Hamilton

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

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. But he faced tough questions from Khill's defence lawyer, who tried to undermine the expert.

Tuesday was Day 6 of the trial, related to the death of Jon Styres

Stickers marking blood stains on a truck with an open passenger-side door.
Investigators marked 74 separate specks of blood inside the passenger side of Peter Khill's truck. Another 15 were found on the outside of the truck. (Ministry of the Attorney General)

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 Manishen questioned Colin Hoare's approach to analyzing the 89 blood stains splattered on the side of Khill's truck and on the side of the passenger seat.

What way Styres was facing and how far he was from Khill when Styres got shot is 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 Styres had a knife, but no gun on that cold, Feb. 6 night in 2016. He was trying to steal Khill's truck when he died.

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

Jon Styres, right, was shot and killed in Hamilton on Feb. 4, 2016. Peter Khill is on trial for second-degree murder. (Facebook)

Crown prosecutors brought in Hoare, 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 then the 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 hearing neither of the two gunshots that hit Styres had exit wounds — a point Khill's defence jumped on Tuesday, as Hoare only learned that same day one shot entered the 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 Hoare also did a supplementary report on the case last month and ended up with the same findings.

Defence says expert was missing important details

Manishen started cross-examining Hoare and lobbed tough questions his way, trying to convince the jury Hoare didn't take a proper approach and didn't have enough information.

Manishen highlighted how until Tuesday, Hoare didn't have the proper details about 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 lawyer pointed 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.

Exhibits from Peter Khill's second-degree murder trial show there wasn't any blood found on the inside of the passenger-side door or toward the front of the truck. Styres was trying to steal the truck when he was shot dead. (Ministry of the Attorney General)

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

Manishen highlighted how Hoare didn't follow some of the best practices the books set for undergoing a blood stain analysis when forming his 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's gunshot wounds.

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

Firearms expert says shooting was close range

The jury also heard from Judy 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 using the 12 gauge, pump-action Remington 870 shotgun.

Chin said the muzzle of the shotgun was fewer 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 said the muzzle was over a third of a metre away and fewer than three-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.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Bobby Hristova

Journalist

Bobby Hristova is a journalist with CBC Marketplace. He's passionate about investigative reporting and accountability journalism that drives change. He has worked with CBC Hamilton since 2019 and also worked with CBC Toronto's Enterprise Team. Before CBC, Bobby worked for National Post, CityNews and as a freelancer.