Expert and professional evidence
Read the conclusion. Then read its limits.
These summaries do not turn every author into a defence expert. The archive contains prosecution material, independent reviews, contested opinions, legal advice and technical witness evidence.
Forensic scienceProfessor R. Brinkmann
1995 report and 1996 letter
What the material says
Brinkmann recorded two negative Kastle–Meyer tests on JH1 and did not carry out further DNA testing on that item. In his later letter he said he could not state that it was blood, whose blood it was or when it was deposited.
Important limit
His work addressed the samples supplied and the methods available at the time. Other items and later DNA work must be kept separate.
Forensic reviewA. S. Holman
FSS Major Crime Service review, July 2004
What the material says
Holman identified gaps, retrospective records, inconsistent timings and unexplained annotations in the forensic notes.
Important limit
He expressly allowed that some inconsistencies could be innocent mistakes. His report was not a finding of deliberate misconduct.
Blood testingNigel Hodge
Professional letter on TAB/DAB, 2012
What the material says
Hodge said a positive presumptive test should not be treated as proof of blood and criticised Hussain’s use of the word “certain”.
Important limit
Hodge stated that he was not a chemist and drew on consultation with colleagues.
Technical commentProfessor Ian Turner
University of Derby, September 2012
What the material says
Turner said TAB was not a routine technique to his knowledge and that further work was required before its robustness could be assessed.
Important limit
He said he had not had time to examine the case in detail; the comment was not a full case report.
CCRC scientific reviewVaughn Sears
Home Office CAST reports, 2016–17
What the material says
Sears described DAB/TAB as a presumptive catalytic test capable of false positives. He identified a possible iodine interaction and examined the likely difference between the 1992 one-step process and the later two-step method.
Important limit
He did not conclude that a false positive occurred here. The CCRC accepted a heightened risk from the likely method but found no evidenced alternative substance sufficient to change its decision.
Blood analysisDr Barber
CCRC-commissioned report, 2013
What the material says
Barber agreed that the original note-taking did not support some later opinions and said the likely one-step DAB method could not exclude certain false-positive reactions.
Important limit
He also disagreed with important parts of Zeelenberg’s interpretation and did not conclude that the marks were proved not to be blood. The source file must still be matched to his full name and instructions.
Original researchJavaid Hussain and C. A. Pounds
FSS TAB technical paper, 1989
What the material says
The Enhancement of Marks Made in Blood With 3,3′,4,4′-Tetraaminobiphenyl reports experiments enhancing known bloodmarks with TAB. It records light sensitivity and non-specific background darkening on porous surfaces.
Important limit
It did not validate specificity against a representative range of non-blood household materials and was not an independent opinion on the May scene.
Blood testingLydia Bossers
Technical letter on DAB/TAB, August 2012
What the material says
Bossers described DAB/TAB as presumptive, not confirmatory. She also explained that a reaction does not prove that ridge detail and reactive material were deposited together.
Important limit
She had only the material sent to her, not the complete case file. Read Lydia Bossers’ full report.
Forensic reviewAllan Jamieson
Report commissioned by the CCRC, April 2005
What the material says
Jamieson raised scientific, packaging, control and continuity concerns. He said the tests he reviewed were insufficient by themselves to establish the material scientifically as blood.
Important limit
His stated remit and the later CCRC treatment of his conclusions must accompany any quotation. Read Allan Jamieson’s full report.
DNA reviewSue Woodroffe
Control Risks review, October 2008
What the material says
Woodroffe reviewed the blood and DNA evidence and highlighted the distinction between detecting DNA and proving that the visible material was blood.
Important limit
The archive contains a full review and shorter extracts; quotations should be taken from the complete report and its stated instructions.
Crime-scene reviewPaul Millen
Consultant crime-scene investigator
What the material says
Millen raised questions about the scene work, Hussain’s precise expertise, the chemical treatment sequence and the certainty attached to the result.
Important limit
Some of his questions concern missing or incomplete records rather than proof of a particular alternative event.
Scientific critiqueMark Ross
Technical review of DNA tables, 2004
What the material says
Ross raised technical concerns about interpretation of the later DNA results and warned against treating a single result as self-explanatory.
Important limit
His preserved material is an initial scientific critique, not a commissioned forensic report based on the complete raw data.
Fingerprint analysisArie Zeelenberg
Reports dated 2012, 2013, 2017 and 2019
What the material says
Zeelenberg challenged the single-deposit blood-mark scenario, the processing and interpretation of JH1, while not disputing that identifiable ridge detail was Susan’s.
Important limit
His separate reports address different questions and source material. Their conclusions should not be collapsed into a blanket statement that the mark was conclusively old or made only in sweat.
Fingerprint analysisMetropolitan Police fingerprint panel
Institutional review for the CCRC
What the material says
One panel member reached an identification; two considered the available image detail insufficient for a definitive identification. All reported no observed dissimilarity, and the collective conclusion was that the deposit was likely made by Susan.
Important limit
The panel compared a defined set of supplied candidates and did not exclude every person who may have had access to the house.
Authorship unresolvedProfessor Don Evett
Referenced report; authorship not yet verified
What the material says
A later commentary in the archive refers to an Evett report about fingerprint evidence.
Important limit
The visible file does not establish that Evett authored it. The original report, remit and authorship must be recovered before any conclusion is attributed to him.
