Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: scipio_usmc on February 22, 2015, 04:06:AM
-
Last year I read some cross by the defense where they tried to get Fletcher to support their contention Nevill and June's blood got inside the moderator from Nevill being beaten and while they were being shot from a distance. Is Fletcher's full testimony anywhere on the site?
I found an article that discussed his testimony a little that some might find of interest but would like to see it all if possible.
(http://s18.postimg.org/jffzj1zw9/1986articlep1.jpg)
(http://s22.postimg.org/x1my2ahoh/1986articlep2.jpg)
-
Interestingly he states that the blood could have gotten inside the silencer 'deliberately'.
-
Interestingly he states that the blood could have gotten inside the silencer 'deliberately'.
I posted it because he said the ONLY other way it could have gotten inside was deliberately. The point being there is no way for it to have gotten inside by any innocent accident. I have noted such for a long time now. He was not asked what efforts would have been required to plant it deliberately.
It also says that her doctor said Sheila was doing quite well mentally the last visit she had with her.
I would still like to find his full testimony though.
-
There are other ways Sheila's blood could have found its way into the silencer but last time I mentioned it I got in trouble.
-
There are other ways Sheila's blood could have found its way into the silencer but last time I mentioned it I got in trouble.
I think out of ALL of the suggestions put forward, that particular suggestion is the MOST unlikely!!
-
I posted it because he said the ONLY other way it could have gotten inside was deliberately. The point being there is no way for it to have gotten inside by any innocent accident. I have noted such for a long time now. He was not asked what efforts would have been required to plant it deliberately.
It also says that her doctor said Sheila was doing quite well mentally the last visit she had with her.
I would still like to find his full testimony though.
I'm glad you posted it - bottom line is, he said it was certainly possible. If it was so unlikely so as not to be worth considering, I think he would have said that. However, he included it as an option.
-
I posted it because he said the ONLY other way it could have gotten inside was deliberately. The point being there is no way for it to have gotten inside by any innocent accident. I have noted such for a long time now. He was not asked what efforts would have been required to plant it deliberately.
It also says that her doctor said Sheila was doing quite well mentally the last visit she had with her.
I would still like to find his full testimony though.
Ta for that, Scipio. There's one question there it would have been interesting to have heard the answer to.
You mention "her doctor said Sheila was doing quite well mentally.............." but what it ACTUALLY says is "A doctor said she appeared "quite well" " which has a somewhat different connotation.
-
if you go to the search button you can enter fletcher - and sort by relevance. Mike says he has his working notes. On thing I don't understand is why if they swabbed the baffles and there was considerable blood did they only test one flake - and how was the flake there when fletcher had already taken the silencer apart.
"Grounds 14 and 15 – blood in the sound moderator 452. Grounds 14 and 15 each relate to different aspects of the evidence relating to the blood in the sound moderator. They are distinct matters but clearly need to be considered together because they relate to the same important aspect of the prosecution case. Ground 14 is an attack upon the blood testing evidence called at trial based upon fresh evidence which it is suggested would have cast doubt upon the prosecution evidence in this regard if it had been available to the jury. Ground 15 is the sole ground upon which this case was referred to the Court by the CCRC. It is based upon the testing of the sound moderator for DNA, a technique that was not available at trial.
453. 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.
454. Mr Hayward then said that you could get different reactions if there was more than one person's blood present and he said that it was "a remote possibility" that the blood that he had tested was a mixture of blood from Mr and Mrs Bamber. Mr Bamber's blood was group O, PGM 1+, BAP BA AK1, Hp2-1. Mrs Bamber's blood was group A, PGM 1+, EAP BA, AK2-1, Hp2-1. If these bloods were mixed together, you could get the results recorded from the blood tested from the moderator. However, if there was sufficient of Mrs Bamber's blood present to give the clear cut group A result, he would have "stood a good chance of detecting the AK2-1 which would have gone with it". He said that there was nothing to suggest to him that there was blood from more than one person present.
455. Mr Hayward said that the conclusions of Dr Vanezis, the pathologist, and Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, supported his view that the blood was from Sheila Caffell alone because their findings suggested that only Sheila Caffell had been shot with the gun in contact with her skin or from "very close range" and he would have been very surprised to find blood within the moderator from a person who had not been shot with the end of the moderator in contact with that person or at least very close to it. He was asked what very close meant and he said that that was a matter for Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert.
456. Mr Hayward also gave evidence about examining a pull through used to examine the inside of the barrel of the rifle itself. He said that there was no blood at all on it. He expressed his conclusion as (Transcript PMS/2 page 18B):
"Since the blood from inside the sound moderator belonged to the same group as Sheila Caffell, and since there was no blood inside the barrel of the rifle, I was led to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell had been shot whilst the sound moderator was fitted to the rifle."
457. 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.
458. 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".
459. Mr Fletcher was asked about the wounds to Mr and Mrs Bamber and whether they could have been contact wounds or wounds at such proximity that blood might have been propelled back into the moderator. He said that Mr Bamber had a wound that could have been a contact wound and that Mrs Bamber had one wound where there was a slight possibility that it was a contact wound. He concluded by saying (Transcript PMS/10 page 58):
"The most likely explanation for the blood being in the sound moderator is that it was fitted to the gun at the time the contact wound to Sheila Caffell's neck was fired. There is a very very slight possibility that I am wrong in my opinion, but I don't think so."
460. 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. He said that it was not clear from Mr Hayward's statement that he had obtained the blood from which the different group testings had been done from the same area of the moderator. If they were not from the same area, then the results could have originated from more than one individual.
