Was Jonathan Styres faced away from Peter Khill when he was shot dead? Crown witness pressed on blood report

A Crown witness in Peter Khill's second-degree murder trial was put to the test Tuesday when he was cross-examined on the validity of a report that concluded Jonathan Styres was facing away from the man who shot him dead.

For about two hours, blood pattern expert Colin Hoare was peppered with questions from a defence attorney regarding his review of the 89 specks of blood - all of them Styres' - left on the interior and exterior of Khill's truck on Feb. 4, 2016.

The jury has previously heard Khill - who has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder - told a 911 operator minutes after the shooting that Styres was turned toward him with his hands raised to, like, gun height" when he fired off two lethal shotgun blasts.

Hoare, meanwhile, testified his inspection of the tiny blood spots - a cluster of 15 on the exterior of the rear passenger door and 74 on the inside of the front passenger side - led him to conclude Styres was crouched low beside the truck and fully or partially turned toward the inside of the vehicle."

His opinion, the jury heard, was based on the back spatter" pattern of the stains, which he testified happens when blood spurts out of an entrance wound.

But defence lawyer Jeffery Manishen hammered Hoare on that finding during cross-examination, suggesting the retired detective failed to follow the recommended blood pattern analysis standards in one of the most reputable textbooks on the subject.

Manishen pointed out the textbook - which Hoare cited in his report - said thorough bloodstain pattern analyses should consider autopsy photos and reports of the victim, whether the victim had exit wounds, X-rays of the victim, the victim's height and the clothing the victim wore at the time of the shooting, among other pieces of evidence.

Hoare testified he never looked at Styres' autopsy photos or reports to help him with his analysis, which he submitted to Hamilton police in June 2016 - about two months after a post-mortem was completed. Nor did Hoare look at X-ray scans, inspect the five-layers of clothing Styres donned when he was shot or ask for Styres' height. Hoare also didn't know Styres had received an exit wound.

The jury previously heard testimony from a pathologist who said one shotgun shell entered Styres' upper right arm before immediately re-entering his armpit and chest.

Under questioning from Manishen, Hoare said he didn't review Styres' clothing because he thought it was of minimal value." He said he didn't consider an exit wound because he was told by a case detective at the time of his analysis that there weren't any.

In fact, the first time you saw a photo of the exit and entry wound was today, right?" Manishen asked Hoare.

Yes."

Manishen suggested Styres' could have been twisted with his face turned to Khill and his torso toward the truck. In that hypothetical, he said, one shot could cause the blood spatter on the closed rear passenger door while another could cause splatter inside front passenger side at a different angle.

While Hoare said the presence of an exit wound could potentially change the classification of blood spatter patterns - that is, from back spatter to forward or general spatter - his conclusion about where Styres was positioned remained unchanged.

If you look at where the stains are located - and bearing in mind blood travels in a cone perpendicular to wound - I would place the deceased either fully or partially facing the interior of that vehicle, no more than five feet from it and at or below the height of the passenger seat," he testified.

The trial resumes Wednesday.

Sebastian Bron is a reporter at The Spectator. sbron@thespec.com