Forensic commentProfessor Joseph Almog
Specialist comment, 2013
What the material says
Almog supplied specialist comment on the fingerprint and blood-mark questions.
Important limit
His exact wording, instructions and credentials should be verified from the original before any stronger public conclusion is attributed to him.
Forensic pathologyProfessor David Pounder
Time-of-death advice
What the material says
Pounder supplied a short advice note on the time-of-death material.
Important limit
He said he could not add real substance to what had already been said. It is not a fresh case-specific alibi report.
Working noteProfessor Adrian Newland
Haematology notes on the blood material
What the material says
A two-page note discusses the condition of blood material, the wall and pillow evidence and a possible further opinion.
Important limit
It is not a formal signed report and does not state complete instructions or a concluded opinion. It should not be presented as one.
DNA testingJonathan Whittaker
FSS DNA reports on JH1, JH2, MSN14/15 and MJD28
What the material says
Whittaker’s later DNA work produced profiles that the CCRC treated as supporting Hilda Marchbank’s blood in the wall-mark material, including a full profile from JH2 and a partial profile from JH1.
Important limit
DNA provenance and the nature of the visible stain are separate questions. His reports must be read with the controls, continuity history and later technical criticism.
DNA interpretationMiss Bassett
FSS comment preserved in CCRC correspondence
What the material says
The preserved comment explains that obtaining DNA does not by itself prove that the material tested was blood.
Important limit
Her full name, role and the original context of the comment still need to be established before wider conclusions are attributed to her.
Fingerprint opinionGlenn Langenburg
Email opinion, February 2019
What the material says
Langenburg supplied a specialist response to a solicited enquiry about the fingerprint material.
Important limit
The opinion is an email response based on specified material, not a complete independent reconstruction of the case.
Forensic chemistryProfessor Simona Francese
Opinion and proposed testing, 2019
What the material says
Francese considered whether modern chemical-imaging work might help distinguish or map biological material in the surviving samples.
Important limit
The archive preserves the proposal and correspondence, not a completed case-specific test result.
Research projectChampod, Taroni and Enet
University of Lausanne work, 2022–23
What the material says
Professor Christophe Champod, Professor Franco Taroni and Lucie Enet were involved in a proposed forensic review and laboratory work concerning the wall-mark evidence.
Important limit
No completed report, raw results or supervised final conclusion has been located in the campaign archive. The correspondence proves work was discussed and undertaken, not what it ultimately established.
Research correspondenceAnnemieke van Dam
Scientific email on DAB and fingermarks
What the material says
Van Dam discussed research-based possibilities for background DAB reactions and non-blood material associated with fingermarks.
Important limit
She did not establish that a particular non-blood substance caused the reaction in this case. The 2018 CCRC decision considered and rejected that theory on the available case evidence.
Student studyPaisley University students
Course project on the TAB test
What the material says
The project reported that TAB was not blood-specific and could react with other biological materials.
Important limit
This was student work, not an independent accredited laboratory report. Later professional correspondence also identified a scientific error in its explanation of how the stain works.
Legal opinionDavid M. Jones
OSS report, June 1999
What the material says
Jones concluded that preparation of Susan’s Crown Court defence was inadequate and identified omissions that, in his opinion, affected the case presented to the jury.
Important limit
This was professional opinion applying a civil standard, not a judicial finding that the conviction was unsafe.
Legal opinionAnthony Edwards
Police-station representation report, May 2026
What the material says
Edwards concluded that the advice and assistance provided to Susan during police interviews was “significantly below competent”.
Important limit
The original solicitor’s file was unavailable. The effect on the safety of the conviction must be demonstrated through the specific interview passages and their later use.
Investigative reviewDesmond Thomas
Former senior investigating officer
What the material says
Thomas raised concerns about investigative management, HOLMES records, disclosure, formal identification and alternative lines of enquiry.
Important limit
His document contains professional inferences and allegations. Each must be tested against the primary police record before it is presented as fact.
Legal adviceJames Gregory
Advice on the 2010 CCRC refusal
What the material says
Legal advice addressing the CCRC’s decision is held in the archive.
Important limit
It is advocacy or advice, not evidence about the underlying events. It should be read alongside the decision it addresses.
Regulatory contextOffice for the Supervision of Solicitors
Professional-regulatory material
What the material says
The archive contains institutional material relating to Susan’s complaints about her legal representation.
Important limit
It must not be relabelled as an independent expert report unless its author, remit and conclusion are established.
Witness statementTimothy Marc Clayton
FSS statement, August 1995
What the material says
Clayton recorded that the frozen WL19 reference sample leaked badly after thawing. The vial was unlabelled and the blood looked old and in poor condition.
Important limit
He also recorded that the leakage remained within the first of three bags. His statement does not say the cap was loose.
Contemporary recordGeorge Walker
Pre-trial scientific discussion
What the material says
Walker recorded concerns about the lack of conclusive proof that the stains were blood and the limits of the screening procedures.
Important limit
The preserved item is a contemporary professional record, not a later independent full-case report.
Trial scientistJavaid Hussain
Witness statements and evidence
What the material says
Hussain told the court that, in his opinion, the material was blood and described its reactions to the chemical treatments.
Important limit
His evidence must be read with his original technical paper, the exact treatment sequence and later specialist criticism. He was a participant in the original case, not a later independent reviewer.
No report matches that search and filter.