Author Topic: Jeremy's court testimony:  (Read 25027 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #390 on: October 13, 2014, 06:53:PM »
oh yes that would explain it then - and I NEVER said it came from  blood I asked how it got there you rude man.

So it is excused because of contamination - but anything before that can not be excused by contamination.

How convenient

They didn't find other DNA prior- DNA wasn't known about at the time. They found blood.  There was blood on it and in it.  There was blood near the opening that was human. There wa seven more blood that that inside though which ended up being group A blood and it got there by being sprayed inside.  There is no way for blood to be innocently sprayed inside a moderator so that it coats the first 8 baffles and leaves a flake trapped between the first 2 baffles.   Contamination can't account for such.  That is why the defense didn't try arguing such. They found no expert willing to testify to such because there was no way to say someone who had a bloody finger could have picked it up, accidentally bled inside and for it to have resulted in blood on the first 8 baffles.  Nor is there any new science that would permit the defense to try arguing such on appeal.  It was prayed inside.

The only alternatives are it was sprayed inside to intentionally plant it or someone with group A blood was shot by a gun that had the moderator attached.   They had no evidence to support the former so argued the latter. June had group A blood.  Unfortunately for them though, Ak1 was detected which was consistent with Sheila (June had AK2-1).  They tried suggesting Nevill's blood was in there as well, that the lab messed up and faile dot detect it and esentially June's blood concealed his except it could not conceal the Ak1.  Ak2-1 is more hardy than AK1 so should have been there if it were actually June's blood mixed with Nevill's.  So they could not get an expert to support their claims.  They made them themselves which is why it didn't have much effect.

At best their suggestion alters one thing formt he narrative:

Prosecution narrative:
Killer attached moderator, killed everyone, then after everyone wa skilled removed the moderator and put it away in the closet.

Defense narrative:
Killer attached moderator, killed everyone except Sheila with it, removed the moderator, put it away in the closet and then killed Sheila.

Aside from the fact that had tha tbeen the case SHeila's blood would have been found in the rifle, why would Sheila get the moderator in the first place to attach and why would she bother to put it away to conceal it was used on he others?

It wa sthus not a great argument but they had no ability to allege intentional planting so went with the best they could no matter how weak of an argument it was.


Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #391 on: October 13, 2014, 07:14:PM »
Well as has been said many times before Jeremy has pushed for every test possible on that moderator .

Which according to you is the one tangible thing that proves his guilt


so either he is innocent and he has come to the same conclusion that Sheila would not use the silencer take it off and put it is a box before shooting her self ( this is extremely unlikely but not impossible because in a delusional state she could have done anything )  but that would mean the blood would have been a mixture of blood and not hers


OR he is guilty and he did not use the silencer - in which case would indicate it was deliberately contaminated .



Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #392 on: October 14, 2014, 02:48:AM »
Well as has been said many times before Jeremy has pushed for every test possible on that moderator .

Which according to you is the one tangible thing that proves his guilt


so either he is innocent and he has come to the same conclusion that Sheila would not use the silencer take it off and put it is a box before shooting her self ( this is extremely unlikely but not impossible because in a delusional state she could have done anything )  but that would mean the blood would have been a mixture of blood and not hers


OR he is guilty and he did not use the silencer - in which case would indicate it was deliberately contaminated .

It is not the only tangible thing that proves his guilt but it is the main one relied on at trial.  This sheer necessity resulted in the defense counsel trying to undermine it.

The only tests the defense did on it were to test it for blood- with the defense expert findiing group A blood on the first 8 baffles and then the DNA test.

The defense finding that blood really handcuffed them. 

What did they argue because of the blood and even the DNA (which was a worhtless effort sinc eno blood remained in the mdoerator)?

They argued drawback resulted in June and Nevill's blood being deposited in the moderator.  They effectively argued that SHeila:

1) got the moderator from the closet and attached it to the gun she found in the kichen
2) used it to kill eveyrone else
3) after killing everyone else removed it and put it in the closet
4) then killed herself.

