A Disturbing Allegation!

[Caroline]

even in those there was evedence that could be contaminated for a start blood was still used as evedence you just couldent determine as much from it. and there was still the risk of mixing to lots of blood together it was stil somthing the labs cared about.

if what your saying was no cold case from the 80s would be able to be reopened.

contaimiating one persons blood with somone elses was somthing the cared about even then.

Why would they contaminate blood? By the time the lab receives it would be dry on any article and blood taken from victims etc. is in a tube. It's not the same as DNA.

[nugnug]

dry blood is still at risk of contaimation.

if what you were saying was true then every cold case where there has been a conviction must be an unsafe conviction and a possble misscarege of justice.

[Caroline]

dry blood is still at risk of contaimation.

if what you were saying was true then every cold case where there has been a conviction must be an unsafe conviction and a possble misscarege of justice.

Nugs, it's a fact they didn't change gloves all of the time, you can find that out by doing a little research. You don't have to take anyone's word for it!!

[scipio_usmc]

dry blood is still at risk of contaimation.

if what you were saying was true then every cold case where there has been a conviction must be an unsafe conviction and a possble misscarege of justice.

Dry blood is a risk of contamination for what?  You make up things without having a clue what you are talking about like just making up that Sheila would have to have GSR on her hands and gown just by virtue of being shot.

[Jan]

Well in that case they could have contaminated exhibits with blood as well as DNA . If they did not change gloves or were examining exhibits on the same benches there could have been cross contamination of blood as well. But funnily enough I am sure you are going to think up some excuse for why that did not happen.

[Caroline]

Well in that case they could have contaminated exhibits with blood as well as DNA . If they did not change gloves or were examining exhibits on the same benches there could have been cross contamination of blood as well. But funnily enough I am sure you are going to think up some excuse for why that did not happen.

How? All the blood was dry.

[scipio_usmc]

Well in that case they could have contaminated exhibits with blood as well as DNA . If they did not change gloves or were examining exhibits on the same benches there could have been cross contamination of blood as well. But funnily enough I am sure you are going to think up some excuse for why that did not happen.

You mean like get blood based DNA on gloves and then spread the DNA?  That is the only blood based contamination that could have occurred.  They can't take dry blood and accidentally create blood stains on something.

[Caroline]

You mean like get blood based DNA on gloves and then spread the DNA?  That is the only blood based contamination that could have occurred.  They can't take dry blood and accidentally create blood stains on something.

Which they didn't know about at the time.

[scipio_usmc]

Which they didn't know about at the time.

No but even now that we do know about it some people don't take proper precautions and even leave DNA in machines by not properly cleaning them.

With respect to 1985 if a lab were particularly inept they could potentially test blood found on June's gown and incorrectly label it as blood found on Sheila's gown in which case it would result in erroneously saying they found June's blood on Sheila's gown.  But errors like that would implicate Sheila as opposed to exonerating her.     

[Jan]

They were examining "flakes" of dry blood - not wet blood.


Contamination is being used as an excuse - so by doing that there is an implication that the labs were not as careful as they should have been.

And that does not even take into account the way the crime scene was handled.

[lookout]

Dried blood is already contaminated. Any articles which contain specimans should immediately be put into a sealed container and then refrigerated.
Household " air " contains all kinds of particles and unless an item is collected straight away,it's deemed impaired. This is why I CAN'T understand why a pathologist wasn't called in to do the job PROPERLY !!

[scipio_usmc]

They were examining "flakes" of dry blood - not wet blood.


Contamination is being used as an excuse - so by doing that there is an implication that the labs were not as careful as they should have been.

And that does not even take into account the way the crime scene was handled.

Contamination of evidence with DNA by spreading minute amounts of the DNA around is different from contamination of a sizable amount of specific material. Minute amounts of DNA will not reveal what the tissue source of the DNA was so won't be able to establish that someone's blood, skin, saliva or other tissue was left. If you see a big ass stain and test it and fin the stain was blood based then you know you have a blood stain.  Accidental contamination can't account for that blood. You can screw up determining whose blood it is if you are really sloppy and swap results from tests of two different blood sources but such is a different issue than contamination.

Contamination of blood occurs when wet blood is transferred somewhere by a means other than during an attack. It can occur before a crime or after. The transfer can be innocent and accidental or can be done intentionally. Intentional planting rarely works because so many things give it away including if you use a blood sample then it will have chemicals to preserve the sample and when such chemicals are detected it gives away that a stored sample was used.

Innocent transfers can happen from touching a victim to try to give aid or even walking through blood and thus leaving prints. This is why it is so important to be able to read blood evidence.  Spatter doesn't happen from just coming upon a victim later you have to be present during an attack to get spatter on you so either will be a witness, fellow victim or the assailant.     

[Caroline]

Dried blood is already contaminated. Any articles which contain specimans should immediately be put into a sealed container and then refrigerated.
Household " air " contains all kinds of particles and unless an item is collected straight away,it's deemed impaired. This is why I CAN'T understand why a pathologist wasn't called in to do the job PROPERLY !!

That's just not true Lookout. What about bodies that are discovered for days or weeks? Are you saying that blood evidence would never be collected in such instances? Of course it would! Killers have been caught because minute drops of blood have been found on their clothing well after the murder.

[David1819]

You are forgetting something. The DNA of at least one of the boys was found in the moderator.  The main contributor in 2 tested areas was one or both of the boys.  The people doing such testing didn't notice any similarity to Nevill's DNA.  The MacKenzie report predated the DNA testing by many years. As part of the process of figuring out who the main contributors were they looked at the DNA of Neivll's relatives as well as Sheila's birth mother.  There was no commonality seen between the DNA belonging to the boys and Nevill but rather simply commonality with Sheila indicating a relation to Sheila.  That is how we know it was the boys. So there actually is evidence suggesting this wacky scenario is not true.  But that is not surprising since the sole basis of the allegation was the simple fact that the boys had the same blood type as Nevill.

Sheila had type A blood and the boys type O blood so what blood type did their father have?  Handy 8th grade science provides the answer A, B or O.  Isn't that helpful that only eliminates the 2% of UK men who had AB blood as their father... So just based on this one factor 98% of UK men in existence when they were conceived could be their father. What blood type are you and were you over 16 at the time they were conceived? 

The Twins DNA was never found in the moderator, Jeremy supporters have always pointed out the autopsy states they died from contact wounds so why is their no blood from drawback? The argument I have always used against this is there would be no drawback from a shot to the skull since the bullet would pass hair bone and brain tissue its very different from a contact wound to the neck such as in the case of Shelia.

[scipio_usmc]

The Twins DNA was never found in the moderator, Jeremy supporters have always pointed out the autopsy states they died from contact wounds so why is their no blood from drawback? The argument I have always used against this is there would be no drawback from a shot to the skull since the bullet would pass hair bone and brain tissue its very different from a contact wound to the neck such as in the case of Shelia.

At least one of the twins DNA was found in the moderator.  The major DNA contributor in 2 of the 10 test batches belonged to one or both of the twins.  There was no way to say such DNA was blood based as opposed to the result of contamination (liek the rest of the DNA)

22LR rounds to the head infrequently result in drawback.  It is possible and happens on occasion but doesn't happen regularly. There were differences of opinion on whether any of the wounds to the boys were contact wounds. The prosecution experts didn't think they were contact wounds.