The forensic scientists actually did very well by establishing the blood groups inside the silencer given that they had relatively little to analyse. They found 13 out of a possible 20 of Sheila’s bands/markers in the flake of blood — and in 2002 after advances in analysis had improved, they found SEVENTEEN of Sheila’s markers in the same sample — making it a trillion to one that blood could belong to anyone else. How can you possibly say THAT evidence can’t be relied upon? It convinced the court, jury and high court judges — and they have far better knowledge than you do, or anyone else, including me.
Having now refreshed my memory, I've just been posting about this on the other thread about the silencer.
You are misrepresenting the evidence. I sensed that you were, because I have in the past read in some depth on the case, but I needed to go back and check the details.
First, the blood group finding does not prove that it was Sheila's blood. That's simple enough.
Second, the DNA finding was rejected by the 2002 appellate judges. It is based on LCN testing, which cannot establish a source for the DNA trace, and it is also the case that findings are unreliable due to the acknowledged probability of contamination.
Ironically, you ask [to paraphrase]: "How can THAT evidence not be relied on?" Well, I suggest you re-direct your question to the English Court of Appeal, because they decided it could not be relied on. Come back to us when you have an answer.
The current position is this - there is no conclusive evidence that the moderator has Sheila's blood. Nor is there any evidence that the moderator was used in the killings, or even that any silencer/moderator was used at all.
In my view, the moderator is a dead duck. If we were to re-try this case, the moderator would be disregarded by a jury, or a judge would just throw it out altogether.
My view is that the killer, probably Jeremy, did not use a moderator anyway, and I think the relatives and police brought the moderator into evidence innocently, due to their (probably correct) suspicions about Jeremy and their desperation.
I remain of the view that Jeremy probably did this, but I think the convictions are unsafe. So far, nobody has convinced me otherwise. Insulting me and goading me definitely won't convince me and does nothing for your case. Telling me that Jeremy had a hearty breakfast with extra bacon and grinned to somebody at the funeral won't convince me either.
If you can be polite and respectful of other posters and if you can come up with something that convinces me, then I'll be delighted to acknowledge it and I will thank you for it.