Why would she bother to go to the closet to get the moderator? 

Why would she bother to put it away in the lcoset which is what someone trying to conceal its use during the murders would do?

The moderator being used period points to Jeremy.

The defense didn't argue at trial or the 2002 appeal that the moderator wasn't used.  They argued it was used but put away before Sheila was shot.

If someone paid me to act as Jeremy's advocate I would have to try to attack the main things agaisnt him, not because they are weak links but because they are the main evidence.

I would need to try finding a way to undermine the moderator evidence, the evidence proving Sheila was shot while seated propped against something then moved flat, the evidence the bible was placed in a pool of blood that fored after she died and the evidence that Sheila could not have killed eveyrone without getting GSR and their blood on her body and clothing.

There is a lot of other evidence but that is the rock of the case.  You have to attack it because it is the rock.  If you don't attack such you might as well plead guilty and beg for mercy.

   

 

 




 

Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline Reader

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2456
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #393 on: October 14, 2014, 04:42:AM »
We don't know what clothing Sheila had on initially, only when she died. No matter how she was shot, the GSR would have been produced and would have settled somewhere.

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #394 on: October 14, 2014, 01:07:PM »
Well if it was a mixture of  Junes and nevillesc blood then there was a remote possibilty she did put it away .  It would not seem logical , but then she would not be in a logical frame of mind .


I must admit I always wondered if the police did ask the family to say it was "hidden" when it was not because it had been left somewhere obvious and they did not find it .

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #395 on: October 14, 2014, 01:37:PM »
We don't know what clothing Sheila had on initially, only when she died. No matter how she was shot, the GSR would have been produced and would have settled somewhere.

You mean like the GSR on Nevill?  OOps Nevill was shot 7 times but had no GSR on his body or clothing.  How can that be?  You were completely wrong about GSR going out of the barrel of a weapon and landing on victims when shot by a rifle, that is why Nevill had no GSR on him, he tested negative. 

IF SHeila shot herself then in that case she would have to have gotten GSR on her gown and clothing.  In contrast if shot then the mechanism of the gun where the GSR was expelled would not have been near her body and the GSR would not have landed on her. I already showed a photo of where that area is- the ejection port and the 3 holes on the left side of the gun opposite the ejection port.

Sheila was definitely shot and killed while wearing the gown she was found in and it was totally free of GSR thus proving she was shot by someone else.

That area of the gun that expels GSR is near the shooter so unless she shot herself it would not be near her body.  It would be near her body if she shot others though so she would get GSR on her clothing and body if she shot anyone else or if she shot herself.  The complete absence proves she didn't.

Had she changed out of other clothing that was worn while killing the others it would have been found at the site. The only way for such clothing not to have been found would be if she had an accoplice, she washed, changed and then the accomplice double crossed her and took her clothing. An acocmplice though would have double crossed her before she washed and bathed rathe rthan to takes away the clothing that implicated her since the killer would want her to be wearing such clothing to make police think she did it then committed suicied.

So it is clear she never fired a gun but rather was murdered.  The fact she didn't fire a gun means she didn't kill anyone else either they were all murdered by her killer.
 
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Mr. Gee

  • Guest
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #396 on: October 14, 2014, 01:51:PM »
You mean like the GSR on Nevill?  OOps Nevill was shot 7 times but had no GSR on his body or clothing.  How can that be?  You were completely wrong about GSR going out of the barrel of a weapon and landing on victims when shot by a rifle, that is why Nevill had no GSR on him, he tested negative.

IF SHeila shot herself then in that case she would have to have gotten GSR on her gown and clothing.  In contrast if shot then the mechanism of the gun where the GSR was expelled would not have been near her body and the GSR would not have landed on her. I already showed a photo of where that area is- the ejection port and the 3 holes on the left side of the gun opposite the ejection port.

Sheila was definitely shot and killed while wearing the gown she was found in and it was totally free of GSR thus proving she was shot by someone else.

