No enzymes were detected in such blood they just figured out it was group A.
June and Sheila had group A blood so in theory it could belong to either of them. Other evidence has to be looked at to see who it belonged to. The evidence they looked at was who had a contact wound to deposit such blood and the answer is that June didn't have any contact wounds but Sheila did have a contact wound and it was determined it would result in drawback. In additional flake of Sheila's blood was found which supports the conclusion the other group a blood found inside was hers as well.
The defense expert agreed that the flake trapped between baffles 1 and 2 was group A blood and that this flake had an enzyme which helped establish it was Sheila's blood.
Because the evidence proves he used it. I follow the evidence.
Again you contradict your own previous claims. But never mind
So how do you explain the absence of blood in the silencer in 1999 despite being soaked in back splatter to at leased baffle no7. Police gave the insides a good scrub with acid from time to time to keep it clean did they? ::)
-
Why would you have animal blood on a silencer? you would have to kill it up very close. The only way to know if its blood is by doing a lab test.
Here is a photo I found of dried blood samples. How can anyone look at that and say that's blood without being told before hand?
(http://www.kdheks.gov/neonatal/images/wrinkled_blood_spots.jpg)
Sometimes game is finished off with a contact wound.
I have to say that I think I would know what dried blood would look like; I am more puzzled by Ann Eaton´s claim of a match head size blob of jam-like blood on the silencer. THAT is strange.
It would have dried up if it was blood from the night of the murders. Besides, how would it have "survived" being wrapped up and put in a box, then unwrapped and carelessly handled by a number of people.
How would the blood DB said he scraped off have survived the packing, unpacking and handling?
Small amounts of blood dry fast and fall off even surfaces easily, and they certainly don´t stay "jam-like" for days.
All very mysterious.
-
Sometimes game is finished off with a contact wound.
I have to say that I think I would know what dried blood would look like; I am more puzzled by Ann Eaton´s claim of a match head size blob of jam-like blood on the silencer. THAT is strange.
It would have dried up if it was blood from the night of the murders. Besides, how would it have "survived" being wrapped up and put in a box, then unwrapped and carelessly handled by a number of people.
How would the blood DB said he scraped off have survived the packing, unpacking and handling?
Small amounts of blood dry fast and fall off even surfaces easily, and they certainly don´t stay "jam-like" for days.
All very mysterious.
Dried blood is brown like the picture above shows either Ann is lying or it really was Jam
-
Imagine (if you can) another silencer and another gun and a blood source of some kind. One could easily manufacture evidence to conform to the specifications that you detail. Add to that an evil intent and people who had a great intimate knowledge of guns and their effects and hey presto you have a piece of manufactured evidence.
Someone has to have intimate knowledge about the nature of the wounds suffered by Sheila, her blood type and intimate knowledge of medical issues to understand drawback and to appreciate the use of planting evidence to mimic it and how to plant evidence to mimic it. All those who keep suggesting just knowing about guns makes one likely to know about drawback is nonsense. It was oscure at the time of the murders and is still obscure now with respect to people who simple know about guns.
People who are BIASED are desperate to believe otherwise because they so badly want to suggest evidence was planted and ignore the family would not have any way to know Sheila suffered from a wound that would result in drawback. If they did have such knowledge they would know her blood would be in the rifle so planting blood would end up being futile because it would end up being figured out they planted it.
People keep saying look at it objectively- that is what I am doing those who are desperate to suggest the blood was planted are not looking at it objectively.
-
He didn't scrape it off, he said it 'looked as though it could be easily scraped off with razor blade'. He did say that he tried to unscrew the end though.
Didn´t he? I was sure I read that in his statement - have to look again.
In any case, a strange thing to say.
Thinking about it, are you sure? Why would he answer when asked why he did it, that it was because it was "fascinating"?
Don´t have time to look now, have to go - tomorrow.
-
Why would you have animal blood on a silencer? you would have to kill it up very close. The only way to know if its blood is by doing a lab test.
Here is a photo I found of dried blood samples. How can anyone look at that and say that's blood without being told before hand?
(http://www.kdheks.gov/neonatal/images/wrinkled_blood_spots.jpg)
A rifle can get backspatter when a weapon is fired 6 feet away. But back spatter won't go more than 5mm into a weapon unless the gun is fired at contact range. At contact range it goes in the weapon instead of on the weapon.
-
A rifle can get backspatter when a weapon is fired 6 feet away. But back spatter won't go more than 5mm into a weapon unless the gun is fired at contact range. At contact range it goes in the weapon instead of on the weapon.
I doubt very much that any blood could enter a silencer at that range? I would still like some proof as to how often blood enters the weapon when and if there is back spatter.
-
I doubt very much that any blood could enter a silencer at that range? I would still like some proof as to how often blood enters the weapon when and if there is back spatter.
I have read some forensic books on blood splatter analysis. If I can find the names il let you know
-
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?
So Jeremy didn't go to Amsterdam, Eastbourne, Notting Hill, St Tropez and London ?
It's all rumours.
-
Again you contradict your own previous claims. But never mind
So how do you explain the absence of blood in the silencer in 1999 despite being soaked in back splatter to at leased baffle no7. Police gave the insides a good scrub with acid from time to time to keep it clean did they? ::)
My points are quite consistent, you just refuse to comprehend them.
I did forget to mention you were wrong about the COA saying it wasn't Sheila's DNA inside the rifle. The COA decided to simply say it may or may not have been inside because it didn't matter whether her DNA was found or not. You incorrectly stated they found her DNA was not inside.
As a practical matter Sheila's DNA was found inside. The expert couldn't break down the odds of it being someone else's DNA so the court simply decided to say maybe it was maybe it wasn't but the number of markers that matched is enough for us to know it was hers. But as the court said it makes no difference, the DNA tests proved nothing.
The moderator had blood on the first 8 baffles. The prosecution removed all visible blood and the defense removed all microscopic blood that had been on those baffles. That is why the baffles tested negative for blood in 1999 because the blood had already previously been removed.
The defense expert and prosecution found no blood beyond the 8th baffle the baffles beyond that tested negative for blood in 1986. So how could DNA found on baffles 9 to 17 be blood based? Since the DNA found on those baffles was clearly not blood based but rather the result of contamination, and no blood was detected as remaining on baffles 1-8 that supports the conclusion that the DNA found among the first 8 baffles was also from contamination.
Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? In 1985 and 1986 BLOOD was removed by the prosecution and defense labs and they did not do DNA tests on such blood. They only did tests to determine whether this blood was human and the blood type. Blood from the upper baffles was determined to be group A. Furthermore a flake stuck between baffles 1 and 2 was tested and it not only was group A it has an enzyme which Sheila possessed but June didn't thus could not have have come from June.
In 1999 they tested the moderator and found no evidence that any blood remained the blood was already previously removed by the labs previously.
Thus in 2000 when they tested the moderator for DNA they did so with full knowledge that if any DNA was found there was no way to establish that such DNA was blood based. The issue that mattered was regarding whose blood was removed in 1985/86 so the tests never had any prospect of proving anything relevant.
It is not that complex IF one actually WANTS to understand it and makes an effort to do so.
-
I doubt very much that any blood could enter a silencer at that range? I would still like some proof as to how often blood enters the weapon when and if there is back spatter.
Read what I wrote again especially the last line. At contact range it goes IN the weapon. At non-contact range it goes ON the weapon. At non-contact range a miniscule amount of blood can get in the weapon but it will not be able to travel beyond 5mm inside and rarely manages to get that far. The baffles are more than 5mm from the opening...
The volume and depth is thus important. A significant amount of blood is consistent with drawback not a tiny amount of spatter that got inside by chance. he depth is another important factor to help tell whether it is just spatter that resulted from happenstance or drawback.
If it is too deep inside then that is a sign it likely got there from something other than drawback unless the gun was immediately held vertically and a tin bit managed to be pulled down by gravity. But that is not going to happen with much of the blood so again volume is important to look at.
-
Read what I wrote again especially the last line. At contact range it goes IN the weapon. At non-contact range it goes ON the weapon. At non-contact range a miniscule amount of blood can get in the weapon but it will not be able to travel beyond 5mm inside and rarely manages to get that far. The baffles are more than 5mm from the opening...
The volume and depth is thus important. A significant amount of blood is consistent with drawback not a tiny amount of spatter that got inside by chance. he depth is another important factor to help tell whether it is just spatter that resulted from happenstance or drawback.
If it is too deep inside then that is a sign it likely got there from something other than drawback unless the gun was immediately held vertically and a tin bit managed to be pulled down by gravity. But that is not going to happen with much of the blood so again volume is important to look at.
And what experiment have you seen that proves that Skip?
-
And what experiment have you seen that proves that Skip?
It is from forensic publications for one thing. At trial in this very case though the experts stated there was no way for the blood to have gotten very deep inside. The defense wanted to try to get the experts to admit that he blood could have gotten there from backspatter during the beating or while shooting the victims at intermediate distances but the experts said no it will not go in deep and not much will get inside. I don't recall them using the 5mm figure though it is possible they could have. The 5mm figure is from publications and the distance at which it will stop depends on variables so I can't provide an exact distance for each and every situation which is why instead I say several inches deep it will travel before stopping.
-
It is from forensic publications for one thing. At trial in this very case though the experts stated there was no way for the blood to have gotten very deep inside. The defense wanted to try to get the experts to admit that he blood could have gotten there from backspatter during the beating or while shooting the victims at intermediate distances but the experts said no it will not go in deep and not much will get inside. I don't recall them using the 5mm figure though it is possible they could have. The 5mm figure is from publications and the distance at which it will stop depends on variables so I can't provide an exact distance for each and every situation which is why instead I say several inches deep it will travel before stopping.
