Author Topic: Blood n heat...  (Read 1564 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Myster

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
  • "Open the pod bay doors, HOL!!!"
Re: Blood n heat...
« Reply #15 on: March 08, 2017, 05:53:05 AM »
Thanks.  I think I need to pm you for some private tuition.
Bluestockings Emily and Kory whipped me into submission and taught me everything I know.
‘Somebody in this case is lying, and lying their heads off.’ Anthony Arlidge QC, closing speech at the Bamber trial, 22 October 1986

Offline adam

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 606
Re: Blood n heat...
« Reply #16 on: March 08, 2017, 08:13:49 AM »
I think we can put Tesko's framed rubbish safety to bed.   He has a personal vendetta with the police over what happened to him in his youth so any view he has is tainted by that experience.

Everyone has different reasons for supporting Bamber.

Mike said he shared a prison cell with him for a few hours once & may also have a grudge against the police.

Lookout said she had a 'gut feeling' in 1986 & says 'hell would freeze over' before she accepted the mountain of incriminating forensic and circumstantial evidence.

Other posters watched the 'Crimes that shook Britain' video & either joined the (at the time) pro Bamber  Blue forum or started sending letters to him. Or both.

Nugs thinks outside the box and suggests amazing things no one else has ever thought of while other posters simply didn't like Julie's court outfit.

Alias says Bamber would not have shot Sheila twice, even if it meant Sheila lived while Grahame returned to the Blue forum for a short period saying the police framed Bamber.

Only David has changed stance to innocent after his 'forensic evidence breakthrough' which is apparently so strong it can't be revealed as it would give 'the crown more time to prepare'.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2017, 03:47:02 PM by adam »

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1448
Re: Blood n heat...
« Reply #17 on: March 08, 2017, 04:51:44 PM »
After 4 plus shots?  I've arrived at 3 shots?  We are talking about the excerpt from Dr DiMaio above?

But surely it is the hot discharge gases that affect any blood drawn into a barrel/silencer rather than the exiting of subsequent bullets per se?  I'm thinking of the attached GIF.  David1819 thinks any blood drawn in remains protected as per attached image which doesn't seem to reconcile with GIF?

Yes I appreciate Dr Harris' test of 25 x discharges bears no resemblance to SC's contact shot but I'm questioning the validity of the test which MIGHT indicate something awry at lab.  When I consider the % reductions in Dr DiMaio's test after 3/4 shots it seems unlikely any blood would be detected after 25 shots.  Yet Dr Harris is saying not only did he detect blood after 25 shots but the integrity of the blood was uncompromised in terms of typing and I have a big question mark about this.

I have had communication with arguably the world's expert on blood serology:

Sorry I have not responded earlier, but things have been very busy here.  The amount of stain used seems about right to get a result. The stability of the genetic markers that were conducted on the1/4 inch flake of blood are all well within the expected results time frame.  ABO is good for about two years at ambient temperatures and is the longest for the series of five markers you listed.  Haptoglobin and PGM would be the next at about a year, and AK & EAP are about six months.  This is, of course, is for dried stains that have not been environmentally insulted by temperature or humidity.  XXXX would not have the capability of a fingerprint chamber or to test fire a weapon at our facility.

Email forwarded to Myster for verification.

Dr. Harris' test was in a moderator not a rifle barrel so is not the same test you are referring to.

The heat wasn't even sufficient to rapidly dry the blood inside the moderator so was not high enough to damage the blood to prevent a reading of same.



 

“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4374
  • How cute am I?!
Re: Blood n heat...
« Reply #18 on: March 08, 2017, 06:08:59 PM »
Quote from: Myster link=topic=6585http://miscarriageofjustice.co/Smileys/custom/c032.gif.msg388004#msg388004 date=1488952385
Bluestockings Emily and Kory whipped me into submission and taught me everything I know.

Maybe time to broaden your horizons; move out of your comfort zone?  8)-)))
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4374
  • How cute am I?!
Re: Blood n heat...
« Reply #19 on: March 08, 2017, 06:36:41 PM »
Dr. Harris' test was in a moderator not a rifle barrel so is not the same test you are referring to.

The heat wasn't even sufficient to rapidly dry the blood inside the moderator so was not high enough to damage the blood to prevent a reading of same.

