Human blood in the silencer:

[Jan]

Sorry Scipio. I have to pull you up one one point you make. Someone on the television has just said that by age 8 he could name and strip down 12 different guns. Peter Eton, to the best of my knowledge was a gun dealer.


What you posted has no relevance to the argument I made.

Even if true that by age 8 someone TAUGHT him how to disassemble 12 different guns that can't enable a DNA test of the moderator to be able to disprove the blood removed from the moderator was Sheila's.  The ONLY way a DNA test could disprove the blood was Sheila's would be if that blood that were removed had already been DNA tested or remained available for DNA testing and then DNA testing were done on it.

If the argument instead were over whether Eaton would know about drawback your points would still fail.  Gun dealers don't have any special expertise regarding drawback.  Nor does the fact a kid can be taught how to field strip guns somehow equate to drawback- an unrelated issue to field stripping guns- equate to drawback being common knowledge.

IN order to plant evidence to make it look like drawback one needs to:

1) know there is a contact wound that would have resulted in drawback
2) have a source of wet blood that is of the same type as the person you want to plant the blood of so you need to know the person's blood type and find a source of such blood or have the exact person's wet blood already
3) know drawback is sprayed and thus find something to spray it inside so that it coated the first 8 baffles with the volume decreasing the deeper it gets inside 
4) to know there is blood in the rifle itself which has to be removed and doing that then concealing such was done.

None of this relates to being a gun dealer or being taught how to field strip a weapon.  Nor does it directly relate to the issues I spoke to above which is that the only way for any DNA testing to prove the blood that was removed wasn't Sheila's is to DNA test the blood in question and since whatever was not destroyed by the 1985/86 testing wasn't retained by either the defense lab or the prosecution lab there is nothing to test.

There was no test to prove it was drawback.

[Mr. Gee]

Sorry Scipio. I have to pull you up one one point you make. Someone on the television has just said that by age 8 he could name and strip down 12 different guns. Peter Eton, to the best of my knowledge was a gun dealer.


What you posted has no relevance to the argument I made.

Even if true that by age 8 someone TAUGHT him how to disassemble 12 different guns that can't enable a DNA test of the moderator to be able to disprove the blood removed from the moderator was Sheila's.  The ONLY way a DNA test could disprove the blood was Sheila's would be if that blood that were removed had already been DNA tested or remained available for DNA testing and then DNA testing were done on it.

If the argument instead were over whether Eaton would know about drawback your points would still fail.  Gun dealers don't have any special expertise regarding drawback.  Nor does the fact a kid can be taught how to field strip guns somehow equate to drawback- an unrelated issue to field stripping guns- equate to drawback being common knowledge.

IN order to plant evidence to make it look like drawback one needs to:

1) know there is a contact wound that would have resulted in drawback
2) have a source of wet blood that is of the same type as the person you want to plant the blood of so you need to know the person's blood type and find a source of such blood or have the exact person's wet blood already
3) know drawback is sprayed and thus find something to spray it inside so that it coated the first 8 baffles with the volume decreasing the deeper it gets inside 
4) to know there is blood in the rifle itself which has to be removed and doing that then concealing such was done.

None of this relates to being a gun dealer or being taught how to field strip a weapon.  Nor does it directly relate to the issues I spoke to above which is that the only way for any DNA testing to prove the blood that was removed wasn't Sheila's is to DNA test the blood in question and since whatever was not destroyed by the 1985/86 testing wasn't retained by either the defense lab or the prosecution lab there is nothing to test.

Imagine (if you can) another silencer and another gun and a blood source of some kind. One could easily manufacture evidence to conform to the specifications that you detail. Add to that an evil intent and people who had a great intimate knowledge of guns and their effects and hey presto you have a piece of manufactured evidence.

[David1819]

He could have had experience with animal blood on a silencer - that is not impossible.
Says I who knows nothing about guns!!

Why would you have animal blood on a silencer? you would have to kill it up very close. The only way to know if its blood is by doing a lab test.

Here is a photo I found of dried blood samples. How can anyone look at that and say that's blood without being told before hand?

[scipio_usmc]

The prosecution could not prove it was blood all they could establish it was the enzyme AK1. If the silencer was drenched in back splatter from baffles 1 to 8 as you claim there would still be an abundance of traces of blood for the 1999 DNA test to pick up. More importantly the Appeal court agreed it was not Shelia rather June or Neviles DNA plus an unknown males DNA.

Your record of being hopelessly wrong about the blood evidence is safely intact.  The prosecution proved that group A human blood was found on at least the first 5-7 baffles.  They didn't just find an enzyme they found group A blood.  The defense's own expert found microscopic traces of group A blood on the first 8 baffles. He agreed that the results obtained by the police lab was correct that the blood on the baffles was group A blood. No enzymes were detected in such blood they just figured out it was group A.