461. On 8 September 1986, Dr Lincoln again went to the laboratory and this time met and discussed the matter with Mr Hayward. As a result of this meeting, Dr Lincoln appreciated that the blood tested all came from a single flake trapped under the first or second baffle. In a letter to the defence solicitors, Dr Lincoln said that Mr Hayward "used this single flake to produce a solution from which he was able to determine the groups". He said that this meant that the possible explanation he had earlier suggested as to a combination of more than one persons blood no longer applied.
462. In one respect Dr Lincoln was in error. Whether that error was from something said by Mr Hayward or simply from an assumption made by Dr Lincoln cannot now be ascertained and matters not. The error was to suggest that the whole of the blood flake was dissolved and the resulting solution was used for all the tests. In fact what had happened was that the flake had been divided into a number of parts and each part had then been used for a separate group test. Thus the tests were not done on liquid drawn from the same solution made from the whole flake but on separate solutions each made from distinct parts of the flake. We have no means of knowing whether correction of this error would in any way have altered Dr Lincoln's view.
463. Ground 14 is based upon evidence from a fresh expert instructed by the defence (Dr Lincoln no longer being available to them), Mr Mark Webster, a forensic scientist in independent practice. He was asked to consider the possibility that the blood tested by Mr Hayward might have been a combination of the blood of Mr Bamber and Mrs Bamber.
464. Mr Webster made a number of points:
i) He suggested that the flake, which was a quarter of an inch across, might not have been a flake of blood but a flake of soot splattered with blood that had been mistaken by Mr Hayward for a flake of blood. His one basis for this rather surprising suggestion was that he had noted a flake of soot on one of the baffles.
ii) He accepted that if the blood from Mr and Mrs Bamber had become "intimately mixed", the results certainly could not have been mistaken for Sheila Caffell's blood alone.
iii) However, "if the blood from the two sources did not become completely intimately mixed, then the test could not be guaranteed to detect the mixture".
iv) If the sample tested was a blood stained flake of soot, this increased the chance that the two different sources of blood might not have been completely intimately mixed.
v) If the sample was not completely intimately mixed, the grouping test might be carried out on different portions of the sample and hence each might detect only the blood of one of the persons responsible for the mixture.
vi) Whilst he accepted that the method of testing was the standard approach to blood grouping at the time, it was only applicable to "a run of the mill" case where it was known that each bloodstain was from a single individual. When there was a risk that it might be from more than one blood source, as here, Mr Hayward should have taken steps to ensure that the different group tests were carried out on the same material. This could have been achieved either by dissolving the whole flake and forming a single solution or by crushing the flake and pulverising it to ensure that all parts were completely mixed.
-
Last year I read some cross by the defense where they tried to get Fletcher to support their contention Nevill and June's blood got inside the moderator from Nevill being beaten and while they were being shot from a distance. Is Fletcher's full testimony anywhere on the site?
I found an article that discussed his testimony a little that some might find of interest but would like to see it all if possible.
(http://s18.postimg.org/jffzj1zw9/1986articlep1.jpg)
(http://s22.postimg.org/x1my2ahoh/1986articlep2.jpg)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3322.msg130425.html#msg130425
-
There are other ways Sheila's blood could have found its way into the silencer but last time I mentioned it I got in trouble.
I wouldn't worry if I were you,lebaleb. I don't lose sleep over anything or anybody. ;)
-
I posted it because he said the ONLY other way it could have gotten inside was deliberately. The point being there is no way for it to have gotten inside by any innocent accident. I have noted such for a long time now. He was not asked what efforts would have been required to plant it deliberately.
It also says that her doctor said Sheila was doing quite well mentally the last visit she had with her.
I would still like to find his full testimony though.
But he noted that it was the only other possibility. Which indicates to me at least that he knew it could be done.
-
I think out of ALL of the suggestions put forward, that particular suggestion is the MOST unlikely!!
But Fletcher states it was a possibility, not most unlikely.
-
Ta for that, Scipio. There's one question there it would have been interesting to have heard the answer to.
You mention "her doctor said Sheila was doing quite well mentally.............." but what it ACTUALLY says is "A doctor said she appeared "quite well" " which has a somewhat different connotation.
Doctors are the wrong people to ask about one's health as in my own case and in the case of my daughter they have been very wrong. Just because they are their patients it does not follow that they know how they are mentally or physically.
-
Doctors are the wrong people to ask about one's health as in my own case and in the case of my daughter they have been very wrong. Just because they are their patients it does not follow that they know how they are mentally or physically.
My point was that the piece doesn't specify that it was HER doctor, but A doctor who, had he not known her previously, probably wasn't best placed to say, categorically, how she was. In fairness, he did only say she APPEARED quite well.
-
My point was that the piece doesn't specify that it was HER doctor, but A doctor who, had he not known her previously, probably wasn't best placed to say, categorically, how she was. In fairness, he did only say she APPEARED quite well.
So in fact what he had to say was quite redundant then?
-
But Fletcher states it was a possibility, not most unlikely.
He doesn't state that the suggestion made by lebaleb is possible - I doubt he would EVER take that particular theory seriously!. I guess you don't remember what he/she suggested in respect to the blood in the silencer but I'm not going there!
Not sure why you think I'm arguing in favour of the silencer evidence when I have made it crystal that I think the silencer was faked?
-
He doesn't state that the suggestion made by lebaleb is possible - I doubt he would EVER take that particular theory seriously!. I guess you don't remember what he/she suggested in respect to the blood in the silencer but I'm not going there!
Not sure why you think I'm arguing in favour of the silencer evidence when I have made it crystal that I think the silencer was faked?
I haven't seen lebaleb's suggestion, I thought we were talking about the possibilty of faking the silencer which I made quite clear in my former post.
