Lindy Chamberlain exonerated - a dingo did it.

[catsmate]

John Bryson hits hard here.

Jeremy Bamber and Mark Lundy need a similar heavy hitter to correct the monstrous crimes against them, both convicted with similar bogus forensics and condemned by vengeful villagers.

Do you really have to drag your obsessions into every thread?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Reforms? We don't need no stinking' reforms.

catsmate,

I can appreciate that you might disagree with bringing up other specific cases in this thread. However, there is a larger point that at least deserves to be mentioned. The Chamberlain case should be one from which to learn and to propose reforms. Yet I still perceive the same sloppy, biased approach to forensics in various criminal justice systems in more recent cases. That having been said, there are aspects to the Australian justice system in this regard that I admire.

 

[Samson]

Do you really have to drag your obsessions into every thread?

It is true these cases are obsessions, but the Chamberlain case is partially resolved.
I know from a specific conversation with an ex Queenslander the day she was finally exonerated that partial is as good as it will get, he immediately wheeled out a list of reasons it was she who killed her baby and not a dingo, and he passed away soon after. There is no finality in the prevailing generation.

I bracketed the three cases because this was the first of three involving bogus forensics that secured convictions, and they are interdependent judicial systems.
You may have your own opinions, but the facts are immutable, there is one of these cases on which we profoundly disagree, which is regrettable for the victim in that case.

 

[catsmate]

catsmate,

I can appreciate that you might disagree with bringing up other specific cases in this thread. However, there is a larger point that at least deserves to be mentioned. The Chamberlain case should be one from which to learn and to propose reforms. Yet I still perceive the same sloppy, biased approach to forensics in various criminal justice systems in more recent cases. That having been said, there are aspects to the Australian justice system in this regard that I admire.

This is indeed true, if you remember from the original Chamberlain thread I was highly critical of both the forensic "evidence" in general and Cameron's contribution in particular (he'd already been criticised by one Royal Commission about his dubious evidence). If I might quite myself:

The case features two of my personal bugbears with expert testimony.
[Firstly a little background, I work in IT, have a speciality in security and digital forensics, and have testified as an expert witness.]

Primus: the "celebrity expert". This isn't common today, but there have been experts whose testimony was grossly over-valued because of who they were and the reputation they had built up. Spilsbury ("The Lethal Witness") and Simpson are examples of this; their testimony wasn't questioned, even when it was felt to be wrong, because of their reputation. People were hanged because of this over confidence in expert testimony.
James Cameron, whose far from expert opinion figured in the Chamberlain case, is a lesser example of this.

Secundus: inability to properly examine expert testimony. As you pointed out the scientific evidence was very convincing in the Chamberlain case, and it shouldn't have been. It was pretty terrible. But it wasn't challenged, it was allowed to stand and Lindy Chamberlain was jailed because of this.
In my opinion the destruction of the samples and plates used in testing denied the defense the ability to properly cross-examine the scientific evidence and should have lead to it being deemed inadmissible.

Ultimus: Barristers. A major part of his dislike of the adversarial justice system is down to barristers. This doesn't appear to have been a major factor in the Chamberlain case, though I haven't (and don't plan to) read the court transcripts.
Barristers want to win regardless of the truth; science should be about the truth.

However Samson seems to me to be determined to drag his obsession with certain cases into every possible thread.

 

[catsmate]

It is true these cases are obsessions, but the Chamberlain case is partially resolved.
I know from a specific conversation with an ex Queenslander the day she was finally exonerated that partial is as good as it will get, he immediately wheeled out a list of reasons it was she who killed her baby and not a dingo, and he passed away soon after. There is no finality in the prevailing generation.

I bracketed the three cases because this was the first of three involving bogus forensics that secured convictions, and they are interdependent judicial systems.
You may have your own opinions, but the facts are immutable, there is one of these cases on which we profoundly disagree, which is regrettable for the victim in that case.

The Chamberlains have been exonerated as far as is possible in law. Yes some idiots will continue to believe in their guilt but they're in there with the JFK conspiracy nuts.

However your attempt to conflate the standard of forensic evidence in the Chamberlain and Bamber cases is, to be generous to you, disingenuous. Jeremy Bamber is guilty and there is copious evidence of this fact.

 

[Samson]

The Chamberlains have been exonerated as far as is possible in law. Yes some idiots will continue to believe in their guilt but they're in there with the JFK conspiracy nuts.

However your attempt to conflate the standard of forensic evidence in the Chamberlain and Bamber cases is, to be generous to you, disingenuous. Jeremy Bamber is guilty and there is copious evidence of this fact.

