UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: scipio_usmc on April 08, 2014, 07:42:41 PM
-
For fun I sat with 2 of my rifles loaded with snap caps (they are fake bullets with a spring inside, if you dryfire a weapon it can damange the firing pin so the snap cap makes sure the spring strikes a spring). Obviously there will not be recoil like would be present if a real bullet were fired. After firing I let my body go limp and fall the way Sheila's body supposedly fell. The rifles did not stay on my body. I tried this multiple times with both rifles and not once did the rifle neatly fall up and down on me. The rifles were always hanging off my body or fell off entirely. When the stock moved sufficiently far enough the whole rifle would fall or at minimum the stock would be on the floor and the barrel angled up so basically the rifle was propped against me. When the stock remained on me the barrel wasn't. The gun would be tilted with the barrel over the floor and only part of the rifle across me. Not once did the gun land entirely on me let alone a nice up and down fashion.
In order to get the rifle to land the way was described I had to hold onto it and pull it down with me. When I didn't let my hands go limp and gripped it tight I was able to pull it back upon me.
I can't help but wonder what the result would be if live rounds had been fired and what role the broken stock would play. I suspect the recoil would have jerked the rifles even more. The results of the test suggest the staging of the scene was botched. Jeremy expected the gun to be nice and neat on her but it would not have naturally fell in that manner.
There is way too much other evidence for this to matter much but I did think it was interesting and worth noting that unless the hands are stuck gripping the rifle (which didn't happen in this case) it is unlikely for a rifle to land the way it was found across her.
Something else worth noting is that to use your thumb to pull the trigger, the rifle must be held "backwards". The bottom of the rifle will be facing you while the top of the rifle is away. In such case the recoil will push the rifle away from your body not toward it. So if you shoot your chin the recoil will make the rifle go across your face, head and eventually forward. This would make it likely for the muzzle to be away from your body not at it.
The bigger significance of this is that if a second shot had fired it would have been higher up the face instead of below the other wound. The coroner stated the higher wound was delivered first.
There is no evidence to explain how Sheila could have fired the second shot after already being dead from the fatal wound but even if she did manage to fire again the shot would have been above the other wound instead of below.
Jeremy's supporters seem to ignore this completely but that's no surprise given how much nonsense they intentionally make up. For instance Jeremy's supporters insist police who broke the door down fell into the kitchen as they broke the door down and knocked things over. By their description of events one would think that the door they broke in was directly in the kitchen, that that a cop ran into the door full steam to break it down and kept going right into the table. In fact the door was broken in using a battering ram and the door that the police broke led to a vestibule. There was another doorway connecting the vestibule to the kitchen. So police simply walked from the vestibule into the kitchen. So the claim police trashed the kitchen as opposed to it being trashed during the struggle makes no sense. They ignore fact, evidence, common sense and thus reality all to keep alive a fantasy they want to believe that Jeremy is innocent.
-
That is an interesting experiment, good thinking Scipio.
Never having fired a gun in my life It never occurred to me about the recoil, but it makes sense and surely this 'minor detail' must have occurred to the firearms officers at the scene, at some point and put doubts in their minds.
I keep thinking back that Bamber must have been mortified upon realisation the first bullet hadnt killed her outright and he would need to shoot her again, was it then he put the bible next to her body for added 'religious nutcase' effect?
-
If it was all so obvious why did experienced police officers, including soc, the pathologist, dr etc run with 4 murders/1 suicide for over a month AND allow JB to leave the country? He returned voluntarily I hasten to add! Oh I forget JB was clever, devious and convincing...well for a month at least and then hey presto it all fell into place and his 'monumental errors' were... well... so glaringly obvious!
-
If it was all so obvious why did experienced police officers, including soc, the pathologist, dr etc run with 4 murders/1 suicide for over a month AND allow JB to leave the country? He returned voluntarily I hasten to add! Oh I forget JB was clever, devious and convincing...well for a month at least and then hey presto it all fell into place and his 'monumental errors' were... well... so glaringly obvious!
You always ignore that when the pathologist was given the full story he changed his mind and lambasted the police for giving him limited erroenous information originally.
As for police, many of them had differen tviews than Taff Jones who spent a very short time there and didn't bother to investigate thoroughly. A more thorough investigation including receiving the results of the forensic tests changed police perception tremendously which is OFTEN the case. That is why a full investigation is necessary instead of just going by gut impressions.
