Fraudulent???

[lookout]

Webster's evidence in the 2002 appeal has got a definite match of DNA in the silencer as June's, saying that a contact shot " has put June's blood in the silencer ". This undermined what the prosecution argued. 

[JackieD]

I have always said that. The blood and silencer evidence and Mugfords witheld notes.

Forget the thousands of posts re the phone calls and forget the trick of light

Holly Goodread did tons of research on the blood evidence that could have been used

[lookout]

Then Webster was asked if the shot had to be a close one to get blood into it to which he answered no.

The upshot was the possibility of contamination because the silencer had been handled by various people.

[lookout]

Webster had remarked on the destruction of such evidence and had said " it is a bad idea to destroy evidential materials in contentious cases " to which Justice Kay answered " That is not really a matter for your expertise ".

[lookout]

Poor Webster was treated like an imbecile during the 2002 appeal. Yet Hayward with his basic and useless tests came out victorious.
 Webster even had a colleague, another senior forensic scientist in Germany, overlook his theory which he'd said is worth consideration. The theory being that there had been a mixture of bloods.

[Adam]

I have always said that. The blood and silencer evidence and Mugfords witheld notes.

Forget the thousands of posts re the phone calls and forget the trick of light

Holly Goodread did tons of research on the blood evidence that could have been used

Forgotten about in 1985.

[Adam]

I have always said that. The blood and silencer evidence and Mugfords witheld notes.

Forget the thousands of posts re the phone calls and forget the trick of light

Holly Goodread did tons of research on the blood evidence that could have been used

Not brought up until decades later. By Bamber.

[Adam]

Then Webster was asked if the shot had to be a close one to get blood into it to which he answered no.

The upshot was the possibility of contamination because the silencer had been handled by various people.

Source please.

The rifle was barely powerful enough to produce back spatter from Sheila. And she received two contact shots in an area of high blood flow.

[lookout]

Source please.

The rifle was barely powerful enough to produce back spatter from Sheila. And she received two contact shots in an area of high blood flow.

The pdf file of the 2002 appeal. Webster2002.

[JackieD]

Forgotten about in 1985.

Not ‘forgotten’ about in 1985 but getting to appeal should concentrate on the forensic evidence, the finding of the silencer, all blood evidence. It’s my opinion something was seen at WHF by Bews but you are never going to prove it.

The blood evidence when looked at by experts is undeniable and we don’t know yet what is being used for the application to the CCRC

Holly spent years researching the blood evidence

[Adam]

The pdf file of the 2002 appeal. Webster2002.

Just read Webster's sections on the COA. Not there.

[lookout]

Just read Webster's sections on the COA. Not there.

It certainly is.

[lookout]

Over 500 questions and answers. Too boring for you to go through Adam.

[Bubo bubo]

Bubo bubo I have re-read the McKenzie report which I find unprofessional and all over the place.  In parts it is factually incorrect.  A far more reliable source re the blood evidence are the reports/letters between Bamber's defence and blood serology expert for the defence Dr Patrick Lincoln. 

Bizarre that this is without doubt the most important aspect of the case and yet only appears to have been read about a dozen times?

Thanks for that. Unfortunately I am away for a week/ 10 days and my ability to participate will be much reduced. Possibly just keeping pace with posts. I would appreciate a link to the PL  Bamber defence correspondence. It might provide some bed time reading and if too technical put me to sleep. I take it you have read the Webster report on the forum. Again this is an area which had little appeal to me because in these type of circumstances it can often be the case that it turns into an arm wrestle between scientists. In such cases it is difficult for plebs like me to decide who is right. I need to spend some time on Red seeing what HG says. I know she did a lot of work. Have you read her stuff?

[killingeve]

Thanks for that. Unfortunately I am away for a week/ 10 days and my ability to participate will be much reduced. Possibly just keeping pace with posts. I would appreciate a link to the PL  Bamber defence correspondence. It might provide some bed time reading and if too technical put me to sleep. I take it you have read the Webster report on the forum. Again this is an area which had little appeal to me because in these type of circumstances it can often be the case that it turns into an arm wrestle between scientists. In such cases it is difficult for plebs like me to decide who is right. I need to spend some time on Red seeing what HG says. I know she did a lot of work. Have you read her stuff?

The PL defence correspondence is on this thread #39 - #43 incl and in my opinion is where its at so to speak!  I was struck by an anomaly and after undertaking my own research reached a conclusion!  #40 includes a page from the McKenzie report. 

Yes I've read Mark Webster's report.  I thought his theory about the blood flake overlaying a flake of soot was wacky.  It was funny in parts when one of the judges slapped him down for daring to point out the fact that exhibits had been destroyed against all protocols.  Even funnier when the judges put forward their own theories about how blood would behave inside the silencer.  MW pointed out it fell outside his own area of expertise and into fluid mechanics but the judges were having none of it and filled the void with their own unqualified theories!  MW kept making the point that experiments and tests were needed but again the judges were having none of it!  Overall I don't think I really gleaned much from it.

I've heard mention of another forum/posters but I don't take much notice.