|
Javaid Iqbal Hussain was the forensic scientist at trial who
testified that:
| "The material behaved exactly as I would
have expected had it been blood. ….. I can think of no other
material that would have behaved in that way - save for blood.
… I am certain in my opinion that the material there was
blood. I concede that is not proof positive." |
click here to
see the full transcript of Hussain's trial testimony.
Why was Mr Hussain asked to carry out this test when his forensic specialism
is not 'blood evaluation' but 'Fingerprint detection and enhancement'?
Why was this test required when a KM test, which is more specific than
Hussain's test, was said to have already been done? The TAB test that
he used was not the normal presumptive test for blood.
Superintendent W Kerr stated at appeal in December 2001 regarding
the handling of the blood issue that;
| "After full discussion and advise from
scientists the decision was taken to identify the prints, as this
was deemed more important to the enquiry than identifying the
substance at that time. The marks were then useless
for anything else owing to the general heat of the house and the
tests that had been carried out on them in trying to identify
the prints." |
If this statement is true, why did he ask Hussian to carry out the blood
test several days after the enhancement work? Why was this test, carried
out on a substance that had been rendered 'useless' for further testing,
relied on in court? Document
attached.
George Walker of UK Forensic Science Services Ltd had reported
to Susan's solicitors on the 19 April 1993 one week before the trial.
He stated;
| "There appears to be a lack of scientific
proof as to the nature of the marks. The test used is a screening
test and is only indicative of the presence of blood. It is not
unknown for the test to give false positives. Hussain has produced
no scientific paper that indicates Tetraaminobiphenyl (his test
agent) will react with nothing other than blood and I asked him
for the information. I cannot believe it will not give some false
positives." |
Would the jury have come to the same verdict if they had heard this
man's testimony?
Mark Ross of Imperial Cancer Research Fund reported in a letter
to Susan's solicitors on the 13 May 1993, just after the trial;
| "I have studied the information you sent
me regarding Susan May's trial. My overall impression was that,
if this evidence was the mainstay of the prosecution's case, Susan
was convicted on extremely flimsy grounds. The main point of weakness
in this evidence is that none of the police tests were able to
demonstrate categorically that the substance in which Susan's
fingerprints were made was blood, let alone Hilda's blood. The
single test which would have proved the origin of the stain should
have been carried out immediately and by experts. There does seem
to be a case for negligence here." |
Dr T Clayton of the Forensic Science Service (Prosecution) speaking
of the appeal stage KM presumptive tests weak and poor reaction for
JH2 and negative reaction for JH1 says;
| "both these findings could be due to
the insitu fingerprint treatment they received. Similarly, it
could be that the blood was 'old' thus explaining its lose of
biological activity or (as in the case of JH1) that it was not
blood at all." |
I should make it clear at this point that Susan's fingerprint was only
ever identified in the stain JH1.
Dr Allan Jamieson of Forensic Institute Edinburgh speaking recently
(May 2003) of Hussain's test said that;
| "cannot be regarded as specific for blood
and therefore it has not been established by this test that the
marks were blood. I consider it misleading to say that "the
material behaved exactly as I would expect had it been blood,"
because there would appear to be many materials that would behave
in the same way. The scientifically justifiable conclusion is
that blood is one of an unknown number of materials that would
have tested positive and furthermore have a reasonable chance
of being present in a house. The lack of appreciation of the possibility
of false positive results was compounded by the scientist giving
evidence to the court that he was 'certain' of the nature of the
material as blood. This would have misled any reasonable person
as to the weight of the evidence regarding the nature of the material."
|
This is the weight of evidence that put Susan in prison ten years ago.
In a measure this evidence was rehearsed at the 2001 appeal and the
judges chose to disregard it.
|