You basically suggest that the initial reactions have to be right though it is often the case that things are found to be not what they appear to be. How could initial police know which wound Sheila sufffered first? How could initial police know Nevill was unable to speak by the time he reached the kitchen so the phone call can't have happened? How coudl initial police know the phone was neve rhung up at WHF? How could initial police know Jeremy lied about Sheila firing all weapons in the house and being proficient with them? How could police know he lied about teaching her how to use the murder weapon? How could police know there were for sure only 25 shots fired and therefore the ammo left out by Jeremy could not have been the ammo used? How could police know which wounds are contact wounds and thus there should have been back spatte rin the weapon and whose back spatter should be in there and if it was in fact there? How oculd initial police know that Jeremy knew how to get in and out of the house while it was bloted fromt he inside? I can go on and on about the variables that are ascertained DURING the course of an investigation not immediately upon reaching a scene.
Your position is chilidish and can be summarized as follows: police initially believed that Sheila comitted murder suicide so she had to have comitted murder suicide and tha tmeans the evidence against Jeremy was planted even though you can't provide a shred of evidence to establish any of it was in fact planted.
Such a position is not a sound position it is a position of someone living in denial and not something that oculd even be raised in court let alone have any impact in juror's minds.
The funny thing is that you attack Rivlin constantly yet you are unable to challenge the evidenc ein any manner that could have been made in court. Your unsupported, vague allegations mean absolutely nothing to a court. What matters in court is what you can prove with evidence. The evidence is all against Jeremy and you have no way to refute the evidence soo you don't want to discuss it in detail you instead just cop out and make the generalized claim it all must have been planted because he is innocent and must have been planted because the evidence goes against the assessment made by the initial hunches of those on the scene. With people who don't want to believe Jeremy is guily this might get you somewhere but to objective people it is a non starter.
The laws of physics and recoil are not susceptible to bias. A gun held in the manner asserted will recoil away from her so even if she mananged to fire the gun again after being killed the second shot would be higher not lower. There is no way she could have fired a second shot anyway after being killed your death grip theroy holds no water because there were no signs of death grip and moreover death grip will not cause a thumb to push down on a trigger a second time it means the hand freezes in the position it was in at death. Instant rigor. Only a fully automatic weapon will continue to fire if death grip occurrs. These are just a couple of things which could not be discerned from the initial look at the scene but needed further investigation to reveal.
The botom line is that your defense of Jeremy is not driven by the evidence but rather driven by your emotions and your emotions make you ignore evidence because you don't want to face he is guilty. It is your right to live in denial but that is not going to convince anyone to share your views it will just drive peopel away from your views and render you lacking in credibility.
-
If it was all so obvious why did experienced police officers, including soc, the pathologist, dr etc run with 4 murders/1 suicide for over a month AND allow JB to leave the country? He returned voluntarily I hasten to add! Oh I forget JB was clever, devious and convincing...well for a month at least and then hey presto it all fell into place and his 'monumental errors' were... well... so glaringly obvious!
Lets not forget that there were police officers who didn't believe Jeremy Bamber from the moment they set eyes on the scene Holly and these were led by the late Det Sgt Stan Jones. Remember also that the pathologist never set eyes on the grizzly scene and had to rely on photos. Also, we can't be sure that the photos which were taken by PC Bird of Sheila and the rife shortly after police broke into the house were a true representation of how the rifle was found since a firearms officer lifted the rifle and made it safe. Can we be absolutely sure that what we see in the photos was exactly how they found it? Answer is an emphatic NO.
Scipio. You should have videoed your experiment, maybe another time?
-
Lets not forget that there were police officers who didn't believe Jeremy Bamber from the moment they set eyes on the scene Holly and these were led by the late Det Sgt Stan Jones. Remember also that the pathologist never set eyes on the grizzly scene and had to rely on photos. Also, we can't be sure that the photos which were taken by PC Bird of Sheila and the rife shortly after police broke into the house were a true representation of how the rifle was found since a firearms officer lifted the rifle and made it safe. Can we be absolutely sure that what we see in the photos was exactly how they found it? Answer is an emphatic NO.
Scipio. You should have videoed your experiment, maybe another time?
I don't have the precise model of rifle let alone one with a stock damaged in the same manner. That would be necessary for a proper reenactment. I don't want to be an internet star so would not want to be in the video myself anyway. Most importantly you would need to fire the weapon to see its tendency to move. I merely did this for fun, I'm not shooting ahole in my ceiling to try to see what the recoil does. It just brought up something that hasn't been discussed publicly before.