-
I'm glad you posted it - bottom line is, he said it was certainly possible. If it was so unlikely so as not to be worth considering, I think he would have said that. However, he included it as an option.
You are intentionally reading what you want to read into it. He was saying there is no way it could have accidentally have gotten there or gotten there naturally by any means except drawback. He didn't say there is a reasonable probability someone could have planted the blood.
planting it would require knowing there was a fatal wound that would result in drawback, having a supply of blood to use, knowing that the blood needed to be sprayed inside and finding something to spray it will that would work...
The point of this is that the jury was told in no uncertain terms there was no other way for the blood to get inside other than drawback or being planted and the defense made no attempt to refute this and to contend there was some other natural way for it to get there. Nor did the defense contend let alone try to produce evidence to establish it was planted. They had no evidentiary basis to make the suggestion. Rather they contended blood got inside as a result of drawback but that it was June and Nevill's blood. The only evidence they offered in such regard was to get the prosecution's own expert to say it was extremely unlikely for that to be the case for a host of reasons that he went into.
If people want to try establishing it was planted they need evidence not saying well we think it is theoretically possible. When people say they choose to believe the blood was planted even though they have no evidence to suggest it happened that demonstrates they are succumbing to bias not rational thought.
-
Ta for that, Scipio. There's one question there it would have been interesting to have heard the answer to.
You mention "her doctor said Sheila was doing quite well mentally.............." but what it ACTUALLY says is "A doctor said she appeared "quite well" " which has a somewhat different connotation.
I think it is referring to the one who gave her the injection not her regular doctor. But if she appeared mentally unbalanced or complained about some mental issues she would have noted such not say she appeared quite well. This though is another area where it would be nice if the full testimony were available to read.
-
I think it is referring to the one who gave her the injection not her regular doctor. But if she appeared mentally unbalanced or complained about some mental issues she would have noted such not say she appeared quite well. This though is another area where it would be nice if the full testimony were available to read.
This though is another area where it would be nice if the full testimony were available to read.
Just be patient,you might get to hear about it in due course..
-
I think it is referring to the one who gave her the injection not her regular doctor. But if she appeared mentally unbalanced or complained about some mental issues she would have noted such not say she appeared quite well. This though is another area where it would be nice if the full testimony were available to read.
Scipio, that Dr was a she, not a he and "less than a month....." doesn't put her in the time frame of being at WHF. It WOULD have been good to have that testimony expanded.
-
if you go to the search button you can enter fletcher - and sort by relevance. Mike says he has his working notes. On thing I don't understand is why if they swabbed the baffles and there was considerable blood did they only test one flake - and how was the flake there when fletcher had already taken the silencer apart.
They initially did multiple tests to determine whether the blood on and in was human. Subsequently when they did the blood grouping test they didn't test only 1 flake. They did 2 blood grouping tests. They tested blood from the upper baffles and then the flake. The test of the upper baffles was group A but had no enzymes. The flake was group A and also had the AK1 enzyme. In THEORY the blood on the upper baffle could have belonged to either June or Sheila because they both had group A blood. Of course for it to be June's that requires June to have suffered from a contact shot that resulted in drawback which the experts said they didn't think happened. June has a different enzyme than was found in the flake while Sheila has such enzyme. So while in theory the blood from the upper baffles could be from either June or Sheila the flake could only be from Sheila. That is why the flake was concentrated on and so much more significant than the blood on the upper baffles. That is why the blood on the upper baffles is not mentioned much.
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."
As for the flake it was not a loose flake that was floating around the blood dried into a flake and was stuck to the metal till removed.
-
There's a new video about the silencer which was made last week on the OS forum. It's worth a watch.
-
Scipio, that Dr was a she, not a he and "less than a month....." doesn't put her in the time frame of being at WHF. It WOULD have been good to have that testimony expanded.
I know, I wrote "she", read it again. Naturally for the 3 weeks after she saw Sheila you would look to other people to see if they noted anything changing and her being mentally unbalanced but there wasn't any such testimony. The only thing that could be found was that she screamed at a stranger who surprised her by using a key to enter the house when she was in it alone. That had nothing to do with having a mental episode though it is an understandable reaction to thinking someone broke in to your house.
-
I know, I wrote "she", read it again. Naturally for the 3 weeks after she saw Sheila you would look to other people to see if they noted anything changing and her being mentally unbalanced but there wasn't any such testimony. The only thing that could be found was that she screamed at a stranger who surprised her by using a key to enter the house when she was in it alone. That had nothing to do with having a mental episode though it is an understandable reaction to thinking someone broke in to your house.
Are we becoming confused here. The short, last paragraph simply states that "A doctor who saw her three months after she left hospital and less than three weeks prior to the murders................" -or words to that effect.
The locum who gave her the reduced injection -I believe- moved on soon afterwards but even if she hadn't, to WHOM would she look to check up on Sheila because it seems that no one did any checks AFTER the last reduced injection,which is part of my gripe.
-
here is websters summary
-
Well that's telling them. :-[
-
Well that's telling them. :-[
If the experts have it wrong then what chance have we got in understanding it all. Its the same with the jury, they did not understand it all either. If there is arguments within the scientists that did the tests and how they did the tests, then we still in my opinion do not have a clear enough answer.
Was Sheila's blood found in the silencer? It might be or could be or its likely is not an answer...I'd like a yes or no...the other answers are unsafe. :-\ ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
If the experts have it wrong then what chance have we got in understanding it all. Its the same with the jury, they did not understand it all either. If there is arguments within the scientists that did the tests and how they did the tests, then we still in my opinion do not have a clear enough answer.
