So you would accept this into evidence at a trial? Blood was scraped off of it because it was "fascinating" - with a razor blade, around a dinner table, a few days before it was given to police. Really?
Whether true or not it has no bearing at all on the integrity of the evidence found inside. That is the issue. One person said there was a bit of blood sticking out others do not. Since this alleged blood was not used as evidence it makes no difference at all whether it was or wasn't. If it was lost it makes no difference at all on the blood used. If it was never there then it especially makes no difference.
The fact of the matter is that the blood found by the prosecution and defense can't have gotten there by any accidental means and anyone planting blood evidence would have been likely to use a dropper or pour blood in from a small vial. There are no documented cases of planting blood evidence in a gun or suppressor by spraying it inside. I challenge you to find any because I found none nor any experts who claim that there is a tool that can be used to spray blood inside to mimick the distribution of drawback.
This is not only what matters to a jury but what matters to the appeal judges. If anyone wants to ge thim out of jail they have to establish the blood DETERMINED to be group A human blood was planted or wrongly identified as group A. That is what it will take to get the conviction overturned because of the suppressor.
For people interested in the truth who objectively view him as guilty, the same thing is required- establishing the blood determined by the prosecution and the defense experts to be group A blood is not group A or was planted.
The defense is unable to do that so tries playing games about this issue but dancing around it does nothing. It will not prove innocence therefore will not convince an appeal court or anyone objective.
The defense needs to establish the blood tested by the experts and determined to be group A by the experts was likely planted or that it is likely the experts were wrong about it being group A.
The inability to do so at trial was fatal to the defense, the inability to do so on appeal is fatal to efforts to vacate the conviction and the inability to do so means that people relying on such as proof of guilt have no reason to stop doing so.
Again though there is a lot more evidence against Jeremy this is just one aspect. A conviction could still be obtianed without the suppressor evidence but if it were proven to be planted then there would have to be at minimum a retrial for the prosecution to make out such case.
You simply choose to discount anything that establishes Jeremy's guilt because of bias. You choose to believe it was planted though there is no evidence at all to establish such. Because you simply take a leap of faither you can't prove a thing and that is the problem. Inability to prove what you want to believe means that you can't put forth anything in court to negate the evidence and can't put forth anything to people who rely on such evidence to believe in his guilt that negates it.
Evidence must be challenged head on, th eevidence that must be challenged is the blood that was determined to be group A. That is why a DNA test of the suppressor accomplishes little. Only a DNA test of that blood which tested as group A would be able to prove or disprove if that blood was Sheila's. But neither the defense nor the prosecution saved such blood evidence so there is no way to test it. Thus no way for a DNA test to disprove it was Sheila's.
The defense was not stupid they relaized they needed to try to prove it was not Sheila's blood so they 1) did not have their own expert testify because he found additional blood that he determined was group A (thus duplicated the findings of the prosecution) and 2) he originally thought it was possible the prosecution had found blood that could have been a mixture of June and Nevill's blood but changed his assessment when he learned it was from a signle flake of blood. So their own expert would have killed them and refuted the chance of the blood being a mixture. For these reaosns they did not call their expert at trial. The lawyers simply cross examined the prosecution expert rying to get him to admit the chance the blood was a mixture not group A. The best they could get the expert to say was a very remote chance which is better than their own expert would have stated.
For this very remote chance to actually occur the blood of 1 would have to have dried before the blood of the other was deposited and each victim would have needed to have been shot with the gun within 2mm of the body. So othere would have to have been a sizable gap between June and Nevill being shot and each would have needed to have suffered a contact or near contact wound. The pathologist did not think either had a wound close enough to result in drawback.
This was a Haily Mary play with the defense hoping some jurors would be confused and think that a remote possibility is enough to meet reasonable doubt which requires a reasonably probably not very remote. So in effect was hoping jurors would be tricked. Sometimes that happens because of bias, ignorance and because the prosecution does a poor job of making sure the jury understands.
If this trial were held in 2014 the evidence collection practices would have been so different that there might be more evidence against Jeremy.
The biggest difference though would be the blood inside the suppressor would have been tested for DNA to see if it was Sheila's as opposed to group A blood belonging to someone else. If guilters are right that Jeremy killed Sheila with the suppressor attached it would be determined to be her DNA. If innocenters are right that Sheila's blood was planted in the suppressor then it still would be determined to be her DNA. Either way the blood would be proven as hers. So the Hail mary the defense used in 1986 would be unavailable. The conviction might be 12-0 instead of 10-2 in such case.
The defense would need to establish a likelihood that her blood had been planted to overcome such evidence.
So at the end of the day we would be in the same exact place we sit today with the defense needing to establish the blood was planted to have such evidence discounted.
