June Bamber had A type blood, and it is a well established biological fact that A type blood can mask O type blood when both are mixed together. A presence of A type blood on baffles does not make the blood in the silencer unique to Sheila Caffell. A type blood on baffles could have been an intimate mixture of Ralph and June Bambers bloods.
No it couldn't.
You have things BACKWARDS.
If their blood intimately mixed then there is NO WAY for the blood to have been Nevill and June's blood mixed.
You have to argue that their blood DID NOT intimately mix. That requires establishing that the blood of one dried before the blood of the other was deposited on top of said dry blood. That is the only possibly way they might not intimately mix.
The defense was unable to establish why it would not intimately mix so didn't use their own expert. The prosecution expert tested how hot the suppressor would get after being fired and found it would not be hot enough to rapidly dry blood. There would have been no reason for the blood not to intimately mix that is the problem.
June's blood EAP, BA, AK2-1, Hp2-1. Sheila's blood was EAP, BA, AK1, HP2-1.
The blood found was EAP, BA, AK1, HP2-1 so matched Sheila's
Nevill's blood was BAP, BA, AK1, Hp2-1
So if June and Nevill's blood had intimately mixed the following would have been detected:
EAP, BAP, BA, AK1, AK2-1, Hp2-1.
However, if their blood did not intimately mix then SOME of the elements could be detected together but some other elements of their blood could potentially be missing from any set sample.
Scenario:
June's blood dries. Some of Nevill's blood splashes June's blood. Some lands right on June's blood and dries on top of it but some dries next to it or nearby but not exactly on it. In such case it theoretically would be possible for AK-1 to dry on June's but for the BAP to not make it into the sample.
In contrast if the blood intimately mixes then when it dries the sample will contain all elements of both bloods.
So the only way to argue it was June and Nevill's blood is to establish their blood did not intimately mix and thus in theory could be a mixture of their bloods without the experts being able to realize it.
The defense had no evidence to estbalish this would happen and to this day is unable to offer any evidence as to how the blood would not intimately mix. Worse, the defense has to simultaneously argue that no intimate mixing occurred and that Sheila used the suppressor to kill them both then put the suppressor away after using it.
This means it has to be argued that before the killings she went to the closet and installed the suppressor, she didn't just grab the gun from the kitchen and use it as she would have found it if Jeremy's claims were true, then she killed everyone with it attached. Then she removed it put it away and went back upstairs to kill herself.
The claim she got it formt he closet to use doesn't comport with how a crazy person would act. Nor would one bother to go put it away in the closet so no on ewould know it had been used. If she needed to remove it because it prevented her from killing herself then she would simply leave it in the same room somewhere not go downstairs to put it away.
So the argument doesn't work well at all form any standpoint and there is no evidence at all to support it since there is no viable way for intimate mixing to not occur unless there was a very sizable gap in time between when both parents had been shot.
Furthermore, no expert has ever said the loose flake was ever stuck between the first two baffle plates, so lets get that fact right. You have no evidence to back up your ridiculous claim, you do not even know the name of the expert who is supposed to have discovered the loose flake. The opinion of the court of appeal is not direct evidence of anything, they have got it wrong on so many other occasions in similar miscarriages of justice...
The expert who discovered the loose flake, says that it was 'trapped' between the first two baffles, he has never said that the loose flake was stuck there. Furthermore, how can the loose flake have been stuck between baffles 1 and 2 on 11th September 1985, when on the 29th August 1985, Cook had dismantled the silencer and separated the metal end cap, top washer, and the first five of the 17 baffle plates from eachother so that there was a discernable gap between baffles 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4, 4 and 5, and 5 and 6?
The expert said the blood had dried there, had been trapped and had to be scraped from it. That is why the court declared it had dried there. Your claim the flake was loose and floating aorund is a lie you made up to try to make your bogus contmaination claims more credible.
You might have no problem debating peopel who are uninformed and who are supporters of Jeremy so will not quesiton your claims but it will not work against me.
As for your claim that Cook dismantled the suppressor prior to the blood being scraped away by the biologist, he didn't state such in any of his statements. In his COLP statement he only talked about fingerprinting the outside of the suppressor. He also talking about superglue fuming the rifle and photographing the rifle. That is what he did on 8/21/85 according to his statement not dismantle the suppressor.
The photos he sent to Fletcher were taken after the biologist had the suppressor dismantled and examined it. You are making a bunch of bogus claims. Whether it is intentional or just error makes no difference in either case you are wrong.
While you claim to be so well informed it is a rather serious blunder to argue the blood intimately mixed and therefore belonged to both when the defense argued it did not intimately mix. Your comprehension of the evidence in the case is not as good as you think it is.
The loose flake idea is an invention of yours not reality. That is why the claim has no legs and wasn't advanced to an Court of Appeals.