Yes I said in post #5 the tests carried out by Dr's Harris and DiMaio are not on a like-for-like basis:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6585.msg387638#msg387638 

The tests carried out by Dr Harris to determine the integrity of the blood flake after 25 x discharges, and the tests carried out by John Hayward to determine the affect of temperature and drying on the blood flake were both undertaken by the FSS. 

An insepection of the silencer by forensic scientist (biologist) appointed by the defence, Mark Webster, identified soot in the silencer:

A: Yes.  I mentioned soot because when I examined the sound moderator, I did find flakes of soot inside the moderator.  (@ point 345 - see attached).
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline John

  • Global Moderator
  • Executive Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11862
  • Senior Editor
    • Justice 4 John Lamberton
Re: Blood n heat...
« Reply #20 on: March 08, 2017, 06:40:18 PM »
I don't believe the silencer evidence but there's some crazy stuff that surrounds it:

AH in CTSB alludes to animal blood. 

Lol

This has been well covered previously.  There was an enzyme in the blood which is only attributable to humans.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4374
  • How cute am I?!
Re: Blood n heat...
« Reply #21 on: March 08, 2017, 06:54:53 PM »
This has been well covered previously.  There was an enzyme in the blood which is only attributable to humans.

Yes.  No doubt whatsoever the blood identified within the silencer was human in origin.
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1448
Re: Blood n heat...
« Reply #22 on: March 09, 2017, 06:33:08 PM »
Yes I said in post #5 the tests carried out by Dr's Harris and DiMaio are not on a like-for-like basis:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6585.msg387638#msg387638 

The tests carried out by Dr Harris to determine the integrity of the blood flake after 25 x discharges, and the tests carried out by John Hayward to determine the affect of temperature and drying on the blood flake were both undertaken by the FSS. 

An insepection of the silencer by forensic scientist (biologist) appointed by the defence, Mark Webster, identified soot in the silencer:

A: Yes.  I mentioned soot because when I examined the sound moderator, I did find flakes of soot inside the moderator.  (@ point 345 - see attached).

It's hardly a surprise that soot would be found inside. Not all the GSR is expelled from a moderator or gun barrel. That is why they must be cleaned periodically.

That doesn't speak to your question though of whether the heat would damage the blood to the point where it could not be successfully tested.  Both in tests and in examinations from real life incidents they have successfully tested blood.  That is why the defense did not try contesting such at trial.  They had no way to do so without experts willing to refute the possibility. 

On appeal they found a guy who tossed out the silly speculation that maybe the prosecution experts mistook a flake of soot for a flake of blood.  Speculation like that is meaningless to appeal courts so it went nowhere but the court even criticized him for suggesting it.

"Firstly, there is Mr Webster's suggestion that Mr Hayward might have mistaken a flake of soot which was blood stained for a flake of dried blood. Mr Hayward had given evidence at trial of a close visual examination of the flake. He was an experienced forensic scientist. If he had made the sort of mistake suggested by Mr Webster, it must have represented a significant failing in the performance of his duties in what was clearly a highly important case. There was no suggestion, then or now, that Mr Hayward was other than a competent and careful forensic scientist. Before such a suggestion was made by another forensic scientist, one would expect to see some evidential basis for that suggestion. There was absolutely none. That fact that soot was found on the baffles did not begin to suggest that Mr Hayward would have made the sort of error suggested."
 
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4374
  • How cute am I?!
Re: Blood n heat...
« Reply #23 on: March 09, 2017, 09:52:37 PM »
It's hardly a surprise that soot would be found inside. Not all the GSR is expelled from a moderator or gun barrel. That is why they must be cleaned periodically.

That doesn't speak to your question though of whether the heat would damage the blood to the point where it could not be successfully tested.  Both in tests and in examinations from real life incidents they have successfully tested blood.  That is why the defense did not try contesting such at trial.  They had no way to do so without experts willing to refute the possibility. 

On appeal they found a guy who tossed out the silly speculation that maybe the prosecution experts mistook a flake of soot for a flake of blood.  Speculation like that is meaningless to appeal courts so it went nowhere but the court even criticized him for suggesting it.

