One of the problems with the current defence theory that Sheila was shot with a rifle without the silencer fitted is the fact that no blood was found in the barrel. Mike has clearly spotted this and has come up with two theories (so far):
1. "Unofficial firing tests" using the rifle and silencer were undertaken prior to Malcolm Fletcher performing a 'cloth pull through' test and these firings cleaned the blood out of the barrel and may have also deposited it in the silencer - thus the conclusion that there was no blood in the barrel, and there was blood in the silencer.
It seems to be accepted that Malcolm Fletcher did the pull through on the 11th of September, and this is supported by the fact that Hayward received the pull through on the 12th - so it couldn't have been later than the 12th. However, the only evidence that these "unofficial firing tests" took place indicates that they took place on the 13th of September - 2 days after the pull through test.
2. The pull through test might not have detected the blood anyway. The cloth pull through would not have got into the places that blood might have deposited (crevices such as the rifling) and in any case may have just skimmed over the blood since by that time it was dried. This would indicate that if the rifle was indeed used without the silencer fitted there would have been, and still is, blood present in the rifle and new tests might find it.
To me, this one might have legs... IF the cloth pull through was the only test used. In the appeal judgement it is said at least twice that there was no blood on the pull through AND no blood in the barrel, and yet I haven't seen a report yet which details any other form of testing. If no other form of testing was undertaken and no silencer was used then there may well still be blood in the barrel, and if it's tested maybe the silencer / no silencer question could be laid to rest once and for all.
That's probably the first and last time I'll agree with Mike Tesko.