If we want to be complete in our analysis of the scene then we should talk about all things including this. There are some cautions though.
1) Do we have an image definitely showing the position of the gun at the time her body was found or only images showing it put back on her by police?
If we have no photo of the exact position all we have to work with really is the general police statements it was on her body with the muzzle up and the butt down. This doesn't necessarily prove the gun was entirely on her and that it wasn't angled with part off her body.
2) It might not necessarily prove it is impossible for the gun to end up the way alleged to have been found. You need to do a series of tests to be able to mathmatically calculate the likelihood or something is near impossible.
If something has a reasonable probability of happening that is all that is necessary for something to not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
1) There is a reasonable probability the gun can end up the way it was found.
Result: It could have been staged but may not have been staged
2) There is not a reasonable probability the gun could end up the way it was found.
Result: This is proof beyond a reasonable doubt it was staged by someone
-
Could even be the rifle was found lying alongside her but plod thought it appropriate to set it on her body. Bird wouldn't have known any different when he took his pics. Anything is possible I suppose.
-
Lets not forget that there were police officers who didn't believe Jeremy Bamber from the moment they set eyes on the scene Holly and these were led by the late Det Sgt Stan Jones. Remember also that the pathologist never set eyes on the grizzly scene and had to rely on photos. Also, we can't be sure that the photos which were taken by PC Bird of Sheila and the rife shortly after police broke into the house were a true representation of how the rifle was found since a firearms officer lifted the rifle and made it safe. Can we be absolutely sure that what we see in the photos was exactly how they found it? Answer is an emphatic NO.
Scipio. You should have videoed your experiment, maybe another time?
But, but, but 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( John the pathologist said:
"We then had a candid discussion during which the only dissenter from the murder/suicide theory was D/Sgt JONES. I gained the impression that he did not discount the murder/suicide theory but that he was uneasy with the reaction he was getting from Jeremy."
"We mentioned a number of points which I recall tended to relate to Jeremy's general reactions which D/Sgt JONES did not think compatible with the manner in which he expected him to react. Whilst respecting his views there was nothing impressive about what he said and certainly I cannot recall anything of evidential substance to the effect that Sheila could not have done it." 8-)(--) >@@(*&)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=740
-
But, but, but 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( John the pathologist said:
"We then had a candid discussion during which the only dissenter from the murder/suicide theory was D/Sgt JONES. I gained the impression that he did not discount the murder/suicide theory but that he was uneasy with the reaction he was getting from Jeremy."
"We mentioned a number of points which I recall tended to relate to Jeremy's general reactions which D/Sgt JONES did not think compatible with the manner in which he expected him to react. Whilst respecting his views there was nothing impressive about what he said and certainly I cannot recall anything of evidential substance to the effect that Sheila could not have done it." 8-)(--) >@@(*&)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=740
And what did he say later Holly? He said he was not told the full story and that once the entire investigationw as complete that his views changed completely particualrly after more evidence was revealed.
It is a waste of time going by initial impressions, that is not what matters in real life let alone a court room. The assertions at t he time of trial including all evidence presented to back up the claims is what matters.
Since you have no way of refuting anything presented at trial you go back to the early days before the investigation was complete and try to pretend that's all there was against Jeremy. That is sheer desperation on your part because you have no way to deal with the evidence.
-
But, but, but 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( John the pathologist said:
"We then had a candid discussion during which the only dissenter from the murder/suicide theory was D/Sgt JONES. I gained the impression that he did not discount the murder/suicide theory but that he was uneasy with the reaction he was getting from Jeremy."
"We mentioned a number of points which I recall tended to relate to Jeremy's general reactions which D/Sgt JONES did not think compatible with the manner in which he expected him to react. Whilst respecting his views there was nothing impressive about what he said and certainly I cannot recall anything of evidential substance to the effect that Sheila could not have done it." 8-)(--) >@@(*&)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=740
You fail to add that the pathologists view changed after he saw the police photos showing how little blood was on Sheila's clothes and body compared to the awful mess he found when he was confronted with her remains in the morgue. He is on record as criticising Essex Police for not bringing him to the murder scene BEFORE they moved the victims bodies.
