It'll never happen... but as you've got great wads of cash burning a hole in your handbag which could be more enjoyably spent on the piste, go ahead with backing your experiment and convince me.
Never say Never. I think the understanding of pathology, soc forensics, ballistics and psychology has moved on leaps and bounds over the last 3 decades. Especially with regard to taking a multi-disciplinary approach and the various players actually communicating which to date doesn't appear to have been the case. The question is resources; until such time JB's case gets referred to CoA he will not be eligible for any legal aid. The CT say all services must be pro bono and they do not accept donations.
I've mentioned this to you before, but if Sheila had an extensive knowledge of using all the firearms at WHF as well as through game shooting in Scotland as you seem to believe, why didn't she change tack after making such a laboured job needing 23 bullets to destroy her family? Why did she think just one or two would be sufficient for herself after she fired eight into her sons' heads and four into her dad's? The first bullet wasn't even aimed up into the brain, but perpendicular to her neck!!!
I'm not sure firearms reconstruction will be necessary to prove the blood in the silencer was not there as a result of draw-back. It appears to be well documented that exhibits containing blood residue found at soc and sent for serological analysis must be processed correctly otherwise blood will degrade and not be capable of yielding test results. As far as I can see the flake in the silencer would not have withstood ambient temperature in the UK during August over some 6 days and still be capable of producing the blood type/group results for the ABO groupings along with the two enzymes Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase and Adenylate Kinase and the protein Haptoglobin. I am also keen to understand why the flake was unable to produce a result for the enzyme Phosphoglucomutase. The victims' samples were able to produce a result for this enzyme. I am sure a biologist will know the answer and if not it will be easy enough to set up tests.
There are also some standard Do's and Dont's with collecting blood for serological analysis. Three of the dont's:
- Don't expose to heat - what was the temperature inside the silencer immediately after firing and how long did it take to cool? Draw-back results in an immediate suck back of blood. The hot gases expand in the silencer and slowly dissipate and exit after discharge of the bullet. Also what was the actual effect of the gas on the blood, if any?
- Don't place wet blood in a plastic bag - the prosecution claim JB returned the silencer to the box and placed it in a plastic bag in the gun cupboard.
- Don't place in the boot of a car due to heat - AE's Ford Sierra was parked at WHF for a long period during the day on Saturday 10th August. The silencer then went in the boot and was transported to Oak Farm.
Were the biologists that tested the silencer for blood pre trial John Hayward and Dr Lincoln aware of exactly how a silencer works in terms of the gases?
I've mentioned this to you before, but if Sheila had an extensive knowledge of using all the firearms at WHF as well as through game shooting in Scotland as you seem to believe, why didn't she change tack after making such a laboured job needing 23 bullets to destroy her family? Why did she think just one or two would be sufficient for herself after she fired eight into her sons' heads and four into her dad's? The first bullet wasn't even aimed up into the brain, but perpendicular to her neck!!!
(I've never made any ref to shooting in Scotland). I don't think SC needed an extensive knowledge of firearms. If she was responsible she was clearly in some altered state of mind: psychosis or rage etc and went for any firearm and fired randomly. I don't think there would have been any weighing up of the advantages and disadvantages of rifle v shotgun. Why fire 5 shots at DC and yet 3 at NC?
With three or four shotguns to choose from and plenty of ammunition available; a shorter barrel therefore easier to reach the trigger; much more powerful than an Anschutz, so capable of doing extensive damage to the head with lights out using just one cartridge... wouldn't this have been a more logical decision?
If SC was responsible did logic come into it? I do think the one thing that gave SC some self-esteem was her physical appearance, particularly her face, and by shooting at her neck she saved her face. The fear of surviving and being grossly disfigured might have played a part. Or even how she appeared by those finding her.
If JB was responsible then surely he would have had similar thought processes to your own and used a shotgun? Especially when he would know ideally he needed to kill SC with one bullet? If he was able to position SC compliantly for the neck shot then why not aim at the temple, mouth or forehead which are all locations far more likely to result in death with one shot?
