AK1 blood could be Animals Blood

[mike tesko]

In the '20 band' DNA test, 13 matches are considered the maximum chance hits.

Sheila's DNA matched 17 bands. Both sides agreed it was Sheila's DNA, but could not prove conclusively that this came from blood rather than other tissue.

Of course, it could also have been skin tissue etc (lost/removed but trace left) from her wounds.

------------------------------------------------

Lets put things into perspective - The DNA we are talking about was discovered upon the "inverted" screw thread end, inside the bottom end of the silencer. We are not talking about "DNA" found anywhere else inside the silencer...

I can accept that...

There is of course a perfectly simple explanation for why Sheila Caffells DNA, was found there in that part of the silencer, which has got nothing whatsoever to do with it getting there at the time she was shot and killed...

[Kaldin]

How much of this blood did they actually test? I read that there was a lot of blood in the silencer but I only ever hear about this flake, which sounds quite small. I suppose once it was established that the blood in that flake was Sheila's blood group they didn't bother to look any more. The defence had a chap called Mr Lincoln, but he didn't have much different to say about it either. I wonder why the defence didn't insist on more thorough testing of all the blood which was in the silencer.

[Kaldin]

Animal blood in the silencer would have dried, so how did blood from the victims mix with it?

--------------------------------------------------------------

You are now beginning to see the problem which the prosecutions case had to deal with...

If you have two lots of animals blood already inside the silencer, in particular around the .22 diameter aperture on the silencers end cap, and wet blood from one of the victims passes through that same aperture, how does the wet human blood, manage to get beyond the dried animal blood, without it picking up any of its qualities? Furthermore, how does the wet human blood end up being there trapped between baffles one and two, in a loose state, whilst all the other human blood on the other baffles, did not?

Are you trying to suggest, that if two lots of animals blood was already in that part of the silencer, were coated in wet blood from a human source that it could not pick up any of the qualities from the animal blood as it mingles with it, or upon it, or against it? Are you also suggesting that for one reason or another, the human blood did not dry in the same way as the other blood staining found inside the silencer, that we are being asked to assume got into the silencer at the time of the shootings, and that when a piece broke off, and detached itself, from the other blood, that it retained its human features, without being contaminated by the Animal blood at all?

That loose flake of dried blood, in that part of the silencer, is extremely dodgy as far as I am concerned - it appears to me, as if it did not get into the silencer at the time anyone was shot, but got there on some other unrelated occasion...

I would have thought that the human blood would not mix with the animal blood, and therefore there would be no confusion between the two - ie, the forensic chap would have known that there was animal blood in there as distinct from human blood.

[mike tesko]

Animal blood in the silencer would have dried, so how did blood from the victims mix with it?

--------------------------------------------------------------

You are now beginning to see the problem which the prosecutions case had to deal with...

If you have two lots of animals blood already inside the silencer, in particular around the .22 diameter aperture on the silencers end cap, and wet blood from one of the victims passes through that same aperture, how does the wet human blood, manage to get beyond the dried animal blood, without it picking up any of its qualities? Furthermore, how does the wet human blood end up being there trapped between baffles one and two, in a loose state, whilst all the other human blood on the other baffles, did not?

Are you trying to suggest, that if two lots of animals blood was already in that part of the silencer, were coated in wet blood from a human source that it could not pick up any of the qualities from the animal blood as it mingles with it, or upon it, or against it? Are you also suggesting that for one reason or another, the human blood did not dry in the same way as the other blood staining found inside the silencer, that we are being asked to assume got into the silencer at the time of the shootings, and that when a piece broke off, and detached itself, from the other blood, that it retained its human features, without being contaminated by the Animal blood at all?

That loose flake of dried blood, in that part of the silencer, is extremely dodgy as far as I am concerned - it appears to me, as if it did not get into the silencer at the time anyone was shot, but got there on some other unrelated occasion...

I would have thought that the human blood would not mix with the animal blood, and therefore there would be no confusion between the two - ie, the forensic chap would have known that there was animal blood in there as distinct from human blood.

------------------------

Aah, this is where you are mistaken, the AK1 blood enzyme is identical in both human, and animal form, it is conducive to both, indistinguishable, from one to the other...

it is impossible to tell whether or not the AK1 blood enzyme, originated fro animal blood, as opposed to human, blood...