-
Where would the gun have gone if Sheila was laying down when she shot herself (we know she didn't-just playing devils advocate)? I'd have thought even if she was laying down it would have gone onto the floor, she pulls the trigger, goes limp and her hands head towards the floor pulling the gun with her. Plus if there had been any recoil, that would have had to have moved the gun wouldn't it?
In a programme I saw they basically said the polices thorough clean then hampered their own investigation.
-
Where would the gun have gone if Sheila was laying down when she shot herself (we know she didn't-just playing devils advocate)? I'd have thought even if she was laying down it would have gone onto the floor, she pulls the trigger, goes limp and her hands head towards the floor pulling the gun with her. Plus if there had been any recoil, that would have had to have moved the gun wouldn't it?
In a programme I saw they basically said the polices thorough clean then hampered their own investigation.
Even without the recoil the gun fell on the floor or at least part of it always did. Naturally recoil would have the tendency of jerking it away even more. So it would most likely be found on the floor if she had killed herself as claimed. I can't imagine the gun landing nice and neat on a stomach pointing up and down. That is evidence it was staged. We already know it was staged though by virtue of all the other evidence, this is just another piece of the puzzle offering further confirmation.
-
Even without the recoil the gun fell on the floor or at least part of it always did. Naturally recoil would have the tendency of jerking it away even more. So it would most likely be found on the floor if she had killed herself as claimed. I can't imagine the gun landing nice and neat on a stomach pointing up and down. That is evidence it was staged. We already know it was staged though by virtue of all the other evidence, this is just another piece of the puzzle offering further confirmation.
I don't think it was intentionally staged, rather the officer made the rifle safe and simply laid it longways on her body. PC Bird just took the photo as he found the scene. I do agree with Scipio and [Name removed]o, at least part of the rifle would have fallen on the floor.
(http://i.imgur.com/rC5Do.jpg)
-
I don't think it was intentionally staged, rather the officer made the rifle safe and simply laid it longways on her body. PC Bird just took the photo as he found the scene. I do agree with Scipio and [Name removed]o, at least part of the rifle would have fallen on the floor.
(http://i.imgur.com/rC5Do.jpg)
Other poilice who were part of the raid team claimed the rifle was across her body like the photo demonstrated. Did any disagree that this is how it initially was? he ones I have read did not assert it was in a different manner originally but maybe there are some I didn't see?
-
The statements all say it was found lying on top of her body. That said though, the rifle would only have been seen by the first two possibly three officers into the bedroom. It was the first thing they checked and made safe on gaining entry to the room since it was a potential hazard to their own safety.
-
Does the blood on her right forearm suggest her torso was in an upright position when she was shot, with blood dripping from the first wound?
Incredible how she is meant to have fired over 20 shots without breaking a nail or damaging her nail polish. And this is before shellac became a thing.
-
Does the blood on her right forearm suggest her torso was in an upright position when she was shot, with blood dripping from the first wound?
Incredible how she is meant to have fired over 20 shots without breaking a nail or damaging her nail polish. And this is before shellac became a thing.
It's possible that Sheila grabbed the gun barrel as Bamber pushed it into her throat, which would account for the blood drips on her arm, her curled fingers and why the first shot went awry.
-
It's possible that Sheila grabbed the gun barrel as Bamber pushed it into her throat, which would account for the blood drips on her arm, her curled fingers and why the first shot went awry.
Do you mean drops of blood from the gun?
-
Does the blood on her right forearm suggest her torso was in an upright position when she was shot, with blood dripping from the first wound?
Incredible how she is meant to have fired over 20 shots without breaking a nail or damaging her nail polish. And this is before shellac became a thing.
According to the 2002 appeal decision:
"Dr Vanezis gave evidence that the nature of the blood stains to the nightdress suggested that Sheila Caffell was sitting up when she received both injuries. After the second injury she would have immediately fallen back. There was no evidence of any other mark or injury to Sheila Caffell's body such as might be suffered during a fight or in a scuffle."
Unless we get very specific testimony we can't know whether the blood on the outside of her right arm was from when she was shot or after police lifted her and blood came leaking out of her mouth. Since she was up per the other evidence it could indeed have leaked down her arm though it also could be a wipe. I have seen blood wipe patterns that look exactly like the trails down her neck and arm. You wipe with the outside of your arm.We have no way to know how much time passed between both shots so she could have wiped before the second shot was delivered.
