and?
How would finding non blood based DNA help establish Jeremy is innocent?
Short of DNA proving all the group A blood found by the prosecution and defense experts in the suppressor was not Sheila's there is no way that DNA evidence could help Jeremy.
Blood found on the first several baffles and blood from a flake stuck in between the 1st and second baffle tested as group A blood consistent with Sheila's blood.
If a DNA test proved both the blood found on the baffles as well as the blood from the flake was not from Sheila then the prosecution would be left with no evidence to prove Sheila's blood was in the suppressor.
To prove this would require a DNA test of the exact blood that tested as group A. Such test would have to successfully provide a DNA profile of the contributor(s). If that happened and Sheila were not a contributor then in that case a new trial would be warranted because the Jury heard evidence this specific blood was Sheilas but there is proof it is not.
But such blood no longer exists so can't be tested and would have unlikely been able to be typed anyway because the blood tests done destroy DNA.
There is no other use a DNA test could serve with respect to trying to disprove the suppressor evidence.
If everything had been preserved instead of having been destroyed,,then DNA testing would have been carried out for sweat from Jeremy,,for starters,,as even the most minute particles can be detected. Fibres,hair,etc.
I think flourescine or similar was used in the drain to see if Jeremy had showered in " his wetsuit ".
The bottom line is, that NOTHING was detected in which to incriminate Jeremy,,and I'd imagine that EP went to great lengths in trying to finding something,however small,,but when all else failed,the " red herring " known as the silencer/moderator,fitted the bill because it all helped to add confusion to the jury.