Was Sheila's blood found in the silencer? It might be or could be or its likely is not an answer...I'd like a yes or no...the other answers are unsafe. :-\ ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
There was no great knowledge as to whether there was drawback or not. As far as I am concerned it was a gamble that paid off for those who wanted JB convicted. I repeat what I have believed from the very beginning. The silencer was faked evidence by those to whom it would benefit the most. They needed no great knowledge whatsoever. As a well known magician once said, "Scientists are the easiest people to fool".
-
I'm sure all the jury will have realised by now. I wonder how they feel,as I know how I would if I'd helped put a man behind bars all these years. :( It would have taken me all my time not to have said something before now I can tell you.
-
Are we becoming confused here. The short, last paragraph simply states that "A doctor who saw her three months after she left hospital and less than three weeks prior to the murders................" -or words to that effect.
The locum who gave her the reduced injection -I believe- moved on soon afterwards but even if she hadn't, to WHOM would she look to check up on Sheila because it seems that no one did any checks AFTER the last reduced injection,which is part of my gripe.
No I'm not confused I will put the "who" the various pronouns were referring to in parenthesis:
"I think it is referring to the one (doctor) who gave her the injection not her (Sheila's) regular doctor. But if she (Sheila) appeared mentally unbalanced or complained about some mental issues she (the doctor) would have noted such not say she (Sheila) appeared quite well. This though is another area where it would be nice if the full testimony were available to read."
-
here is websters summary
It's merely a summary of his own speculations, particularly that it could have been a non-intimate blood mixture. He failed to come up with any testing that could substantiate his speculation and worse when pushed by the judges, during a hearing, to come up with a way for the blood to not intimately mix he made the unsupported claim that blood had been deposited on cloth by 2 different sources and failed to mix together intimately. Even if true those condition failed to apply to the case at hand he had no way for the blood to not intimately mix let alone any evidence to suggest that such could be misread. He admitted he had no idea whether June's blood could mask Nevills and be misread he said he lacked the facilities to test his speculation.
His claim that the judge misrepresented the testimony of the lab personnel was rejected by the judges as false.
-
It's merely a summary of his own speculations, particularly that it could have been a non-intimate blood mixture. He failed to come up with any testing that could substantiate his speculation and worse when pushed by the judges, during a hearing, to come up with a way for the blood to not intimately mix he made the unsupported claim that blood had been deposited on cloth by 2 different sources and failed to mix together intimately. Even if true those condition failed to apply to the case at hand he had no way for the blood to not intimately mix let alone any evidence to suggest that such could be misread. He admitted he had no idea whether June's blood could mask Nevills and be misread he said he lacked the facilities to test his speculation.
His claim that the judge misrepresented the testimony of the lab personnel was rejected by the judges as false.
It would be, wouldn´t it.
I was waiting for this post from you, and lo and behold, here it is! I am practically a psychic! ;D
-
ha ha judges backing judges - dodgy handshakes? :o
could blood be trickled?
-
There was no great knowledge as to whether there was drawback or not. As far as I am concerned it was a gamble that paid off for those who wanted JB convicted. I repeat what I have believed from the very beginning. The silencer was faked evidence by those to whom it would benefit the most. They needed no great knowledge whatsoever. As a well known magician once said, "Scientists are the easiest people to fool".
The evidence that it was drawback was un-rebutted and thus effectively conceded by the defense- particularly with the defense contending June and Nevill's blood got inside while being shot.
Establishing who the blood belonged to was established by the prosecution int he following manner:
1) Sheila suffered a contact wound that would result in drawback. That means Sheila's blood would have to have been deposited in the muzzle of the rifle or the moderator if the moderator were attached to the rifle when the shot was fired
2) No blood was found int he rifle but blood consistent with Sheila's was found in the moderator
3) It is unlikely June and Nevill suffered any wounds that were contact wounds that could have resulted in drawback and the twins did not suffer any contact wounds that would result in drawback
4) visible blood was found on the first 5-7 baffles which was determined to be from one person and it was group A blood
5) a flake of blood from 1 person that was between baffles 1 and 2 was group A blood and also had enzyme AK1.
6) June and Sheila both have group A blood but Sheila has enzyme AK1 while June has enzyme AK2-1 so the flake was consistent with Sheila's blood not June's
7) AK2-1 is more hardy than AK1 and since the AK1 enzyme had not yet deteriorated that means had June's blood been present her AK2-1 enzymes would still have been present. So this speaks against the blood on the baffles or the flake containing any of June's blood because there was no AK2-1 present and there should have been if her blood was present because AK2-1 takes longer to deteriorate than AK1 and AK1 was present.
All of these things combined- the lack of a wound that would result in June's blood getting inside, the fact Sheila did have a wound that would result in drawback and that none was found in the rifle, the lack of AK2-1, etc all combined lead to the conclusion the group A blood found inside the moderator was Sheila's.
A competent advocate first makes the effort to FULLY understand the argument of the other side. Then makes an attempt to see if it is possible to rebut the arguments of the other side with competent evidence that can be marshalled.
You just gloss over the argument made at trial and say you don't want to believe it and you feel it means nothing. That's not rebutting the evidence it is simply ignoring it. That accomplishes nothing in a debate. It especially accomplishes nothing when someone was convicted upon the basis of the evidence and the only way to get the conviction vacated is to refute the evidence used at trial.
-
ha ha judges backing judges - dodgy handshakes? :o
could blood be trickled?
1) it is from the date Lincoln was at the lab so is either Lincoln's notes or was created by someone else in the defense.
2) it denies trickling in could account for the depth of penetration and says that it is unlikely trickling in could even account for the blood at the inside tip of the moderator because there was not much blood on the face of the moderator.
