A Must Read - for all those seeking the truth in this matter...

[Caroline]

No,they're two entirely different things. Intentional contamination is knowing. Innocent contamination is sheer carelessness in everyone handling an item without gloves.

How do you accidentally get one of the victims blood inside a silencer by just handling it? 

[lookout]

How do you accidentally get one of the victims blood inside a silencer by just handling it? 

If blood had been running down the side ( particularly if Sheila had handled it  ),by scooping it back up and putting it inside.No-one would probably have thought of wiping it clean as in wiping away evidence.Unfortunately if that had happened then obviously it would have made Jeremy a sitting duck. Which it did.
Whether it was done with malice aforethought remains to be seen.

[Jane]

If blood had been running down the side ( particularly if Sheila had handled it  ),by scooping it back up and putting it inside.No-one would probably have thought of wiping it clean as in wiping away evidence.Unfortunately if that had happened then obviously it would have made Jeremy a sitting duck. Which it did.
Whether it was done with malice aforethought remains to be seen.

A) Wouldn't there have needed to be copious amounts of blood?
B) Having scooped it up the side wouldn't it have been MORE obvious to wipe it on something?

[Jan]

No,they're two entirely different things. Intentional contamination is knowing. Innocent contamination is sheer carelessness in everyone handling an item without gloves.

Or even de-contamination with EP by losing a grey hair. But of course it could have been an animal hair we will never know.


Presumably the family told the police when they called the silencer had blood on it. You think that would have rung an alarm  bell ? And they would handle it in a forensic manner - but no - kitchen roll was used and no gloves . Great. 

[lookout]

A) Wouldn't there have needed to be copious amounts of blood?
B) Having scooped it up the side wouldn't it have been MORE obvious to wipe it on something?

No,not copious,just a streak running down the side. It wouldn't have been the done thing to have wiped it at that time. Though I must say that unless blood is collected straight away it deteriorates and the sample is deemed useless anyway,left out as it was as air is a contaminant to blood unless it's tested immediately.

[notsure]

Ok scip, say everything youve said regarding moderator is true, there is a big struggle in the kitchen and paint and blood get into the moderator.

its ok to say follow the evidence but the evidencd is what people are questioning.

the expert has over 50 years experience, there were no scratch marks on mantle in original photos and no paint particles on the floor.

You cant argue they were there as the photos dont lie.

[Caroline]

If blood had been running down the side ( particularly if Sheila had handled it  ),by scooping it back up and putting it inside.No-one would probably have thought of wiping it clean as in wiping away evidence.Unfortunately if that had happened then obviously it would have made Jeremy a sitting duck. Which it did.
Whether it was done with malice aforethought remains to be seen.

Not really very likely Lookout.

[Jane]

Ok scip, say everything youve said regarding moderator is true, there is a big struggle in the kitchen and paint and blood get into the moderator.

its ok to say follow the evidence but the evidencd is what people are questioning.

the expert has over 50 years experience, there were no scratch marks on mantle in original photos and no paint particles on the floor.

You cant argue they were there as the photos dont lie.

I'm rather afraid they might, Notsure. Most of the photos we have here have been copied almost to the point of extinction. The grainier they are the more they suggest that something IS there which originally WASN'T there, whilst at the same time obliterating what IS actually there. Yer pays yer money, yer take yer choice :D

[Caroline]

Ok scip, say everything youve said regarding moderator is true, there is a big struggle in the kitchen and paint and blood get into the moderator.

its ok to say follow the evidence but the evidencd is what people are questioning.

the expert has over 50 years experience, there were no scratch marks on mantle in original photos and no paint particles on the floor.

You cant argue they were there as the photos dont lie.

If you're talking about Suthurst, he had to concede that his methods were less than scientific.

[lookout]

 The cameras should have been spot on. Police used to use a Minolta camera,similar to the ones used in hospitals at that time,which showed up every speck.
They may have been ancient back then compared to today,but they did the job just as efficiently.

[scipio_usmc]

Ok scip, say everything youve said regarding moderator is true, there is a big struggle in the kitchen and paint and blood get into the moderator.

its ok to say follow the evidence but the evidencd is what people are questioning.

the expert has over 50 years experience, there were no scratch marks on mantle in original photos and no paint particles on the floor.

You cant argue they were there as the photos dont lie.

The blood got inside the moderator from shooting Sheila not the struggle.

The photos do not show the underneath of the mantle where some of the scratches were. It is impossible to see that location.  The mantle is so far away in the photos there is no level of detail. Blowing up the photos to try to see the details was no scientifically valid.  There is no way such could be done.

At best one could do that with the negatives and even then it is questionable that they could be enhanced to the required detail.

The CCRC believed the experts who said his methodology was not valid because scientific literature backs them up.

 

[notsure]

Well i would tend to agree with the expert with 50 years experience. If he hadnt been able to deduce what he did he would have said so.

He was paid to do a job, it didnt make a jot of difference to him what the outcome was.

 The carpet pucture was clear enough to see that there were no particles on the floor which he sajd he would of expected.

like jane says u pay yer money you make yer choice

[Steve_uk]

Or even de-contamination with EP by losing a grey hair. But of course it could have been an animal hair we will never know.


Presumably the family told the police when they called the silencer had blood on it. You think that would have rung an alarm  bell ? And they would handle it in a forensic manner - but no - kitchen roll was used and no gloves . Great.

Doesn't Jeremy claim to Carol Ann Lee that the grey hair was deliberately lost because he himself had dyed his hair black in the immediate run up to the murders?

[scipio_usmc]

Well i would tend to agree with the expert with 50 years experience. If he hadnt been able to deduce what he did he would have said so.

He was paid to do a job, it didnt make a jot of difference to him what the outcome was.

 The carpet pucture was clear enough to see that there were no particles on the floor which he sajd he would of expected.

like jane says u pay yer money you make yer choice

Agreeing with an expert who is using a methodology other experts say is not valid doesn't make much sense. 

[Jane]

Doesn't Jeremy claim to Carol Ann Lee that the grey hair was deliberately lost because he himself had dyed his hair black in the immediate run up to the murders?

I wonder why Jeremy would have imagined that one of HIS hairs would have been stuck to the weapon. besides which, his hair was coloured -natural and chemical-  and straight whilst his fathers was colourless and curly.