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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CommentsThis 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=-keuXw5xfRshttp://sploid.gizmodo.com/a-silencer-cut-in-half-is-pretty-cool-indeed-1689112501Was 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.