-
The evidence that it was drawback was un-rebutted and thus effectively conceded by the defense- particularly with the defense contending June and Nevill's blood got inside while being shot.
Establishing who the blood belonged to was established by the prosecution int he following manner:
1) Sheila suffered a contact wound that would result in drawback. That means Sheila's blood would have to have been deposited in the muzzle of the rifle or the moderator if the moderator were attached to the rifle when the shot was fired
According to the following book on forensics. Drawback only occurs with contact wounds with high calibre weapons. The gun in this case is a low calibre weapon
http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9781449602154 (http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9781449602154)
By (author) Henk Becker, By (author) Chaminade University Ronald F Becker, By (author) M. Criminal Justice Department University of Wisconsin-Platteville Aric W Dutelle
I have included the authors names above, so if you can please direct your upcoming rude novel criticising their work to them rather than me it would be much appreciated.
-
It would be, wouldn´t it.
I was waiting for this post from you, and lo and behold, here it is! I am practically a psychic! ;D
Well since the arguments of Jeremy supporters are a broken record and this came up so many times the past 10 months alone it hardly takes a psychic to know the answer. The fact is that the appellate judges were right. The judge did accurately summarize the arguments of the prosecution. No one here has been able to demonstrate otherwise. The CCRC wasn't even swayed by such claim they didn't refer such matter to the COA the defense decided to tack on all the crap the CCRC didn't find persuasive just because they were not prevented from doing so.
The COA rejected the claim that the judge misrepresented the testimony by pointing out he did a verbatim read back of the testimony. The COA was right he read the exact quote os how could he have misrepresented the testimony when he read it verbatim:
(http://s22.postimg.org/njpq0x9hd/summingup.jpg)
The proponent of a claim bears the burden of providing proof. No evidence was provided by the defense to prove he misrepresented in his summing up and no one here has produced any evidence. I could simply stop there and say the proponents failed to meet their burden. Instead I went the extra mile and investigated the claim myself by actually looking at the summing up provision at the heart of the controversy. As plain as day it contains exact quoting not paraphrasing so the claim his testimony was incorrectly paraphrased falls apart. The only way to prove otherwise is to come up with a different quote that contradicts this but I have not seen any such quotes in any of the sources publicly available on his testimony and the defense has not been able to produce any such quotes...
-
The evidence that it was drawback was un-rebutted and thus effectively conceded by the defense- particularly with the defense contending June and Nevill's blood got inside while being shot.
Establishing who the blood belonged to was established by the prosecution int he following manner:
1) Sheila suffered a contact wound that would result in drawback. That means Sheila's blood would have to have been deposited in the muzzle of the rifle or the moderator if the moderator were attached to the rifle when the shot was fired
2) No blood was found int he rifle but blood consistent with Sheila's was found in the moderator
3) It is unlikely June and Nevill suffered any wounds that were contact wounds that could have resulted in drawback and the twins did not suffer any contact wounds that would result in drawback
4) visible blood was found on the first 5-7 baffles which was determined to be from one person and it was group A blood
5) a flake of blood from 1 person that was between baffles 1 and 2 was group A blood and also had enzyme AK1.
6) June and Sheila both have group A blood but Sheila has enzyme AK1 while June has enzyme AK2-1 so the flake was consistent with Sheila's blood not June's
7) AK2-1 is more hardy than AK1 and since the AK1 enzyme had not yet deteriorated that means had June's blood been present her AK2-1 enzymes would still have been present. So this speaks against the blood on the baffles or the flake containing any of June's blood because there was no AK2-1 present and there should have been if her blood was present because AK2-1 takes longer to deteriorate than AK1 and AK1 was present.
All of these things combined- the lack of a wound that would result in June's blood getting inside, the fact Sheila did have a wound that would result in drawback and that none was found in the rifle, the lack of AK2-1, etc all combined lead to the conclusion the group A blood found inside the moderator was Sheila's.
A competent advocate first makes the effort to FULLY understand the argument of the other side. Then makes an attempt to see if it is possible to rebut the arguments of the other side with competent evidence that can be marshalled.
You just gloss over the argument made at trial and say you don't want to believe it and you feel it means nothing. That's not rebutting the evidence it is simply ignoring it. That accomplishes nothing in a debate. It especially accomplishes nothing when someone was convicted upon the basis of the evidence and the only way to get the conviction vacated is to refute the evidence used at trial.
I haven't just "glossed" over it as you suggest in an attempt to diminish my argument. (1) it was never tested that back spatter did actually occur. It was just assumed that it would have occurred. And (2) Back spatter does not always occur. I will also include a third point here (3) The fact that they also said there was no gun shot residue on Sheila was a deliberate lie as if she was shot at close range and that gun shot residue is emitted from the barrel of the gun then there must have been gunshot residue on her. So the fact that they did not say this but rather said that there was insufficient gun shot residue on her is an indication that they were also wrong on the other observations. If you bother to read up on it yourself and I should assume that you are intelligent enough and actually know this as being fact, that back spatter does not always occur even with a close or contact shot neither does drawback. Why you are not stating this I do not know?
-
According to the following book on forensics. Drawback only occurs with contact wounds with high calibre weapons. The gun in this case is a low calibre weapon
http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9781449602154 (http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9781449602154)
By (author) Henk Becker, By (author) Chaminade University Ronald F Becker, By (author) M. Criminal Justice Department University of Wisconsin-Platteville Aric W Dutelle
I have included the authors names above, so if you can please direct your upcoming rude novel criticising their work to them rather than me it would be much appreciated.
Sub sonic ammunition was also used and not the supersonic ammunition that was also present at the house. In fact thinking about it, if Bamber was the murderer it would have been logical for him to use supersonic ammunition as it would have killed more efficiently.
