Author Topic: Blood n heat...  (Read 2178 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: Blood n heat...
« Reply #45 on: March 18, 2017, 09:04:44 PM »
According to the CoA  doc the flake found inside the silencer measured 1/4" by way of surface and is by definition ultra thin.  By comparison the rifle contained numerous stains, smears and splashes.  According to Glynis Howard's trial testimony bloodstains are greater in volume compared with smears.  One bloodstain measured 1 1/4" x <1/4" which is significantly larger than the flake inside the silencer and yet this was incapable of being typed. 

71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding. On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful.   

This imo should have set the alarm bells ringing along with Dr Lincoln's letter to the defence which shows numerous exhibits were tested and none were able to produce the sort of results the blood flake supposedly found inside the silencer did.

The flake did not represent all blood removed from the barrel.  If all the other blood removed from the barrel were combined it would have exceeded the volume in the flake.  It was not all combined though and wound not be proper to do so. The various flakes they took form inside were all smaller than the flake.

They didn't remove all of the blood on the exterior either let alone remove it all and combine it into a single body to analyze.  They scraped little bits from various stains and those little bits they scraped to test were smaller than the flake.

What matters is the size of the sample scraped off for testing not what the total volume of blood on the weapon was. 

“...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