Two areas of bloodstaining to SC's nightdress were tested: the large area under her right arm and it appears one of the smears from around the area where her wrist was found as per image.
According to John Hayward's (biologist at FSS) trial testimony he found the blood consistent with SC's. And yet the blood serologist for the defence, Dr Lincoln, said the blood matched SC's antigen (A) and haptoglobin protein (Hp2-1) but that he was unable to verify John Hayward's claims that he identified SC's adenylate kinase enzyme (AK1).
The enzymes and proteins were anaylsed and identified using gel electrophesis which analyses macromolecules based on their size and charge. The test produces photographic evidence and yet in this instance the photographic evidence was unavailable. Dr Lincoln simply accepted written notes on a worksheet and advised JB's defence accordingly who failed to flag this up at trial.
I don't think there's any doubts the bloodstains under SC's right arm originated from her but what about the bloodstains found around her wrist? SC shared the same antigen and haptoglobin protein as June but not the same adenylate kinase enzyme. Did the bloodstains found around SC's wrist originate from June?
Of course had the nightdress been retained then tests could be carried out using STR DNA tests to determine conclusively whose blood stained this area of the nightdress.
Why did JB's defence fail to chase all of this down:
- insist the bloodstain found near SC's wrist was retested for the adenylate kinase enzyme and photograhic evidence produced? In the absense of such then it was capable of being argued the bloodstain originated from June.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=939
