Very, Very Great Caution Required says Defence QC Mark Evans QC, defending John Pope, 62, attacked the credibility of forensic scientist Michael Appleby. "Treat Mr Appleby's description of that stain with very very great caution," said Mr Evans. He told the jury that a line around the blood-stain on the knickers could be seen. He invited them to conclude that it was evidence of fluorescence. “Is that where the assistant got 3mm by 2mm?” he asked. “If it was fluorescence, what are consequences? It means part of blood has leached out through the clothing.” The court was informed that it meant that stain was far smaller and that Mr Appleby couldn't see it.
The jury were told that Mr Appleby has expertise in taking DNA, not blood. "When he strays beyond that, take care," said Mr Evans, who told the jury that Mr Appleby had said that red blood cells burst without any scientific basis other than claiming: 'It's based on my experience.' David Powell does know about blood, Mr Evans said about the retired Consultant Haematologist. “He knows what he's talking about,” Mr Evans said. “Mr Appleby has got that wrong. What happens with red cells is they don't burst, they leech. It is very dangerous; you can't draw the conclusion Mr Appleby draws."
Caution and Conclusions Mr Evans continued his attack on Mr Appleby's credibility. "Be very careful,” he said. “Mr Appleby is a man who had to apologise to the Court of Appeal for trying to hard to please the prosecution." His experiment with a manikin was not approached in scientific manner and was beyond his expertise, Mr Evans said.
Mr Appleby had said that the blood-stains on the trousers and knickers would never coincide, but Mr Evans said that the prosecution had called another scientist, Gillian Leak, who said exactly the opposite and that Mr Appleby withdrew his conclusions after the tightness and length of the jeans was questioned by Mr Evans. “Do not be lulled into thinking these people are better than you in drawing conclusions,” said Mr Evans. If he had not been picked up on those points the prosecution would have said there is expert and he says that the jeans were so tight you couldn't put your hand into the pocket without leaving other blood-stains, but he was wrong, said Mr Evans.
and that Appleby important because we rely on him entirely regarding blood on knickers. Mr Evans criticised the experiments that Mr Appleby had conducted. He invited the jury to try to put their hands in their pockets to illustrate that the middle finger would have touched the precise point that the blood-stain was found in the pocket. He reminded the court that Martyn Lloyd-Evans had recalled a conversation with Geoffrey Robinson that a finger or knife had been inserted into the pocket and that blood had soaked through. Mr Robinson had said that Mr Lloyd-Evans was mistaken, but Mr Evans asked the jury whether it was likely that such an experienced police officer would have made such a mistake. “If it could have been a knife, why not a fingernail?” asked Mr Evans.
Critical Analysis “Mr Appleby is important because we rely on him entirely regarding blood on knickers,” said Mr Evans. He told the jury that the same applied to Mr Robinson in relation to the trousers and that Critical Findings Analysis that defence forensic scientist Nigel Hodge told the jury about was so important because the scientists can be wrong about the blood-stains and nobody else can test them. "In 2004 there is no doubt that the current protocol applied,” Mr Evans said, but Mr Appleby did not ask anyone else to look at the stain on the knickers, not even when working in same laboratory as Mr Robinson. He also reminded the jury that attempts to photograph the stain failed.
"What else does he get wrong?” asked Mr Evans. “Something pretty fundamental. The person who found it [the bloodstain on the knickers] put down 3mm by 2mm. This is important. Measurements are important. It can't be right."
Mr Evans questioned the width of the stain, complaining that Mr Appleby accepted it without question. "It's not 2mm, [it's] probably a fraction of that,” said Mr Evans. “When considering how it got there, size is very important. We can't look at it because it's been destroyed. What do we know about it? Not a lot. We have a sketch. That's all you've got. It doesn't help very much”.
The Pocket-lining Blood-stain He told the that Mr Robinson does not mention the stain on the pocket-lining going round the fold, although Mr Appleby accepted that was the case. The importance of this Mr Evans said was that the pockets were sewn down each side. This Mr Evans submitted made it far more likely that the stain had its origins on the inside of the pocket.
Mr Evans told the jury that Mr Appleby's drawing of that stain took him off the material and the marking of the area that he subsequently cut out showed that the stain came around the fold. “It's significant because you only see part of it,” said Mr Evans. “That affects the amount of blood." He asked how do you get a stain on both sides of the fold with a pocket that is stitched? “Is it possible that the reason you have it on both sides is because it has soaked through? He asked. “If that's the case it must have been visible on the other side of the pocket. That's the issue.”
Mr Evans told the court that the prosecution and their scientists had said that because nobody had said that it was there on the inside of the pocket lining, it could not have been there, that 'you don't put down what is not there.' “Wrong,” Mr Evans said emphatically. “The absence is highly significant, because it is basis of the prosecution case. We suggest if other side of that pocket had been clean of blood, it would be highly significant." Therefore that negative finding would have been reported – it was that important – he submitted.
“There was another stain and they did not find it,” Mr Evans said and they used the same methods in 2004 when it was located as they had in 1996 when it had not been noted. “They missed it,” he said. “The basis [of the case] against Mr Pope is on a negative, which we submit is highly dangerous. Can you conclude it was not there? No you can't." It was very important that the stain on the knickers had been missed submitted Mr Evans. “If it had been Phillip Skipper's blood, how important would that have been?” he asked regarding the previous prosecution. “We submit that if they knew there was no blood on the other side, he would be certain.”
Regarding the protestations of the scientists, especially Mr Robinson that there could not have been blood on the inner pocket side Mr Evans urged the jury to reject it most strongly. “That evidence is not good enough – not in a murder case – not in any case," said Mr Evans.
Mr Pope denies murdering 34 year-old Karen Skipper, whose body was found submerged in the River Ely in the morning of March 10th 1996. The trial continues |
Add comment
|
|
Like Fitted In?
Get the book

Fitted In
Inscribed to you, signed by and direct from the author Satish Sekar.
Please email Satish@fittedin.com for details.
Fitted In - to Britain £15.00
Fitted In - to Europe £17.50
Fitted In - The Rest of the World £20.00
|