-
According to the following book on forensics. Drawback only occurs with contact wounds with high calibre weapons. The gun in this case is a low calibre weapon
http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9781449602154 (http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9781449602154)
By (author) Henk Becker, By (author) Chaminade University Ronald F Becker, By (author) M. Criminal Justice Department University of Wisconsin-Platteville Aric W Dutelle
I have included the authors names above, so if you can please direct your upcoming rude novel criticising their work to them rather than me it would be much appreciated.
I doubt you paid for the book. At any rate even if it makes that claim it is wrong. What is the source of the evidence they use to support it because neither of the authors have any medical expertise or gun expertise.
You need evidence from experts and the experts say 22 caliber weapons can cause both drawback and backspatter.
-
I haven't seen lebaleb's suggestion, I thought we were talking about the possibilty of faking the silencer which I made quite clear in my former post.
Your former post misunderstood my former post; which I made clear in my former post :P
-
I doubt you paid for the book. At any rate even if it makes that claim it is wrong. What is the source of the evidence they use to support it because neither of the authors have any medical expertise or gun expertise.
You need evidence from experts and the experts say 22 caliber weapons can cause both drawback and backspatter.
But they equally will not. The plain facts are it was never tested and as far as I know it hasn't been tested to this day?
-
If the experts have it wrong then what chance have we got in understanding it all. Its the same with the jury, they did not understand it all either. If there is arguments within the scientists that did the tests and how they did the tests, then we still in my opinion do not have a clear enough answer.
Was Sheila's blood found in the silencer? It might be or could be or its likely is not an answer...I'd like a yes or no...the other answers are unsafe. :-\ ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Possibly!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Sub sonic ammunition was also used and not the supersonic ammunition that was also present at the house. In fact thinking about it, if Bamber was the murderer it would have been logical for him to use supersonic ammunition as it would have killed more efficiently.
Jeremy MAY have done but to do that would likely have made it LOOK as if Jeremy had, which wasn't the plan.
-
I doubt you paid for the book. At any rate even if it makes that claim it is wrong. What is the source of the evidence they use to support it because neither of the authors have any medical expertise or gun expertise.
You need evidence from experts and the experts say 22 caliber weapons can cause both drawback and backspatter.
No I did not buy the book I downloaded it in PDF. I have uploaded a screen shot if you don't believe me as you have accused me of making up sources in the past. I have underlined the points in red using mspaint
(http://s2.postimg.org/a29ugxl6x/forensic.jpg)
This was published by the Criminal Justice Department University of Wisconsin-Platteville, So feel free to tell them how wrong they are ::)
-
According to the following book on forensics. Drawback only occurs with contact wounds with high calibre weapons. The gun in this case is a low calibre weapon
http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9781449602154 (http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9781449602154)
By (author) Henk Becker, By (author) Chaminade University Ronald F Becker, By (author) M. Criminal Justice Department University of Wisconsin-Platteville Aric W Dutelle
I have included the authors names above, so if you can please direct your upcoming rude novel criticising their work to them rather than me it would be much appreciated.
Your history of misrepresenting continues. I found the most recent volume of the work in question.
Aside from the fact that it is written by academics (not experts in guns or medicine) for criminal justice college students it doesn't say that .22 caliber weapons can't cause drawback.
The body of the work has just a single sentence on drawback:
"In the case of contact wound, the barrel of the weapon may contain flesh, bone, and blood residue from barrel blowback (or drawback). Barrel blowback also may cause backspatter on hands and clothing."
The glossary section states:
"barrel blowback (drawback): The blood residue found in a gun barrel as a result of a large-caliber contact wound; it is backspatter contained in/on a gun barrel"
This doesn't explicitly discuss 22 caliber weapons let alone offers any evidence to establish a 22 caliber can't result in drawback or backspatter. In the meantime it makes the erroneous claim that drawback can result in blood on the hands. By definition drawback results in backspatter going into the barrel instead of on the weapon and shooter. So they have no idea what they are talking about.
-
Your history of misrepresenting continues. I found the most recent volume of the work in question.
Aside from the fact that it is written by academics (not experts in guns or medicine) for criminal justice college students it doesn't say that .22 caliber weapons can't cause drawback.
The body of the work has just a single sentence on drawback:
"In the case of contact wound, the barrel of the weapon may contain flesh, bone, and blood residue from barrel blowback (or drawback). Barrel blowback also may cause backspatter on hands and clothing."
The glossary section states:
"barrel blowback (drawback): The blood residue found in a gun barrel as a result of a large-caliber contact wound; it is backspatter contained in/on a gun barrel"
This doesn't explicitly discuss 22 caliber weapons let alone offers any evidence to establish a 22 caliber can't result in drawback or backspatter. In the meantime it makes the erroneous claim that drawback can result in blood on the hands. By definition drawback results in backspatter going into the barrel instead of on the weapon and shooter. So they have no idea what they are talking about.
I'm not misrepresenting anything. Strange you find so many excuses when expert sources don't go your way ::) but when it does its 200% correct strange that ::)
-
No I did not buy the book I downloaded it in PDF. I have uploaded a screen shot if you don't believe me as you have accused me of making up sources in the past. I have underlined the points in red using mspaint
(http://s2.postimg.org/a29ugxl6x/forensic.jpg)
This was published by the Criminal Justice Department University of Wisconsin-Platteville, So feel free to tell them how wrong they are ::)
You found that on googlebooks and it isn't even the edition you posted the original link to. In the meantime you posted from the glossary. I quoted from both the body as well as glossary.