That area of the gun that expels GSR is near the shooter so unless she shot herself it would not be near her body.  It would be near her body if she shot others though so she would get GSR on her clothing and body if she shot anyone else or if she shot herself.  The complete absence proves she didn't.

Had she changed out of other clothing that was worn while killing the others it would have been found at the site. The only way for such clothing not to have been found would be if she had an accoplice, she washed, changed and then the accomplice double crossed her and took her clothing. An acocmplice though would have double crossed her before she washed and bathed rathe rthan to takes away the clothing that implicated her since the killer would want her to be wearing such clothing to make police think she did it then committed suicied.

So it is clear she never fired a gun but rather was murdered.  The fact she didn't fire a gun means she didn't kill anyone else either they were all murdered by her killer.
 
How can that be? Because although I know very little about guns I did look that up and apparently GSR should by default come out of the barrel of the weapon if it is a rifle.
see here: http://www.firearmsid.com/a_distancegsr.htm
Now it would be interesting to know if there was any GSR at all from that weapon. I Ralph had none at all on him or his cloathing and there should be according to the link. Then surely that points to the fact of very little GSR from that weapon at all?
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3448300274.html
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/may_2011/The%20Current%20Status%20of%20GSR%20Examinations
So you can see from these links that the primary source of GSR is from the barrel of the gun and not from the ejection mechanism at the side.
Therefore if absolutely no GSR was detected on Neville then surely we should start questioning concerning the weapon used, for it does appear from the evidence that this particular gun produced very little GSR altogether?
« Last Edit: October 14, 2014, 01:54:PM by Mr. Gee »

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #397 on: October 14, 2014, 01:52:PM »
Well if it was a mixture of  Junes and nevillesc blood then there was a remote possibilty she did put it away .  It would not seem logical , but then she would not be in a logical frame of mind .


I must admit I always wondered if the police did ask the family to say it was "hidden" when it was not because it had been left somewhere obvious and they did not find it .

People do things for a reason even crazy people.  People with delusions still do things for a reason.

The only reason to get the moderator out to attach to a gun found lacking the moderator is to be quiet so you can hopefully kill everyone while they are in bed asleep.

The only reason to put the moderator away in the closet is to conceal it was used. Removing it and leaving it out before shooting Sheila would indicate it was used on the others.

Why is that a problem? Jeremy knew it would be unlikely for a crazy Sheila to bother with a moderator.  He made up the tale of her waking up Nevill and not shooting him at first.  Instlaling the moderator to not wake up anyone but then waking them up and letting the move around and even use the phone makes no sense at all. The mdoerator use helped prove his rendition of events to be fictitious.  That is why he hid it.  Sheila had no reason so hide it.
 
In any event, quite clearly it was Sheila's blood. She had a contact wound that result in blood getting inside while Nevill and June didn't.  Moreover, the whole idea that June's Ak2-1 would disspate but Nevill's less hardy AK1 would survive is not credible.  Equally bad if the gun was used without the moderator Sheila's blood would have been found inside of it.

This mind you is if we look at the moderator/drawback issue in isolation only  Evne in isolation it sinks Jeremy. But if we look at it with all the other evidence such as the fact Sheila can't have shot herself because she had no GSR on her and can't have moved her body after she was dead- someone had to have moved her, all the evidence regarding Jeremy framing Sheila by staging the gun and evidence Nevill's phone call never happened it just gets even worse for Jeremy.

 
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #398 on: October 14, 2014, 02:37:PM »
How can that be? Because although I know very little about guns I did look that up and apparently GSR should by default come out of the barrel of the weapon if it is a rifle.
see here: http://www.firearmsid.com/a_distancegsr.htm
Now it would be interesting to know if there was any GSR at all from that weapon. I Ralph had none at all on him or his cloathing and there should be according to the link. Then surely that points to the fact of very little GSR from that weapon at all?
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3448300274.html
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/may_2011/The%20Current%20Status%20of%20GSR%20Examinations
So you can see from these links that the primary source of GSR is from the barrel of the gun and not from the ejection mechanism at the side.