June and Sheila had group A blood so in theory it could belong to either of them.  Other evidence has to be looked at to see who it belonged to.  The evidence they looked at was who had a contact wound to deposit such blood and the answer is that June didn't have any contact wounds but Sheila did have a contact wound and it was determined it would result in drawback.  In additional flake of Sheila's blood was found which supports the conclusion the other group a blood found inside was hers as well.

The defense expert agreed that the flake trapped between baffles 1 and 2 was group A blood and that this flake had an enzyme which helped establish it was Sheila's blood.

Why can't you ever consider the possibility that Jeremy could have committed the crime without the silencer?

The Truth is only Jeremy Knows I am not distorting anything

Because the evidence proves he used it. I follow the evidence.

[Caroline]

Wonder what happened to that flake of blood DB scraped off the silencer.

He didn't scrape it off, he said it 'looked as  though it could be easily scraped off with razor blade'. He did say that he tried to unscrew the end though.

[scipio_usmc]

As for blood stained clothing there is no way to take dried blood stains, turn the stains into wet blood and then to transfer wet blood to something else. 


but as you say it was dry blood - and there was apparently one small flake in the end of the moderator and there were no tests to show it was back splatter - so it did not have to be made wet - it could just be a planted flake of blood by anyone who knew how to take the moderator apart.

again - not saying that happened - but it is POSSIBLE.

There was a flake of blood that DRIED onto the moderator between baffles 1 and 2.  How could the family take dried blood from fabric and turn it into a flake of blood that dried onto the moderator?

As for your broken record nonsense about testing a flake to see if it is drawback I am going to do the same and just cut and paste the following response:

There is no such thing as a test to determine if a single drop of blood is drawback.  Such has to be evaluated based on the TOTALITY of the circumstances:

A) was there a contact wound that would result in drawback
B) was it found more than 5mm deep but not deeper int he weapon than drawback could account for
C) was there other blood in there and how was it distributed.

You want to ignore the other blood removed by the prosecution and defense that was human group A blood because the only way such blood could have gotten in the moderator was drawback and it thus goes against what you want to contend. The volume of blood on each successive baffle decreasing is what would result from blood being sprayed inside.

There is no way the family could have innocently deposited blood on the first 8 baffles with it reducing as it gets deeper inside.  There is no way to take blood from a dried stain and to transfer a flake into the moderator period let alone to do so by an innocent accident.

If blood is wet in a barrel then firing the gun can result in some being removed though not all would be removed.  When blood dries the grooves of a barrel shooting the gun alone will not extricate it all from the grooves let alone will the bullet propel it out.

The only way for blood to have been planted would be by someone who knows all about drawback and how to mimmick it including finding a device to spray blood inside so that it deposited on the first 8 baffles and did so in a manner that the volume on each successive baffle decreased.  The only people with such expertise were in the lab and only they had access to Sheila's blood type.  The family didn't know her blood type nor did police initially.

That is why the defense was unable to make ANY arguments to the courts OTHER than to suggest that the blood inside was Nevill and June's blood that got there from drawback.

[scipio_usmc]

There was no test to prove it was drawback.

There is no such thing as a test to determine if a single drop of blood is drawback.  Such has to be evaluated based on the TOTALITY of the circumstances:

A) was there a contact wound that would result in drawback
B) was it found more than 5mm deep but not deeper int he weapon than drawback could account for
C) was there other blood in there and how was it distributed.

You want to ignore the other blood removed by the prosecution and defense that was human group A blood because the only way such blood could have gotten in the moderator was drawback and it thus goes against what you want to contend. The volume of blood on each successive baffle decreasing is what would result from blood being sprayed inside.

There is no way the family could have innocently deposited blood on the first 8 baffles with it reducing as it gets deeper inside.  There is no way to take blood from a dried stain and to transfer a flake into the moderator period let alone to do so by an innocent accident.

If blood is wet in a barrel then firing the gun can result in some being removed though not all would be removed.  When blood dries the grooves of a barrel shooting the gun alone will not extricate it all from the grooves let alone will the bullet propel it out.

The only way for blood to have been planted would be by someone who knows all about drawback and how to mimmick it including finding a device to spray blood inside so that it deposited on the first 8 baffles and did so in a manner that the volume on each successive baffle decreased.  The only people with such expertise were in the lab and only they had access to Sheila's blood type.  The family didn't know her blood type nor did police initially.

That is why the defense was unable to make ANY arguments to the courts OTHER than to suggest that the blood inside was Nevill and June's blood that got there from drawback.

[David1819]

Your record of being hopelessly wrong about the blood evidence is safely intact.  The prosecution proved that group A human blood was found on at least the first 5-7 baffles.  They didn't just find an enzyme they found group A blood.  The defense's own expert found microscopic traces of group A blood on the first 8 baffles. He agreed that the results obtained by the police lab was correct that the blood on the baffles was group A blood. No enzymes were detected in such blood they just figured out it was group A.