It doesn't discuss 22 caliber weapons explicity let alone claims they can't cause drawback. It offers no evidence to support any of their contentions and makes the huge error of claiming blood gets on the hands of the shooter from drawback. That is why you don't quote academics who write books for college students and instead look to scientists who work in the forensic field for such information...
-
Your former post misunderstood my former post; which I made clear in my former post :P
:P ;D
-
Jeremy MAY have done but to do that would likely have made it LOOK as if Jeremy had, which wasn't the plan.
haha you make him sound like an omniscient being who had thought of every angle. ;D
-
I'm not misrepresenting anything. Strange you find so many excuses when expert sources don't go your way ::) but when it does its 200% correct strange that ::)
What expert source? It was written by college professors who claim to be experts in criminal law not scientists. They lack the ability to testify in court as experts on the very subject you are relying on. In the meantime you misrepresented that they said 22 caliber weapons can't cause drawback. It doesn't say such. It doesn't contain any useful information about drawback it just makes students aware that gun can inside a barrel when there is a contact wound. It doesn't discuss any of the relevant factors that come into play. In the meantime they made a pathetic mistake claiming blood can get on the shooter from drawback though by definition it blood that goes into the muzzle.
Try coming up with evidence from a scientific source where the claim is coming from someone who could actually be used to testify against the claims made by the prosecution witness.
-
You found that on googlebooks and it isn't even the edition you posted the original link to. In the meantime you posted from the glossary. I quoted from both the body as well as glossary.
It doesn't discuss 22 caliber weapons explicity let alone claims they can't cause drawback. It offers no evidence to support any of their contentions and makes the huge error of claiming blood gets on the hands of the shooter from drawback. That is why you don't quote academics who write books for college students and instead look to scientists who work in the forensic field for such information...
yes but .22 calibre is very low not high. I found similar claims in other forensic books about relation to calibre, barrel length and backsplatter that you criticised me for just making up. They first done some experiments in 1977 on this but I cannot find more information it :(
The link I provided is one on googlebooks. Googlebooks brings me up a limited PDF of the Book. does it really matter? what difference does it make
-
Sub sonic ammunition was also used and not the supersonic ammunition that was also present at the house. In fact thinking about it, if Bamber was the murderer it would have been logical for him to use supersonic ammunition as it would have killed more efficiently.
The main impact of of the extra velocity is more range and penetration not necessarily more deadly. But depending on the round that sacrifices accuracy especially accuracy at closer ranges. Moreover, standard and supersonic rounds produce a sonic boom upon leaving the muzzle or moderator while subsonic ammo produced no boom so is more silent.
Subsonic ammunition was what Nevill bought. Buying a different ammo right before the murders would be highly suspicious. Especially since for the purposes the gun was used for they would want subsonic ammo. Plus the whole reason he used the moderator was he didn't want to wake anyone up and using something other than subsonic would create additional noise.
-
yes but .22 calibre is very low not high. I found similar claims in other forensic books about relation to calibre, barrel length and backsplatter that you criticised me for just making up. They first done some experiments in 1977 on this but I cannot find more information it :(
The link I provided is one on googlebooks. Googlebooks brings me up a limited PDF of the Book. does it really matter? what difference does it make
You intentionally posted a link to a different edition of the book than where you found it because there was no print available for the edition unless you wanted to pay for it which you figured no one would do. You did so to try to hide the fact your source doesn't actually state a .22 caliber can't cause drawback. You chose to interpret it as saying such because you are biased and desperate. The book was written by lawyers for criminal justice students and contains a blatant error claiming drawback can cause blood to deposit on the hands of the shooter though drawback by definition is blood drawn into the barrel.
You are not an objective party looking for the truth. You are a biased person who has decided to argue Jeremy is innocent the blood was planted in the moderator and are searching for anything you can twist to try to support your agenda.
-
You intentionally posted a link to a different edition of the book than where you found it because there was no print available for the edition unless you wanted to pay for it which you figured no one would do. You did so to try to hide the fact your source doesn't actually state a .22 caliber can't cause drawback. You chose to interpret it as saying such because you are biased and desperate. The book was written by lawyers for criminal justice students and contains a blatant error claiming drawback can cause blood to deposit on the hands of the shooter though drawback by definition is blood drawn into the barrel.
You are not an objective party looking for the truth. You are a biased person who has decided to argue Jeremy is innocent the blood was planted in the moderator and are searching for anything you can twist to try to support your agenda.
I used the link I found on googlebooks I never intentionally lead you to another book. your paranoid now.
Whatever Skippy believe what you want about me I don't care your opinions do not define me
-
I haven't just "glossed" over it as you suggest in an attempt to diminish my argument. (1) it was never tested that back spatter did actually occur. It was just assumed that it would have occurred. And (2) Back spatter does not always occur. I will also include a third point here (3) The fact that they also said there was no gun shot residue on Sheila was a deliberate lie as if she was shot at close range and that gun shot residue is emitted from the barrel of the gun then there must have been gunshot residue on her. So the fact that they did not say this but rather said that there was insufficient gun shot residue on her is an indication that they were also wrong on the other observations. If you bother to read up on it yourself and I should assume that you are intelligent enough and actually know this as being fact, that back spatter does not always occur even with a close or contact shot neither does drawback. Why you are not stating this I do not know?
The way you determine whether backspatter would occur in a particular body location is by looking at the attributes of the skin and blood vessels in the location of the wound. That is exactly what the experts did in assessing Sheilas wound would result in backspatter.
In fact the wound was assessed to be a contact wound so it was assessed the backspatter would be drawn into the weapon.
Blood was found in the moderator not the rifle establishing the moderator was attached when the shot was fired.
