I don't think anyone on this forum including myself can really make a sound argument about LCN DNA. Do we even know what we are talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number
In other words save it for those that are experience and qualified.
I have read in many instances that the silencer along with all other blood samples was destroyed 1996. If they still existed today why have they not been under modern examination? The prosecution argued that AK1 adenylate kinase was in the silencer and attributed it to Shelia a poor argument. From what I understand the silencer was put under allot of scrutiny by the defence thus became irrelevant at the trial, it was all down to Jeremy's word against Julie's that would seal the verdict.
Listening to what people claim but offer no evidence to support is your first mistake.
LCN DNA testing was not available in 1996 so the fact the moderator was tested using LCN testing proves it was not destroyed. The blood samples of the victims were destoryed and for that reason they had to obtain DNA profiles of other relatives to use to compare to the DNA found in the moderator.
The same principles that apply to LCN DNA apply to all evidence. There are limits to what evidence can prove. The value of evidence depends on the circumstances of the case.
The difference between standard DNA testing and LCN testing is that with rare exception regular DNA testing involves DNA sources of such a large size it had to have come directly from the person. In contrast LCN testing samples can be so small that they were transferred by a third party. The theoretical contamination possibility means that there are limits to what it proves but that is true of all evidence.
If my fingerprints are found on a glass at a house where a crime happened and it turns out that I visited the house the day before the crimes occurred and drank during such visit that is an innocent explanation for the prints being there and the prints prove nothing. If the print are in blood of the victims, the innocent explanation still will not acoc..t for such. So use of evidence is very fact specific.
I don't knoe what testing you think should be done ot the moderator. It already underwent the most sensitive testing available- LCN DNA testing. Such testing was a waste of time though because it had no ability to prove anything. The key issue is whose blood was removed from the moderator. DNA testing oof the blod that was removed is what was key. But such blood was destroyed by the blood type tests. There thus was no way to test such for DNA. In 1985-86 the lab and also a defense expert removed all blood fromt he moderator. Subsequent tests to the moderator found no blood. That means if a DNA test were done there is no way to establish any of the DNA found was blood based. DNA not blood based is worthless in assessing whose blood was inside. Thus there was no reason to do a DNA test but the defense did it anyway and the appeal court ended up predicatbly saying the results were meaningless.
There are no tests to the moderator which would not be meaningless. The only menaingful tests that could be done were if there ended up being some blood removed in 1985-86 that were available for DNA testing. Chances are the DNA would have degraded too much to get a result but it would be worth a try if such blood remained. Short of that there is no plausible test that could impact the blood evidence used at trial.
If the crime happened today they would not have bothered doing a type test on the blood found inside they would have done a DNA test on such blood. The defense would hope that such blood turned out to belong to a victim other than Sheila. The prosecution would hope it belongs to Sheila or Sheila and others. The reaosn why is simple, if the blood was Sheila's then someone else shot her with the moderator attached then put it away after her death. If it was a victim other than Sheila it permits the defense to argue Sheila used the moderator to kill the others then removed the moderator and put it away before she killed herself.
The argument is still not a great one because Sheila would not have bothered to go fetch the moderator, attach it and then go put it away. Victim blood inside was bad period for the defense because it implicates Jeremy. Furthermore if she was killed without the moderator attached her blood should have been in the rifle itself but it wasn't. So things are still not rosy for the defense but it is even worse when the evidence is that the moderator was used to kill Sheila because it was impossible for her to remove it and put it away after she died. So in a DNA test the defense would be hoping for the lesser of two evils essentially.