About drawback or backspatter.

[Holly Goodhead]

Thanks for transposing the following Skip.  My comments follow below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge Drake: I think I have Nicholas Caffell, the muzzle was in contact with the skin.  You would have expected to find blood from Nicholas inside the sound moderator if used, or the barrel of the rifle if not?

Fletcher: There is one rider I can add.  You have to take into account the position of the actual wounds themselves, and the amount of blood available at those particular points, that could come out.

Judge Drake:  That is a very important qualification.  I was going to put to you how do you account for the fact that no one has found traces of Nicholas’s blood in the sound moderator or in the barrel of the gun.

Fletcher: It could be due purely to that rider sir, to the availability.

Judge Drake: So you said a moment ago if the muzzle or sound moderator which was in contact, you think would have certainly have got blood in the sound moderator, but you qualify that by now saying dependent upon the wound?

Fletcher: Well the amount inside the muzzle would depend on the amount of blood available to come back out of the wound, depending where the wound was.

…

Arlidge:  What did that evidence indicate to you?  We have also heard the blood was in there and it bore the same grouping as Sheila Caffell’s.  The expert looked at that also dealt with this and he said there was a remote possibility it could have been a mix of June and Ralph Bambers’.

Fletcher: Yes

Arlidge: What do you say from what you see about the contact wound, and what you hear about the blood sample?

Fletcher:  My opinion on this is that the blood in the sound moderator was due to the contact shot o the neck of Sheila Caffell.  The mechanism whereby the blood gets in there is quite complicated, and it is probably not fully appreciated yet but simply the expanding gas when the bullet goes out of the muzzle, under normal circumstances distributes and expands in the atmosphere, but with a contact shot where the muzzle of the gun, whether it be a sound moderator, muzzle or whatever, is pressed into contact with, in this particular case, the skin, then the expanding gas follows the bullet into the wound, and it will expand in whatever direction it is easiest for it to take.  It is quite well known that you will get a back pressure fro this expanding gas, coming back out of the wound taking with it blood and tissue.  It will be that effect which blasts the blood and the tissue back into the gun, into the sound moderator.

Arlidge:  If it is not in contact with the skin, but is say a short way apart form the skin, can one get the same effect or not?

Fletcher: I think if you have got very close proximity, we are talking something like a illimeter distance between the skin and the front of the sound moderator, you could still get that effect.  But anything greater than that, no.

Judge Drake: A millimeter is a tiny tiny distance.

Fletcher: It is yes, my lord.

Arlidge: Because if it is in contact with the skin seen the size of the hole at the end of the moderator.  If it goes back in the moderator it has to get through that small hole?

Fletcher: Yes

Arlidge: If the moderator is backed from the skin at all, if there was any blood that came out would you expect to see a lot on the outside? 

Fletcher: If we are talking about the same particular wound at a slightly greater range, yes I would.

Judge Drake:  I have not followed that.

Fletcher: If the wound we are interested in, the contact wound here.  If the muzzle of the gun had in fact been a short distance away form the skin the amount of blood coming out, it would have sprayed around the front end of the moderator.  I would have expected more blood around the outside.

Judge Drake: SO if it is in contact you may get it inside the moderator? 

Fletcher: You would get it inside the moderator.  It is virtually certain my lord.  There is a very slight possibility of it not happening, but very slight.

Judge Drake: A little away you would expect it to get on the outside?

Fletcher: Indeed yes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

This is the third time I have typed my response to this and lost it     Third time lucky! 

1.  By Malcolm Fletcher's (MF) own admission:
 
"The mechanism (draw-back) whereby the blood gets in there (silencer) is quite complicated, and it is probably not fully appreciated..."

Was it evidence the jury could rely upon given MF's statement above?

2.  MF then goes on to explain the mechanics of draw-back:

..." but simply the expanding gas when the bullet goes out of the muzzle, under normal circumstances distributes and expands in the atmosphere, but with a contact shot where the muzzle of the gun, whether it be a sound moderator, muzzle or whatever, is pressed into contact with, in this particular case, the skin, then the expanding gas follows the bullet into the wound, and it will expand in whatever direction it is easiest for it to take.  It is quite well known that you will get a back pressure fro this expanding gas, coming back out of the wound taking with it blood and tissue.  It will be that effect which blasts the blood and the tissue back into the gun, into the sound moderator".

However he appears to fail to take into account that silencers contain expansion chambers and baffles causing the gases to cool and reduce within the silencer:

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

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/a-silencer-cut-in-half-is-pretty-cool-indeed-1689112501

Was MF aware of this?

3.  MF refers to accompanying tissue and yet there was no tissue (other than perhaps a tissue of lies  ) just blood, paint and a grey strand of hair!

4. Justice Drake asks MF to account for the fact that NC also suffered a contact wound to the head and yet his blood type/group was not found in the silencer.  MF's response:

"There is one rider I can add.  You have to take into account the position of the actual wounds themselves, and the amount of blood available at those particular points, that could come out".

My understanding is that the most likely anatomical location for draw-back to occur is a gunshot wound to the head.