As I already explained to you that site is using imprecise terminology when it calls "unburned gunpower" gunshot residue. It is calling everything expelled anywhere out of the gunshot residues.  Technically speaking there is gunshot residue and gunpowder residues.  He is describing gunpower residues.

The residue it is describing and picturing on the clothing which it referenced as unburned particulate is unburned gunpowder.
 
What it is describing with the following passages is unburned gunpower not PGSR (Primer gunshot residue)  PGSR is usually shortened to GSR but refer to the same thing.

"The further gunshot residues travel from the muzzle, the broader and less concentrated the pattern becomes.  Because the various elements included in gunshot residues are very small and lack mass they lose their energy rapidly.

Gunshot residues emitted from the muzzle will travel out to distances of approximately 3 and 5 feet in most firearms but in some cases can travel even greater distances.  At the 3-5 foot range the gunshot residues may only consist of a few trace particles and make determining the firing distance difficult if not impossible.

As the firearm gets closer to its target the residue concentrations increase and the actual size or diameter to the pattern gets smaller.  At around 18-24 inches most firearms will start to deposit considerable concentrations of gunshot residues that may or may not be visible to the eye."

The site actually describes in detail at one point what it is referring to:

"Gunpowder residue can contain unburned gunpowder particles, partially burned gunpowder particles or the carbonaceous soot from completely burned gunpowder.  The image below show a bullet hole surrounded by gunpowder particulate residue."

So it is referencing unburned/partially burned particulate shooting out of the barrel not PGSR. 

In common parlance GSR is used to mean PGSR whereas unburned gunpower or unburned particulate is normally used instead of the more technical gunpowder residue.  So if you want to be technical you have gunpowder residue and primer gunshot residue.  Since PGSR is normally shortened to GSR it is frowned upon to refer to gunpower residue as gunshot residue as well.

Here is another site that does a similar thing of claling them both gunshot residue however it is acceptable because the site is precise and calls one primer gunshot residue the other powder gunshot residue better known as gunpowder residue.

"In a shooting case there are two types of gunshot residue that occur during the discharge of a firearm.  The circumstances and the evidence will dictate if either or both types should be tested.

Primer gunshot residue (pGSR) is comprised of fused particles of the elements lead, barium and antimony.  The identification of pGSR can only associate a subject with a firearm.  Analysis for pGSR is typically conducted by scanning electron microscopy coupled with energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM/EDS)

Powder gunshot residue is pattern evidence that originates from the muzzle of a firearm and is deposited on the target.  This residue pattern can be comprised of un-burnt and partially burnt gun powder, particulate metals and nitrites.  Pattern comparison and chemical testing can assist in determining muzzle to target distance.  Evidence typically includes clothing and photographs of gunshot wounds."

http://www.focossforensics.com/html/gunshot_residue.html


So "powder gunshot residue" is deposited on the victims.  It can be deposited in the wounds or outside the wounds.  This is what is called stippling or powder tattooning.  This is associated with being shot by a gun.

In contrast PGSR is associated with firing a gun or touching a gun that has PGSR on it and the PGSR transferring from the weapon to the person handling it.  Much higher levels of PGSR are on a shooter than someone just touching a weapon after it has been fired.  In addition, standing directly next to a weapon as it is being fired by someone else will result in PGSR being deposited on someone.  SInce  a handgun is so short if the gun is fired extremely close to the victim some PGSR can get on the victim too but it doesn't come from the barrel.  PGSR forms a cloud of icroscopic particles.  That cloud will touch the shooter, people to the sides of the shooter or extremly close to the front of the shooter.

A rifle is too long for PGSR to get on victims unless they are shooting themselves.  The PGSR will be deposited near the back of the gun though not near the muzzle.  So the proper location to test Sheila for PGSR to see whether she shot herself was the middle and lower regions of her gown. The only blood in those areas was the small amount from her hand so it can't be argued her dress was too stained for the PGSR to be detected.  It also would have gotten on her hands though which quite obviously she can't have washed after killing herself.

