Who do you think you are kidding? Nordby's simplistic definition doesn't even begin to discuss the 3 distinct causes of drawback which I posted about. I posted on purpose to show it has muliple causes and facets. The ONLY thing you care about is theat Nordby made the claim attachments sometimes alter drawback being found in the weapon. How? Well first of if long enough the drawback never reaches the weapon they sit in the attachment only. Smoe attachments don't have a flush face and have holes such as flash suppressors. This prevents the attachment from touching the body well and containing the blood of inhibits gases touchign but that doesn't mean the OTHER 2 causes of drawback still will not caus eit.
You are desperate to try to pretend that drawback will not end up in a mdoerator but it is wrong and documented in the field that bdrawback has ended up in moderators.
The defense couldn't find someone to rebut the proseuction expert's claims that the wound was a contact wound,that a contact wound in the location in question was virtually certain to result in drawback or rebut that drawback end sup in a moderator like the one belongign to the murder weapon.
Thinking you are going to find someone when the defense failed is just funny!
The link I provided to the document produced by Dr Nordby is entitled "Basic Bloodstain Pattern Analysis." You will note the word BASIC. It is intended as an overview for the everyday reader not a highly technical report. However he does make two good points that provide food for thought with regard to JB's case:
"b) The draw-back effect can be observed in contact gunshot wounds but
the effect(s) of compensators, suppressors and silencing devices as
well as any other intervening items may alter the outcome".
You will again note the words "CAN" and "MAY".
Everything I have read with regard to draw-back refers to blood being drawn back into the barrel of a gun. I have not read anything where silencers etc have been referred to. I am sure it is possible though otherwise Dr Nordby would say as much. In any event I think you misunderstand I am not saying that draw-back would not be possible with a silencer, what I am saying is that I have a question mark as to whether blood could have been drawn back into the silencer as far back as the 8th baffle. (I have previously stated 5th baffle but having re-read the CoA document I can see the general consensus at the hearing between the relevant expert witnesses and judges was that blood was seen as far back as the 8th baffle). I also have a question mark about the way in which the blood was distributed ie a flake and its actual location within the silencer along with general descriptions as to where other blood was found.
As far as I am aware JB's defence have never challenged the location and distribution of the blood in the silencer? The CoA doc states:
"457. Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, gave evidence to explain how blood got into the moderator if it was attached, or into the barrel if there was no moderator attached. He said that the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated. However, the expanding gas when the bullet left the muzzle was under normal circumstances distributed into the atmosphere. However with a contact shot there was no opportunity for this escape and the gas would follow the bullet into the wound as it expanded. Back pressure would then build up forcing the gas back out of the wound taking with it blood and tissue which would in effect be blasted back into the barrel if there was no moderator or into the moderator if one was attached. He said that even without direct contact, the same effect might occur but only if the gap between the end of the barrel, or the moderator if attached, and the skin was less than one millimetre. He said that the likelihood of such an occurrence was to an extent dependent on the part of the body to which the shot was delivered and the amount of blood present at that point".
Mr Fletcher states above "He said that the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated". This was at JB's trial. The CCRC referred JB's case to the CoA based on LCN DNA. It was not to challenge draw-back, the location of the blood and its distribution. As far as I am aware the CCRC application which was rejected 2012 didn't challenge these aspects either. You will also note above that Mr Fletcher states tissue would accompany the blood but there was no tissue just paint and a hair!
It should be possible for the likes of Dr Nordby to say whether or not the blood would have distributed as described by the expert witnesses in the CoA doc as a result of draw-back or whether it was contaminated either deliberately or accidentally:
Extracts from the CoA document which describe the location and distribution of the blood in the silencer:
"Scientific examination of the sound moderator 75. Traces of blood in the form of smears were found in three places on the outside of the moderator: on the flat surface at the muzzle end, in the knurled end and in the ridge at the gun end of the device. The blood on the outside of the moderator was confirmed to be of human origin but there were insufficient quantities to permit grouping analysis".
"Inside the moderator, on the four or five baffles nearest to the end from which the bullet would exit, there was a considerable amount of blood. At one point blood had pooled to form a flake when it dried, and this flake was subjected to group testing".
"a considerable amount of blood" inside the moderator deposited in the spaces to the sides of the baffles around the edge of the silencer".
"He suggested that the flake, which was a quarter of an inch across"
"Mr Hayward states that he could detect visible staining on the "upper baffle plates"
"Mr Hayward gave evidence of having found "a considerable amount of blood" on the "few" baffles nearest to the muzzle end. He had not noted the number of baffles but from recollection thought that it was about five".
"Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, gave evidence that he had seen blood which went down as far as the fifth baffle and he thought that there might have been a little further in as well, may be the sixth or seventh baffle".
"Dr Lincoln recorded that on the 29 April 1986, he examined all seventeen baffles and obtained weak or very weak positive reactions indicating the presence of blood on the first eight baffles. There was no blood visible to the naked eye. He thought the findings could have been consistent with swabbing to remove bloodstains for
testing. Tests on the remaining nine baffles proved negative".
"On 8 September 1986, Dr Lincoln discussed the matter with Mr Hayward and Mr Hayward told him that there was visible blood on the first four, five or six baffle plates and "the blood staining appeared to diminish as one progressed through the baffle plates". Mr Hayward said that he had swabbed the upper baffle plates and obtained the groupings A, EAP BA. Mr Hayward had also described to Dr Lincoln the removal of the flake found trapped beneath either the first or second baffle".
"Thus it is clear that no blood was ever seen by any of those who had examined the baffles on any baffle beyond the eighth one from the bullet exiting end and nor have any tests revealed the presence of blood beyond this point. Dr Lincoln in April 1986 specifically tested all the baffles for blood and found no trace of any beyond the eighth baffle"
"Indications of blood were originally detected on the end cap, the washer, the first *eight baffles and the screw threads at the end of the sound moderator. No blood was detected on the remaining *nine baffles".
*I thought the Parker Hale silencer had 15 baffles not 17 as above? I'm baffled if I know