5.  There doesn't appear to be any scientific research/evidence to support any of MF's assertions.  As far as I can see no reconstruction was undertaken by way of gunfire testing and/or maths/physics applied.  The only testing amounted to the scientists using others with a similar build to SC to determine whether or not they could reach the trigger with the silencer attached.

6.  The language is anything but scientific:

Anthony Arlidge QC:

"a short way apart form the skin"  What is the definition of "a short way apart from the skin"?  Any numerical data?

MF:

"a slightly greater range"  What is the definition of "a slightly greater range"?  Any numerical data?

"a short distance away"  What is the definition of "a short distance away"?  Any numerical data?

Justice Drake:

"a little away"  What is the definition of "a little away"?  Any numerical data?

In the absence of any numerical data how can anything meaningful be applied to the above  &%+((£

7. Roger Wilkes states in his book that the government sent in a team to FSS, Huntingdon post JB's case due to failures although this was not specific to JB's case.  If the above is anything to go by I think I can see why.

[scipio_usmc]

Thanks for transposing the following Skip.  My comments follow below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge Drake: I think I have Nicholas Caffell, the muzzle was in contact with the skin.  You would have expected to find blood from Nicholas inside the sound moderator if used, or the barrel of the rifle if not?

Fletcher: There is one rider I can add.  You have to take into account the position of the actual wounds themselves, and the amount of blood available at those particular points, that could come out.

Judge Drake:  That is a very important qualification.  I was going to put to you how do you account for the fact that no one has found traces of Nicholas’s blood in the sound moderator or in the barrel of the gun.

Fletcher: It could be due purely to that rider sir, to the availability.

Judge Drake: So you said a moment ago if the muzzle or sound moderator which was in contact, you think would have certainly have got blood in the sound moderator, but you qualify that by now saying dependent upon the wound?

Fletcher: Well the amount inside the muzzle would depend on the amount of blood available to come back out of the wound, depending where the wound was.

…

Arlidge:  What did that evidence indicate to you?  We have also heard the blood was in there and it bore the same grouping as Sheila Caffell’s.  The expert looked at that also dealt with this and he said there was a remote possibility it could have been a mix of June and Ralph Bambers’.

Fletcher: Yes

Arlidge: What do you say from what you see about the contact wound, and what you hear about the blood sample?

Fletcher:  My opinion on this is that the blood in the sound moderator was due to the contact shot o the neck of Sheila Caffell.  The mechanism whereby the blood gets in there is quite complicated, and it is probably not fully appreciated yet but simply the expanding gas when the bullet goes out of the muzzle, under normal circumstances distributes and expands in the atmosphere, but with a contact shot where the muzzle of the gun, whether it be a sound moderator, muzzle or whatever, is pressed into contact with, in this particular case, the skin, then the expanding gas follows the bullet into the wound, and it will expand in whatever direction it is easiest for it to take.  It is quite well known that you will get a back pressure fro this expanding gas, coming back out of the wound taking with it blood and tissue.  It will be that effect which blasts the blood and the tissue back into the gun, into the sound moderator.

Arlidge:  If it is not in contact with the skin, but is say a short way apart form the skin, can one get the same effect or not?

Fletcher: I think if you have got very close proximity, we are talking something like a illimeter distance between the skin and the front of the sound moderator, you could still get that effect.  But anything greater than that, no.

Judge Drake: A millimeter is a tiny tiny distance.

Fletcher: It is yes, my lord.

Arlidge: Because if it is in contact with the skin seen the size of the hole at the end of the moderator.  If it goes back in the moderator it has to get through that small hole?

Fletcher: Yes

Arlidge: If the moderator is backed from the skin at all, if there was any blood that came out would you expect to see a lot on the outside? 

Fletcher: If we are talking about the same particular wound at a slightly greater range, yes I would.

Judge Drake:  I have not followed that.

Fletcher: If the wound we are interested in, the contact wound here.  If the muzzle of the gun had in fact been a short distance away form the skin the amount of blood coming out, it would have sprayed around the front end of the moderator.  I would have expected more blood around the outside.

Judge Drake: SO if it is in contact you may get it inside the moderator? 

Fletcher: You would get it inside the moderator.  It is virtually certain my lord.  There is a very slight possibility of it not happening, but very slight.

Judge Drake: A little away you would expect it to get on the outside?

Fletcher: Indeed yes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

This is the third time I have typed my response to this and lost it     Third time lucky! 

1.  By Malcolm Fletcher's (MF) own admission:
 
"The mechanism (draw-back) whereby the blood gets in there (silencer) is quite complicated, and it is probably not fully appreciated..."

Was it evidence the jury could rely upon given MF's statement above?

Yes just because we don't fully understand everything about backspatter and drawback that doesn't prevent us from knowing enough about it to use it in court.  We know enough to knwo that it has to be extremely close to get more than 5mm deep in a muzzle and that if a gun is fired more than 1.5 inches away then it has little chance of going inside even 5mm.

2.  MF then goes on to explain the mechanics of draw-back:

..." but simply the expanding gas when the bullet goes out of the muzzle, under normal circumstances distributes and expands in the atmosphere, but with a contact shot where the muzzle of the gun, whether it be a sound moderator, muzzle or whatever, is pressed into contact with, in this particular case, the skin, then the expanding gas follows the bullet into the wound, and it will expand in whatever direction it is easiest for it to take.  It is quite well known that you will get a back pressure fro this expanding gas, coming back out of the wound taking with it blood and tissue.  It will be that effect which blasts the blood and the tissue back into the gun, into the sound moderator".

However he appears to fail to take into account that silencers contain expansion chambers and baffles causing the gases to cool and reduce within the silencer:

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

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/a-silencer-cut-in-half-is-pretty-cool-indeed-1689112501

Was MF aware of this?

You are failing to take into account that it doesn't STOP gases from coming out and the gases that come out still go inside the wound effecting it.  You are also failing to take into account the other 2 mechanisms that cause drawback drawback.  You want to pretend that when a moderator is attached drawback can't occur but it is documented as occurring in moderators.  That is why you fialed to find any source that states drawback will not ofccur when a moderator is attached.  Since you coudln't find such a claim becaus eit is untrue you made it up yourself.  Making is up yourself because you are biased just demonstrates your bias and desperation nothing more.  Not only has drawback in moderators been used to convict but also to exonerate.

On blue someone brought up a MOJ from New Zealand. One of the reaosns for the conviction was the claim that a shot was fired too far away to have been suicide. On appeal the fact drawback was found in the moderator that was attached to the murder weapon was used to help prove it was a contact shot and thus could indeed have been fired by the victim into his own head.  The weapon was a 22LR rifle with moderator.   

The following is not claiming the blood went all the way through the suppressor into the rifle muzzle.  By rifle muzzle it means the sound suppressor:

3.  MF refers to accompanying tissue and yet there was no tissue (other than perhaps a tissue of lies  ) just blood, paint and a grey strand of hair!

There doesn't have to be any other tissue.  Your own sources said it is rare for there to be other tissue present.  You always ignore the facts and evidence to pretend things are as you wish them to be instead of facing how things are.

This is from the first source you posted:


 
Do you know what the word "occasionally" means?  It doesn't seem that you do because you keep insisting tissue beyond blood tissue is always present though your sources state otherwise.

This is from the last source you posted:

"The term backspatter can be used to describe any tissue which is ejected from a gunshot entrance wound, such as skin, subcutaneous tissue, brain matter or bone. However, blood has been the main focus of backspatter research in the literature, possibly because it is often the predominant substance that is ejected and is usually visible with the naked eye. Therefore, for the purposes of this review, the term backspatter will be used in reference to blood only unless otherwise stated."

Until DNA testing other tissue didn't matter at all and other tissue is still often too small to get DNA results so blood is still the main focus of backspatter. Even if they had found tiny pieces of skin tissue under a mocroscope there would not have been any reason to mention it.

4. Justice Drake asks MF to account for the fact that NC also suffered a contact wound to the head and yet his blood type/group was not found in the silencer.  MF's response:

"There is one rider I can add.  You have to take into account the position of the actual wounds themselves, and the amount of blood available at those particular points, that could come out".

My understanding is that the most likely anatomical location for draw-back to occur is a gunshot wound to the head.

I have already shown your understanding to be wrong.  .22LR shots to the head are highly unlikely to result in spatter one of the rare exceptions was in the New Zealand case noted above.  A blood filled cavity anywhere on the body is ripe for spatter and drawback in the event of a contact wound.  You are too biased to bother trying to comprehend the materials that have already been discussed ad nauseum.  You have to evaluate based on the exact features of the area in question specifically the blood properties of that area and the skin properties. The area in question was a neck full of blood from a prior wound that had hemmorhaged. You want to ignore doing a specific inquiry of the exact location and instead to just pretend only head shots result in back spatter/drawback.  You want to pretend because of your agenda prevents you from facing things honestly.

5.  There doesn't appear to be any scientific research/evidence to support any of MF's assertions.  As far as I can see no reconstruction was undertaken by way of gunfire testing and/or maths/physics applied.  The only testing amounted to the scientists using others with a similar build to SC to determine whether or not they could reach the trigger with the silencer attached.

Testing isn't required for things already documented by science. It's documented and accepted that drawback gets in moderators.  it is documented that contact wounds to areas like a blood filled neck cause spatter.  That is why the defense had no ability to use any experts to challenge such. A source you posted noted the limitaitons of testing and thus why real world observations are important because there is no way to build a dummy that behaves like a human body.  You are so busy trying to support your agenda you don't bother to actually learn anything from the sources you post.

The testing that they had to do concerned the possibility of blood drying before subsequent victim blood got inside and the possibility of the blood not intimately mixing.  Those tests proved the blood would mix from the vibrations and that the moderator didn't get hot enough to rapidly dry the blood.  That they didn't have documented answers to so had to test.  They didn't know if someone of Sheila's stature would be able to kill herself with the moderator attached so had to test to see.

6.  The language is anything but scientific:

Anthony Arlidge QC:

"a short way apart form the skin"  What is the definition of "a short way apart from the skin"?  Any numerical data?

MF:

"a slightly greater range"  What is the definition of "a slightly greater range"?  Any numerical data?

"a short distance away"  What is the definition of "a short distance away"?  Any numerical data?

Justice Drake:

"a little away"  What is the definition of "a little away"?  Any numerical data?

In the absence of any numerical data how can anything meaningful be applied to the above  &%+((£

More evidence of you trying to spin for naught.  His testimony was that more than a millimeter away not much would get inside so it had to be 1mm or less from the skin when fired. he sources I posted already went into the details of this regarding how it won't be able to get more than 5mm deep except in contact range situations. It was determiend to be a contact wound so this is not an issue.  If it had not been a contact wound then it would be an issue how it coudl have gotten more than 5mm deep inside.

7. Roger Wilkes states in his book that the government sent in a team to FSS, Huntingdon post JB's case due to failures although this was not specific to JB's case.  If the above is anything to go by I think I can see why.

All you have done above is deomonstrate your own bias and refusal to face facts nothing more.

[Holly Goodhead]

The calibre (opening) of the silencer/gun is .22 = 0.220 inches = 5.6mm.  We are told that the flake of blood found in the silencer measured a 1/4 of an inch = 6.35mm.  Clearly the flake would have had difficulty squeezing through this small hole so we are told it "pooled" to form a flake    Yet gunshot wounds produce high velocity spatter that produce a fine mist.  This mist produces fine particles no greater than 2mm.  See diagram below also contained in link.

http://www.crimescene-forensics.com/Crime_Scene_Forensics/Bloodstains.html

How did the scientists know that the blood had "pooled"?

[Holly Goodhead]

Any blood found at a soc needs to be carefully preserved and placed into a refrigerator asap.  Failure to do so is likely to render the blood based exhibits as useless as they will degrade and be incapable of producing blood type/group results.  The prosecution claim the silencer was found by the relatives on the Friday after the murders occurred during the early hours of Wednesday morning.  It was then transported to Oak Farm where it remained for a day or so until collected by DS Jones who didn't seem in any sort of hurry to get it back to the station and into the correct storage facilities eg right temperature etc.  In fact DS Jones sat around drinking whisky with PE.

The prosecution also claim that the silencer was used throughout the shootings/murders and a total of 25 shots were fired with the last two inflicted on SC.  As can be seen in the following animated diagram when a silencer is used it allows the hot gasses to expand in the expansion chamber and slows their release by trapping them in between the baffles.  What effect would the cumulative effect of this heat from firing 25 shots have on the silencer and in turn what effect would this have on the high impact spatter that "pooled" to form a flake?  Even if the temperature of the silencer was normal when SC suffered her fatal shot, draw-back would suck the blood back upon discharge and the hot gases, albeit much reduced, would still be slowly leaving the silencer?

The flake of blood must have been robust to withstand the heat within the silencer and the delay from leaving WHF to its eventual storage at the storage/refrigerator facilities at EP?  Was it possible for the flake of blood to withstand all of this and still be capable of producing blood group/type results?   



[attachment deleted by admin]

[Holly Goodhead]

Yes just because we don't fully understand everything about backspatter and drawback that doesn't prevent us from knowing enough about it to use it in court.  We know enough to knwo that it has to be extremely close to get more than 5mm deep in a muzzle and that if a gun is fired more than 1.5 inches away then it has little chance of going inside even 5mm.

Really  &%+((£ 

So to summarise then we have SC and DC with contact wounds.  SC's wound was the only wound to produce draw-back sufficient to produce blood type/group results. 

DC also suffered other close proximity wounds.  June suffered a close proximity wound between the eyes which MF thought "unlikely" to be contact.  NB's head and facial shots were fired when the gun was only inches away from his skin and yet none of these shots produced sufficient back spatter internally (inside the barrel of the  gun or silencer) or externally (on the outside of the gun) to produce blood type/group results?

You are failing to take into account that it doesn't STOP gases from coming out and the gases that come out still go inside the wound effecting it.  You are also failing to take into account the other 2 mechanisms that cause drawback drawback.  You want to pretend that when a moderator is attached drawback can't occur but it is documented as occurring in moderators.  That is why you fialed to find any source that states drawback will not ofccur when a moderator is attached.  Since you coudln't find such a claim becaus eit is untrue you made it up yourself.  Making is up yourself because you are biased just demonstrates your bias and desperation nothing more.  Not only has drawback in moderators been used to convict but also to exonerate.

Please find one of my posts where I have stated that draw-back is impossible with a silencer.  I have stated it reduces the gases and pound force per square inch, which it does.  It seems obvious to me that draw-back is less likely to occur with a silencer and this is something that Malcolm Fletcher failed to take into account.  The other biological factors you refer to, that in your opinion impact draw-back, were not discussed at trial.

On blue someone brought up a MOJ from New Zealand. One of the reaosns for the conviction was the claim that a shot was fired too far away to have been suicide. On appeal the fact drawback was found in the moderator that was attached to the murder weapon was used to help prove it was a contact shot and thus could indeed have been fired by the victim into his own head.  The weapon was a 22LR rifle with moderator.   
The following is not claiming the blood went all the way through the suppressor into the rifle muzzle.  By rifle muzzle it means the sound suppressor:

Yes there are some striking similarities between the Bain and Bamber cases.

Can I ask that you provide links to full documents please instead of spoon-feeding me snippets.  I have attached the full document you are referring to as a PDF.  The relevant page is 84.  I don't really see the relevance.  In the Bain case blood was found around the mouth (opening) of the silencer.  In the Bamber case the flake was found under the 1st and 2nd baffles and other blood was found as far back as the 8th baffle.  You will also note on page 85 it states:

"Law Office acknowledges that the relevant literature reveals “unsurprisingly, [the Crown’s choice of word] the literature shows that contact wounds are likely indicative of suicide rather than homicide.”

 

There doesn't have to be any other tissue.  Your own sources said it is rare for there to be other tissue present.  You always ignore the facts and evidence to pretend things are as you wish them to be instead of facing how things are.

This is from the first source you posted:


 
Do you know what the word "occasionally" means?  It doesn't seem that you do because you keep insisting tissue beyond blood tissue is always present though your sources state otherwise.

This is from the last source you posted:

"The term backspatter can be used to describe any tissue which is ejected from a gunshot entrance wound, such as skin, subcutaneous tissue, brain matter or bone. However, blood has been the main focus of backspatter research in the literature, possibly because it is often the predominant substance that is ejected and is usually visible with the naked eye. Therefore, for the purposes of this review, the term backspatter will be used in reference to blood only unless otherwise stated."

Until DNA testing other tissue didn't matter at all and other tissue is still often too small to get DNA results so blood is still the main focus of backspatter. Even if they had found tiny pieces of skin tissue under a mocroscope there would not have been any reason to mention it.

You conflate back spatter and draw-back. They are quite separate.  Do you do this intentionally to confuse or do you genuinely misunderstand?  In many instances draw-back will cause not only blood to be drawn back into the barrel or silencer but other biological material too eg skin tissue and fragments of bone.  May I suggest you re-read the trial transcript again where MF has twice made reference to the fact that tissue is drawn-back with blood.  He was obviously reading from a text book given that there was no skin tissue found in the silencer!

I have already shown your understanding to be wrong.  .22LR shots to the head are highly unlikely to result in spatter one of the rare exceptions was in the New Zealand case noted above.  A blood filled cavity anywhere on the body is ripe for spatter and drawback in the event of a contact wound.  You are too biased to bother trying to comprehend the materials that have already been discussed ad nauseum.  You have to evaluate based on the exact features of the area in question specifically the blood properties of that area and the skin properties. The area in question was a neck full of blood from a prior wound that had hemmorhaged. You want to ignore doing a specific inquiry of the exact location and instead to just pretend only head shots result in back spatter/drawback.  You want to pretend because of your agenda prevents you from facing things honestly.

All the literature shows that draw-back and back spatter are far more likely to occur with head shots.  Anyone can Google along the lines of 'most likely anatomical location for back spatter' and they can check it our for themselves.

Testing isn't required for things already documented by science. It's documented and accepted that drawback gets in moderators.  it is documented that contact wounds to areas like a blood filled neck cause spatter.  That is why the defense had no ability to use any experts to challenge such. A source you posted noted the limitaitons of testing and thus why real world observations are important because there is no way to build a dummy that behaves like a human body.  You are so busy trying to support your agenda you don't bother to actually learn anything from the sources you post.

The testing that they had to do concerned the possibility of blood drying before subsequent victim blood got inside and the possibility of the blood not intimately mixing.  Those tests proved the blood would mix from the vibrations and that the moderator didn't get hot enough to rapidly dry the blood.  That they didn't have documented answers to so had to test.  They didn't know if someone of Sheila's stature would be able to kill herself with the moderator attached so had to test to see.

More evidence of you trying to spin for naught.  His testimony was that more than a millimeter away not much would get inside so it had to be 1mm or less from the skin when fired. he sources I posted already went into the details of this regarding how it won't be able to get more than 5mm deep except in contact range situations. It was determiend to be a contact wound so this is not an issue.  If it had not been a contact wound then it would be an issue how it coudl have gotten more than 5mm deep inside.

All you have done above is deomonstrate your own bias and refusal to face facts nothing more.

If draw-back (not back spatter) into silencers is common place then please provide some links for us to read.  When I say links I mean links not snippets of information that you wish to push to support your propaganda. 

Draw-back ie blood being drawn back into the barrel of a gun is a rare phenomenon and even rarer with a silencer attached.  Then add in other facts like the anatomical location was a neck wound which produced draw-back without any other accompanying biological material, the small calibre weapon, low velocity bullets and the fact that the blood flake didn't degrade despite being kept unrefridgerated for several days during the height of summer and its not looking good 

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Holly Goodhead]

This isn't really relevant to the thread but as it's only a minor point I thought it could live here 

"In many cases, the body's absorption of the muzzle blast will act as a suppressor, trapping the propellant gases under the skin and muffling the sound of the shot".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_shot

This could potentially mean that if SC shot herself with the gun against her skin while EP were outside then a contact wound would reduce the sound as in effect it acts as a suppressor (silencer).

[scipio_usmc]

The calibre (opening) of the silencer/gun is .22 = 0.220 inches = 5.6mm.  We are told that the flake of blood found in the silencer measured a 1/4 of an inch = 6.35mm.  Clearly the flake would have had difficulty squeezing through this small hole so we are told it "pooled" to form a flake    Yet gunshot wounds produce high velocity spatter that produce a fine mist.  This mist produces fine particles no greater than 2mm.  See diagram below also contained in link.

http://www.crimescene-forensics.com/Crime_Scene_Forensics/Bloodstains.html

How did the scientists know that the blood had "pooled"?

You continue to embarrass yourself.  A flake of blood is by deifnition dry.  What dry blood would be flying out of a victim  into the moderator?  The flake was stuck to the moderator because it dried to it.  The blood collected into that collection AKA pooled in that location and dried forming a flake.

[scipio_usmc]

Any blood found at a soc needs to be carefully preserved and placed into a refrigerator asap.  Failure to do so is likely to render the blood based exhibits as useless as they will degrade and be incapable of producing blood type/group results.  The prosecution claim the silencer was found by the relatives on the Friday after the murders occurred during the early hours of Wednesday morning.  It was then transported to Oak Farm where it remained for a day or so until collected by DS Jones who didn't seem in any sort of hurry to get it back to the station and into the correct storage facilities eg right temperature etc.  In fact DS Jones sat around drinking whisky with PE.

The prosecution also claim that the silencer was used throughout the shootings/murders and a total of 25 shots were fired with the last two inflicted on SC.  As can be seen in the following animated diagram when a silencer is used it allows the hot gasses to expand in the expansion chamber and slows their release by trapping them in between the baffles.  What effect would the cumulative effect of this heat from firing 25 shots have on the silencer and in turn what effect would this have on the high impact spatter that "pooled" to form a flake?  Even if the temperature of the silencer was normal when SC suffered her fatal shot, draw-back would suck the blood back upon discharge and the hot gases, albeit much reduced, would still be slowly leaving the silencer?

The flake of blood must have been robust to withstand the heat within the silencer and the delay from leaving WHF to its eventual storage at the storage/refrigerator facilities at EP?  Was it possible for the flake of blood to withstand all of this and still be capable of producing blood group/type results?   

It is documented that the heat in a mdoerator doesn't destroy DNA and blood grouping results.  In fact the heat isn't even sufficient to rapidly dry the blood. 

[scipio_usmc]

Really  &%+((£ 

So to summarise then we have SC and DC with contact wounds.  SC's wound was the only wound to produce draw-back sufficient to produce blood type/group results. 

DC also suffered other close proximity wounds.  June suffered a close proximity wound between the eyes which MF thought "unlikely" to be contact.  NB's head and facial shots were fired when the gun was only inches away from his skin and yet none of these shots produced sufficient back spatter internally (inside the barrel of the  gun or silencer) or externally (on the outside of the gun) to produce blood type/group results?


Please find one of my posts where I have stated that draw-back is impossible with a silencer.  I have stated it reduces the gases and pound force per square inch, which it does.  It seems obvious to me that draw-back is less likely to occur with a silencer and this is something that Malcolm Fletcher failed to take into account.  The other biological factors you refer to, that in your opinion impact draw-back, were not discussed at trial.

Yes there are some striking similarities between the Bain and Bamber cases.

Can I ask that you provide links to full documents please instead of spoon-feeding me snippets.  I have attached the full document you are referring to as a PDF.  The relevant page is 84.  I don't really see the relevance.  In the Bain case blood was found around the mouth (opening) of the silencer.  In the Bamber case the flake was found under the 1st and 2nd baffles and other blood was found as far back as the 8th baffle.  You will also note on page 85 it states:

"Law Office acknowledges that the relevant literature reveals “unsurprisingly, [the Crown’s choice of word] the literature shows that contact wounds are likely indicative of suicide rather than homicide.”

 

You conflate back spatter and draw-back. They are quite separate.  Do you do this intentionally to confuse or do you genuinely misunderstand?  In many instances draw-back will cause not only blood to be drawn back into the barrel or silencer but other biological material too eg skin tissue and fragments of bone.  May I suggest you re-read the trial transcript again where MF has twice made reference to the fact that tissue is drawn-back with blood.  He was obviously reading from a text book given that there was no skin tissue found in the silencer!

All the literature shows that draw-back and back spatter are far more likely to occur with head shots.  Anyone can Google along the lines of 'most likely anatomical location for back spatter' and they can check it our for themselves.


If draw-back (not back spatter) into silencers is common place then please provide some links for us to read.  When I say links I mean links not snippets of information that you wish to push to support your propaganda. 

Draw-back ie blood being drawn back into the barrel of a gun is a rare phenomenon and even rarer with a silencer attached.  Then add in other facts like the anatomical location was a neck wound which produced draw-back without any other accompanying biological material, the small calibre weapon, low velocity bullets and the fact that the blood flake didn't degrade despite being kept unrefridgerated for several days during the height of summer and its not looking good 

Daniel MIGHT have suffered a contact wound they were unable to say for sure.  The lcoation of his wound though was one that would not be likely to result in drawback.  The only definite contact wound was to Sheila and it was a location virtually certain to result in drawback.  The other wounds would not result in blood mor ethan 5mm deep into the weapon so the blood could not have been from any other victim.

Moderators are rarely used in the commission of murders and when they are used they are mostly homemade models which are disposed of afterwards so that is why it is not common to hear about drawback in moderators.  They are not commonly used let alone commonly used for contact shots.

You do your own legwork of trying to find an expert who will establish drawback will not get several inches inside the mdoerator.  There is a reason you can't find any such claims- that is because what you hope to find is untrue.  The is why neither the trial defense nor appeal lawyers could find any scientific evidence to establish drawback can't get several inches inside a moderator.   You had no better success than them which  is why you took generalized claims and tried to twist the to pretend they stated drawback will not occur with moderators.

   

[Holly Goodhead]

You continue to embarrass yourself.  A flake of blood is by deifnition dry.  What dry blood would be flying out of a victim  into the moderator?  The flake was stuck to the moderator because it dried to it.  The blood collected into that collection AKA pooled in that location and dried forming a flake.

I think most will understand the point I was endeavouring to make is that blood the size of the flake would have had difficulty as a whole forcing its way through an opening smaller than the size of the flake. 

You have made numerous posts telling us that gunshot wounds produce high velocity spatter which resembles a fine mist (see my post/diagram/link above).  The mist particles are no larger than 2mm and yet mysteriously a number of these mist particles pooled to form a flake measuring 6.35mm?

[Holly Goodhead]

It is documented that the heat in a mdoerator doesn't destroy DNA and blood grouping results.  In fact the heat isn't even sufficient to rapidly dry the blood.

We are talking about draw-back, back spatter and the blood evidence nothing to do with DNA.

If the heat is irrelevant then why do all the forensic crime sites say it is essential that blood evidence must be refrigerated?  If the flake of blood was deposited in the silencer as a result of draw back during the murders, which we are told occurred between midnight and 3am on Wednesday 7th August, and PE then handed it to DS Jones on Sunday 11th August late in the evening this is some 4 days later.  I would suggest that if this is an accurate chronology of events then the flake of blood would have degraded and been incapable of producing blood type/group results.  Doesn't it strike you as strange that this was the only exhibit capable of producing blood type/group results?  All other exhibits were either incapable of producing results or the results were limited to ABO only:

Wallpaper:  ABO only

Carpet:  ABO only

External Gun:  Human blood only

Bearing in mind the above were found and preserved/stored much earlier than the silencer 

http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/blood-sperm-how-are-preserved.html

[Myster]

Maybe in the not too distant future one of us could be shrunk to the size of a blood corpuscle like Raquel Welch was in "Fantastic Voyage", then take a ride on some drawback mist-cum-drop to see how far it travels into a moderator (a Parker-Hale one, that is).  You volunteering, Holly?

Which reminds me... how are these rifle experiments that you're backing, progressing?  &%+((£

[Holly Goodhead]

Maybe in the not too distant future one of us could be shrunk to the size of a blood corpuscle like Raquel Welch was in "Fantastic Voyage", then take a ride on some drawback mist-cum-drop to see how far it travels into a moderator (a Parker-Hale one, that is).  You volunteering, Holly?

Which reminds me... how are these rifle experiments that you're backing, progressing?  &%+((£

I exchanged emails with Dr Nordby.  He was very helpful.  I then sent emails to JB via the prison system and then sent a letter offering to organise and fund the tests.  He responded to my letter but no mention of the tests. 

I also sent a message to JB's campaign team via the official site - no response whatsoever.

[Holly Goodhead]

Daniel MIGHT have suffered a contact wound they were unable to say for sure.  The lcoation of his wound though was one that would not be likely to result in drawback.  The only definite contact wound was to Sheila and it was a location virtually certain to result in drawback.  The other wounds would not result in blood mor ethan 5mm deep into the weapon so the blood could not have been from any other victim.

That is not what the jury was told.  They were told that both SC and DC suffered contact wounds.  You transcribed MF's testimony for me confirming these facts.  The trial judge and prosecutor proceeded on this basis.  Here's the transcript:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6061.msg225885#msg225885

You know full well that the most likely anatomical location for draw-back (contact wound where blood is drawn back into the barrel of a gun or silencer (silencer is an unknown due to gases)) and back spatter (non-contact wound  where blood spatters in a forward projection from the entrance wound and can land anywhere including inside the barrel of a gun or silencer if close enough (silencer is an unknown due to gases)) is a head wound.

Your OP tells us that blood (from back spatter not draw-back) had been found in gun barrels (same might apply to silencer but unknown due to gases) as far as 5mm deep from shots as far away as 1 - 1/5 inches or 2.5 - 3cms:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6061.msg222006#msg222006

The two non-contact shots DC suffered were described as "close proximity".  The shot June received between the eyes MF said may have been contact but he thought it "unlikely".  MF said NB's head and facial shots were fired within inches of his skin.  No blood from any other victims was identified either inside the barrel of the gun or silencer or externally.  The reason for this is no great mystery it is simply based on the fact that the small calibre rifle and low velocity bullets used are unlikely to result in draw-back or back spatter.  The only mystery is how SC's wound was the only wound that produced draw-back resulting in the only blood deposit capable of producing the four results which matched SC's blood group/type:

ABO = Blood Group System

EAP = Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase (Enzyme)

AK = Adenylate Kinase (Enzyme)

HP = Haptoglobin (Protein)

Blood In Silencer      A, EAP BA, AK1,Hp2-1

Sheila Caffell            A,EAP BA, AK1,Hp2-1

Well its no big mystery really when you consider that EP were in receipt of SC's blood sample 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=204.0;attach=704

You are always telling us that if SC was responsible she would have had back spatter on her person  from the other victims.  You describe this back spatter as high velocity spatter which resembles a fine mist and yet there was no fine mist identified either inside the barrel of the gun or silencer or externally or indeed anywhere?  The rifle was said to contain smears and splashes which Dr Vanezis said in his opinion was likely to have come from NB when it is thought he was hit with the rifle.  Yet again these smears and splashes were not capable of producing blood type/group results?
 

You do your own legwork of trying to find an expert who will establish drawback will not get several inches inside the mdoerator.  There is a reason you can't find any such claims- that is because what you hope to find is untrue.  The is why neither the trial defense nor appeal lawyers could find any scientific evidence to establish drawback can't get several inches inside a moderator.   You had no better success than them which  is why you took generalized claims and tried to twist the to pretend they stated drawback will not occur with moderators.

You seem to forget that the WHF murders occurred 3 decades ago.  What was known then about ballistics is a world away from today.  The defence lawyers made no attempt to discredit the silencer 'evidence'.  Geoffrey Rivlin came up with the bizarre idea of SC using the silencer and returning it to the gun cupboard with the blood in the silencer being representative of NB's and June's.  There was imo an over-reliance on expert testimony.  They just seemed to accept what they were told.  There doesn't appear to have been any joined up thinking between the defence, Dr Vanezis, Mark Hayward and Malcolm Fletcher. 

Firearms reconstruction is common place and it will be straight forward to establish whether the small calibre rifle and low velocity bullets used with the silencer would result in 1) draw-back 2) the blood being located where it was found 3) the blood being distributed the way it was found.  Not only that a biologist will be able to input and confirm whether or not the flake would have  been capable of withstanding the following and still producing blood type/group results: any heat in the silencer; then living in the gun cupboard, in a box, in a plastic bag for some 3 days.  Followed by a trip in the back of AE's Ford Sierra to Oak Farm where it  was handled by the relatives until DS Jones came to collect it a day or so later and wrapped it in the inner of a kitchen roll taped at the ends.  What exactly happened to it after that until it arrived at FSS I have no idea  A biologist should hopefully be able to shed some light on why the silencer was the only exhibit capable of producing blood group/type results.  No blood type/group results from any of the other victims on any of the other exhibits 

I have a feeling this whole silencer 'evidence' is going to prove a huge embarrassment to the judiciary.



 

[scipio_usmc]

I think most will understand the point I was endeavouring to make is that blood the size of the flake would have had difficulty as a whole forcing its way through an opening smaller than the size of the flake. 

You have made numerous posts telling us that gunshot wounds produce high velocity spatter which resembles a fine mist (see my post/diagram/link above).  The mist particles are no larger than 2mm and yet mysteriously a number of these mist particles pooled to form a flake measuring 6.35mm?

1) The MAJORITY of high velocity spatter in under 2mm not ALL spatter is that small.  The larger the spatter the less far it can travel so the larger drops will only be found on objects very close or close to the end of a weapon while the smaller drops can travel further. The very small drops are ONLY associated with very specific things so are a tell tale sign of gunshot wound, explosion etc.  They are what is looked for as a sign there sitll will usually be some larger drops though.

2) The defense tried claiming blood of multiple victims pooled together.  Now you want to try to pretend that blood of a single victim couldn't pool. The blood drops will hit the same location or nearby locations and join together PARTICULARLY when there are vibrations going on like those inside a moderator.  This is backspatter on a hand why is this blood visible to the naked eye?  Because you get blood overlapping.  Not just 5 microscopic drops that land far apart.

 

Larger blood drops didn't go that far inside pooled at the bottom of the first or second baffle and then dried into a flake.  The defense argued that some mysterious force resulted in blood of multiple peopel pooling without intimately mixing. They could not explain how that could happen let alone establish it was possible.  Thus they had no expert testify to it at trial and on appeal their experts could not justify their position:

"The final and most important criticism of Mr Webster is as to his findings in relation to the possibility of a mixture of blood drying in such a way that it would not thoroughly mix. We should have thought that before advancing such a theory, a scientist would inevitably satisfy himself that there was a proper basis for the theory. That might be done by some form of experimentation, by drawing upon identifiable findings in other cases of relevance or by reference to the recent conclusions of other scientists. So far as we can judge, Mr Webster has done none of these things. He rejects experimentation because he asserts that it is impossible to reproduce the exact situation that arose in this case and because he did not have available to him sufficient facilities to do anything that came close to the circumstances of this case. He pointed to one instance he had come across where a single bloodstain was a mixture of more than one person's blood, which had not completely mixed. When asked to identify the relevant case, he was unable to do so and when asked for further details it transpired that it was blood that had soaked into cloth and not, as had occurred in this case, blood that had fallen upon a non-porous surface, a wholly different situation."