They used a scan electron microscope to test her clothing for PGSR but found not even a single particle.  There was a visual test using a scan electron microcsope available and then a chemical test.  PGSR is microscopic so you can't detect it with the naked eye you must use chemicals it reacts with to a miscroscope or the like.  The cheminals react with other things so give false positives in adiditon to sometimes doing damage.  Once the scan electron microscope method was available it became the preferred mothod.  The records show they used the visual test on her clothing, Nevill's clothing and the swabs of her hands and Nevill's hands.

SInce the other 3 victims were for sure shot in bed (even though June managed to stand up for a few seconds before collapsing) that means there is no way they did any shooting so they were not tested for PGSR.   Some unscrupulous people take advantage of this and suggest June loaded the gun and did most of the shooting or all of the shooting.

   


 




 
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #399 on: October 14, 2014, 05:13:PM »
Can you explain again when Junes DNA could have got into the moderator?  You said by contamination ?

At what stage ? Because it would have not have been in the lab because of the forensic conditions?

Mr. Gee

  • Guest
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #400 on: October 14, 2014, 06:02:PM »
As I already explained to you that site is using imprecise terminology when it calls "unburned gunpower" gunshot residue. It is calling everything expelled anywhere out of the gunshot residues.  Technically speaking there is gunshot residue and gunpowder residues.  He is describing gunpower residues.

The residue it is describing and picturing on the clothing which it referenced as unburned particulate is unburned gunpowder.
 
What it is describing with the following passages is unburned gunpower not PGSR (Primer gunshot residue)  PGSR is usually shortened to GSR but refer to the same thing.

"The further gunshot residues travel from the muzzle, the broader and less concentrated the pattern becomes.  Because the various elements included in gunshot residues are very small and lack mass they lose their energy rapidly.

Gunshot residues emitted from the muzzle will travel out to distances of approximately 3 and 5 feet in most firearms but in some cases can travel even greater distances.  At the 3-5 foot range the gunshot residues may only consist of a few trace particles and make determining the firing distance difficult if not impossible.

As the firearm gets closer to its target the residue concentrations increase and the actual size or diameter to the pattern gets smaller.  At around 18-24 inches most firearms will start to deposit considerable concentrations of gunshot residues that may or may not be visible to the eye."

The site actually describes in detail at one point what it is referring to:

"Gunpowder residue can contain unburned gunpowder particles, partially burned gunpowder particles or the carbonaceous soot from completely burned gunpowder.  The image below show a bullet hole surrounded by gunpowder particulate residue."

So it is referencing unburned/partially burned particulate shooting out of the barrel not PGSR. 

In common parlance GSR is used to mean PGSR whereas unburned gunpower or unburned particulate is normally used instead of the more technical gunpowder residue.  So if you want to be technical you have gunpowder residue and primer gunshot residue.  Since PGSR is normally shortened to GSR it is frowned upon to refer to gunpower residue as gunshot residue as well.

Here is another site that does a similar thing of claling them both gunshot residue however it is acceptable because the site is precise and calls one primer gunshot residue the other powder gunshot residue better known as gunpowder residue.

"In a shooting case there are two types of gunshot residue that occur during the discharge of a firearm.  The circumstances and the evidence will dictate if either or both types should be tested.

Primer gunshot residue (pGSR) is comprised of fused particles of the elements lead, barium and antimony.  The identification of pGSR can only associate a subject with a firearm.  Analysis for pGSR is typically conducted by scanning electron microscopy coupled with energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM/EDS)

Powder gunshot residue is pattern evidence that originates from the muzzle of a firearm and is deposited on the target.  This residue pattern can be comprised of un-burnt and partially burnt gun powder, particulate metals and nitrites.  Pattern comparison and chemical testing can assist in determining muzzle to target distance.  Evidence typically includes clothing and photographs of gunshot wounds."

http://www.focossforensics.com/html/gunshot_residue.html


So "powder gunshot residue" is deposited on the victims.  It can be deposited in the wounds or outside the wounds.  This is what is called stippling or powder tattooning.  This is associated with being shot by a gun.

