I. Webster asserted that in his opinion it is possible for the blood to have been a mixture of June and Nevill's blood. He was unable to demonstrate his opinion to be based on any sound science though and was unable to refute the rationale used at trial by the prosecution experts who opined it wasn't a mixture.
Webster's rationale was based on an alleged case (which he could not document because he supposedly was unsure of the name) where it didn't intimately mix on cloth. The Court was told by other scientists that blood behaves differently on cloth and non-porous metal surfaces and that the conditions that even if it were theoretically possible for blood to not intimately mix on cloth as Webster claimed this would have no application to the moderator at all. The same principle would not be applicable. In addition Webster erroneously claimed a a particular piece of literature supporter his claims that it is possible for blood to not intimately mix on a non-porous surface but when the Court consulted the literature in question it didn't assert the proposition he claimed.
Webster admitted that he had nothing beyond these two things to support his supposition he admitted no testing was done to establish his claims as possible and said it was because he lacked the ability to do testing.
In contrast the prosecution had done testing and that testing found no way for blood to not intimately mix. Webster himself conceded that if the blood intimately mixed it would not be possible to miss that there was a mixture. Webster not only needed to prove it was possible to not intimately mix- which he failed to prove. He needed to establish that it extremely likely it didn't intimately mix. He could not eve porove it possible let alone likely. But that still would not be enough.
II.
Webster needed to establish that none of the blood tested in 1985 by the prosecution and defense was Sheila's but rather all of it was a mixture of June and Nevill's. As the Court noted finding June or Nevill's blood would not mean that Sheila's wasn't also present.
The notion Sheila killed her parents with the moderator attached then put it away before killing herself is not the least bit believable so the moderator being used period sinks Jeremy anyway. The Court of Appeals ruled that Webster's testimony was worthless and no jury could place stock in it.
Poeple on the blue forum are ridiculously suggesting his opinions help to detract from the case against Jeremy and create reasonable doubt but the COA correctly ruled otherwise.