"Firstly, there is Mr Webster's suggestion that Mr Hayward might have mistaken a flake of soot which was blood stained for a flake of dried blood. Mr Hayward had given evidence at trial of a close visual examination of the flake. He was an experienced forensic scientist. If he had made the sort of mistake suggested by Mr Webster, it must have represented a significant failing in the performance of his duties in what was clearly a highly important case. There was no suggestion, then or now, that Mr Hayward was other than a competent and careful forensic scientist. Before such a suggestion was made by another forensic scientist, one would expect to see some evidential basis for that suggestion. There was absolutely none. That fact that soot was found on the baffles did not begin to suggest that Mr Hayward would have made the sort of error suggested."
 

I agree it is hardly surprising soot was found inside the silencer, but soot is caused by the process of burning something and blood doesn't take kindly to a) the heat/temperature necessary for something to burn and b) being burned.

In JB's case tests have not been carried out to determine whether or not the blood flake underpinning JB's conviction was capable of withstanding the environments from SC's contact wound, which the prosecution claim resulted in draw-back, through to analysis of the blood flake in the lab on 12th Sept 1985.  It is necessary to consider the accumulative effect:

- draw-back
- time spent at ambient temp
- humidity in cyanoacrylate fuming chamber 

The fact the lab/Dr Harris claims to have placed blood in the rifle and fired it 25 x's and was still able to successfully remove the blood and type it is imo stretching credulity.  I appreciate this test is largely irrelevant based on SC's contact wound but imo it shows that something MIGHT have gone awry at the lab.   

The fact that JB's defence haven't explored the above or undertaken tests means squat other than potentially they were bunch of incompetent fools. 

I agree Mark Webster's claims that the flake of blood supposedly identified in the silencer was a flake of soot spattered with blood doesn't make any sense.

The only way to resolve is to arrange for tests which are due to commence shortly:

"Thank you for your email. I have always found this case very interesting. As I'm sure you have seen on my out of office reply, I am away from work on maternity leave at the moment. I am not back until mid-March so I would not be able to work on any specifics until then.

I have taken on projects of this type in the past but as I work part time now I would need to speak to some colleagues before agreeing to any work. We do have a cyanoacrylate fuming chamber and some kind of firearms licence but I'm not sure what It covers as it may only be for our flare gun.

Maybe we could speak in the new year to discuss your requirements further.

Best wishes"


Dr XXXX is a Lecturer in Forensic Science. She studied for her first degree in Biochemistry at the University of XXXX before completing an MSc in Biomolecular Archaeology jointly run by XXXX and the University of XXXX.  She then moved to the University of XXXX to complete her PhD under the supervision of Professor XXXX, where she stayed to work as a Post-Doctoral Research Associate, before taking up her position at XXXX.

XXXX is a member of the Forensic Science Society, the International Society of Forensic Genetics and the British Association for Human Identification.

Could it be that a young mother, 20/30 something, female scientist will finally resolve the WHF murders? 

Copy of email sent to Myster for verification. 
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1448
Re: Blood n heat...
« Reply #24 on: March 09, 2017, 10:34:36 PM »
I agree it is hardly surprising soot was found inside the silencer, but soot is caused by the process of burning something and blood doesn't take kindly to a) the heat/temperature necessary for something to burn and b) being burned.

In JB's case tests have not been carried out to determine whether or not the blood flake underpinning JB's conviction was capable of withstanding the environments from SC's contact wound, which the prosecution claim resulted in draw-back, through to analysis of the blood flake in the lab on 12th Sept 1985.  It is necessary to consider the accumulative effect:

- draw-back
- time spent at ambient temp
- humidity in cyanoacrylate fuming chamber 

The fact the lab/Dr Harris claims to have placed blood in the rifle and fired it 25 x's and was still able to successfully remove the blood and type it is imo stretching credulity.  I appreciate this test is largely irrelevant based on SC's contact wound but imo it shows that something MIGHT have gone awry at the lab.   

The fact that JB's defence haven't explored the above or undertaken tests means squat other than potentially they were bunch of incompetent fools. 

I agree Mark Webster's claims that the flake of blood supposedly identified in the silencer was a flake of soot spattered with blood doesn't make any sense.

The only way to resolve is to arrange for tests which are due to commence shortly:

"Thank you for your email. I have always found this case very interesting. As I'm sure you have seen on my out of office reply, I am away from work on maternity leave at the moment. I am not back until mid-March so I would not be able to work on any specifics until then.