[Kaldin]

Animal blood in the silencer would have dried, so how did blood from the victims mix with it?

--------------------------------------------------------------

You are now beginning to see the problem which the prosecutions case had to deal with...

If you have two lots of animals blood already inside the silencer, in particular around the .22 diameter aperture on the silencers end cap, and wet blood from one of the victims passes through that same aperture, how does the wet human blood, manage to get beyond the dried animal blood, without it picking up any of its qualities? Furthermore, how does the wet human blood end up being there trapped between baffles one and two, in a loose state, whilst all the other human blood on the other baffles, did not?

Are you trying to suggest, that if two lots of animals blood was already in that part of the silencer, were coated in wet blood from a human source that it could not pick up any of the qualities from the animal blood as it mingles with it, or upon it, or against it? Are you also suggesting that for one reason or another, the human blood did not dry in the same way as the other blood staining found inside the silencer, that we are being asked to assume got into the silencer at the time of the shootings, and that when a piece broke off, and detached itself, from the other blood, that it retained its human features, without being contaminated by the Animal blood at all?

That loose flake of dried blood, in that part of the silencer, is extremely dodgy as far as I am concerned - it appears to me, as if it did not get into the silencer at the time anyone was shot, but got there on some other unrelated occasion...

I would have thought that the human blood would not mix with the animal blood, and therefore there would be no confusion between the two - ie, the forensic chap would have known that there was animal blood in there as distinct from human blood.

------------------------

Aah, this is where you are mistaken, the AK1 blood enzyme is identical in both human, and animal form, it is conducive to both, indistinguishable, from one to the other...

it is impossible to tell whether or not the AK1 blood enzyme, originated fro animal blood, as opposed to human, blood...

I would expect there to have been other components which were only attributable to animal blood. How would the animal AK1 have managed to attach itself to human blood when no other components of animal blood were found?

[mike tesko]

Animal blood in the silencer would have dried, so how did blood from the victims mix with it?

--------------------------------------------------------------

You are now beginning to see the problem which the prosecutions case had to deal with...

If you have two lots of animals blood already inside the silencer, in particular around the .22 diameter aperture on the silencers end cap, and wet blood from one of the victims passes through that same aperture, how does the wet human blood, manage to get beyond the dried animal blood, without it picking up any of its qualities? Furthermore, how does the wet human blood end up being there trapped between baffles one and two, in a loose state, whilst all the other human blood on the other baffles, did not?

Are you trying to suggest, that if two lots of animals blood was already in that part of the silencer, were coated in wet blood from a human source that it could not pick up any of the qualities from the animal blood as it mingles with it, or upon it, or against it? Are you also suggesting that for one reason or another, the human blood did not dry in the same way as the other blood staining found inside the silencer, that we are being asked to assume got into the silencer at the time of the shootings, and that when a piece broke off, and detached itself, from the other blood, that it retained its human features, without being contaminated by the Animal blood at all?

That loose flake of dried blood, in that part of the silencer, is extremely dodgy as far as I am concerned - it appears to me, as if it did not get into the silencer at the time anyone was shot, but got there on some other unrelated occasion...

I would have thought that the human blood would not mix with the animal blood, and therefore there would be no confusion between the two - ie, the forensic chap would have known that there was animal blood in there as distinct from human blood.

------------------------

Aah, this is where you are mistaken, the AK1 blood enzyme is identical in both human, and animal form, it is conducive to both, indistinguishable, from one to the other...

it is impossible to tell whether or not the AK1 blood enzyme, originated fro animal blood, as opposed to human, blood...

I would expect there to have been other components which were only attributable to animal blood. How would the animal AK1 have managed to attach itself to human blood when no other components of animal blood were found?

......

Tests were completed to detect whether animal or human blood was present inside the silencer - on 20th September 1985, and recorded for the fact that two lots of animals blood, was found inside the silencer. Other blood groups for animals, was not recorded as far as animal blood is concerned, other than the fact that two lots of animal blood, was found inside the silencer...

[jon]

 Have you had your findings confirmed by a blood expert ?

[Kaldin]

Tests were completed to detect whether animal or human blood was present inside the silencer - on 20th September 1985, and recorded for the fact that two lots of animals blood, was found inside the silencer. Other blood groups for animals, was not recorded as far as animal blood is concerned, other than the fact that two lots of animal blood, was found inside the silencer...

Then why did the defence not refer to those tests?

[mike tesko]

Have you had your findings confirmed by a blood expert ?

........................

Not yet, other than the fact that I have brought my findings to the attention Of Jeremy...

[mike tesko]

Tests were completed to detect whether animal or human blood was present inside the silencer - on 20th September 1985, and recorded for the fact that two lots of animals blood, was found inside the silencer. Other blood groups for animals, was not recorded as far as animal blood is concerned, other than the fact that two lots of animal blood, was found inside the silencer...

Then why did the defence not refer to those tests?

----------------------------

Because prosecution experts did not disclose that they had detected the presence of animals blood inside the silencer to anyone, or what blood group activity animal blood found there, related to...

[Kaldin]

Tests were completed to detect whether animal or human blood was present inside the silencer - on 20th September 1985, and recorded for the fact that two lots of animals blood, was found inside the silencer. Other blood groups for animals, was not recorded as far as animal blood is concerned, other than the fact that two lots of animal blood, was found inside the silencer...

Then why did the defence not refer to those tests?

----------------------------

Because prosecution experts did not disclose that they had detected the presence of animals blood inside the silencer to anyone, or what blood group activity animal blood found there, related to...

The defence had Dr Lincoln. Why did he not find the alleged animal blood?

[mike tesko]

Tests were completed to detect whether animal or human blood was present inside the silencer - on 20th September 1985, and recorded for the fact that two lots of animals blood, was found inside the silencer. Other blood groups for animals, was not recorded as far as animal blood is concerned, other than the fact that two lots of animal blood, was found inside the silencer...

Then why did the defence not refer to those tests?

----------------------------

Because prosecution experts did not disclose that they had detected the presence of animals blood inside the silencer to anyone, or what blood group activity animal blood found there, related to...

The defence had Dr Lincoln. Why did he not find the alleged animal blood?

------------------------

Blood expert (John Hayward) and his assistants kept the working notes from their examination of the silencer back from him?

[Kaldin]

Tests were completed to detect whether animal or human blood was present inside the silencer - on 20th September 1985, and recorded for the fact that two lots of animals blood, was found inside the silencer. Other blood groups for animals, was not recorded as far as animal blood is concerned, other than the fact that two lots of animal blood, was found inside the silencer...

Then why did the defence not refer to those tests?

----------------------------

Because prosecution experts did not disclose that they had detected the presence of animals blood inside the silencer to anyone, or what blood group activity animal blood found there, related to...

The defence had Dr Lincoln. Why did he not find the alleged animal blood?

------------------------

Blood expert (John Hayward) and his assistants kept the working notes from their examination of the silencer back from him?

Did they? Dr Lincoln carried out his own tests on all 17 baffles.

[mike tesko]

Tests were completed to detect whether animal or human blood was present inside the silencer - on 20th September 1985, and recorded for the fact that two lots of animals blood, was found inside the silencer. Other blood groups for animals, was not recorded as far as animal blood is concerned, other than the fact that two lots of animal blood, was found inside the silencer...

Then why did the defence not refer to those tests?

----------------------------

Because prosecution experts did not disclose that they had detected the presence of animals blood inside the silencer to anyone, or what blood group activity animal blood found there, related to...

The defence had Dr Lincoln. Why did he not find the alleged animal blood?

------------------------

Blood expert (John Hayward) and his assistants kept the working notes from their examination of the silencer back from him?

Did they? Dr Lincoln carried out his own tests on all 17 baffles.

-------------------

Yes, he did, but upon which silencer?

[Kaldin]

Tests were completed to detect whether animal or human blood was present inside the silencer - on 20th September 1985, and recorded for the fact that two lots of animals blood, was found inside the silencer. Other blood groups for animals, was not recorded as far as animal blood is concerned, other than the fact that two lots of animal blood, was found inside the silencer...

Then why did the defence not refer to those tests?

----------------------------

Because prosecution experts did not disclose that they had detected the presence of animals blood inside the silencer to anyone, or what blood group activity animal blood found there, related to...

The defence had Dr Lincoln. Why did he not find the alleged animal blood?

------------------------

Blood expert (John Hayward) and his assistants kept the working notes from their examination of the silencer back from him?

Did they? Dr Lincoln carried out his own tests on all 17 baffles.

-------------------

Yes, he did, but upon which silencer?

If you're going down that road, I can't possibly comment.