June and Sheila had group A blood so in theory it could belong to either of them.  Other evidence has to be looked at to see who it belonged to.  The evidence they looked at was who had a contact wound to deposit such blood and the answer is that June didn't have any contact wounds but Sheila did have a contact wound and it was determined it would result in drawback.  In additional flake of Sheila's blood was found which supports the conclusion the other group a blood found inside was hers as well.

The defense expert agreed that the flake trapped between baffles 1 and 2 was group A blood and that this flake had an enzyme which helped establish it was Sheila's blood.


Because the evidence proves he used it. I follow the evidence.

Again you contradict your own previous claims. But never mind

So how do you explain the absence of blood in the silencer in 1999 despite being soaked in back splatter to at leased baffle no7.   Police gave the insides a good scrub with acid from time to time to keep it clean did they?   

[Alias]

Why would you have animal blood on a silencer? you would have to kill it up very close. The only way to know if its blood is by doing a lab test.

Here is a photo I found of dried blood samples. How can anyone look at that and say that's blood without being told before hand?

Sometimes game is finished off with a contact wound.
I have to say that I think I would know what dried blood would look like; I am more puzzled by Ann Eaton´s claim of a match head size blob of jam-like blood on the silencer. THAT is strange.
It would have dried up if it was blood from the night of the murders. Besides, how would it have "survived" being wrapped up and put in a box, then unwrapped and carelessly handled by a number of people.
How would the blood DB said he scraped off have survived the packing, unpacking and handling?
Small amounts of blood dry fast and fall off even surfaces easily, and they certainly don´t stay "jam-like" for days.
All very mysterious.

[David1819]

Sometimes game is finished off with a contact wound.
I have to say that I think I would know what dried blood would look like; I am more puzzled by Ann Eaton´s claim of a match head size blob of jam-like blood on the silencer. THAT is strange.
It would have dried up if it was blood from the night of the murders. Besides, how would it have "survived" being wrapped up and put in a box, then unwrapped and carelessly handled by a number of people.
How would the blood DB said he scraped off have survived the packing, unpacking and handling?
Small amounts of blood dry fast and fall off even surfaces easily, and they certainly don´t stay "jam-like" for days.
All very mysterious.

Dried blood is brown like the picture above shows either Ann is lying or it really was Jam

[scipio_usmc]

Imagine (if you can) another silencer and another gun and a blood source of some kind. One could easily manufacture evidence to conform to the specifications that you detail. Add to that an evil intent and people who had a great intimate knowledge of guns and their effects and hey presto you have a piece of manufactured evidence.

Someone has to have intimate knowledge about the nature of the wounds suffered by Sheila, her blood type and intimate knowledge of medical issues to understand drawback and to appreciate the use of planting evidence to mimic it and how to plant evidence to mimic it.  All those who keep suggesting just knowing about guns makes one likely to know about drawback is nonsense.  It was oscure at the time of the murders and is still obscure now with respect to people who simple know about guns.

People who are BIASED are desperate to believe otherwise because they so badly want to suggest evidence was planted and ignore the family would not have any way to know Sheila suffered from a wound that would result in drawback. If they did have such knowledge they would know her blood would be in the rifle so planting blood would end up being futile because it would end up being figured out they planted it.   

People keep saying look at it objectively- that is what I am doing those who are desperate to suggest the blood was planted are not looking at it objectively.

[Alias]

He didn't scrape it off, he said it 'looked as  though it could be easily scraped off with razor blade'. He did say that he tried to unscrew the end though.

Didn´t he? I was sure I read that in his statement - have to look again.
In any case, a strange thing to say.
Thinking about it, are you sure? Why would he answer when asked why he did it, that it was because it was "fascinating"?
Don´t have time to look now, have to go - tomorrow.

[scipio_usmc]

Why would you have animal blood on a silencer? you would have to kill it up very close. The only way to know if its blood is by doing a lab test.

Here is a photo I found of dried blood samples. How can anyone look at that and say that's blood without being told before hand?

A rifle can get backspatter when a weapon is fired 6 feet away.  But back spatter won't go more than 5mm into a weapon unless the gun is fired at contact range.  At contact range it goes in the weapon instead of on the weapon.

[Mr. Gee]

A rifle can get backspatter when a weapon is fired 6 feet away.  But back spatter won't go more than 5mm into a weapon unless the gun is fired at contact range.  At contact range it goes in the weapon instead of on the weapon.

I doubt very much that any blood could enter a silencer at that range? I would still like some proof as to how often blood enters the weapon when and if there is back spatter.

[David1819]

I doubt very much that any blood could enter a silencer at that range? I would still like some proof as to how often blood enters the weapon when and if there is back spatter.

I have read some forensic books on blood splatter analysis. If I can find the names il let you know