I have taken on projects of this type in the past but as I work part time now I would need to speak to some colleagues before agreeing to any work. We do have a cyanoacrylate fuming chamber and some kind of firearms licence but I'm not sure what It covers as it may only be for our flare gun.

Maybe we could speak in the new year to discuss your requirements further.

Best wishes"


Dr XXXX is a Lecturer in Forensic Science. She studied for her first degree in Biochemistry at the University of XXXX before completing an MSc in Biomolecular Archaeology jointly run by XXXX and the University of XXXX.  She then moved to the University of XXXX to complete her PhD under the supervision of Professor XXXX, where she stayed to work as a Post-Doctoral Research Associate, before taking up her position at XXXX.

XXXX is a member of the Forensic Science Society, the International Society of Forensic Genetics and the British Association for Human Identification.

Could it be that a young mother, 20/30 something, female scientist will finally resolve the WHF murders? 

Copy of email sent to Myster for verification.

The burning that takes place is powder inside of a cartridge case burns.  That causes the bullet to leave the case and launch.  Some of the unburned particulate is forced through the barrel. 

Long ago it was established that blood that enters via drawback is able to be typed even after subsequent shots are fired.

We are not talking about any subsequent shots being fired here though.  The final shot exited the weapon, entered sheila and caused blood to get inside. There were no subsequent shots.   

“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4374
  • How cute am I?!
Re: Blood n heat...
« Reply #25 on: March 09, 2017, 11:50:26 PM »
The burning that takes place is powder inside of a cartridge case burns.  That causes the bullet to leave the case and launch.  Some of the unburned particulate is forced through the barrel. 

Long ago it was established that blood that enters via drawback is able to be typed even after subsequent shots are fired.

We are not talking about any subsequent shots being fired here though.  The final shot exited the weapon, entered sheila and caused blood to get inside. There were no subsequent shots.   

Yes I appreciate how a cartridge/bullet is fired (image below) but hot discharge gases follow the bullet down the barrel and silencer where they exit the muzzle into the atmosphere (as per gif).  As you know the purpose of a silencer is to reduce the sound of the hot gases exiting the muzzle into the atmosphere by allowing the gases to expand in an expansion chamber and release slowly through a series of baffle plates.

It isn't just a case of considering the affect of blood entering the silencer and the hot discharge gases simultaneously exiting and what exactly happens when these Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids collide but also the time spent at ambient temperature and time spent in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber.  The accumulative effect needs considering. 

I know we're not talking about any subsequent shots with SC's contact wound/draw-back but as you know at trial and JB's appeals: 1989 and 2002 lawyers went down the heterogeneous route ie the blood flake represented an intimate mix of NB and June's blood, not something I have ever subscribed to.  JB's lawyers at trial claimed the heterogeneous flake could have come about at any time during the shootings.  As a result for the 1989 appeal, lawyers arranged for Dr Harris at FSS Hunts to carry out tests by placing blood in the silencer and firing the rifle 25 x's followed by removing the blood and typing it which he claims produced consistent results which imo is stretching credulity.  This experiment doesn't relate to draw-back but imo it might show something was awry at the lab.   
« Last Edit: March 09, 2017, 11:54:28 PM by Holly Goodhead »
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1448
Re: Blood n heat...
« Reply #26 on: March 10, 2017, 02:54:27 AM »
Yes I appreciate how a cartridge/bullet is fired (image below) but hot discharge gases follow the bullet down the barrel and silencer where they exit the muzzle into the atmosphere (as per gif).  As you know the purpose of a silencer is to reduce the sound of the hot gases exiting the muzzle into the atmosphere by allowing the gases to expand in an expansion chamber and release slowly through a series of baffle plates.

It isn't just a case of considering the affect of blood entering the silencer and the hot discharge gases simultaneously exiting and what exactly happens when these Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids collide but also the time spent at ambient temperature and time spent in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber.  The accumulative effect needs considering. 

I know we're not talking about any subsequent shots with SC's contact wound/draw-back but as you know at trial and JB's appeals: 1989 and 2002 lawyers went down the heterogeneous route ie the blood flake represented an intimate mix of NB and June's blood, not something I have ever subscribed to.  JB's lawyers at trial claimed the heterogeneous flake could have come about at any time during the shootings.  As a result for the 1989 appeal, lawyers arranged for Dr Harris at FSS Hunts to carry out tests by placing blood in the silencer and firing the rifle 25 x's followed by removing the blood and typing it which he claims produced consistent results which imo is stretching credulity.  This experiment doesn't relate to draw-back but imo it might show something was awry at the lab.