This forensic publication that you claim drawback occurs when there is a contact shot! Was this an experiment done by forensics using the exact same weapon and silencer used in the WHF murders?
What are the chances of the 3 spots of blood form 3 different people landing in the same spot on one of the baffles, otherwise known as the flake?
What are the chances that that flake so happened to be from 3 of the victims, yet we know one contact shot was to one of the children? Where was his ABO?
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
This forensic publication that you claim drawback occurs when there is a contact shot! Was this an experiment done by forensics using the exact same weapon and silencer used in the WHF murders?
Drawback is contingent upon open skin coming into contact with the weapon. Whether a moderator is present or not plays no role in whether the drawback occurs. If a moderator is attached it goes into the moderator if there is none then it goes into the barrel of the weapon. The 5mm figure relates to a lot of different tests of back spatter which demonstrated that only contact shots can result in blood in any significant quantity getting beyond 5mm. The location of a shot is the key in whether drawback will occur. The exact ammo and weapon are factors in how far inside the blood can travel.
What are the chances of the 3 spots of blood form 3 different people landing in the same spot on one of the baffles, otherwise known as the flake?
Zero unless all 3 suffer contact shots that will result in drawback fired from the same weapon. If all 3 suffer from contact shots that will result in drawback from the same weapon before any of the blood dries then the vibrations of the baffles is going to mix the blood up in any area where the blood is extremely close.
When blood is from different people though it will be ascertained that there is a mixture. The defense had 2 problems they could not establish June and Nevill suffered from wounds that result in drawback and could not establish the blood in question was a mixture let alone a mixture of just June and Nevill's blood. A mixture of all 3 does not good for the defense they need Sheila's blood to have not been present period which in turn means it would have been necessary to find it in the rifle itself because her wound was determined to be virtually certain to result in drawback.
Intimate mixing of blood can't be mistaken as the blood of 1 person it is obvious it is a mixture. The only way the defense could assert the blood was a mixture that was misidentified as coming from one person would be if it didn't intimately mix. If it didn't intimately mix it theoretically is possible only certain elements pf the second person's blood might end up in the mixture and maybe such could be masked and missed. The defense could not come up with any tests to demonstrate such was a actually possible and acknowledged they were not sure if it would be possible for June and Nevill's blood to mix and not be able to recognize both exist they lacked the facilities to test if it was possible. Worse though they could not come up with a way for the blood to not intimately mix. The only theory that anyone could come up with for it to not intimately mix would be if the blood dried and then the gun was used after that to shoot someone else. The theory was maybe in that case certain elements would end up on the dry sample and maybe it is possible other elements would not. Testing was done of how hot the moderator got and if it would rapidly dry the blood but these tests determined it did not get hot enough to rapidly dry blood so only a sizable gap in time between Nevill and June being shot would enable the chance of such happening.
What are the chances that that flake so happened to be from 3 of the victims, yet we know one contact shot was to one of the children? Where was his ABO?
;D ;D ;D ;D
We don't know if he had a contact shot and at any rate the head is not likely to result in drawback unless a large caliber weapon is used or a particularly advantageous location of the face is selected. Location of wound meaning where on the body not just the range is extremely significant which is why the testimony about location was important. The location is what resulted in determining her wound was virtually certain to result in drawback.
-
Drawback is contingent upon open skin coming into contact with the weapon. Whether a moderator is present or not plays no role in whether the drawback occurs. If a moderator is attached it goes into the moderator if there is none then it goes into the barrel of the weapon. The 5mm figure relates to a lot of different tests of back spatter which demonstrated that only contact shots can result in blood in any significant quantity getting beyond 5mm. The location of a shot is the key in whether drawback will occur. The exact ammo and weapon are factors in how far inside the blood can travel.
Zero unless all 3 suffer contact shots with the same weapon. If all 3 suffer from contact shots with the same weapon before any of the blood dries then the vibrations of the baffles is going to mix the blood up in any area where the blood is extremely close.
When blood is from different people though it will be ascertained that there is a mixture. The defense had 2 problems they could not establish June and Nevill suffered from wounds that result in drawback and could not establish the blood in question was a mixture let alone a mixture of just June and Nevill's blood. A mixture of all 3 does not good for the defense they need Sheila's blood to have not been present period which in turn means it would have been necessary to find it in the rifle itself because her wound was determined to be virtually certain to result in drawback.
Intimate mixing of blood can't be mistaken as the blood of 1 person it is obvious it is a mixture. The only way the defense could assert the blood was a mixture that was misidentified as coming from one person would be if it didn't intimately mix. If it didn't intimately mix it theoretically is possible only certain elements pf the second person's blood might end up in the mixture and maybe such could be masked and missed. The defense could not come up with any tests to demonstrate such was a actually possible and acknowledged they were not sure if it would be possible for June and Nevill's blood to mix and not be able to recognize both exist they lacked the facilities to test if it was possible. Worse though they could not come up with a way for the blood to not intimately mix. The only theory that anyone could come up with for it to not intimately mix would be if the blood dried and then the gun was used after that to shoot someone else. The theory was maybe in that case certain elements would end up on the dry sample and maybe it is possible other elements would not. Testing was done of how hot the moderator got and if it would rapidly dry the blood but these tests determined it did not get hot enough to rapidly dry blood so only a sizable gap in time between Nevill and June being shot would enable the chance of such happening.
We don't know if he had a contact shot and at any rate the head is not likely to result in drawback unless a large caliber weapon is used or a particularly advantageous location of the face is selected. Location of wound meaning where on the body not just the range is extremely significant which is why the testimony about location was important. The location is what resulted in determining her wound was virtually certain to result in drawback.
Sorry Skip but you have not answered my questions with anything that validates your claims. Proof please!
-
Sorry Skip but you have not answered my questions with anything that validates your claims. Proof please!
From the COA decision:
"Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, gave evidence to explain how blood got into the moderator if it was attached, or into the barrel if there was no moderator attached. He said that the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated. However, the expanding gas when the bullet left the muzzle was under normal circumstances distributed into the atmosphere. However with a contact shot there was no opportunity for this escape and the gas would follow the bullet into the wound as it expanded. Back pressure would then build up forcing the gas back out of the wound taking with it blood and tissue which would in effect be blasted back into the barrel if there was no moderator or into the moderator if one was attached. He said that even without direct contact, the same effect might occur but only if the gap between the end of the barrel, or the moderator if attached, and the skin was less than one millimetre. He said that the likelihood of such an occurrence was to an extent dependent on the part of the body to which the shot was delivered and the amount of blood present at that point.
If the shot to Shelia Caffell, which was a contact shot to the throat, had been fired without the moderator in place, he would have expected to find blood in the barrel of the gun. If the moderator was attached it was "virtually certain" that Sheila Caffell's blood would get into the moderator. There was, he said "a very slight possibility of it not happening, but very slight".
While not mentioned in the COA opinion, he also testified that if the wound to her throat had not been a contact wound then a large amount of blood would have sprayed on the moderator or muzzle of the weapon. So the lack of much blood on the moderator and barrel further supported that the wound was a contact wound.
Also while not mentioned he testified that with the gun not at contact range very little blood would be able to get inside the moderator and it would not ravel more than a few mm deep.
The testimony was unrebutted by any defense experts.
The COA opinion also states:
"The final and most important criticism of Mr Webster is as to his findings in relation to the possibility of a mixture of blood drying in such a way that it would not thoroughly mix. We should have thought that before advancing such a theory, a scientist would inevitably satisfy himself that there was a proper basis for the theory. That might be done by some form of experimentation, by drawing upon identifiable findings in other cases of relevance or by reference to the recent conclusions of other scientists. So far as we can judge, Mr Webster has done none of these things. He rejects experimentation because he asserts that it is impossible to reproduce the exact situation that arose in this case and because he did not have available to him sufficient facilities to do anything that came close to the circumstances of this case. He pointed to one instance he had come across where a single bloodstain was a mixture of more than one person's blood, which had not completely mixed. When asked to identify the relevant case, he was unable to do so and when asked for further details it transpired that it was blood that had soaked into cloth and not, as had occurred in this case, blood that had fallen upon a non-porous surface, a wholly different situation.
Mr Webster was asked about support for his theory amongst other scientists or in published material. As to the former, he said that his theory had been "looked at by an extremely senior forensic scientist from Germany and he thinks that it is a theory worth consideration". As to the latter he referred to a paper by Stringer, Vintner, Stowel and Thomson which included the passage:
"In forensic investigations, it can be mistakenly assumed that a particular blood stain originated from a single individual. In our experience, there have been occasions when blood stains consisting of blood from more than one individual have occurred; for example crime scenes where more than one person has been stabbed. Grouping of blood mixtures in such cases can give rise to false exclusions."
We find no support for Mr Webster's theory in that passage. Of course, the danger has to be recognised or an error may occur. Mr Hayward was clearly alert to that danger and recognised in his evidence the possibility that it might have occurred in this case. He explained why he thought it was only remotely likely that it might have happened. What the passage quoted does not do is to provided the slightest support for the theory of a blood flake coming from two sources onto a non-porous surface which did not mix sufficiently for false conclusions to be drawn from grouping tests.
Mr Webster was at pains to point out that he did not have the resources to carry out testing sufficiently related to the circumstances of this case but as far as we are aware, he has not done any testing to examine the circumstances in which a small pool of blood could be created on a non porous surface to give rise to a misleading result, let alone any testing of anything comparable to the present situation.
Mr Hayward, in contrast, has we are satisfied taken some steps to satisfy himself that he is right. He started from the proposition clearly supported by evidence that within the sound moderator there would be a very turbulent motion when the rifle was discharged. This by its very nature would produce forces that would tend to mix the blood from the two sources. In addition, the unscrewing of the sound moderator to remove it involved a twisting motion through a number of complete turns, which again would facilitate mixing. Starting from this proposition, it seemed to Mr Hayward that the only likelihood of an unmixed flake of blood would be if the blood from one source dried and blood from the other source then fell upon it. That possibility was recognised and experiments were carried out to see what happened when blood was in the moderator and other shots were discharged. First the temperature of the sound moderator was established after 25 shots had been fired through it. The temperature was found to be 24.5 degrees centigrade, which is substantially less than body temperature, and hence not likely to result in any speedy drying of the blood on the moderator. The further test that was carried out was to introduce blood onto the baffles and cause the rifle to be fired to see whether the blood did in fact dry. It did not and hence the conclusion was drawn that the blood would not have dried more quickly in the moderator than on some other non-porous surface. Having regard to the time span involved, it was therefore unlikely that blood from one person would have dried before the other person was shot. It seems to us that this investigative approach is precisely the sort of experimentation that one would expect from a scientist before a theory was advanced as being capable of being relied upon.
Mr Hayward, notwithstanding this further experimentation, still acknowledges the possibility of the flake being from Mr and Mrs Bamber just as he did at trial. He still assesses that possibility as remote.
We cannot see that Mr Webster's evidence unsupported by any experimentation or other credible basis would have had any significant impression on the jury. The jury could not convict solely on Mr Hayward's conclusion in any event because he himself acknowledged the remote possibility that it was wrong. The jury could only have been sure when they considered other aspects of the case both relating to the moderator and to quite distinct issues. As to the moderator, there was the remarkable proposition raised by the defence case that Sheila Caffell having killed her family found that she could not shoot herself with the moderator on and instead of simply taking the moderator off and putting it down, went downstairs to an office, put the moderator in its proper place in the gun cupboard and then returned to her parents' bedroom where she sat or lay down on the floor and shot herself. There was in addition not merely the presence of the blood flake in the moderator but the absence of any blood in the barrel of the gun, the end of which would have been in contact with her neck when the shot was fired."
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
Neither the defense attorneys nor I have found anything in the available scientific literature to refute the position of the prosecution witnesses and likewise nothing to substantiate Webster's speculations.
Drawback effect defined: "Process that results in atomized blood drawn into the barrel of a firearm when fired at contact range".
More about atomized blood to understand what it means:
"Blood in flight: high-velocity blood
This type of bloodstain is strictly defined by the size of the resulting drops; the majority of drops in a high-velocity or atomized stain will have a diameter of less than 1 mm. A simple, cursory glance at such a stain might reveal many drops of greater diameter, and there is a tendency to give greater weight to those larger drops that tend to dominate the pattern visually. However, a detailed examination of the stain will reveal that most (>50%) are 1 mm or smaller. Such a stain requires a great force to break up the blood to this degree. In a typical crime scene setting, the only force encountered sufficient to atomize blood is that which results from a fired bullet. As the bullet strikes the source of the blood (typically a body), it atomizes the blood into a fine spray.These small droplets have small mass and thus low momentum; they generally will not travel downrange laterally farther than two feet. Back spatter of atomized blood may also be observed, which will carry the droplets uprange in the direction of the shooter. See Figure 5."
http://www.forensic-lab.com/publications/bloodspatter.html
"In the usual case of a shooting where the projectile strikes exposed skin, the energy at impact is hydrostatically transmitted throughout much of the adjoining tissue. This results in the spattering of the blood in a very fine, almost mist-like spray. These atomized droplets of blood have a very high surface area and, therefore, cannot be projected very far in the horizontal direction."
"In addition to mist-like dropets, several larger droplets will be produced as well. A typical spray pattern, characterized as high velocity impact spatter, may be seen in Figure II-18. Note that while the vast majority of these blood spots are well under one millimeter in diameter, many larger ones are also produced."
P34 of
https://books.google.com/books?id=-m_fb580Vx0C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
The above helps explain why it can't travel very far.
The materials available on the drawback effect do not have anything for the defense to use to try to say it would not have happened which is why the defense didn't argue that at trial or at any time on appeal. That would have been an argument used at trial had an expert been available to promote such.
I have found nothing to contradict the position of the prosecution's experts. If you want to try to search for something to use then be my guest but unless and until you find something to rebut the testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses there is nothing to rebut it.
-
I will answer tomorrow as there is a lot to digest.
But, you still have not answered my questions.
Which are:
This forensic publication that you claim drawback occurs when there is a contact shot! Was this an experiment done by forensics using the exact same weapon and silencer used in the WHF murders?
What are the chances of the 3 spots of blood form 3 different people landing in the same spot on one of the baffles, otherwise known as the flake?
What are the chances that that flake so happened to be from 3 of the victims, yet we know one contact shot was to one of the children? Where was his ABO?
-
I will answer tomorrow as there is a lot to digest.
But, you still have not answered my questions.
Which are:
This forensic publication that you claim drawback occurs when there is a contact shot! Was this an experiment done by forensics using the exact same weapon and silencer used in the WHF murders?
Drawback is a phenomena that was appreciated OVER TIME. Experts noticed blood was inside of weapons and recorded such findings and eventually it was realized that it was the result of blood being sucked in through contact wounds. It wasn't a matter of running tests simply it was piecing together why something that was observed was happening.
You still keep asking about the model of weapon. Drawback is not dependent upon the weapon unless the weapon's barrel has so many openings for the gases to escape that little gases escape out of the muzzle. In that situation there might be less blood drawn in but not many weapons are like that and the moderator is question doesn't inhibit drawback.
The location of the wound is the most significant issue. Some areas result in back spatter while others do not. If an area will result in back spatter and the gun is in contact range he blood will be drawn into the weapon hence the term drawback effect but if not at contact range then it results in spatter striking nearby objects including but not limited to the weapon and shooter if they are close enough.
I keep stressing this because if you want to question things then first and foremost you need to get a medical expert to review the prosecution expert claim that the location of the would would result in spatter.
If the only experts you find agree that spatter would result then next you have to see if you can find an expert to determine whether the wound was a contact wound or not.
Relatedly, you also consult experts to see if they can find any evidence that the spatter went outside the weapon/moderator as opposed to inside.
Last you look for evidence it went inside the weapon as opposed to inside the moderator.
The drawback effect itself is too well established for you to establish it can't happen with the murder weapon. There is no way to go about doing that. You look at the issues I mentioned to try to evaluate the claims.
What are the chances of the 3 spots of blood form 3 different people landing in the same spot on one of the baffles, otherwise known as the flake?
What are the chances that that flake so happened to be from 3 of the victims, yet we know one contact shot was to one of the children? Where was his ABO?
If you read what I wrote again you will find I responded to these questions. You might not like the answers but I did respond to them.
-
Drawback is a phenomena that was appreciated OVER TIME. Experts noticed blood was inside of weapons and recorded such findings and eventually it was realized that it was the result of blood being sucked in through contact wounds. It wasn't a matter of running tests simply it was piecing together why something that was observed was happening.
You still keep asking about the model of weapon. Drawback is not dependent upon the weapon unless the weapon's barrel has so many openings for the gases to escape that little gases escape out of the muzzle. In that situation there might be less blood drawn in but not many weapons are like that and the moderator is question doesn't inhibit drawback.
The location of the wound is the most significant issue. Some areas result in back spatter while others do not. If an area will result in back spatter and the gun is in contact range he blood will be drawn into the weapon hence the term drawback effect but if not at contact range then it results in spatter striking nearby objects including but not limited to the weapon and shooter if they are close enough.
I keep stressing this because if you want to question things then first and foremost you need to get a medical expert to review the prosecution expert claim that the location of the would would result in spatter.
If the only experts you find agree that spatter would result then next you have to see if you can find an expert to determine whether the wound was a contact wound or not.
Relatedly, you also consult experts to see if they can find any evidence that the spatter went outside the weapon/moderator as opposed to inside.
Last you look for evidence it went inside the weapon as opposed to inside the moderator.
The drawback effect itself is too well established for you to establish it can't happen with the murder weapon. There is no way to go about doing that. You look at the issues I mentioned to try to evaluate the claims.
If you read what I wrote again you will find I responded to these questions. You might not like the answers but I did respond to them.
You are clearly failing to provide a relevant experiment with rifle (18) plus moderator that proves convulsively that drawback exists. You are also failing to provide a scenario where 3 blood types might fall on one baffle.....ie the flake. ;D
-
You are clearly failing to provide a relevant experiment with rifle (18) plus moderator that proves convulsively that drawback exists. You are also failing to provide a scenario where 3 blood types might fall on one baffle.....ie the flake. ;D
It is well settled that drawback occurs there is no need for any experimentation to prove drawback happens.
I answered your question already about 3 blood types mixing:
"Zero unless all 3 suffer contact shots that will result in drawback fired from the same weapon. If all 3 suffer from contact shots that will result in drawback from the same weapon before any of the blood dries then the vibrations of the baffles is going to mix the blood up in any area where the blood is extremely close.
When blood is from different people though it will be ascertained that there is a mixture."
Neither of the twins suffered a contact wound that would result in drawback. That is what would be necessary for their blood to have been found inside. The wounds were not in locations that would result in back spatter which is why the killer would not be likely to have gotten any of their blood on the killer's clothing, body or the weapon. In contrast the parents had non-contact wounds that would have resulted in some spatter getting on the weapon and killer. But they didn't have any wounds that were definitely contact wounds let alone contact wounds that would definitely result in drawback.
The beating Nevill suffered would have resulted in the killer getting medium velocity spatter on the killer and it was definitely on the stock. Even though they ended up not being able to figure out the blood type on the stock only Nevill suffered from blows that would result in medium velocity spatter so it is a no-brainer. While there is a slight possibility Jeremy got cut by the stock of the rifle breaking and thus bled on it and his blood could have mixed with Nevill's there is no solid evidence he suffered a wound that would have resulted in bleeding and his gloves could and should have protected his hand sufficiently to prevent him from bleeding. So in all likelihood the blood on the stock was Nevill's with maybe a little high velocity spatter from June mixed in.
-
My points are quite consistent, you just refuse to comprehend them.
I did forget to mention you were wrong about the COA saying it wasn't Sheila's DNA inside the rifle. The COA decided to simply say it may or may not have been inside because it didn't matter whether her DNA was found or not. You incorrectly stated they found her DNA was not inside.
As a practical matter Sheila's DNA was found inside. The expert couldn't break down the odds of it being someone else's DNA so the court simply decided to say maybe it was maybe it wasn't but the number of markers that matched is enough for us to know it was hers. But as the court said it makes no difference, the DNA tests proved nothing.
The moderator had blood on the first 8 baffles. The prosecution removed all visible blood and the defense removed all microscopic blood that had been on those baffles. That is why the baffles tested negative for blood in 1999 because the blood had already previously been removed.
The defense expert and prosecution found no blood beyond the 8th baffle the baffles beyond that tested negative for blood in 1986. So how could DNA found on baffles 9 to 17 be blood based? Since the DNA found on those baffles was clearly not blood based but rather the result of contamination, and no blood was detected as remaining on baffles 1-8 that supports the conclusion that the DNA found among the first 8 baffles was also from contamination.
Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? In 1985 and 1986 BLOOD was removed by the prosecution and defense labs and they did not do DNA tests on such blood. They only did tests to determine whether this blood was human and the blood type. Blood from the upper baffles was determined to be group A. Furthermore a flake stuck between baffles 1 and 2 was tested and it not only was group A it has an enzyme which Sheila possessed but June didn't thus could not have have come from June.
In 1999 they tested the moderator and found no evidence that any blood remained the blood was already previously removed by the labs previously.
Thus in 2000 when they tested the moderator for DNA they did so with full knowledge that if any DNA was found there was no way to establish that such DNA was blood based. The issue that mattered was regarding whose blood was removed in 1985/86 so the tests never had any prospect of proving anything relevant.
It is not that complex IF one actually WANTS to understand it and makes an effort to do so.
No it wasn't. The results were inconclusive. In other words the tests were completely useless.
-
when Lincoln went to the lab he said it Could have got in by trickling in .
-
Sounds like the only one with common sense,Jan.
-
bump :)
-
No it wasn't. The results were inconclusive. In other words the tests were completely useless.
Her DNA was found inside. The prosecution expert said her DNA was inside. The defense expert said it could have been her DNA but there is a chance it wasn't. The prosecution expert basis was: " Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided some support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator. However, Miss Groombridge was unable to perform any sort of statistical evaluation"
The COA gave the defense the benefit of the doubt and went with their conclusion of maybe it was Sheila's maybe it wasn't. They did so because it didn't matter if it was her DNA or not to reach the conclusion they did which is that the DNA tests failed to evaluate the blood that was removed in 1985 and 1986 which is the only thing that matters.
17 of 20 DNA markers from our standpoint is enough to know it was Sheila's DNA. Her DNA was found not on the baffles but rather on the walls of the moderator. The defense and prosecution didn't swab the walls so it is possible Sheila's blood was still there. June's DNA was found in the same concentration throughout the 3 baffle samples which means someone who took those baffles apart transferred minute amounts of her DNA to the baffles. That could have been anyone from Nevill to the lab or defense expert Lincoln to the jury. Sheila's DNA could have been deposited by contamination as well though it is odd that it would be spread to the walls but not baffles if her DNA was the result of contamination.
-
AK1 was present,no human blood--------rabbits,chickens,etc.
-
when Lincoln went to the lab he said it Could have got in by trickling in .
He said that the blood could have gotten on 8 baffles by trickling in? If he actually said that then the defense would have used him at trial to make such claim and he would have been crushed on cross examination because the claim is nonsense. The defense didn't make any mention anywhere of him saying such. Post proof he determined that the blood could have gotten on the 8 baffles he found the blood on by it trickling in. The crap you try to spin for such a proposition should be a hoot.
-
AK1 was present,no human blood--------rabbits,chickens,etc.
You and David keep making this pathetic claim. Evidence has been presented time and again proving you to be wrong so at this point either you are too biased to face the truth, too dishonest to admit the truth or too clueless to understand the truth.
The lab found human blood on the outside of the moderator but the quantity of blood was too small to effectively test the blood type. It was a few tiny particles of high velocity spatter. It tested positive as human blood.
Inside the lab removed a large quantity of blood from the baffles, they removed all visible blood. They tested a flake as well as a swabbing from the upper baffle plates. Both came back as human group A blood. In addition the flake had the AK1 enzyme so was consistent with Sheila's blood not June's.
From the 2002 COA decision:
"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 upon which reliance was placed by the prosecution. 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."
This finding from the swabbing of the upper baffle plates was thus consistent with blood from either June Bamber or Sheila Caffell or even a combination of blood from the two of them but not in any way from blood from Nevill Bamber or Nicholas Caffell.
We have set out at paragraphs 75 to 80 a summary of the evidence at trial relating to the scientific examination of the moderator. The critical part of that evidence was the analysis of the flake of dried blood found inside the sound moderator. The evidence was given by Mr Hayward, a biologist who was working at the Forensic Science Laboratory at the time of the examination although he was in private practice by the date of trial. In his evidence he described how he had found "a considerable amount of blood" inside the moderator deposited in the spaces to the sides of the baffles around the edge of the silencer. He was asked if he had tested "any" of that blood. He said that he had and that it was human blood. He said that he had obtained grouping reactions for group A, EAP BA, AK I, Hp 2-1. He had done a PGM grouping test but it gave negative results. He said that these grouping results were consistent with the blood coming from Sheila Caffell but not solely from any of the others who had been shot.
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 and Dr Lincoln concluded that "such findings could be consistent with an item having been previously swabbed by a forensic scientist to remove blood stains for testing". The other nine plates "did not produce any evidence for the presence of blood". 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"
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
It is well known that the lab tested 2 samples of blood from the moderator. It is well known that the lab found the baffle swabbing was group A blood and that the flake was group A blood that had the AK1 enzyme so was consistent with Sheila's blood not June's. It is well known defense expert Lincoln agreed with the findings.
When you deny this you look like a fool or liar. I could simply tell you to repeat the claims so you look foolish but I am trying to help you so that you don't make such silly claims.
-
You and David keep making this pathetic claim. Evidence has been presented time and again proving you to be wrong so at this point either you are too biased to face the truth, too dishonest to admit the truth or too clueless to understand the truth.
When you deny this you look like a fool or liar. I could simply tell you to repeat the claims so you look foolish but I am trying to help you so that you don't make such silly claims.
The fact that you have to resort to insults skippy only proves that you cannot prove anything. To make these statements is laughable as you probably have the worst reputation on this forum
-
He said that the blood could have gotten on 8 baffles by trickling in? If he actually said that then the defense would have used him at trial to make such claim and he would have been crushed on cross examination because the claim is nonsense. The defense didn't make any mention anywhere of him saying such. Post proof he determined that the blood could have gotten on the 8 baffles he found the blood on by it trickling in. The crap you try to spin for such a proposition should be a hoot.
yes he did say it could - not did - could - its in his notes in his visit.
Its his notes, not my crap - and as you have been so rude - do one - and find it yourself. Its out there.
-
yes he did say it could - not did - could - its in his notes in his visit.
Its his notes, not my crap - and as you have been so rude - do one - and find it yourself. Its out there.
You are the proponent of the claim so you produce the evidence. Your evidence always falls short of the claim you always misunderstand or intentionally misrepresent what people claim to suit your agenda and that obviously is the case with this because had he assessed that blood could have simply trickled in and dried on 8 baffles then the defense would have used his testimony to try to rebut that the blood go there as a result of drawback. Indeed the defense tried to suggest that the blood got in there while Nevill was beaten and when June was shot at non-contact ranges the defense tried to suggest blood could get inside from normal backspatter shooting inside. They had no expert to make these claims though they attempted to make their case during cross-examination but failed. If they had found an expert to support their position they would have had such expert give testimony.
-
The fact that you have to resort to insults skippy only proves that you cannot prove anything. To make these statements is laughable as you probably have the worst reputation on this forum
The fact is the claim you and lookout keep making is absurd. I don't care if people think I am rude for pointing out how absurd it is and how foolish you look for making such a ridiculous claim. I could revel in how stupid it makes you both look and encourage you to keep making the claim. I tried to help educate you so that you stop making the ridiculous claim and thus stop looking foolish.
Whether you want to look like a fool or not is up to you. I am not going to walk on pins and needles to pretend it is not absurd and doesn't make you look foolish when it absolutely does. It takes a great deal of ignorance about this case to be unaware that group A human blood was found in the moderator. Which leads to the suggestion it is not ignorance but rather intentional distortion to claim otherwise.
-
The fact that you have to resort to insults skippy only proves that you cannot prove anything. To make these statements is laughable as you probably have the worst reputation on this forum
I skip (no pun intended :P) many, many of his posts because of the potty mouth, Just off putting, isn´t it.
-
He's a loser in my books.
-
He's a loser in my books.
He is a tub of peanut butter!
(http://www.hormel.ca/wp-content/uploads/skippy-crunchy-large.jpg)
-
You are the proponent of the claim so you produce the evidence. Your evidence always falls short of the claim you always misunderstand or intentionally misrepresent what people claim to suit your agenda and that obviously is the case with this because had he assessed that blood could have simply trickled in and dried on 8 baffles then the defense would have used his testimony to try to rebut that the blood go there as a result of drawback. Indeed the defense tried to suggest that the blood got in there while Nevill was beaten and when June was shot at non-contact ranges the defense tried to suggest blood could get inside from normal backspatter shooting inside. They had no expert to make these claims though they attempted to make their case during cross-examination but failed. If they had found an expert to support their position they would have had such expert give testimony.
He said it could of - but more than likely not - HOWEVER - he said it COULD of yes - trickled in - meaning it was a possibility - i.e not impossible -
A bit like the mixture of bloods - possibility - not impossible -
What part of that don't you understand .
resorting to rude insults is a sign of ignorance in my book.
-
David hope not I love crunchy peanut butter :'(
-
I skip (no pun intended :P) many, many of his posts because of the potty mouth, Just off putting, isn´t it.
I think he mentioned somewhere he has a wife
Maybe she should sensor his essays and novels before they are posted?
-
I think he mentioned somewhere he has a wife
Maybe she should sensor his essays and novels before they are posted?
Poor wife!
-
He said it could of - but more than likely not - HOWEVER - he said it COULD of yes - trickled in - meaning it was a possibility - i.e not impossible -
A bit like the mixture of bloods - possibility - not impossible -
What part of that don't you understand .
resorting to rude insults is a sign of ignorance in my book.
1) saying something is unlikely is fatal. You need an expert to testify there is a reasonable likelihood of something happening to establish reasonable doubt.
2) There is a big difference from saying it is possible blood can trickle in the moderator (which now seems to be what you are suggesting he said) as opposed to saying it is possible for blood to trickle in and coat the first 8 baffles so that it could result in the blood found by the lab and by him.
The difference is that the former is worthless because it doesn't speak to the issue at hand. The issue at hand is whether there is a way to suggest the blood found on the baffles got there by some method other than drawback. Whether a small amount of blood can somehow get into the moderator is meaningless to the question of whether it is possible for blood to get inside and be distributed in the manner found by the labs. So the key question is did he specifically assess the blood he and the lab found could have been distributed inside by trickling in and if so in what manner is he suggesting such could have happened or did he just mention that some limited amount of blood can trickle in somehow?
The answer doesn't matter that much since he said it was unlikely but if one wants to suggest it is even possible they need to have a solid claim it is possible for blood to be distributed in such manner by something other than drawback and credible explanation with some evidence of how that could happen.
If the moderator is horizontal blood is not going inside unless forced in and unless the force is strong it will just go inside the opening, not go deep inside. If vertical and blood is dripped inside it will go down the central channel until striking the end or striking a baffle. It is not going to coat each baffle in succession. Only a spray could result in the first 8 baffles getting blood on them.
When held vertically the baffles essentially act like shelves that are all in a column. If blood leaks off shelf 1 where will it go? Is it going to fall on shelf 2? No because shelf 2 is the same size not longer. The notion the blood will leak from shelf to shelf is absurd. If it leaves the shelf it will fall down past many other shelves
____blood
V
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
If held horizontal the blood is not getting in at all unless projected by some force. Even if a dropper were stuck inside and then blood released it would simply fall down to the bottom wall of the moderator. Only a spray could result in blood getting on the upper baffles let alone 8 baffles in a row.
-
He's a loser in my books.
You also keep claiming that there was no human blood found in the moderator...
-
David hope not I love crunchy peanut butter :'(
You are safe I hate peanut butter and anything peanut butter flavored with the exception of Reese's Peanut Butter cups. Despite my love of chocolate I still hate anything with nuts but for some reason I love peanut butter cups and can eat a whole bag of Peanut Butter cups in 1 sitting without getting sick of them. I don't like jelly either am probably the only one in America who is not allergic to peanuts or jelly who never ate a PB&J sandwich.
-
Scipio never heard of peanut butter cups they sound yummy. Not a lover of chocolate myself prefer jelly beans ;D ;D ;D
-
Scipio never heard of peanut butter cups they sound yummy. Not a lover of chocolate myself prefer jelly beans ;D ;D ;D
They are sold by Hershey but have been copied by numerous companies so I assumed they would have their way to Britain.
(http://www.shitimiss.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/reeses-peanut-butter-cups.jpg)
The outside is milk choclate and serves the same function as pie crust the filling is a peanutbutter flavored concoction:
(http://www.roadtrip62.com/images/history7/ReesesPBCups.jpg)
You have to try them.
-
They are sold by Hershey but have been copied by numerous companies so I assumed they would have their way to Britain.
The outside is milk choclate and serves the same function as pie crust the filling is a peanutbutter flavored concoction:
You have to try them.
Yeah they do these in Britain I have them often, Also the white chocolate ones ;D
But I prefer the these
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zFKcQ78mrMo/TQKTnmKu1oI/AAAAAAAABdM/Xmx-mek9fcg/s1600/peanut+butter+snickers.jpg)
-
I prefer peanuts au naturel. Guess I am some sort of monkey. ;D
-
Alias bet you are a cute wee monkey that is one thing you and Scipio don't have in common is NUTS ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Alias bet you are a cute wee monkey that is one thing you and Scipio don't have in common is NUTS ;D ;D ;D ;D
SUSAN!!! ;D ;D ;D
-
Alias bet you are a cute wee monkey that is one thing you and Scipio don't have in common is NUTS ;D ;D ;D ;D
I thought monkeys like bananas. Anyway I don't like snickers and can barely tolerate peanut M&Ms. Peanut Butter cups are the exception I don't know why I love them I just do.
There are a few nuts I have liked but they were not peanuts. Walnuts are not that bad and when young I used to eat nuts that had a red candy like coating, but I don't remember what they were called. The more expensive nuts I will suck the salt out of then spit out.
-
They are sold by Hershey but have been copied by numerous companies so I assumed they would have their way to Britain.
(http://www.shitimiss.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/reeses-peanut-butter-cups.jpg)
The outside is milk choclate and serves the same function as pie crust the filling is a peanutbutter flavored concoction:
(http://www.roadtrip62.com/images/history7/ReesesPBCups.jpg)
Hershey's chocolate is awful stuff.
You have to try them.
-
Hershey's chocolate is awful stuff.
These are nothing like Hershey kisses or Hershey Bars so even if one hates those it has no bearing on whether they will like these.
-
Love this forum. On a thread about human blood we end up discussing candy!
-
Love this forum. On a thread about human blood we end up discussing candy!
Candy or rather chocolate is the international language of love.
-
Candy or rather chocolate is the international language of love.
Awwwww. Sweeeeeeetie :-* :-* :-*
-
Scipio you aint tasted Monkey Nuts then ;D ;D ;D
-
I just googled, monkey nuts ( ::) LOL), and a lot of pictures of peanuts came up, so they are also called monkey nuts.
I wasn´t quite wrong, I am a monkey even though I don´t like bananas.
(http://lily.rupture.net/yak/archives/MonkeyNuts.jpg)
-
Alias the Monkey does like Monkey Nuts but guess Scipio don't ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I give those to the squirrels. ;D Plain ones of course.
-
I give those to the squirrels. ;D Plain ones of course.
What squirrels, susan?
-
Love this forum. On a thread about human blood we end up discussing candy!
from discussing blood in a silencer leads to discussing roasted monkey nuts and squirrels.
no wonder Jeremy don't approve of this forum lol
-
from discussing blood in a silencer leads to discussing roasted monkey nuts and squirrels.
no wonder Jeremy don't approve of this forum lol
HAHA - but you have to admit we´ve seen worse!
-
Hahaha Alias like the guy in the green underpants. David aint seen nothing yet ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hahaha Alias like the guy in the green underpants. David aint seen nothing yet ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oh gosh, those green underpants, I will never forget them!
-
Hahaha Alias like the guy in the green underpants. David aint seen nothing yet ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
No wonder his campaign is going nowhere ::)
-
No wonder his campaign is going nowhere ::)
Susan and I are not members of Jeremy´s campaign team. We can talk about green undies all we want.
-
I just googled, monkey nuts ( ::) LOL), and a lot of pictures of peanuts came up, so they are also called monkey nuts.
I wasn´t quite wrong, I am a monkey even though I don´t like bananas.
(http://lily.rupture.net/yak/archives/MonkeyNuts.jpg)
That's just plain old peanuts here in the US. Maybe they are called monkey nuts because of the guys who used to sell them with the monkeys and a victrola?
My mother called to complain about the snow so I asked her about the nuts I liked as a child. She doesn't remember the brand or name anymore. She said the brown ones (which I hated) had a honey coating. The red ones had a sugar coating. It was a hard red sugar glaze so like candy. That explains why I liked them...
-
I had no idea they were called Monkey Nuts. The reason I said I must be a monkey since I like them is because I´ve fed them to monkeys at the Zoo and they liked them a lot.
-
Alias well said thought David would appreciate a bit of humour got that wrong I guess :'(
-
Oh gosh, those green underpants, I will never forget them!
The only green underwear I have ever seen were Incredible Hulk Underoos. I didn't have any underoos but some friends who were well off did. One used to always wear his Batman ones. Underoos were a t-shirt and colored briefs modeled after a super hero outfit. Only in the 80s would such a stupid concept of running around in underwear catch on. As I recall though most of us made fun of boys who wore them. They had them for girls too but I don't recall any girls wearing them around us.
-
Love them!
(http://www.incrediblehulkonline.com/Hulk%20photos/Misc%20Hulk/underoos.JPG)
-
Love them!
(http://www.incrediblehulkonline.com/Hulk%20photos/Misc%20Hulk/underoos.JPG)
Ok I forgot they were only green trimmed. Looking at the package they should have been purple like his pants. They had them for all the major super heroes but most the entire underwear were colored. Kids not only wore them around the house but outside including when we played basketball. The line was much more successful than one would expect based on who you saw wearing them. My guess is a lot of kids used them as pajamas but didn't tell the rest of us because they enjoyed making fun of others with us and didn't want to be made fun of.
-
I had no idea they were still making underoos till 2013. I thought they died in the 90s. I think this is even funnier though:
"In April 2013, the decision was made by Fruit of the Loom to exit the licensed childrenswear property business and immediately cease the design and production of its formerly lucrative Underoos products....
However, as of 3rd quarter, 2014, Fruit Of The Loom has licensed out the Underoos brand name to a manufacturer who is currently making Underoos in adult sizes, available at Hot Topic retail store chains in limited release."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underoos
-
I had no idea they were still making underoos till 2013. I thought they died in the 90s. I think this is even funnier though:
"In April 2013, the decision was made by Fruit of the Loom to exit the licensed childrenswear property business and immediately cease the design and production of its formerly lucrative Underoos products....
However, as of 3rd quarter, 2014, Fruit Of The Loom has licensed out the Underoos brand name to a manufacturer who is currently making Underoos in adult sizes, available at Hot Topic retail store chains in limited release."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underoos
OK, so now we know what to give you for Christmas!
-
OK, so now we know what to give you for Christmas!
I have not been in Hot Topic in years but based on my past experiences I bet it is sexy wear for women. If it is for men too that is creepy. Speaking of which so is the guy in the background of this pic:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/444026844484424387/
-
For those interested I have found out where the 5mm figure I cited came from. The seminal work on drawback was published in 1977 by MacDonnell and Brooks. Their research determined that in large caliber weapons blood was found up to 5mm deep when the gun was fired at non-contact range at distances up to 5 inches from the target. (With the gun fired 5 inches or less from the target some blood was able to get up to 5mm inside the barrel). For .22 rimfire weapons blood could get up to 5mm deep when fired up to 1.5 inches from the target. At contact ranges the blood was able to go much deeper than 5mm but still only would travel several inches.
What this means for this case is that the blood that was more than 5mm deep could only have gotten there from a contact shot.
-
(http://s18.postimg.org/r0fdqtftl/bloodevidence.jpg)
-
For those interested I have found out where the 5mm figure I cited came from. The seminal work on drawback was published in 1977 by MacDonnell and Brooks. Their research determined that in large caliber weapons blood was found up to 5mm deep when the gun was fired at non-contact range at distances up to 5 inches from the target. (With the gun fired 5 inches or less from the target some blood was able to get up to 5mm inside the barrel). For .22 rimfire weapons blood could get up to 5mm deep when fired up to 1.5 inches from the target. At contact ranges the blood was able to go much deeper than 5mm but still only would travel several inches.
What this means for this case is that the blood that was more than 5mm deep could only have gotten there from a contact shot.
It doesn't appear to say that in the page you published below this post? He says it is best not to generalise too much. But I have also read that a .22 contact shot the drawback went only a few mm into the barrel?
I must admit however that if drawback did occur in this case then the absence of blood in the barrel of the gun is a problem for my theory. However it is said that the blood in the silencer allegedly found by the relatives travelled down a long way into the silencer. Now to my mind there is such a thing as "overkill". What I mean by this is that it would probably only travel that far into the silencer if it have been put there deliberately.
-
Surely,if it had been fired in the frenzied manner in which it was,then there would be drawback,and plenty of it all the way down the barrel.? 25 shots non-stop. ?
-
Surely,if it had been fired in the frenzied manner in which it was,then there would be drawback,and plenty of it all the way down the barrel.? 25 shots non-stop. ?
Not necessarily lookout. Apparently drawback only happened with close or contact shots. But what I have read about .22 firearms is that drawback may not necessarily occur? But if it did occur then the blood would only travel a short distance into the weapon or silencer, around 5mm or slightly more. But as I have said before there is such a thing as over egging the pudding. hat I mean is that if the silencer evidence was manufactured by dropping blood into it then that blood travelled too far into the silencer for it to have occurred naturally.
-
Not necessarily lookout. Apparently drawback only happened with close or contact shots. But what I have read about .22 firearms is that drawback may not necessarily occur? But if it did occur then the blood would only travel a short distance into the weapon or silencer, around 5mm or slightly more. But as I have said before there is such a thing as over egging the pudding. hat I mean is that if the silencer evidence was manufactured by dropping blood into it then that blood travelled too far into the silencer for it to have occurred naturally.
Yes,I understand. It could quite easily have " travelled " down the barrel when there was a demonstration taking place as to how the rifle would have been in position. Meaning,that if it had been close enough to Sheila's neck when she was bleeding profusely,then it's not impossible.
-
We all know that liquid finds its own level and what may have began on the tip of the rifle would naturally have run down the barrel.
-
We all know that liquid finds its own level and what may have began on the tip of the rifle would naturally have run down the barrel.
I would still like it proved by testing that this .22 rifle will "always" produce drawback with a contact shot. I don't think it will? All we have here are the opinions of so called "experts". What experts? People who have studied these things yes, but also fallible people. We heard nothing from these men which told us the reality of the situation, that drawback does not always happen and in the case of a .22 rifle hardly ever happens. If they were experts then they should have revealed that information to the jury.
-
I would still like it proved by testing that this .22 rifle will "always" produce drawback with a contact shot. I don't think it will? All we have here are the opinions of so called "experts". What experts? People who have studied these things yes, but also fallible people. We heard nothing from these men which told us the reality of the situation, that drawback does not always happen and in the case of a .22 rifle hardly ever happens. If they were experts then they should have revealed that information to the jury.
I'm visualising vacuum ?
-
I would still like it proved by testing that this .22 rifle will "always" produce drawback with a contact shot. I don't think it will? All we have here are the opinions of so called "experts". What experts? People who have studied these things yes, but also fallible people. We heard nothing from these men which told us the reality of the situation, that drawback does not always happen and in the case of a .22 rifle hardly ever happens. If they were experts then they should have revealed that information to the jury.
The 1977 tests featured a consistent finding of back spatter in .22 caliber weapons but the distance the blood traveled was less and the volume was less than with observed with larger calibers.
No gun always produces backspatter or drawback. I keep trying to bring home that the most critical factor in whether there will be backspatter or drawback is the location of the wound. I intentionally posted the above quote because it noted the guy had personal experience with cases where 22 calibers did not result in drawback when the shots were to the head. That by definition means drawback doesn't always occur during contact shots. It is not the only anecdotal evidence about .22 shots to the head. Sometimes .22 shots to the head have resulted in spatter but only select locations and more often than not it doesn't
To assess the likelihood of spatter you have to look at the location and nature of the wound. It is the attributes of the skin and blood vessels in the neck and the damage done to them by the bullet which resulted in the assessment used at trial that drawback would occur. There were no generalizations this went to the specifics of wound location. It is this detailed inquiry that the defense would have to find an expert to speak to. They would consult an expert to see if the expert agreed backspatter would occur from a shot to such area. If you can't find an expert to refute the point then you are stuck without any way to get evidence in the record to refute this particular point made by the prosecution expert and have to try a different angle of attack against the moderator evidence. For example trying to see if you could find an expert who will argue the wound was not a contact wound and thus the spatter would have gotten on the outside of the weapon. That could create new problems though like meaning the gun was fired too far away for her to have fired it so any new examination has potential pitfalls.
-
Surely,if it had been fired in the frenzied manner in which it was,then there would be drawback,and plenty of it all the way down the barrel.? 25 shots non-stop. ?
Spatter has to do with location a shot is delivered not the shooter's demeanor.
when a wound does produce backspatter the range at which it was fired will determine whether the shooter is close enough to get hit by it
When a contact shot results in spatter, the spatter goes inside the weapon
A shot fired at very close range will mostly result in blood on the weapon and shooter but can result in some blood getting up to 5mm deep into the weapon as well.
It takes a contact shot to result in blood getting deeper into the weapon.
-
It doesn't appear to say that in the page you published below this post? He says it is best not to generalise too much. But I have also read that a .22 contact shot the drawback went only a few mm into the barrel?
I must admit however that if drawback did occur in this case then the absence of blood in the barrel of the gun is a problem for my theory. However it is said that the blood in the silencer allegedly found by the relatives travelled down a long way into the silencer. Now to my mind there is such a thing as "overkill". What I mean by this is that it would probably only travel that far into the silencer if it have been put there deliberately.
I posted the page I did because it has some valuable information:
1) the forward parts of the outside of the weapon will get hit with high velocity backspatter
2) blood that can get inside the barrel is a factor of distance and ammunition used
A) 22 caliber weapons will get blood inside when fired up to 1.5 inches away
B) larger caliber weapons can get blood inside when fired up to 5 inches away
C) blood can travel up to about 5mm deep at the ranges discussed in A and B but will not travel beyond this in any significant amount unless fired at contact range
Even a significant amount of blood doesn't mean a huge amount. Terms are relative. There are bigger and smaller particles of blood but even the bigger ones are tiny. They are all atomized blood particles. The bigger ones can't ravel as far as the smaller ones. That is why you will see the larger drops of blood at the beginning of the muzzle and the ones further inside will be smaller. By the same token smaller particles will read a shooter several feet away while the larger particles will not make it that far.
This page even highlights the importance of wound location. Wound location determines whether spatter will occur or not. It is a factor of the properties of the skin and blood vessels in the wound area. Source after source that i have read note that while larger caliber rounds to the head often result in spatter that headshots from 22 calibers usually don't. This not only brings home the fact you have to look in detail at the location of the wounds but has relevance to the case at hand because the boys suffered head shots. The prosecution experts didn't view any of their head wounds as being likely to result in spatter. So that means their blood would not be expected to be found in the weapon or on the shooter. In contrast June and Nevill had wounds that would result in blood on the shooter most obvious though would be the medium velocity spatter from the beating. Medium velocity spatter is not atomized is it larger blood particles that would be easy to see.
The distances inside the weapon/moderator are also relative. More than 5mm is considered deep. 1-3 inches being called deep sound odd but that is the use of the term in that instance. So you have to actually understand the meaning of terms and not use their ordinary everyday meaning.
-
This is a thread about the blood in the silencer.
It really is ridiculous to assume Sheila put the silencer on the rifle pre massacre, then took it off and neatly put it away in a box, underneath other boxes at the back of the gun cupboard. But she had to, as Bamber said, he left the rifle without the silencer.
The judge rightly asked if Sheila knew how to do this. Come to think of it, could she load and chamber a gun ?
Bamber made a fuss in the early 90's. Without any success.
-
Why did the police tell the family that they may be suspected of planting the blood ?
Why was RB asked if he had cut himself when handling the evidence ?
Now I am no way saying that is what happened before you jump the gun - but I am indicating why I feel the moderator was potentially open to contamination . Which when it is the only piece of concrete evidence in my eyes is very wrong.
-
My above post is generously assuming it was not Sheila's blood and she was able to do these erratic things.
However it was Sheila's blood. So impossible.
-
Why did the police tell the family that they may be suspected of planting the blood ?
Why was RB asked if he had cut himself when handling the evidence ?
Now I am no way saying that is what happened before you jump the gun - but I am indicating why I feel the moderator was potentially open to contamination . Which when it is the only piece of concrete evidence in my eyes is very wrong.
There are 30 pieces of forensic evidence. Really only one is needed.
I doubt that most other crimes have so much forensic evidence.
The police asked RB if he cut his finger ? Trudie will be all over this on Radio Wessex.
-
There are 30 pieces of forensic evidence. Really only one is needed.
I doubt that most other crimes have so much forensic evidence.
The police asked RB if he cut his finger ? Trudie will be all over this on Radio Wessex.
I think you have a thing about trudie :) you keep mentioning her.
-
The police will tell the relatives they will be suspected of planting the blood. I would expect them to. And I doubt the relatives would be surprised.
The defence and Bamber will automatically claim this.
To be fair the defence at trial did not claim this. It is a very outlandish claim. Bamber has since claimed his cousins framed him. Source available upon request.
-
I think you have a thing about trudie :) you keep mentioning her.
Me and Trudie would have something to talk about on a date. But may not agree. Anyway, she loves Jeremy.
-
The police will tell the relatives they will be suspected of planting the blood. I would expect them to. And I doubt the relatives would be surprised.
The defence and Bamber will automatically claim this.
To be fair the defence at trial did not claim this. It is a very outlandish claim. Bamber has since claimed his cousins framed him. Source available upon request.
Well he would not have had the chance to even implicate that if they had not removed the silencer from the scene. They opened themselves to criticism .
-
Me and Trudie would have something to talk about on a date. But may not agree. Anyway, she loves Jeremy.
And you're too old for her!
-
And you're too old for her!
I think he is too young to date ;)
-
I think he is too young to date ;)
Adam has been 17 since he joined - but I think he probably made a typo! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Adam has been 17 since he joined - but I think he probably made a typo! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Cranky ??? ??? ???
-
Cranky ??? ??? ???
Jimmy? ;D ;D ;D
-
Jimmy? ;D ;D ;D
17 ??? ??? ??? Slip of the digit? Possibility of failing eyesight along with possible memory loss?
-
Adam has been 17 since he joined - but I think he probably made a typo! ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
17 ??? ??? ??? Slip of the digit? Possibility of failing eyesight along with possible memory loss?
Jane
you forgot the Hearing aid ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Jane
you forgot the Hearing aid ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Walking frame ??? ??? ???
-
Me and Trudie would have something to talk about on a date. But may not agree. Anyway, she loves Jeremy.
Where does she say that? Source please.
She could be happily married with children for all you know?
-
;D
Walking frame ??? ??? ???
Jane
skate board methinks hahaha Adam we loves ya babe ;D ;D ;D
-
His mother probably does Susan. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
His mother probably does Susan. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hi Lookout
not to sure about that she always shut her bedroom door and his when he was a wee fella ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Lookout
not to sure about that she always shut her bedroom door and his when he was a wee fella ;D ;D ;D
That figures. ;D ;D ;D ;D A whinging Pom.
-
That figures. ;D ;D ;D ;D A whinging Pom.
[/quote
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D]
-
In the interests of fairness, Jeremy didn't say the gun wouldn't fit in the cupboard when the silencer was attached. He said it wouldn't fit into the 'case'. In fact when asked if it would fit in the cupboard, he just said he didn't know.
-
477. The CCRC recorded the information available to it as:
"10.2 The silencer had been submitted by the Commission to the FSS for examination in order to establish whether there was more than one person's DNA inside it. On the 6 March 2000, the Commission was informed that the tests had identified the DNA of at least two people inside the silencer and that there was both male and female DNA present. The female DNA was stronger than the male DNA and was present all the way through the inside of the silencer. They were not able to say that the DNA readings were derived from blood, and they were not able to identify from whom the DNA had originated.
10.3 Further inquires were commenced at this time with Essex Police in order to establish whether any blood exhibits existed from which sample references could be taken for June Bamber and Sheila Caffell. Inquiries into other areas raised in Mr Bamber's application were being undertaken at the same time. The Commission was subsequently informed that Essex Police had destroyed all the blood based exhibits in February 1996."
478. On this information the CCRC decided that "the DNA results as they stood began to support the theory put forward by the defence at trial". They decided to take steps to see whether the female DNA found within the moderator came from Sheila Caffell. To this end they located Sheila Caffell's natural mother and obtained a sample of her DNA. The evidence of the testing of this sample was recorded as:
"The results of these tests were that…the DNA in the silencer could not have come from Sheila Caffell".
-
The above quote from the 2002 appeal highlights some interesting facts.
It is human DNA inside the silencer. As it is impossible to put a finger inside the silencer, I am not sure how human DNA got inside, apart from a contact shot.
It says there was DNA from a male and female. This matches the blood evidence which suggests it could be Neville and June' blood.
The 2002 appeal later goes on to say the DNA was likely to be June's.
With human blood and DNA inside the silencer, even if neither was Sheila's, it still highlights Bamber as the killer. As Sheila would not bother putting the silencer away. Bamber had reasons to put the silencer away, as a recent thread showed.
-
490. Because the blood sample of June Bamber no longer exists, it has not been possible to do a direct comparison between her DNA and that of the major component. However, it has been possible to obtain a sample from June Bamber's sister, Pamela Boutflour, which because closely related relatives are statistically more likely to have shared components than unrelated individuals, has enabled conclusions to be drawn. That evidence shows that it is about 3,500 times more likely that the major source of DNA was from a full sister of Pamela Boutflour, i.e. June Bamber, compared to it being from an unrelated female. Both Mr Clayton and Miss Tomlinson, the DNA experts from whom we have heard, assessed this as strong evidenced that the major component therefore comes from June Bamber.
So it seems contact shots for June, Neville and Sheila. This is likely as Neville, June and Sheila were dead or asleep for at least one shot. Giving Bamber the chance to make contact shots.
The DNA and blood evidence having similar results, saying a male and female (June's) DNA was in the silencer. While Sheila's and possible a mixture of June and Neville's blood was inside.
The one thing Bamber can cling to is that there were no traces of Sheila's DNA found in the silencer. But as the judge said at trial, Sheila wouldn't kill everyone and then bother putting the silencer away, and all blood evidence prior to 1996 said it was Sheila's blood.
-
490. Because the blood sample of June Bamber no longer exists, it has not been possible to do a direct comparison between her DNA and that of the major component. However, it has been possible to obtain a sample from June Bamber's sister, Pamela Boutflour, which because closely related relatives are statistically more likely to have shared components than unrelated individuals, has enabled conclusions to be drawn. That evidence shows that it is about 3,500 times more likely that the major source of DNA was from a full sister of Pamela Boutflour, i.e. June Bamber, compared to it being from an unrelated female. Both Mr Clayton and Miss Tomlinson, the DNA experts from whom we have heard, assessed this as strong evidenced that the major component therefore comes from June Bamber.
So it seems contact shots for June, Neville and Sheila. This is likely as Neville, June and Sheila were dead or asleep for at least one shot. Giving Bamber the chance to make contact shots.
The DNA and blood evidence having similar results, saying a male and female (June's) DNA was in the silencer. While Sheila's and possible a mixture of June and Neville's blood was inside.
The one thing Bamber can cling to is that there were no traces of Sheila's DNA found in the silencer. But as the judge said at trial, Sheila wouldn't kill everyone and then bother putting the silencer away, and all blood evidence prior to 1996 said it was Sheila's blood.
where did the DNA come from Adam as the blood no longer existed?
Can you clarify factually who had contact shots and who did not from the original evidence?
-
62. Mr Fletcher also gave evidence of the range at which the shots had been fired. The lower (and not immediately fatal) of the injuries suffered by Sheila Caffell was caused when the muzzle of the gun was within three inches of the throat. The upper injury was a contact shot.
63. Of the seven injuries suffered by June Bamber, five were shots from the gun held at least one foot away from the body. The bullet wound between the eyes was fired from less than one foot away, and could have been with the gun in contact with the skin, although he viewed that as unlikely. Mr Fletcher was unable to estimate the range of the shot which had caused the injury to the right side of Mrs Bamber's chest.
64. In respect of the eight shots into Nevill Bamber's body, the six to his head and face were fired when the rifle was within a few inches of the skin. The remaining injuries to the arm were caused when the gun was at least two feet from the body.
65. As regards the twins, four of the five injuries suffered by Daniel were caused when the gun was held within one foot of his head, the fifth was from over two feet away. The three wounds to Nicholas were contact or close proximity shots.
-
The above information from the 2002 appeal is just saying Sheila certainly had a contact shot. This is supported by all the pre 1996 silencer blood evidence saying it was Sheila's blood.
It says it is unlikely Neville or June had contact shots. So I am not sure how their DNA could get into the silencer. If there are other ways, pre massacre their DNA could have got into the silencer, I don't know why Bamber brought this issue up at the appeal. Although he struck lucky that the results didn't find Sheila's DNA inside.
Perhaps the unidentified male's DNA was Nicolas, who had contact shots.
-
The above information from the 2002 appeal is just saying Sheila certainly had a contact shot. This is supported by all the pre 1996 silencer blood evidence saying it was Sheila's blood.
It says it is unlikely Neville or June had contact shots. So I am not sure how their DNA could get into the silencer. If there are other ways, pre massacre their DNA could have got into the silencer, I don't know why Bamber brought this issue up at the appeal. Although he struck lucky that the results didn't find Sheila's DNA inside.
Perhaps the unidentified male's DNA was Nicolas, who had contact shots.
Is there anything to be drawn from Sheila's DNA not present in the silencer?
-
Is there anything to be drawn from Sheila's DNA not present in the silencer?
I always found that VERY odd Steve, if June's was in there but it was supposed to be Sheila's blood - then would imagine that at least some of Sheila's DNA would have been present.
-
I always found that VERY odd Steve, if June's was in there but it was supposed to be Sheila's blood - then would imagine that at least some of Sheila's DNA would have been present.
Well it wasn't and that's that so fathom that one out.
-
Well it wasn't and that's that so fathom that one out.
Bit rude! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Haven't you worked it out yet ? My my you're slow with that one.
-
Haven't you worked it out yet ? My my you're slow with that one.
Oh do enlighten me Lookout?? ;D ;D ;D ;D ::)
-
Oh do enlighten me Lookout?? ;D ;D ;D ;D ::)
Here's me thinking the guilters knew everything.What a let-down.
-
Here's me thinking the guilters knew everything.What a let-down.
Well, clearly you have no idea - you can try and bluff all you like Lookout but you're not fooling anyone. You do know that I don't believe the silencer was used right? That was the reason for my comment to Steve - ::) ;D ;D ;D
-
Is there anything to be drawn from Sheila's DNA not present in the silencer?
Well if Sheila's DNA not being in the silencer, was grounds for a release, the 2002 appeal would have released Bamber.
I don't know enough about DNA. If Neville and June's blood and DNA could get into the silencer from close range, but not contact shots, then that explains that. However I believe out of the 15 shots into them, at least one each could have been a contact shot.
Sheila certainly had a contact shot, which explains her blood being in the silencer. Maybe the DNA was in the blood evidence which was removed in 1996. Or maybe it's quite normal for someone's blood, but not their DNA to be found somewhere.
-
Well, clearly you have no idea - you can try and bluff all you like Lookout but you're not fooling anyone. You do know that I don't believe the silencer was used right? That was the reason for my comment to Steve - ::) ;D ;D ;D
Stands to sense really that Sheila with blood and gubbins on her hand/s handled the silencer but didn't necessarily screw it onto the rifle.
-
Stands to sense really that Sheila with blood and gubbins on her hand/s handled the silencer but didn't necessarily screw it onto the rifle.
How did she put it back in the cupboard after shooting herself? ::) I have no idea what 'gubbins' is??
-
Stands to sense really that Sheila with blood and gubbins on her hand/s handled the silencer but didn't necessarily screw it onto the rifle.
The testing was done to the inside of the silencer only.
-
488. In order to test for DNA within the moderator, the moderator was dismantled and the seventeen baffles were divided into three groups for analysis; A) baffles 1-7, being those closest to the bullet exiting end, B) baffles 8-11 and C) baffles 12-17. This was done because there was an expectation that the amount of DNA on any single baffle would be very small. Thus in order to have the best chance of obtaining a DNA profile, each group was swabbed with the same swab rather than using a separate swab for each baffle.
The most surprising thing is June's DNA being found. It is doubtful she had anything to do with the rifles and components. That was all Neville.
-
The testing was done to the inside of the silencer only.
And ? Liquid finds its own level-----downwards.
-
Haven't you worked it out yet ? My my you're slow with that one.
i think your the one that is slow.the tests done before were basic.no doubt if they were done today they would show sheilas dna.you only raise questions about evidence that cannot be proved one way or another.why dont you tell us your thoery of how sheila committed the crime .your own thoughts not mikes.we will see if they stand up to scrutany
-
i think your the one that is slow.the tests done before were basic.no doubt if they were done today they would show sheilas dna.you only raise questions about evidence that cannot be proved one way or another.why dont you tell us your thoery of how sheila committed the crime .your own thoughts not mikes.we will see if they stand up to scrutany
I don't answer to hardfaced sods like you whoever you are,but it's clear to see you have a purpose and it isn't just debating.
-
I don't answer to hardfaced sods like you whoever you are,but it's clear to see you have a purpose and it isn't just debating.
That was a perfectly reasonable question and it was case based. You clearly can't answer so have done what you usually do, gone on the defensive and started to attack. No wonder we don't get new members - you're showing yourself to be hard faced.
-
That was a perfectly reasonable question and it was case based. You clearly can't answer so have done what you usually do, gone on the defensive and started to attack. No wonder we don't get new members - you're showing yourself to be hard faced.
I've followed that side-kick of yours and it's here to annoy-------nothing else !!
-
I've followed that side-kick of yours and it's here to annoy-------nothing else !!
If that were true, they certainly wouldn't be alone!
-
I don't answer to hardfaced sods like you whoever you are,but it's clear to see you have a purpose and it isn't just debating.
stop the name calling sod. cause when i start .you/ll know about it.when people like you say a rude word to me i wiil allways return it with interest .so lets stop here.thanks
-
stop the name calling sod. cause when i start .you/ll know about it.when people like you say a rude word to me i wiil allways return it with interest .so lets stop here.thanks
Good ere in'it? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
stop the name calling sod. cause when i start .you/ll know about it.when people like you say a rude word to me i wiil allways return it with interest .so lets stop here.thanks
Yes,I bet you can give as good !! I can feel it.
-
Yes,I bet you can give as good !! I can feel it.
Lookout, that is THOROUGHLY nasty. What the hell has Sami done to you, OTHER that say he/she things Jeremy is guilty. If he/she had said they thought Jeremy was innocent, you'd be all over them like a rash.
-
Lookout, that is THOROUGHLY nasty. What the hell has Sami done to you, OTHER that say he/she things Jeremy is guilty. If he/she had said they thought Jeremy was innocent, you'd be all over them like a rash.
Blind are you ? Have you not noticed the remarks made after my posts. ?
"All over them like a rash".Like you are because he/she is a guilter ??
-
Blind are you ? Have you not noticed the remarks made after my posts. ?
"All over them like a rash".Like you are because he/she is a guilter ??
You have been nasty to Sami since he she arrived!
-
Blind are you ? Have you not noticed the remarks made after my posts. ?
"All over them like a rash".Like you are because he/she is a guilter ??
I speak as I find, Lookout, and I don't THINK I'm guilty of attacking first. I haven't noticed this trait in Sami, either, but it seems you don't think he/she has the right to ask questions without you having a go first.
-
Well if Sheila's DNA not being in the silencer, was grounds for a release, the 2002 appeal would have released Bamber.
I don't know enough about DNA. If Neville and June's blood and DNA could get into the silencer from close range, but not contact shots, then that explains that. However I believe out of the 15 shots into them, at least one each could have been a contact shot.
Sheila certainly had a contact shot, which explains her blood being in the silencer. Maybe the DNA was in the blood evidence which was removed in 1996. Or maybe it's quite normal for someone's blood, but not their DNA to be found somewhere.
It was said several times that the dna evidence was not understood. The blood was no longer in the silencer it had been removed for testing years before. The dna did not come from the blood in the silencer.