None of the smears dried into a single flake. It was blood stuck to the side of wood. It was small amounts because the spatter was small and the killer was still using the weapon thus some of the blood would have wiped off onto the killer. Blood that was undisturbed pooled inside the moderator forming into a flake. The whole flake was in 1 whole part. Swabbing blood stuck to something with a swab to get a tiny amount results in less to test. The blood on the baffles that was swabbed was thus also insufficient to get results beyond knowing it was human. Right inside the opening defense Lincoln found enough blood to tests and determine it was Sheila's, the blood on the baffles he detected was too little. Part of the reason why he was not used was because he found such blood and would simply confirm the findings of the lab.
How would blood on the rifle wipe off onto the perp? What evidence exists to suggest this happened?
I don't believe there was any blood right inside the opening as you claim?
John Hayward tested blood on the upper baffles which he described as "staining". The results showed A for the antigens (ABO groupings) and EAP BA for enzyme Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase (EAP). And yet the rifle containing "splashes" and "smears" and the outside of the silencer containing "stains" were incapable of any test results beyond a positive reaction for blood and human in origin. Plus the rifle and the outside of the silencer were tested about a month before the inside of the silencer.
Why didn't the lab test the blood they claim they found inside the silencer for a positive reaction for blood and determine whether or not it was human in origin as they did with the other exhibits? Or is that a silly question?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg315462#msg315462The above is sounding horribly reminiscent of the Stefan Kizsko case:
In 1994 the surviving senior officer in charge of the original investigation, Detective Superintendent Dick Holland, and the retired forensic scientist who had worked on the case, Ronald Outteridge, were formally charged with "doing acts tending to pervert the course of justice" by allegedly suppressing evidence in Kiszko's favour, namely the results of scientific tests on semen taken from the victim's body and from the accused.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_MolseedI'm so convinced the silencer/blood evidence was fabricated that I believe running the tests on a flake of blood the same size as the flake supposedly found in the silencer will show the evidence was fabricated. Never mind the fuming chamber. It simply doesn't make sense that the flake of blood in the silencer was able to produce blood test results where other exhibits failed.
Blood samples tested by way of conventional serological analysis require a good quality "large" sample about a quarter coin size (US currency) and on this basis alone the flake fails. A quarter size coin is about four times larger than the flake found in the silencer.
Dr Lincoln, who JB's defence appointed pre-trial, was not a forensic scientist. He was a senior lecturer in blood group serology at London hospital medical college. When he visited the lab I doubt any sort of wrongdoing even crossed his mind.
Why Paul Terzeon and/or Geoffrey Rivlin did not accompany Dr Lincoln to ask probing and disturbing questions of John Hayward and Dr Lincoln eg why the flake was able to produce significantly more results than the other exhibits I don't know. Perhaps more concerned with managing their time when time is money. How many cases were they involved in that included 4 murders and a sucide or five murders where death was caused by firearms?
To my mind the pair were hopeless and simply accepted what they were told without question.