The main exit of gasses would go with the bullet and then the blood would be drawn in.

In any event the most hot and sizable flow of gases would be down the middle, that which leaves afterwards will have time to cool and not be as forceful.

Those gases are not hot enough even to destroy blood in a barrel where the gas is actually going across the same exact spot where the blood is while in a moderator the blood was on the other sides of the baffles.

Not just the intensity of heat but the duration in combination is significant in destruction of blood. 

A split second(s) of the heat caused by a firing bullets isn't sufficient to destroy it.  On occasion the impact will be more pronounced than others but it is not enough to in general destroy it.

Given the success in the past of obtaining results under the same conditions or even worse conditions that rules out hoping to establish drawback blood will ALWAYS be damaged to the point of not being able to be successfully tested.  That is what would be necessary in order to establish the blood had to have been planted and can't have gotten there from drawback. That is why the defense has not tried that route. 

You keep saying you want to do testing. How do you propose to prove that the successful results in all past documented instances were faked and in fact it is impossible to obtain a result.  There is no testing capable of refuting all the past instances of success.

In the meantime they know if they do tests they will get successful results in at least some of them because of past results.
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4374
  • How cute am I?!
Re: Blood n heat...
« Reply #27 on: March 10, 2017, 08:56:15 AM »
The main exit of gasses would go with the bullet and then the blood would be drawn in.

In any event the most hot and sizable flow of gases would be down the middle, that which leaves afterwards will have time to cool and not be as forceful.

Those gases are not hot enough even to destroy blood in a barrel where the gas is actually going across the same exact spot where the blood is while in a moderator the blood was on the other sides of the baffles.

Not just the intensity of heat but the duration in combination is significant in destruction of blood. 

A split second(s) of the heat caused by a firing bullets isn't sufficient to destroy it.  On occasion the impact will be more pronounced than others but it is not enough to in general destroy it.

Given the success in the past of obtaining results under the same conditions or even worse conditions that rules out hoping to establish drawback blood will ALWAYS be damaged to the point of not being able to be successfully tested.  That is what would be necessary in order to establish the blood had to have been planted and can't have gotten there from drawback. That is why the defense has not tried that route. 

You keep saying you want to do testing. How do you propose to prove that the successful results in all past documented instances were faked and in fact it is impossible to obtain a result.  There is no testing capable of refuting all the past instances of success.

In the meantime they know if they do tests they will get successful results in at least some of them because of past results.

Do you have any documented cases you can refer us to?  Documented cases where blood has been found in barrels or silencers and subsequently typed using conventional serological analysis of blood?  Not DNA as this is less prone to degrade as a result of environmental insults. 
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4374
  • How cute am I?!
Re: Blood n heat...
« Reply #28 on: March 10, 2017, 11:33:01 AM »
After 4 plus shots?  I've arrived at 3 shots?  We are talking about the excerpt from Dr DiMaio above?

But surely it is the hot discharge gases that affect any blood drawn into a barrel/silencer rather than the exiting of subsequent bullets per se?  I'm thinking of the attached GIF.  David1819 thinks any blood drawn in remains protected as per attached image which doesn't seem to reconcile with GIF?

Yes I appreciate Dr Harris' test of 25 x discharges bears no resemblance to SC's contact shot but I'm questioning the validity of the test which MIGHT indicate something awry at lab.  When I consider the % reductions in Dr DiMaio's test after 3/4 shots it seems unlikely any blood would be detected after 25 shots.  Yet Dr Harris is saying not only did he detect blood after 25 shots but the integrity of the blood was uncompromised in terms of typing and I have a big question mark about this.

I have had communication with arguably the world's expert on blood serology:

Sorry I have not responded earlier, but things have been very busy here.  The amount of stain used seems about right to get a result. The stability of the genetic markers that were conducted on the1/4 inch flake of blood are all well within the expected results time frame.  ABO is good for about two years at ambient temperatures and is the longest for the series of five markers you listed.  Haptoglobin and PGM would be the next at about a year, and AK & EAP are about six months.  This is, of course, is for dried stains that have not been environmentally insulted by temperature or humidity.  XXXX would not have the capability of a fingerprint chamber or to test fire a weapon at our facility.

Email forwarded to Myster for verification.

Scipio, the US forensic scientist referred to above is arguably the world's expert on blood serology.  He has testified in cases as follows:

COURT PRESENTATIONS

Expert testimony presentations in forensic serology
made in excess of four hundred (400) times in
Superior Courts of the following states:
 

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia,
Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Wisconsin and Washington. 

Superior Courts in California: 

Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Fresno,
Humboldt, Kern, Los Angeles,  Orange,  Sacramento, 
San  Bernardino,  San  Diego,  San  Francisco, 
San  Joaquin,  Santa  Clara, Shasta, Solano, Sonoma,
Sutter, Tulare, and Ventura Counties.

He qualified during the 1970's and has been practising since.  When I put to him the environments the blood flake underwent prior to identification and analysis he said:

The amount of stain used seems about right to get a result. The stability of the genetic markers that were conducted on the1/4 inch flake of blood are all well within the expected results time frame.  ABO is good for about two years at ambient temperatures and is the longest for the series of five markers you listed.  Haptoglobin and PGM would be the next at about a year, and AK & EAP are about six months.  This is, of course, is for dried stains that have not been environmentally insulted by temperature or humidity


Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1448
Re: Blood n heat...
« Reply #29 on: March 10, 2017, 03:51:04 PM »
Scipio, the US forensic scientist referred to above is arguably the world's expert on blood serology.  He has testified in cases as follows:

COURT PRESENTATIONS

Expert testimony presentations in forensic serology
made in excess of four hundred (400) times in
Superior Courts of the following states:
 

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia,
Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Wisconsin and Washington. 

Superior Courts in California: 

Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Fresno,
Humboldt, Kern, Los Angeles,  Orange,  Sacramento, 
San  Bernardino,  San  Diego,  San  Francisco, 
San  Joaquin,  Santa  Clara, Shasta, Solano, Sonoma,
Sutter, Tulare, and Ventura Counties.

He qualified during the 1970's and has been practising since.  When I put to him the environments the blood flake underwent prior to identification and analysis he said:

The amount of stain used seems about right to get a result. The stability of the genetic markers that were conducted on the1/4 inch flake of blood are all well within the expected results time frame.  ABO is good for about two years at ambient temperatures and is the longest for the series of five markers you listed.  Haptoglobin and PGM would be the next at about a year, and AK & EAP are about six months.  This is, of course, is for dried stains that have not been environmentally insulted by temperature or humidity

Pay careful attention to what he said:

He said you can get results in the timeframe in which they did the testing.  There are 2 parts to that:

1) That the heat from the gases would not cause the blood to be unable to be tested successfully. If in fact the heat from the gases would have rendered it unable to be tested successfully then he would not have said the results were reasonable.

2) Blood breaks down over time. He addressed the general length of time it could sit in ambient temperature and yet still be successfully tested after a such period.  Of course if kept in cold storage rules change and some evidence has been stored in places without climate control which can cause evidence to spoil faster.

You want to make the leap that the gases from the shot that caused the drawback damages it and prevents a successful reading.  He didn't suggest any such thing but rather suggested the opposite by saying not only can a reading be obtained but it can be obtained a significant time later successfully.

Since it is well established that readings can be obtained from drawback the issue that experts care about is the length of time when the testing was done and storage conditions.  When done a sizable time later and the material was kept under miserable conditions then the odds of getting successful results will be much lower and sometimes near impossible.  That is when the expert is most useful to the defense.

ABO typing of blood found in barrels was done in plenty of US cases from murders to suicides.  Most of such cases involved blood in barrels of weapons.  Silencers are rarely used here and when used for murder it is rare to have a contact shot let alone one resulting in drawback. 

I will give you the simplest analogy I can consider a tomato.  Will a very short burst of heat immediately demolish a freshly picked tomato?  No but over time the tomato will rot. By storing it in a cool place you delay the process for a longer period of time than if you leave it at room temperature.  If you leave it near a heating vent that will speed up the process.  Quite obviously a tomato can't sit at room temperature for more than a couple of weeks without spoiling. If left consistently in hotter temps it is not going to ripen in an hour and be rotten but it is not going to last 2 weeks. That is what he is speaking to about the blood.
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli