My reasons for thinking JB's conviction is the worst MoJ in British criminal history:
Judge's summing up/Geoffrey Rivlin's fatal mistake in his defence strategy
As we know the blood sample found in the silencer matched Sheila's blood type/group. With conflicting opinion about a remote possibility of the sample representing an intimate mix of June and NB's blood type/group.
Here's the table which shows the blood type/group of the victims along with the sample found:
ABO PGM EAP AK Hp
Nevill Bamber O PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
June Bamber A PGM1+ EAP BA AK2-1 Hp2-1
Daniel Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2
Nicholas Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2
Sheila Caffell A PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
Blood Sample A Nil EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
I have been unable to find anywhere in the judge's summing up or CoA doc any reference to what % of the population share blood type/groups. However my own perhaps rather crude methods and calculations indicate about 10% but the above results are certainly not exclusive to the individuals ie they are shared by many others.
As the relatives found the silencer they were asked to provide samples, which they did, to rule out contamination. I am unsure as to who exactly provided samples but RB did and his sample ie blood type/group matched the sample found in the silencer and Sheila Caffell's blood type/group.
Furthermore there is no audit trail as to who had access to and handled the silencer from manufacture to it arriving at FSS for analysis. For example at the manufacturing stage, transportation, gun shop, others that Nevill may have lent the gun/silencer to eg farm workers, friends etc
If 10% of the population share the same blood type/group then imo this should have been made clear to the jury ie spelled out in no uncertain terms. For example:
10% of the population will share the same blood type/group found in the silencer which matched SC's blood type/group and RB's blood type/group. Put another way 1 in 10 or statistically at least one member of the jury.
However this is part of the judge's summing up and imo is very misleading:
Page 12 of summing up
"Now I think that does complete the evidence of those experts, so it all comes down to this, does it not? Mr Hayward says, "Well to begin with, merely analysing the blood inside the moderator, it correponds with Sheila Caffell's.
Page 13 of summing up
"then come to Mr Fletcher's evidence: "*One of Sheila's wounds clearly was a contact wound", so that is entirely consistent with it being her blood in the end of the moderator".
The above statements imply that the evidence points to Sheila's blood being found in the moderator. This is WRONG as it was impossible to conclude then that Sheila's blood was in the moderator. It was only possible to state that the blood found in the silencer matched Sheila's blood type/group which is not exclusive to her and also matched RB's.
It appears that the possibility of contamination and the fact that it could never be proved that Sheila's blood was in the silencer was never presented to the jury?
*The judge states above "One of Sheila's wounds clearly was a contact wound". That is not what the pathologist stated. He states "There were two gunshot entry wounds which appear to have been fired at contact or near contact".