1) Would need a biologist to confirm whether or not watery menstrual blood could produce the readings it produced ie ABO, EAP, AK, Hp. My experiment showed that a film formed on top of the water and s..m at the side of the buckets but whether any of this material and/or the watery blood would be capable of attaching to the silencer in the manner in which it was found and subsequently tested ie smears, blobs, flakes I have no idea.
2) I am sceptical about the police shooting Sheila. The pathologist said it was possible for her to have inflicted both shots and I am inclined towards thinking this was the case.
3) I think it possible that an officer moved/touched the gun in his haste to make it safe
response by point:
1) The issue is whether bloody water period (regardless of whether it was menstrual or blood from veins/arteries that was diluted in water) could deposit blood in the manner it was found and to produce readings.
Once again there were dried blood deposits stuck to the inside parts of the suppressor. The prosecution scraped away these flakes of blood and tested several of them successfully. The defense found microscopic traces of blood still stuck to the first 8 baffles after all visible blood had been scraped away and was able to successfully test this microscopic blood.
There is no way for blood diluted in water to leave such deposits by dipping the suppressor into the bucket. Not even Jeremy's attorneys suggest such a ridiculous thing you are embarassing yourself by even suggesting it.
2) The evidence proves it was impossible for her to have fired the fatal shot, the undisputed conclusion of the examiner was that it was a shot that was a contact wound and virtually certian to produce back spatter in the weapon. The suppressor was most certianly used to deliver this shot. But hey keep living in fantasy land. It has no bearing on the actual facts.
3) Touching a weapon to move it amounts to wiping it totally clean? Seriously your excuses get weaker and weaker.