In contrast PGSR is associated with firing a gun or touching a gun that has PGSR on it and the PGSR transferring from the weapon to the person handling it.  Much higher levels of PGSR are on a shooter than someone just touching a weapon after it has been fired.  In addition, standing directly next to a weapon as it is being fired by someone else will result in PGSR being deposited on someone.  SInce  a handgun is so short if the gun is fired extremely close to the victim some PGSR can get on the victim too but it doesn't come from the barrel.  PGSR forms a cloud of icroscopic particles.  That cloud will touch the shooter, people to the sides of the shooter or extremly close to the front of the shooter.

A rifle is too long for PGSR to get on victims unless they are shooting themselves.  The PGSR will be deposited near the back of the gun though not near the muzzle.  So the proper location to test Sheila for PGSR to see whether she shot herself was the middle and lower regions of her gown. The only blood in those areas was the small amount from her hand so it can't be argued her dress was too stained for the PGSR to be detected.  It also would have gotten on her hands though which quite obviously she can't have washed after killing herself.

They used a scan electron microscope to test her clothing for PGSR but found not even a single particle.  There was a visual test using a scan electron microcsope available and then a chemical test.  PGSR is microscopic so you can't detect it with the naked eye you must use chemicals it reacts with to a miscroscope or the like.  The cheminals react with other things so give false positives in adiditon to sometimes doing damage.  Once the scan electron microscope method was available it became the preferred mothod.  The records show they used the visual test on her clothing, Nevill's clothing and the swabs of her hands and Nevill's hands.

SInce the other 3 victims were for sure shot in bed (even though June managed to stand up for a few seconds before collapsing) that means there is no way they did any shooting so they were not tested for PGSR.   Some unscrupulous people take advantage of this and suggest June loaded the gun and did most of the shooting or all of the shooting.

   


 




 
Well thank you for explaining the mechanics of GSR. But it still doesn't explain the complete absence of GSR on Nevill and most of the shots to his person were close range and according to the links that I posted most of the GSR comes out of the barrel.

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #401 on: October 14, 2014, 07:55:PM »
How long does GSR remain on clothes?

And what method is used to detect it?

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #402 on: October 14, 2014, 08:05:PM »
Apparently,just testing hands isn't good enough,it's clothing that matters most. It's said that because emissions are further away using a rifle or a shotgun,the chances of having gsr on the hands is minimal.
Therefore we were misled on the fact that traces were found and decided it was because of the use of kitchen utensils ( BS )
Tracing for gsr is done with chemicals.

Mr. Gee

  • Guest
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #403 on: October 14, 2014, 08:11:PM »
Apparently,just testing hands isn't good enough,it's clothing that matters most. It's said that because emissions are further away using a rifle or a shotgun,the chances of having gsr on the hands is minimal.
Therefore we were misled on the fact that traces were found and decided it was because of the use of kitchen utensils ( BS )
Tracing for gsr is done with chemicals.
Sheila we are told had GSR on her but not as much as was expected from someone who had fired 25 rounds. What puzzles me is that she was the only one with GSR on. Nevill had not nor apparently did any of the others. So we are left to draw our own conclusions in regard to those findings?

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #404 on: October 14, 2014, 11:14:PM »
How long does GSR remain on clothes?

And what method is used to detect it?

GSR remains on clothes until you manage to clean them sufficiently to remove all particles.  Laundering them will not necessarily remove all particles, it could take numerous washings. 

GSR transfers from smooth surfaced much easier than cloth where they get embedded in the fibers.

A scan electron microscope is used to look at the cloth or Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectrometry.  The latter is more recent and the preferred method because it analyzes the chemical components using tehcnology instead of a human having to visually look through a microscope to assess whether they see GSR particles which look rather like snowballs to me.

GSR also persists on hair far longer than skin which is why it is a great place to search for GSR.   
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry