Studio Legale Internazionale

[miketesko]

Four blood samples lay at the heart of this case :-

(1) blood sample taken from Ralph Bamber at his autopsy on 7 August 1985
(2) blood sample taken from June Bamber at her autopsy on 8 August 1985
(3) blood sample taken from Sheila Caffell at her autopsy on 7 August 1985
(4) blood sample taken from silencer.



The blood samples taken from Ralph (1) and June (2) Bamber, did not prodcue a result which showed a presence of Halperidol and cannabis in their blood

Shela Caffells blood sample (3) produced blood group results, A, EAP BA, AK1, PGM 1+ and HP 2-1. Also present were traces of Halperidol and cannabis

The blood sample taken from the silencer (4) did not have Halperidol and cannabis present inside it, and therefore could not have originated from Sheila caffell, or been unique and exclusive to her. The blood from the silencer had to have originated from someone other than Sheila Caffell, because if it had been her blood traces of halperidol and cannabis would have been detected, but none was.

Central to the debate about whether or not the blood found inside the silencer could have originated from Sheila Caffell, should have been the blood expert, John Haywards testimony and biologist expert Mr B. Elliot. One tested the blood from the flake (Hayward) and found no Halperidol or Cannabuis in the blood from the silencer, and the other (Elliot) tested blood taken directly from Sheila's corpse, and found traces of Halperidol and cannabis to be present in the blood taken from her body.

The presence of Halperidol and cannabis in one sample, and the absence of the same in the other, can only lead to one inevitable conclusion, and that is that both samples of blood could not have originated from Sheila Caffell, otherwise, both samples of blood wouild have had traces of Halperidol nad Cannabis present amongst it.

[plankton]

http://psychrights.org/Research/Digest/NLPs/RWhitakerAffidavit/Schulte.PDF
and
http://www.lucire.com.au/documents/new-drugs-new-problems.aspx

http://psychrights.org/Research/Digest/NLPs/RWhitakerAffidavit/Schulte.PDF
and
http://www.lucire.com.au/documents/new-drugs-new-problems.aspx


[For avoidance of doubt: Halperidol v HalOperidol. Same drug, more commonly known
as Haldol:
http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/humanbio/Haldol2.htm
HALPERIDOL
(HALDOL)
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/medicines/100001207.html
Haldol (Haloperidol) ]

2003 re a double homicide:
http://archive.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/memdispo.nsf/04485f8dcbd4e1ea882569520074e698/cbe51f64583d918888256cf300824e83/$FILE/00-35913.pdf

Bone first challenges the state court’s conclusion that he was not prejudiced
by his counsel’s failure to investigate the effects of his Haldol medication, and, in
particular, the finding that the Haldol did not negatively affect Bone, etc.

This I suspect is the answer to the shootings but Jeremy Bamber, like many others in prison, must remain the fall guy in this particular case because NOTHING is allowed to cast doubt on the purported, but scientifically flawed, safety of billion $ annual drug profits.