Thank you for taking the time to provide a detailed response 
I'm not convinced by a lot of subjectivity about rabbits and whether or not someone took a scope off or not etc, etc. I'm convinced by hard indisputable scientific facts. Science shows that dried blood stains recovered from a scene of crime require careful collection and preservation in order to yield blood test results. The silencer and flake of blood were not carefully collected and preserved; in fact anything but. Futhermore the size of the flake measuring 1/4 of an inch was way too small to yield the sort of results claimed.
http://www.helena.com/Literature/Book%20C3Rev6.pdf
(See Page 5)
"III.
Sample Extraction and Storage
To preserve enzymatic activity, any materials containing dried blood stains should be frozen. At the time of testing, cut a 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm piece of stained material from the original sample and place in a well with 2 to 3 drops of solvent".
You will note the 0.5cm x 0.5cm refers to each individual enzyme/protein test using gel electrophoresis.
http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/print/blood-print.html
(a little way down)
"Conventional serological analysis
Analysis of the proteins, enzymes, and antigens present in the blood. These substances are more susceptible to degradation than DNA and this type of testing usually requires a "large" sample (quarter size) in good condition for optimal results. This type of testing is rarely statistically individualizing".
Quarter size = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarter_%28United_States_coin%29
You seem to think that quality and quantity are irrelevant. They are not and in the fullness of time this will be demonstrated. The silencer/blood flake was fabricated period.
You have some desire to believe Jeremy was framed and thus the evidence was fabricated. You claim you are following science but in fact you simply are making up claims that the evidence could not have survived and could not have been present in order to find a way to pretend there is proof that the evidence was fabricated.
You make up hard rules that blood and enzymes can't possibly have survived though there are documented cases where evidence was tested months later successfully. Blood experts would have told the defense in 1986 that it was impossible if that were actually the case. You are not being driven by the evidence but rather decided what you want to believe and try to find some way to justify it.
Your claim that the blood evidence was fabricated period is simply wishful thinking on your part. You have zilch to establish it.
Here is what is required for the moderator evidence to have been fabricated:
1) By 8/13/85 someone planting tiny amounts of blood on the face of the moderator, inside the moderator bore, inside the knurled portion as well as on the tube.
2) someone deciding to also plant red paint in the knurled portion by 8/13/85
3) someone planting blood so it formed into the flake as well as blood on the first 8 baffles in diminishing quantity to mimic drawback
4) removing blood from the rifle muzzle and concealing that it had been found
Analysis:
A) Why would someone bother planting paint if they had planted blood?
B) Only someone who knew a lot about about the concept of drawback and also knew that Sheila had a wound that result in drawback would plant blood inside.
C) The person would thus also know about serology and have to find out Sheila's blood attributes and find a source of blood containing such attributes otherwise use her own blood
D) The blood on the baffles and flake in between the baffles would have to have been planted by 8/13/85 as well because how could someone be sure that Howard would choose not to open it up? If someone planted the blood found by Howard and then weeks later decided to plant more blood the person would have to have direct knowledge that Howard didn't open it up or Howard would be able to say it was not there when she looked at it and thus expose it as having been planted.
Since you suggest the blood was added later you are effectively arguing 3 different plantings:
I. very early on planting the blood that Howard removed
II. very early on planting red paint
III. Subsequent to the superglue fuming planting the flake and blood on the baffles
IV. In addition blood had to have been found in the rifle but the finding concealed
You have no evidence of 1 planting let alone 3 and it makes no sense to plant both paint and blood. You have no evidence anyone knew anything about the concept of drawback other than the lab and no evidence that anyone other than lab personnel figured out that drawback would result from Sheila's fatal wound. Not even Vanezis explored the issue until after the lab raised it.
You invent notions where any gun dealer or person who shoots would know about drawback though this is nonsense. There is not a single document where police posit drawback. Nothing where police asked Vanezis about the possibility of drawback occurring and if either would would result in drawback. Nothing where Vanzesis told police anything about drawback or even contemplated it yet kept it to himself. The police did not press the lab to do their blood work right away. Rather the police took their time to get it back to the lab after the superglue fuming had been done and the lab took weeks to then process it. It was the lab personnel who assessed Sheila had a wound that would result in drawback, that there would have been blood in the muzzle had it been used without the moderator but inside the moderator if it had been used, tested the rifle and found the muzzle free of blood, tested the moderator and discovered drawback was in fact present inside.
At most you can accuse the family or police of planting paint or the blood on the outside. They would have lacked the knowledge to plant it on the inside. Accusing them with no proof though means nothing.
You have to try to blame the lab of planing blood on the inside or soliciting others to do so and orchestrating the affair. Again accusing them with no proof amounts to nothing.
Why would the lab do so? The only way to accuse 1 person would be to say a lab worker planted it all right away on 8/13/85 before it was turned over to Howard and then Howard removed some but could not get it open so and left the rest or Howard planted it and for some odd reason left the blood she planted inside for a later date. That's the only way to say 1 person planted it all. Not one person knew on 8/13 though that Sheila suffered a wound that would result in drawback not even Howard.
It is extremely hard to believe one person did multiple plantings at different times let alone that multiple people decided to do multiple plantings.
Insisting this happened doesn't make it so. It is just what you want to believe despite there being no evidence to establish it happened. You want to believe it so badly you have convinced yourself that there is some scientific way to prove the blood could not have survived and been tested successfully and the fact it was tested successfully proves it was planted. You can believe this fallacy all you wish but it will not be able to sway others- especially not a court so at most its utility is to offer you solace so you can pretend to yourself that your support of Jeremy is scientific not for some subjective bias. Beyond that it is of no value.
Telling me just you wait and see is no better than Linus telling Charlie Brown just you wait till next year the Great Pumpkin surely will come. He wanted to believe in the Great Pumpkin no matter what and that was that. You are free to believe as you wish but I prefer facing reality.