I saw so many people claiming she was fatally shot by the first bullet I took it at face value but not so says the opinion:
"The higher of the two wounds would have killed her almost instantaneously. The lower of the two would have been a fatal injury but not one where death would have occurred immediately and a person having suffered such an injury may have been able to stand up and walk around for a little time. The lack of heavy blood staining to Sheila Caffell's nightdress suggested that this had not happened here. The lower of the two injuries must have been the first since it had led to haemorrhaging inside the neck and this would not have occurred to the same extent if the other wound, which would have been immediately fatal, had preceded it."
As for not damaging her nails or and skin for that matter, it would require wearing protective clothing to give Nevill such a beat down, rapidly load the rounds and not to have any damage at all even as the stock broke. That event would in particular be likely to cause some damage. Julie said that Jeremy told her he wore gloves which naturally makes sense to do since he was planning to avoid liability. Unless she was also wearing shoes no way could she have wrestled with Nevill in that kitchen and had undamaged/clean feet.
For someone hell bent on murder/suicide wearing gloves and other protective clothing would not make much sense.
-
It's possible that Sheila grabbed the gun barrel as Bamber pushed it into her throat, which would account for the blood drips on her arm, her curled fingers and why the first shot went awry.
This is basic but might help people understand different blood patterns
http://www.crimescene-forensics.com/Spatter_VS_Transfer.html
-
I am looking now at a photo that shows 5 drops of blood on her arm. The blood dripped towards the inside of her arm instead of down the outside. It also drips towards the hands. So what I see looks like the arm was angled down not flat when the blood dripped on it. So sit in a chair, put your arm on your thing and that is roughly how her arm was when the blood dripped on it.
If she had her arm under her chin the hand North and her elbow South then the blood would have run towards her elbow.
Another explanation for the blood is that a hand touched her arm and dragged the blood there. But she had no blood on her left fingers so it would have to have been a third party for that to happen.
-
This is basic but might help people understand different blood patterns
http://www.crimescene-forensics.com/Spatter_VS_Transfer.html
Do you think that the first shot knocked Sheila out cold? It tore her jugular and caused the large pouch of blood that can be seen under her chin, but that blood was contained (not swallowed or exhaled) until the second shot forced some out of her nose and mouth. There was no blood found in her stomach or lungs, and there were no droplets on her face. I think that first shot rendered her unconscious immediately.
-
Do you think that the first shot knocked Sheila out cold? It tore her jugular and caused the large pouch of blood that can be seen under her chin, but that blood was contained (not swallowed or exhaled) until the second shot forced some out of her nose and mouth. There was no blood found in her stomach or lungs, and there were no droplets on her face. I think that first shot rendered her unconscious immediately.
I don't know if she was unconscious or not and I suspect there is no way to figure that out for sure. If there were then it would have been easy for the prosecution to say she passed out so could not have fired the second shot.
-
Some questions for Holl, when she's not busy out on the razz! 8(0(*
Do you think that the blood in the silencer somehow came from the bucket(s) of soaking clothes?
Who do you think fired the second shot to Sheila?
Who do you think wiped the gun clean of prints, bearing in mind that Sheila supposedly fired all of the shots and also used the gun as a club?
How do you think that Sheila felt after meeting her birth mother?
-
I don't know if she was unconscious or not and I suspect there is no way to figure that out for sure. If there were then it would have been easy for the prosecution to say she passed out so could not have fired the second shot.
I honestly think that the fact that Sheila, with a throat full of blood, didn't gasp, gag or splutter, or gulp in shock, must mean that she was unconscious after the first shot.
-
I honestly think that the fact that Sheila, with a throat full of blood, didn't gasp, gag or splutter, or gulp in shock, must mean that she was unconscious after the first shot.
Either I'm a complete plonker (highly possible) or Sheila was super-human (not very possible), but I think that this clinches it.
-
Either I'm a complete plonker (highly possible) or Sheila was super-human (not very possible), but I think that this clinches it.
If you look at the images of Sheila you can actually see, by her hair and the back of her nightie, how she was pulled down slightly ( probably by her feet) to expose her neck for the second shot.
-
Does the blood on her right forearm suggest her torso was in an upright position when she was shot, with blood dripping from the first wound?
Incredible how she is meant to have fired over 20 shots without breaking a nail or damaging her nail polish. And this is before shellac became a thing.
The drops of blood on the carpet are imo indicative of her being shot whilst standing. She must have been felled by that shot because she never was able to touch the wound on her neck as evidenced again by the unsmeared blood trails.
Back to the opening question, I do believe for a moment that the rifle was found as shown in PC Birds crime scene photos.
-
Some questions for Holl, when she's not busy out on the razz! 8(0(*
Do you think that the blood in the silencer somehow came from the bucket(s) of soaking clothes?
Would need a biologist to confirm whether or not watery menstrual blood could produce the readings it produced ie ABO, EAP, AK, Hp. My experiment showed that a film formed on top of the water and s..m at the side of the buckets but whether any of this material and/or the watery blood would be capable of attaching to the silencer in the manner in which it was found and subsequently tested ie smears, blobs, flakes I have no idea.
Who do you think fired the second shot to Sheila?
I am sceptical about the police shooting Sheila. The pathologist said it was possible for her to have inflicted both shots and I am inclined towards thinking this was the case.
Who do you think wiped the gun clean of prints, bearing in mind that Sheila supposedly fired all of the shots and also used the gun as a club?
I think it possible that an officer moved/touched the gun in his haste to make it safe. Realised his error and wiped the gun to prevent any come back on himself. The position of the gun as depicted in various soc photos has clearly been moved.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=77.msg134543#msg134543
From COA doc
"72. The weapon was also examined for fingerprints. A print from the appellant's right forefinger was found on the breech end of the barrel, above the stock and pointing across the gun and Sheila Caffell's right ring fingerprint was found on the right side of the butt, pointing downwards. There were three further finger marks on the rifle, each of insufficient detail for identification purposes
How do you think that Sheila felt after meeting her birth mother?
Overwhelmed. According to Colin's book the meeting went well but further on in the book he states that SC's birth mother's husband was unsupportive and her other children did not know of SC's existence. So there were hurdles to overcome if a relationship was going to develop plus the geographical distance as the birth mother lived in Canada. I am wondering if after the initial euphoria of the first meeting wore off SC might have felt a range of negative emotions which may have been felt more acutely given her fragile mental state. This is not something she should have embarked on without a lot of support but I don't think she received any. My reunions with my birth parents were very positive but they were still overwhelming. Nicky Campbell, radio and tv presenter and patron of British Association of Adoption and Fostering states the following re his reunions see section 13 re reunions with birth parents.
http://www.videojug.com/interview/nicky-campbell-on-adoption
You will probably recall reading about the adopted son of David Gilmour (Pink Floyd guitarist), Charlie Gilmour, who was charged for swinging from the cenotaph during the student riots. His defence barrister claimed the following:
"had been catapulted into a downward spiral of drink and drugs by a disastrous meeting last year with his biological father, the radical playwright and poet Heathcote Williams".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2015110/Pink-Floyds-David-Gilmours-son-Charlie-jailed-16-months-LSD-rampage.html
-
Check you out, splitting your quotes!! Thank you for your answers.
-
1) Would need a biologist to confirm whether or not watery menstrual blood could produce the readings it produced ie ABO, EAP, AK, Hp. My experiment showed that a film formed on top of the water and s..m at the side of the buckets but whether any of this material and/or the watery blood would be capable of attaching to the silencer in the manner in which it was found and subsequently tested ie smears, blobs, flakes I have no idea.
2) I am sceptical about the police shooting Sheila. The pathologist said it was possible for her to have inflicted both shots and I am inclined towards thinking this was the case.
3) I think it possible that an officer moved/touched the gun in his haste to make it safe
response by point:
1) The issue is whether bloody water period (regardless of whether it was menstrual or blood from veins/arteries that was diluted in water) could deposit blood in the manner it was found and to produce readings.
Once again there were dried blood deposits stuck to the inside parts of the suppressor. The prosecution scraped away these flakes of blood and tested several of them successfully. The defense found microscopic traces of blood still stuck to the first 8 baffles after all visible blood had been scraped away and was able to successfully test this microscopic blood.
There is no way for blood diluted in water to leave such deposits by dipping the suppressor into the bucket. Not even Jeremy's attorneys suggest such a ridiculous thing you are embarassing yourself by even suggesting it.
2) The evidence proves it was impossible for her to have fired the fatal shot, the undisputed conclusion of the examiner was that it was a shot that was a contact wound and virtually certian to produce back spatter in the weapon. The suppressor was most certianly used to deliver this shot. But hey keep living in fantasy land. It has no bearing on the actual facts.
3) Touching a weapon to move it amounts to wiping it totally clean? Seriously your excuses get weaker and weaker.