In fact, in serious threads concerning the Chamberlain, Bamber and Lundy cases there is not one guilter remaining.
This is clear if you join Injustice Anywhere forum.
Here is the Bamber thread to dissect the physical evidence

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=123&t=2931

 

[MikeG]

In fact, in serious threads concerning the Chamberlain, Bamber and Lundy cases there is not one guilter remaining.
This is clear if you join Injustice Anywhere forum.
Here is the Bamber thread to dissect the physical evidence

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=123&t=2931

That's only because the conversation sunk to the idiocy of blaming Bamber's continued incarceration on Theresa May. If people behave like morons, don't expect non-morons to hang around.

 

[catsmate]

That's only because the conversation sunk to the idiocy of blaming Bamber's continued incarceration on Theresa May. If people behave like morons, don't expect non-morons to hang around.

Indeed. If the loons have chased off anyone with a working brain then such unanimity isn't unexpected. Rather like some of the fora peddling SEP11 conspiracies.

 

[Samson]

That's only because the conversation sunk to the idiocy of blaming Bamber's continued incarceration on Theresa May. If people behave like morons, don't expect non-morons to hang around.

Indeed. If the loons have chased off anyone with a working brain then such unanimity isn't unexpected. Rather like some of the fora peddling SEP11 conspiracies.

Lamentable.
The evidence in every case is dissected properly on IA, and the science finds the safe path, as it does in aviation.
Lindy Chamberlain was exonerated by science, as will be Bamber and Lundy. It is the only way.

 

[MikeG]

Lamentable.
The evidence in every case is dissected properly on IA, and the science finds the safe path, as it does in aviation.
Lindy Chamberlain was exonerated by science, as will be Bamber and Lundy. It is the only way.

Evasion noted.

Lindy Chamberlain is innocent. Her case has no equivalence with Bamber, who is guilty, other than abysmal police and forensic practice. Neither of them were in any way handicapped by Theresa May, but that didn't stop you whittering on about it for more than a week. When you've nothing to contribute other than cheerleading, you can find yourself fighting facts with erroneous trivia, even after your embarrassing errors have been pointed out.

 

[Samson]

Evasion noted.

Lindy Chamberlain is innocent. Her case has no equivalence with Bamber, who is guilty, other than abysmal police and forensic practice. Neither of them were in any way handicapped by Theresa May, but that didn't stop you whittering on about it for more than a week. When you've nothing to contribute other than cheerleading, you can find yourself fighting facts with erroneous trivia, even after your embarrassing errors have been pointed out.

There is equivalence in the three cases, which is why I bracket them.
1. Interdependent judicial systems
2. Bogus and fraudulent singular item forensics necessary conditions for conviction.
3. The villagers join with false authority in the ferocious rampage.

It takes government intervention to compensate. There are no independent processes in the three countries, in England Teresa May will be required to play her part.

 

[catsmate]

Lamentable.
The evidence in every case is dissected properly on IA, and the science finds the safe path, as it does in aviation.
Lindy Chamberlain was exonerated by science, as will be Bamber and Lundy. It is the only way.

You started a thread on the Banner case here, remember? Your claims were ripped apart and you refused to even address many points.
If you've got some actual evidence this time why not bump that thread.

I for one have no intention of joining another forum just to participate in a puerile echo-chamber.

 

[Samson]

The crucial point is that no crime reconstruction can properly incorporate Lindy Jeremy or Lundy.

Lindy was alleged to bleed her baby out in the front seat of a car in a crowded campsite then place her in the boot and disappear her.
How?
Similarly Jeremy is supposed to march his family around at gunpoint before killing them
How?

Lundy had no petrol but drove 450 kilometers
How?

Simple obstacles confound these cases and without overcoming them it becomes dingoes sisters and gangsters.

 

[MikeG]

......in England Teresa May will be required to play her part.

Ah, will play her part. Will. Future tense. Right, so why spend more than a week blaming her for the continued incarceration (past tense)? Why refuse to acknowledge that the Home Office hasn't had any powers over criminal justice since the Ministry of Justice was split off from the Home Office in 2007? That's the sort of mundane, stubborn idiocy that drives sensible people away from otherwise meaningful discussion. Getting the Chamberlain case right (and, FFS, who hasn't since the cardigan was found?) doesn't mean you've got any sort of a clue in the other cases you obsess about.

 

[Samson]

Ah, will play her part. Will. Future tense. Right, so why spend more than a week blaming her for the continued incarceration (past tense)? Why refuse to acknowledge that the Home Office hasn't had any powers over criminal justice since the Ministry of Justice was split off from the Home Office in 2007? That's the sort of mundane, stubborn idiocy that drives sensible people away from otherwise meaningful discussion. Getting the Chamberlain case right (and, FFS, who hasn't since the cardigan was found?) doesn't mean you've got any sort of a clue in the other cases you obsess about.

