About drawback or backspatter.

[adam]

All that you have proved is that that is how drawback is usually defined - but we also have an expert at trial who indicated that blood may have been deliberately put into the silencer.  I'm sure someone with forensic knowledge could make things look kosher - EP had their own Scenes of Crime dept. It wouldn't have been that difficult to fake in 1985.

Have you got a source on the court expert who said blood may have been deliberately put into the silencer ?

Did he say how to create a back splatter effect ?

[scipio_usmc]

All that you have proved is that that is how drawback is usually defined - but we also have an expert at trial who indicated that blood may have been deliberately put into the silencer.  I'm sure someone with forensic knowledge could make things look kosher - EP had their own Scenes of Crime dept. It wouldn't have been that difficult to fake in 1985.

He didn't say it may have been planted you are intentionally distorting.  He said the only way for blood to get inside would be through drawback or if someone intentionally placed it there. No one asked him what it would take in order to place blood inside so it would be distributed in he manner found.

The only way to get blood on the 8 baffles would be spraying it. The defense knew they had no ability to establish such a ridiculous thing.

Your positions are so irrational on this issue even Adam nailed you.

Adam pointed out that if Jeremy honestly believed the prosecution planted Sheila's blood and believed some of that blood was still inside then he would have feared it being found.  Your argument that he knew it wasn't used so knew her blood could not be found inside makes no sense if you and he assert it was planted.  Your whole argument was irrational from the outset.

It was even more irrational because convicted criminals even when guilty never have anything to lose in testing evidence. There is always hope the result can be spun in their favor and if it can't be spun in their favor no big loss because they can't receive a greater punishment as a result.  If they don't do the testing they for sure are not getting out so have nothing to lose in trying.

But you also ignore they previous tested it for blood and found none so Jeremy had an instant out even if Sheila's DNA were found.  Just say it wasn't blood based but rather contamination.

So your theory of why you believe Jeremy didn't use it makes no sense at all.  It is a completely illogical contradictory mess of an argument.

You want to cling to this mess desperately no matter what and thus are willing to twist anything you can find to try to salvage it including trying to pretend in court the prosecution expert suggested the blood might have been planted.  he made no such suggestion though he merely noted the only way for blood to get in a moderator is drawback or intentional planting blood can't be innocently transferred inside.

The defense didn't make any attempt to argue it was planted so he had no need to address if it were possible to plant blood so it would be distributed in he manner found and if it could be planted in such manner how to affect such.

[Caroline]

He didn't say it may have been planted you are intentionally distorting.  He said the only way for blood to get inside would be through drawback or if someone intentionally placed it there. No one asked him what it would take in order to place blood inside so it would be distributed in he manner found.

The only way to get blood on the 8 baffles would be spraying it. The defense knew they had no ability to establish such a ridiculous thing.

Your positions are so irrational on this issue even Adam nailed you.

Adam pointed out that if Jeremy honestly believed the prosecution planted Sheila's blood and believed some of that blood was still inside then he would have feared it being found.  Your argument that he knew it wasn't used so knew her blood could not be found inside makes no sense if you and he assert it was planted.  Your whole argument was irrational from the outset.

It was even more irrational because convicted criminals even when guilty never have anything to lose in testing evidence. There is always hope the result can be spun in their favor and if it can't be spun in their favor no big loss because they can't receive a greater punishment as a result.  If they don't do the testing they for sure are not getting out so have nothing to lose in trying.

But you also ignore they previous tested it for blood and found none so Jeremy had an instant out even if Sheila's DNA were found.  Just say it wasn't blood based but rather contamination.

So your theory of why you believe Jeremy didn't use it makes no sense at all.  It is a completely illogical contradictory mess of an argument.

You want to cling to this mess desperately no matter what and thus are willing to twist anything you can find to try to salvage it including trying to pretend in court the prosecution expert suggested the blood might have been planted.  he made no such suggestion though he merely noted the only way for blood to get in a moderator is drawback or intentional planting blood can't be innocently transferred inside.

The defense didn't make any attempt to argue it was planted so he had no need to address if it were possible to plant blood so it would be distributed in he manner found and if it could be planted in such manner how to affect such.

