Blood stain expert faces tough questions from defence during Peter Khill murder trial

WARNING: This story contains distressing details.

A blood stain analyst testified Tuesday that Jon Styres was within a metre-and-a-half of Peter Khill's truck and was facing in toward the vehicle when Khill shot him twice with a shotgun over six years ago.

Defence lawyer Jeffrey Manishenquestioned Colin Hoare's approach to analyzingthe 89 blood stains splattered on the side of Khill's truck and on the side of the passenger seat.

What wayStyres was facing and how far he was from Khillwhen Styres gotshotis key in the second-degree murder trial.

Khill has pleaded not guilty to the charge, telling police in a 911 call he pulled the trigger after thinking the Six Nations man was about to shoot him.

It turns out Styreshad a knife, but nogun on that cold, Feb. 6 nightin 2016. He was trying to steal Khill's truck when he died.

Tuesday marked Day 6 of the trial, which began last week.

Crown prosecutors brought inHoare, a blood stain pattern expert and retired Niagara Police detective as an expert witness.

Hoare did an initial report on the case six years ago.

He concluded back thenthe truck's passenger-side door was open and Styres was standing within a metre-and-a-half of the truck, either facing directly into the truck or turned toward the inside of it.

Hoare came to the conclusion after hearingneither of the twogunshotsthat hit Styreshad exit wounds a point Khill's defence jumped on Tuesday, as Hoare only learned that same day oneshot enteredthe upper right arm then created an exit wound before immediately re-entering the body.

Exit wounds and entrance wounds create different types of blood stains, the court heard.

But Hoarealso did a supplementary report on the case last month andended up with the same findings.

Defence says expert was missing important details

Manishenstarted cross-examining Hoareand lobbed tough questions his way,tryingto convincethe juryHoare didn't take a proper approach and didn't have enough information.

Manishenhighlightedhow until Tuesday, Hoare didn't have the proper detailsabout Styres's wounds the shot to the chest had no exit wound, but the shot in the right upper arm entered, then exited and re-entered.

Manishen argued that could make it hard for Hoare to properly analyze the blood stains, but Hoare stood by his conclusion.

The defence lawyerpointed out how Hoare's original report from 2016 was peer-reviewed but the supplementary report wasn't.

Manishen also stated the supplementary report's conclusion was based on a balance of probabilities, which isn't a standard used in blood stain analysis.

Manishenalsoused to blood stain analysis textbooks both of which Hoare referenced in his reports to try and undermine the expert witness.

Manishenhighlighted how Hoare didn't follow some of the best practicesthe books set for undergoing ablood stain analysis when forminghis conclusion.

Some of the things the texts said Hoare should have which he acknowledged he didn't include:

• Styres's autopsy report.
• Styres's X-rays.
• Styers's height.
• Pictures of Styres's clothes.
• Pictures of Styres'sgunshot wounds.

Despite all that,Hoare said he was still confident in his conclusions.

Firearms expert says shooting wasclose range

The jury also heard fromJudy Chin, a firearms expert from the Centre of Forensic Sciences, who testified about how close and at what angle Khill may have shot Styres from.

She conducted tests usingthe 12 gauge, pump-actionRemington 870 shotgun.

Chin said the muzzle of the shotgun wasfewer than three-and-a-half metres from Styres when he was shot in the chest. She added Khill fired at him from an angle on Styres's left.

She also saidthe muzzle was over a third of a metre away and fewer thanthree-and-a-half metres from Styres when he was hit in the upper right arm.

She also said the shotgun had a choke attachment on it, which would keep the shotgun pellets close together as they flew in the air before lodging themselves into Styres's body.

The trial continues Wednesday.