I slipped in the future tense to pacify.
Let us look though, a park ranger warned of likely dingo attacks, so finding the jacket was unnecessary. We had a viable alternative suspect, dingo, and a completely impossible crime narrative as outlined above.
Similarly, we had a husband warning of danger to kids, an alternative suspect, sister, and a completely impossible crime narrative.

I am still puzzled why you don't see parallels and simple logic.

 

[catsmate]

Ah, will play her part. Will. Future tense. Right, so why spend more than a week blaming her for the continued incarceration (past tense)? Why refuse to acknowledge that the Home Office hasn't had any powers over criminal justice since the Ministry of Justice was split off from the Home Office in 2007? That's the sort of mundane, stubborn idiocy that drives sensible people away from otherwise meaningful discussion. Getting the Chamberlain case right (and, FFS, who hasn't since the cardigan was found?) doesn't mean you've got any sort of a clue in the other cases you obsess about.

Well May will probably ensure that the murderous psychopath Bamber has no access to the ECHR in future.

 

[MikeG]

Well May will probably ensure that the murderous psychopath Bamber has no access to the ECHR in future.

Interestingly, they have just confirmed that Britain has the right to give prisoners a whole-life tariff. We have enough safeguards in place such that their human rights aren't infringed. So the ECHR won't be coming to Bamber's rescue.

 

[catsmate]

Interestingly, they have just confirmed that Britain has the right to give prisoners a whole-life tariff. We have enough safeguards in place such that their human rights aren't infringed. So the ECHR won't be coming to Bamber's rescue.

He might find some other time wasting excuse for an appeal.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

putting forensics on trial

John Bryson's account of the Lindy Chamberlain case (the book Evil Angels) included a discussion of the prosecution's closing arguments on p. 515. Phillips, an attorney for the defense, objected to certain aspects of Prosecutor Barker's remarks in front of the judge but not the jury, wishing the judge to address certain points. "First, Barker had told the jury that criticisms of Mrs Kuhl and Dr. Baxter [the prosecution's principal forensic witnesses about fetal blood] cast doubt on convictions in cases in which they testified elsewhere. Phillips said, 'In our submission there is a danger, once that is said, that the jury may feel that an acquittal would in some way operate professionally as a reflection on Mrs Kuhl and Dr Baxter. Of course, it wouldn't do any such thing.'" The judge appeared to agree with Mr. Phillips. Mr. Barker might have been implying that to doubt the prosecution's forensic evidence in the Chamberlain case, one has to doubt forensic evidence regarding the presence of blood more generally. This is a fallacy in that a technique might be fine, but its application or interpretation in a particular case could well be overstated or incorrect.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Overstating the value of the ortho-tolidine presumptive test for blood

Mrs Joy Kuhl gave evidence at the second inquest, the one that immediately preceded the trial, as well as at the trial itself. Her testimony in the inquest about the ortho-tolidene presumptive test for blood is covered on and near p. 317 in John Bryson's book. During cross examination she was asked about whether or not there were substances that might react in the same way.
{quote}
'Not the same reaction.' She went through the alternatives. 'Plant peroxidases tend to give a much greener colouration than blood does. It is a slower reaction. Chemical compounds which give false positives generally give a positive first-stage reaction, which blood never does. The colour development from a blood-type reaction very, very distinctive, particularly in the hands of an experienced operator. And I consider myself an experienced operator.'
{end quote}
As someone who has written about presumptive blood tests, I would like to evaluate several claims made in this passage. One is that there is a difference in color when blood reacts versus other substances. I know of no documentation in the literature which supports this, and given that the same compound is being produced no matter what the catalyst, I don't see how there could be a difference in color. Two is that plant peroxidases give a slower reaction. This is possible (though I have not seen it in the literature myself). However, if a blue-green color is taken as a positive result in a set period of time (and the protocols I have read for the related Kastle-Meyer and TMB reactions do specify a time), then the relative speeds of various reactions are a distraction: if you see the color, the result is positive. Three is her claim that most substances give a positive at the first stage of the reaction. Based on the chemistry of the common presumptive blood tests, I would expect oxidizing agents to produce color at the first stage of this reaction. However, the protocols I have seen indicate that one discontinues the test when this happens. On the other hand rust and copper dust give positive second stage reactions.

The bottom line is that Mrs Kuhl is making statements that suggest that the ortho-tolidine test is more nearly specific for blood than it actually is. This is a common problem with respect to presumptive tests and the law.