I didn't say he suggested anything of the sort BUT by saying that there are basically only two ways that blood could get inside the silencer - he is not discounting it as a possibility. If it were impossible, he wouldn't have mentioned it.

[Caroline]

Have you got a source on the court expert who said blood may have been deliberately put into the silencer ?

Did he say how to create a back splatter effect ?

You wouldn't know a backspatter effect from a mud pie!

[adam]

You wouldn't know a backspatter effect from a mud pie!

Jeremy's innocent. Why ? He wrote me nice letters.

[Caroline]

Jeremy's innocent. Why ? He wrote me nice letters.

Oh? Did he write to you as well? I guess the other board will be interested that you've changed stance!!

[scipio_usmc]

[quote removed]

Holly, you took a source that merely said a laundry list of things can have an impact on drawback and misrepresented that it stated drawback can't occur when a moderator is used.  The one spinning and not being truthful is in your mirror.  The same who claims she can better diagnose Sheila's mental issues than the doctor who treated her though there is very limited information available to even make an attempt to evaluate her independently.

As for Caroline instead of following the evidence she has simply decided she doesn't want to believe the moderator was used. Her reasoning is not based on evidence that refutes it was used but rather simply her desire to believe it wasn't.  When pushed to explain why she believes it she provides illogical claims not any rational ones and no evidence of any kind to suggest the blood was planted.

Adam is in left field most of the time and even Adam managed to come up with a very damning challenge to her. 

Caroline argued that Jeremy expected no DNA would be found because he didn't use the moderator.  Adam responded that if Jeremy truly believed that the police planted Sheila's blood then that means DNA could potentially be found.  Caroline's rationale was refuted.

I further pointed pout that it was because of 1999 tests for blood that proved negative that Jeremy knew there was no blood left in the moderator.  In fact in 1986 Jeremy knew from his own expert, Lincoln, that there was no visible blood present and that Lincoln found merely microscopic traces of blood and that since Lincoln removed what little blood remained there would not likely be any discernible blood found after that.

Moreover, the entire basis upon which Caroline was operating was false.  Guilty convicts routinely request DNA tests, they have nothing to lose since they are already convicted.  There is always hope to try to spin the results and that is what the defense hoped to do.  Jeremy's own expert said the tests never had any hope of demonstrating whose blood was removed from the moderator in 1985 and 1986. He is the one who talked all about how any DNA found could simply be the product of contamination.  Jeremy had an instant excuse if Sheila's DNA were found.

What Caroline should be evaluating is whether there is any evidence to suggest the blood was planted and blood was found in the rifle but this was concealed.  There is no such evidence to suggest either happened let alone both.  Caroline thus has no rational basis to believe the evidence was planted.  She doesn't even look at what it would entail to plant blood on the first 8 baffles - upper baffles mind you.

It is as good as claiming she believes a fingerprint was planted by police without being able to explain how let alone finding and evidence to prove it was done.

Rational, objective people believe wild things happen only when there is evidence to prove it.  if people choose to believe it in the absence of evidence then it is taking a leap of faith because of bias it is not objective.

[Caroline]

Holly, you took a source that merely said a laundry list of things can have an impact on drawback and misrepresented that it stated drawback can't occur when a moderator is used.  The one spinning and not being truthful is in your mirror.  The same who claims she can better diagnose Sheila's mental issues than the doctor who treated her though there is very limited information available to even make an attempt to evaluate her independently.

As for Caroline instead of following the evidence she has simply decided she doesn't want to believe the moderator was used. Her reasoning is not based on evidence that refutes it was used but rather simply her desire to believe it wasn't.  When pushed to explain why she believes it she provides illogical claims not any rational ones and no evidence of any kind to suggest the blood was planted.

Adam is in left field most of the time and even Adam managed to come up with a very damning challenge to her. 

Caroline argued that Jeremy expected no DNA would be found because he didn't use the moderator.  Adam responded that if Jeremy truly believed that the police planted Sheila's blood then that means DNA could potentially be found.  Caroline's rationale was refuted.

I further pointed pout that it was because of 1999 tests for blood that proved negative that Jeremy knew there was no blood left in the moderator.  In fact in 1986 Jeremy knew from his own expert, Lincoln, that there was no visible blood present and that Lincoln found merely microscopic traces of blood and that since Lincoln removed what little blood remained there would not likely be any discernible blood found after that.

Moreover, the entire basis upon which Caroline was operating was false.  Guilty convicts routinely request DNA tests, they have nothing to lose since they are already convicted.  There is always hope to try to spin the results and that is what the defense hoped to do.  Jeremy's own expert said the tests never had any hope of demonstrating whose blood was removed from the moderator in 1985 and 1986. He is the one who talked all about how any DNA found could simply be the product of contamination.  Jeremy had an instant excuse if Sheila's DNA were found.

What Caroline should be evaluating is whether there is any evidence to suggest the blood was planted and blood was found in the rifle but this was concealed.  There is no such evidence to suggest either happened let alone both.  Caroline thus has no rational basis to believe the evidence was planted.  She doesn't even look at what it would entail to plant blood on the first 8 baffles - upper baffles mind you.

It is as good as claiming she believes a fingerprint was planted by police without being able to explain how let alone finding and evidence to prove it was done.

Rational, objective people believe wild things happen only when there is evidence to prove it.  if people choose to believe it in the absence of evidence then it is taking a leap of faith because of bias it is not objective.

Caroline is pretty sure in her own mind that the silencer was never used an she won't be shifted. Irrational - NEVER!  &%&£(+

[Holly Goodhead]

I thought I would post this and link it in to my facebook and twitter accounts for the benefit of my 4 facebook friends and 2 twitter followers 

A central plank of the prosecution's case is that blood found its way inside the silencer by the phenomenon known as draw-back.  This is caused when a gunshot wound is inflicted with the barrel of a gun (or silencer?) in contact with the skin.  Or close contact ie 1mm - 2mm away from the surface of the skin.  When the trigger of a gun is pulled it releases a propellant.  The propellant generates propulsion and moves the bullet, obviously at tremendous speed.  When the propellant is ignited by the release of the trigger it generates hot gases which travel along with the bullet and once outside the end of the guns barrel or silencer will dissipate in the atmosphere.  However when the guns barrel (or silencer?) are in contact with the skin or close contact (1mm - 2mm) the hot gas will be unable to dissipate in the atmosphere so it can be sucked into the wound and then propel backwards into the guns barrel (or silencer?) taking with it blood and often other biological material eg skin tissue, bone fragments from the wound.  As the blood sample found in silencer matched SC's blood type/group the prosecution claim JB shot SC using the silencer and then returned it to the gun cupboard.

There's a plethora of info on the internet and youtube vids explaining the above.  Google how a gun works, how a bullet works, how a silencer works etc.

At JB's 2002 CoA hearing the firearms expert employed by the Home Office, Malcolm Fletcher, told the jury the following:

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.

458. If the shot to Shelia Caffell, which was a contact shot to the throat, had been fired without the moderator in place, he would have expected to find blood in the barrel of the gun. If the moderator was attached it was "virtually certain" that Sheila Caffell's blood would get into the moderator. There was, he said "a very slight possibility of it not happening, but very slight".

"Since the blood from inside the sound moderator belonged to the same group as Sheila Caffell, and since there was no blood inside the barrel of the rifle, I was led to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell had been shot whilst the sound moderator was fitted to the rifle."

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

At JB's trial the judge, Justice Drake, asked Malcolm Fletcher if there were any other possibilities to account for the blood being in the silencer.  He replied "The only other possibility is that it was put there deliberately".

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19861015&id=E4JDAAAAIBAJ&sjid=q6UMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4879,3440832

However what Malcolm Fletcher overlooked, either out of incompetence or being persuaded to be economical with the truth, is that a silencer reduces the gases ejected with the bullet quite considerably thus reducing the pounds per square inch (psi) from around 3000 psi to 60 psi.  With a silencer fitted to the guns barrel the bullet enters first an expansion chamber and then a number of baffles before it exits.  The expansion chamber and baffles allow the hot gases to expand and slow their release.  Meaning they dissipate in the silencer and the reduced amount that leaves the silencer does so slowly. 

The following animated second image depicts this beautifully 

http://www.industrytap.com/silencer-suppressor-inside-look-one-gun-enthusiasts-coolest-gadgets/26953

Dr Jon Nordby on page 6 states the following

"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."

http://www.finalanalysisforensics.com/media/pdfs/BasicBloodstainPatternAnalysisTEXT.pdf

This obviously puts a whole different complexion on the draw-back theory in JB's case and the central plank of the prosecution's case.

I think I am right in saying that Ann Eaton's husband, Peter Eaton, was a registered gun dealer.  I wonder if he was familiar with draw-back?   &%+((£ He was the person who handed the silencer to DS Jones having sat up drinking whisky with him  &%+((£

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3580

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3582

The victims' samples were handed to EP (see top of page):

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=204.msg2228#msg2228

I haven't seen this mentioned previously on either forum (Blue or Red).  Assuming it's new I can't take all the credit as without Scip starting up this thread - About drawback - I would not have researched the above.  So a big thanks to Scip   

This also shows that without vigorous debate and opposing views we would not be able to move forward in our quest for answers, albeit that JB has been found guilty in a court of law 

I found this on the OS.  It's JB's account of how a silencer works.

http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/silencer

Two things: Firstly JB states it was not legally possible to buy a silencer and yet I thought the Bamber owned Parker Hale silencer was purchased by NB and JB at Radcliffe's in Colchester along with the rifle and ammo?  I wonder why PE as a registered gun dealer didn't supply them?  Secondly I thought the purpose of a silencer was to eliminate the sound the gases make when they leave the barrel and hit the atmosphere with force?  I thought the only way of eliminating/reducing the supersonic crack was by reducing the velocity of the bullet taking it subsonic? 

[Holly Goodhead]

I found this on the OS.  It's JB's account of how a silencer works.

http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/silencer

Two things: Firstly JB states it was not legally possible to buy a silencer and yet I thought the Bamber owned Parker Hale silencer was purchased by NB and JB at Radcliffe's in Colchester along with the rifle and ammo?  I wonder why PE as a registered gun dealer didn't supply them?  Secondly I thought the purpose of a silencer was to eliminate the sound the gases make when they leave the barrel and hit the atmosphere with force?  I thought the only way of eliminating/reducing the supersonic crack was by reducing the velocity of the bullet taking it subsonic?

This vid how a silencer works seems to contradict JB's explanation above or am I missing the point?   &%+((£

JB's explanation how a silencer works

http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/silencer

A.N.Others explanation how a silencer works

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-keuXw5xfRs

I believe the words silencer, moderator, suppressor are interchangeable and in practice mean the same thing. 

[Holly Goodhead]

I think I am right in saying that some expert witnesses eg Dr Vanezis act for both prosecution and defence?  Their evidence is considered bipartisan?  Was this also the case with Malcolm Fletcher?  According to the following his title was 'Scientific Officer' with a BSc.  So it doesn't appear that he was an expert in ballistics although at the CoA/document he was described as the "firearms expert"  &%+((£

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=271.0;attach=871

I'm not sure how reliable the following press article is but assuming it is accurate it surely begs the question:

1.  If Daniel also received two contact gunshot wounds (both to head) why was his blood not in the silencer if MF is saying that a contact wound would result in draw-back ie blood being deposited in the barrel of the rifle or silencer if fitted?

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19861015&id=E4JDAAAAIBAJ&sjid=q6UMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4879,3440832

2. In the CoA doc MF states to some extent whether or not draw back occurs is dependent on the part of the body:

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.

So is MF saying draw-back will always occur with contact or near contact wounds (near contact being within 1mm of skin) but he was able to rule it out with Daniel based on the part of body?  My understanding is that draw-back and back spatter are more likely to occur with head wounds (although I am sure Scipio will be all too happy to tell me otherwise).

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

Also it doesn't appear that any firearms testing was carried out?  Only tests on whether someone of around SC's height could reach the trigger.  He also comments on breaking his nail (pah big girls blouse).  Yet he tells the court/judge that the only other explanation for the blood being found in the silencer ie other than draw-back is that someone deliberately placed it there.  So what tests did he carry out to eliminate this possibility?  None as far as I can see?  It surely must have been possible to set up a reconstruction to ascertain whether or not the way the blood was found in the silencer was there as a result of draw-back or not? 

If I'm reading this correctly and not missing the point this guy, Malcolm Fletcher, seems the ultimate in numptiness  &%+((£  In fact not only MF but surely the judge and Geoffrey Rivlin and Edmund Lawson would have switched on to the above? 

[scipio_usmc]

I found this on the OS.  It's JB's account of how a silencer works.

http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/silencer

Two things: Firstly JB states it was not legally possible to buy a silencer and yet I thought the Bamber owned Parker Hale silencer was purchased by NB and JB at Radcliffe's in Colchester along with the rifle and ammo?  I wonder why PE as a registered gun dealer didn't supply them?  Secondly I thought the purpose of a silencer was to eliminate the sound the gases make when they leave the barrel and hit the atmosphere with force?  I thought the only way of eliminating/reducing the supersonic crack was by reducing the velocity of the bullet taking it subsonic?

Jeremy was wrong about them being illegal in the UK and also wrong about how it works it has nothing to do with the sonic crack of the bullets.  The gases cause sound waves when they hit open air. The higher the pressure the louder the sound will be, the lower the pressure of the gases coming out the lower the noise it makes.

The bullets make their own sonic crack unless the bullets are subsonic as was the case with the ones at WHF.

The Eaton's mainly sold shotguns.  He went to them with his desires for a semi-auto shotgun.  They said they are unsporting so they didn't have access to them and would not be able to help him.  So he turned to someone else for a semi-auto but the only semi-auto Nevill would buy was the 22. 

[scipio_usmc]

I think I am right in saying that some expert witnesses eg Dr Vanezis act for both prosecution and defence?  Their evidence is considered bipartisan?  Was this also the case with Malcolm Fletcher?  According to the following his title was 'Scientific Officer' with a BSc.  So it doesn't appear that he was an expert in ballistics although at the CoA/document he was described as the "firearms expert"  &%+((£

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=271.0;attach=871

A witness is called by a specific party with the intention of having that witness provide a specific piece of testimony significant to what the side calling the witness wants to argue.   

The other side gets to cross examine the witness but it has to be about something related to their testimony.  If you want to ask them questions about things they didn't talk about in their testimony in chief you have to recall them to the stand when it is your turn to go.

All witnesses are supposed to tell the truth.  You know in advance generally what the prosecution witnesses are going to say.  If they are going to say something harmful you try to find your own witness to rebut them.  If you can't then on cross you try to ask questions that guts their testimony to the best extent you can.  If there is something that wasn't covered by their testimony and that you could not discuss on cross but you want it in the record you can call them to the stand when it is the turn of the defense.

 

I'm not sure how reliable the following press article is but assuming it is accurate it surely begs the question:

1.  If Daniel also received two contact gunshot wounds (both to head) why was his blood not in the silencer if MF is saying that a contact wound would result in draw-back ie blood being deposited in the barrel of the rifle or silencer if fitted?

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19861015&id=E4JDAAAAIBAJ&sjid=q6UMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4879,3440832

2. In the CoA doc MF states to some extent whether or not draw back occurs is dependent on the part of the body:

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.

So is MF saying draw-back will always occur with contact or near contact wounds (near contact being within 1mm of skin) but he was able to rule it out with Daniel based on the part of body?  My understanding is that draw-back and back spatter are more likely to occur with head wounds (although I am sure Scipio will be all too happy to tell me otherwise).

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

Also it doesn't appear that any firearms testing was carried out?  Only tests on whether someone of around SC's height could reach the trigger.  He also comments on breaking his nail (pah big girls blouse).  Yet he tells the court/judge that the only other explanation for the blood being found in the silencer ie other than draw-back is that someone deliberately placed it there.  So what tests did he carry out to eliminate this possibility?  None as far as I can see?  It surely must have been possible to set up a reconstruction to ascertain whether or not the way the blood was found in the silencer was there as a result of draw-back or not? 

If I'm reading this correctly and not missing the point this guy, Malcolm Fletcher, seems the ultimate in numptiness  &%+((£  In fact not only MF but surely the judge and Geoffrey Rivlin and Edmund Lawson would have switched on to the above?

