At last we agree on something 
What on earth went through Geoffrey Rivlins QC's mind to dream up such a truly bizarre idea? How on earth did he expect to sell that to the jury? It is crazy, madness, as is the idea that the blood found in the silencer could possibly be an intimate mix of June and NB's. Geoffrey Rivlin QC has a lot to answer for in this sorry saga and this is probably one of the reasons he opted for a change of career ie from barrister to judge in 1989.
He dealt with the moderator evidence to the best extent he could. While still a loser argument it was better than no defense at all
The defense expert he hired not only afforded no way to assert that the evidence had been planted, even worse he found more blood on the first 8 baffles that was consistent with Sheila's blood. He originally said maybe the blood was a mixture of June and Nevill's blood that had not intimately mixed but after reviwing all the prosecution expert's tests and speaking with the expert he agreed with the results.
So what did Rivlin have to blunt the evidence? Nothing he had an expert that bolstered the prosecution merely. The best he could do was get the prosecution witness to say there was a remote chance the blood was a mix of Nevill and June's blood.
He had a choice to argue that it was Nevill and June's blood or to make no argument at all. If he made no argument at all and just accepted the blood was Sheila's then for sure the case is lost. He hoped some jurors would be stupid enough to believe it was June and Nevill's blood and hioed they would not recognize that would mean Sheila had to install the moderator herself prior to the murders and remove it after killing everyone else or would accept that as a reasonable possibilty. The jury already had to believe she had gone to the closet to get more rounds since 5-7 rounds had to come from another supply than the one in the kitchen for Sheila to have been responsible.
This pathetic argument actually swayed 2 jurors, jurors are often not very bright and that is what he was hoping for, indeed 1 juror after the OJ SImpson trial went on TV and revealed she didn't understand what it means to say the chance of the blood being someone other than OJ was in the billions meant. She was unaware of what the population of Earth was and therefore what the odds meant. If you told her the Earth had a trillion people she would probably not think anything wrong with it. When you consider there are people like that out there you can see how Rivlin's defense offered a little hope.
What was the alternative? To say the blood go there innocently through past use? Blood doesnt get there like that through innocent use. He tried to get the expert to say it was possible for the blood to have gotten inside from bashing the victim with the gun and ordinary back spatter to which the expert replied it is possible a tiny bit could get inside from those methods but it would not go far inside and be no where near the volume found.
So the option was to argue the unlikely or have no argument at all.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury Sheila's blood got inside through ordinary contamintion prior to the murders because she was there and her blood somehow got inside or ordinary contamination after the murders somehow. I know I presented no witnesses to this effect and the prosecution expert says this is not possible but you should believe me anyway. Thank You.
That was the alternative so it was argue the crappy position he did or that position which basically says my client is guilty and I am just here because by law says he gets to have an attorney so convict him.