Atomized blood sprays inside the weapon during drawback. Such occurring in a moderator made of baffles results in the blood being deposited on the initial baffles with the volume decreasing the further the baffles are from the opening. That is exactly what was observed, blood decreasing in volume till no blood was seen.
There is no way that blood could have gotten there naturally except by drawback. The only other way for blood to get there like that is someone to intentionally spray blood inside.
That blood was group A blood lacking an enzyme that should have been present had any of it been June's blood. The flake had an enzyme that Sheila had though. So this suggest the AK1 enzyme deteriorated already in the blood on the baffles but had not done so yet in the flake.
It was all put together in a very logical and scientific manner which is why the defense had no ability to dispute this and still doesn't.
No one who chooses to ignore this evidence has been able to articulate a logical reason to do so let alone has been able to refute the evidence. The reasons are always absurd nonsense about how no human blood was found but rather animal blood was found inside and other rubbish.
-
Just to put you right on one thing I said animal blood was found on the outside - shown by notes and that was not revealed to the court.
And another "Expert" said he could not be sure 100% that the blood was not animal blood.
This is not us telling lies - misrepresenting . These are not our words.
-
just for interest - :)
-
Just to put you right on one thing I said animal blood was found on the outside - shown by notes and that was not revealed to the court.
And another "Expert" said he could not be sure 100% that the blood was not animal blood.
This is not us telling lies - misrepresenting . These are not our words.
David and Lookout asserted that no human blood was found inside just an enzyme that could have belonged to an animal. Various others asserted animal blood was found inside. In am not misrepresenting anything.
There was no reason for the expert to bother telling the court a little animal blood was found on the outside of the moderator is had no relevance at all to the blood found inside. If the defense wanted to have an expert bring such up and try to tie it to the case somehow the defense was free to do so.
The scientist you are referring to noted that the AK1 enzyme of rabbits is close to the human enzyme but NOT identical and speculated maybe somehow it is possible that rabbit blood was inside mixed with June's blood, that the lab failed to detect the rabbit blood but the AK1 rabbit enzyme was detected and mistaken for the human enzyme.
This is absurd speculation and such absurd speculation is wholly worthless to the courts. It is absurd that they would fail to detect the rabbit blood, absurd they would mistake the rabbit enzyme for a human one since they are different and absurd that the enzyme in rabbit blood that predated the murders would still not have deteriorated whereas AK2-1 from June deposited after the rabbit blood would already have deteriorated. Human AK2-1 is more hardy than human AK1 which is more hardy than rabbit AK1. SO even if all shots had been the same time the Ak2-1 still is the one that would last longest but the claim is the rabbit blood predated June's.
In the meantime there is no evidence any animal was shot with the moderator at contact range the only blood from animals was detected on the outside.
-
durrrr? that's what I said.
-
just for interest - :)
All that shows is what we already know- Boutflour and Sheila had the same blood attributes. He would have to be aware of that fact in order to know he could use his blood though. police didn't know until the date of this test his blood could have been used for planting and he wouldn't know until they told him.
So it's not of much use to the defense so far as evidence to use to support evidence being planted. Had the test predated the moderator turning up with the blood it would be a little more useful.
-
yes but .22 calibre is very low not high. I found similar claims in other forensic books about relation to calibre, barrel length and backsplatter that you criticised me for just making up. They first done some experiments in 1977 on this but I cannot find more information it :(
The link I provided is one on googlebooks. Googlebooks brings me up a limited PDF of the Book. does it really matter? what difference does it make
The publication from 1977 is the seminal work on drawback. Their research determined that in large caliber weapons blood was found up to 5mm deep when the gun was fired 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. I cited this 5mm figure a number of times the past week but forgot where it ultimately came from until earlier today. A sizable number of sources cited the 5mm figure that came from their research.
If you research backpatter and drawback which is simply a sub category what you will find is that the most critical factor of whether backspatter occurs is the location of the wound. The attributes of the skin and blood vessels in the location of the wound is critical to whether there will be blood expelled. The caliber and type of round is another factor that ties in with location. Certain locations such as where her neck wound was will result in spatter regardless of the caliber of the weapon. In contrast other locations such as the head are unlikely to result in spatter from .22 caliber weapons, it happens but not that often.
where the spatter lands depends on how far away the shooter is. If it is a contact wound the blood will be sent several inches into the weapon. How deep depends on the weapon it can travel 5 inches with a larger caliber but only 3 with smaller caliber weapons. At non-contact ranges it can travel several feet and a small amount can get inside the barrel in addition to on the gun and shooter. but it will not travel much beyond 5mm inside the weapon at non-contact ranges and even then it has to be at close range. If the shooter is too far the spatter won't even reach the shooter.
What should the defense have done:
1) have a medical/firearm expert assess the prosecution expert's claims that Sheila's fatal wound was a contact wound
2) have a medical/firearm expert assess the prosecution expert's claims that the location of Sheila's fatal wound would be virtually certain to result in backspatter based on the nature of the skin and blood in that area of the body and what the wound did
Did the defense do this? Presumably but who knows since we don't have access to the full defense file. On appeal the defense has not found anyone to refute that it was a contact wound or that it was virtually certain to result in backspatter.
At this stage they need evidence that her wound would not have resulted in backspatter. It's not good enough to say it might not have. They need to prove it would not have in order to be able to suggest that is proof the blood got there by some other means. If they couldn't do that through the use of new evidence they would have to use that as the basis of a clemency petition.
But the location of her wound clearly was a location where the kin and blood flow were ideal for backspatter to occur so it is obvious why the defense has to this day been unable to come up with any evidence to establish backspatter wouldn't occur.
That forces the defene to try attacking the blood in a different manner.
-
(http://s18.postimg.org/r0fdqtftl/bloodevidence.jpg)