He was not saying any and all contact wounds result in drawback.  He was talking about the wound to the neck under the exact circumstances of this case (there was a nearby wound that caused hemorrhaging inside thus her neck was a cavity full of blood and thus ideal for backspatter (drawback in the case of a contact wound).  It was an individualized assessment that such would would result in drawback.  Contact wounds CAN result in drawback they don't always- location of the wound plays a major role.  22 calibers RARELY result in backspatter (or in the case of contact shots drawback) when the location of the shot is the head.  Coroners very rarely find spatter/drawback fro 22 caliber head wounds. Experiments use various dummies not real heads and the dummies don't react the same way real human heads do.  So while testing produces spatter from .22 calibers in the real world environment it is rare.

The experts disagreed with whether they were contact shots of not to his head but even if they were drawback would not be that likely let alone a sure thing.

You don't see to want to face that each circumstance requires an individualized look at all the variables that come into play you can't just take a general rule and apply it across the board to all circumstances.

There would still be a chance of drawback if the fatal shot had been the only one fired but it would not have been a sure thing.  The reason it was a sure thing is because of the hemorrhaging in her neck from the first shot.  The two words a lawyer used most in response to question are "it depends" which means the answer is contingent upon the specific circumstances there is no rule that applies to all situations and the same it true for science.  You have to look at the exact circumstances.

[Myster]

Jeremy was wrong about them being illegal in the UK and also wrong about how it works it has nothing to do with the sonic crack of the bullets.  The gases cause sound waves when they hit open air. The higher the pressure the louder the sound will be, the lower the pressure of the gases coming out the lower the noise it makes.

The bullets make their own sonic crack unless the bullets are subsonic as was the case with the ones at WHF.

The Eaton's mainly sold shotguns.  He went to them with his desires for a semi-auto shotgun.  They said they are unsporting so they didn't have access to them and would not be able to help him.  So he turned to someone else for a semi-auto but the only semi-auto Nevill would buy was the 22.

The OS is writing absolute s***, as usual ... of all the people to ask about firearms they chose the one who killed his family!  If, after thirty years in jail "fighting" his case JB doesn't know how a moderator works and whether they're illegal or not, then there's no hope.

From Wikipedia...

In the United Kingdom, sales of suppressors fall into four categories of use. For replica and air guns, the purchase of a suppressor requires no license and in most cases, no identification requirement. For shotguns, these will probably require the presentation of the buyer's shotgun certificate but will not be recorded. If the shotgun is classified as a firearm (where capacity exceeds 3 cartridges) the firearm certificate (FAC) will need to show permission for the purchase of a suppressor. For a small- or full-bore rifle, the firearm certificate (FAC) will need to show permission for the purchase of a suppressor and also the firearm for which it is intended. All firearms certificates have the firearm and caliber approved by the police and annotated to the document before a suppressor may be purchased. Police forces usually approve applications for a suppressor for hunting and target shooters, as the risks of litigation for personal injury, especially high-tone deafness resulting from shooting-induced hearing loss, are significant; and noise pollution in general is a problem for shooting sports.

[Holly Goodhead]

Jeremy was wrong about them being illegal in the UK and also wrong about how it works it has nothing to do with the sonic crack of the bullets.  The gases cause sound waves when they hit open air. The higher the pressure the louder the sound will be, the lower the pressure of the gases coming out the lower the noise it makes.

The bullets make their own sonic crack unless the bullets are subsonic as was the case with the ones at WHF.

The Eaton's mainly sold shotguns.  He went to them with his desires for a semi-auto shotgun.  They said they are unsporting so they didn't have access to them and would not be able to help him.  So he turned to someone else for a semi-auto but the only semi-auto Nevill would buy was the 22.

I don't recall you explaining to either forum how silencers work prior to my links and explanation a few days ago?  If I'm wrong then please retrieve your post confirming otherwise?  You wouldn't by any chance be attempting to steal my thunder? 

NB and JB purchased the semi-auto rifle during Nov 1984.  JB approached PE re a semi-auto shotgun during July 1985.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=2169

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=2171

It's all hypocritical as shooters often have someone on hand re-loading another shooter during shoots.