I told this to Holly long ago but she refuses to believe that 22 claiber weapons cause drawback. Here it is in black and white and it even contains anothe rpoint i mentioned regarding headshots by 22 calibers.
(http://s18.postimg.org/r0fdqtftl/bloodevidence.jpg)
Why do you insist on misquoting me? I have never stated that back spatter/drawback is not possible with a small calibre (.22) weapon. I have made several posts to this effect on Blue and Red. Here is one where I state it is unusual which aligns with your link above.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3418.msg129764#msg129764
I don't believe blow back/backspatter occurred at WHF ie blood 'found' in silencer was there as a result of blow back backspatter. Reasons why:
- usually occurs with a large calibre weapon - weapon used in WHF tragedy small calibre weapon
- usually occurs with headshot - SC's wounds neck x 2
- contact or near contact wound required ( definition of near contact is 1mm - 2mm) - some ambiguity whether SC's wounds were contact or near contact.
- when blow back/backspatter occurs skin tissue is usually blown back too - no skin tissue found in silencer
- Daniel received a contact shot to his head (some ambiguity whether it was contact) - his blood type/group was not found in the silencer
- June received a contact shot to her head (some ambiguity whether it was contact) - her blood type/group not found in the silencer as a stand alone
- Little attention seems to have been paid to the distribution of blood 'found' in the silencer but it seems unlikely it would have distributed as a flake if there as a result of blow back/back spatter.
Who is misquoting you? You just repeated a large number of the errors you made.
Your claim it mostly happens in head shots but would not in the neck could no be more wrong. The head is the hardest place to get high velocity spatter from. Tha tis why shots to the head only normally result in spatter wiht large caliber weapons. It is rare for head shots to get spatter from 22 calibers which in turn refutes the arguments you keep making about Nicholas' blood shoudl have been in the moderator had it been used. Now you have added June's headshot to the mix. Their wounds were near contact and even if contact still not likely to result in drawback because the location.
You keep making up your own forensic rules where you report things as the complete opposite of reality so you cna pretend the moderator wasn't used and then can advance your psychology BS of why SHeila did it.
You have nothing at all to contradict the expert testimony that her fatal wpound would have resulted in drawback. The defense found nothing to contradict it either and that claim was unrebutted at trial and hasn't been rebutted on appeal either.
The testimony from 2 different prosecution experts that Sheilas fatal wound was a contact wound was never rebutted either. Only in Hollyland is there a lack of clarity whether it was a contact wound or not.
The distribution of blood in the moderator is an issue I addressed in great detail. The prosecution experts found visible blood on the first 5-7 baffles wiht the volume decreasing the further it got from the opening. The defense expert found microscopic traces of blood on the first 8 baffles. The blood was tested and detemrined to be group A. In addition a flake of blood that dried between baffles 1 and 2 was tested and determined to be group A but also had an anzyme which June didn't possess but Sheila did.
June and Sheila both have group A blood but Sheila has enzyme AK1 while June has enzyme AK2-1 so the flake was consistent with Sheila's blood not June's. AK2-1 is more hardy than AK1 and since the AK1 enzyme had not yet deteriorated that means had June's blood been present her AK2-1 enzymes would still have been present. So this speaks against the blood on the baffles or the flake containing any of June's blood because there was no AK2-1 present and there should have been if her blood was present because AK2-1 takes longer to deteriorate than AK1 and AK1 was present.
The only way for blood to get on the 8 baffles with the volume dimishing is if it were sprayed there. High velocity backspatter is a spray of atomized blood. The larger particles cannot travel as far as the fine particles so the larger blood will be on the early baffles. This is exactly what was observed.
You have no way at all to suggest the blood was anything other than backspatter from Sheila. Your beliefs are driven by bias which in turn requires you to distort and pretend backspatter happens in head shots but not flshy areas like the neck though that is the complete opposite of reality and thus you can't produce any evidence to support such claim.
Who is misquoting you? You just repeated a large number of the errors you made.
Your claim it mostly happens in head shots but would not in the neck could no be more wrong. The head is the hardest place to get high velocity spatter from. Tha tis why shots to the head only normally result in spatter wiht large caliber weapons. It is rare for head shots to get spatter from 22 calibers which in turn refutes the arguments you keep making about Nicholas' blood shoudl have been in the moderator had it been used. Now you have added June's headshot to the mix. Their wounds were near contact and even if contact still not likely to result in drawback because the location.
You keep making up your own forensic rules where you report things as the complete opposite of reality so you cna pretend the moderator wasn't used and then can advance your psychology BS of why SHeila did it.
You have nothing at all to contradict the expert testimony that her fatal wpound would have resulted in drawback. The defense found nothing to contradict it either and that claim was unrebutted at trial and hasn't been rebutted on appeal either.
The testimony from 2 different prosecution experts that Sheilas fatal wound was a contact wound was never rebutted either. Only in Hollyland is there a lack of clarity whether it was a contact wound or not.
The distribution of blood in the moderator is an issue I addressed in great detail. The prosecution experts found visible blood on the first 5-7 baffles wiht the volume decreasing the further it got from the opening. The defense expert found microscopic traces of blood on the first 8 baffles. The blood was tested and detemrined to be group A. In addition a flake of blood that dried between baffles 1 and 2 was tested and determined to be group A but also had an anzyme which June didn't possess but Sheila did.
June and Sheila both have group A blood but Sheila has enzyme AK1 while June has enzyme AK2-1 so the flake was consistent with Sheila's blood not June's. AK2-1 is more hardy than AK1 and since the AK1 enzyme had not yet deteriorated that means had June's blood been present her AK2-1 enzymes would still have been present. So this speaks against the blood on the baffles or the flake containing any of June's blood because there was no AK2-1 present and there should have been if her blood was present because AK2-1 takes longer to deteriorate than AK1 and AK1 was present.
The only way for blood to get on the 8 baffles with the volume dimishing is if it were sprayed there. High velocity backspatter is a spray of atomized blood. The larger particles cannot travel as far as the fine particles so the larger blood will be on the early baffles. This is exactly what was observed.
You have no way at all to suggest the blood was anything other than backspatter from Sheila. Your beliefs are driven by bias which in turn requires you to distort and pretend backspatter happens in head shots but not flshy areas like the neck though that is the complete opposite of reality and thus you can't produce any evidence to support such claim.
You clearly struggle with comprehension. I didn't say blow back doesn't occur with neck shots. I stated it usually occurs with head shots and high calibre weapons. And I simply highlighted SC's wounds were to the neck.
Prof Krishan Vij, Head of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Govt Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh states the following:
"A contact wound of the head from a large calibre weapon is more likely to produce back spatter than a wound of the trunk from from a small calibre weapon".
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Ip1rAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA245&lpg=PA245&dq=most+likely+anatomical+location+for+blowback+backspatter&source=bl&ots=01Wvob0aEK&sig=n6fyu8A_kyEmiGa-gLG07USwkSg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=77LrVK-FD4PT7QbO6oHIBw&ved=0CAsQ6AEwAA
SC's wounds were to the neck (trunk) produced by a small calibre weapon and blow back was unlikely to occur even with a contact shot.
First of all your source is not even right about the terms. Back spatter is not the term for blood drawn into a weapon. Back spatter is a term for blood projected from a wound towards the shooter. When there is a contact wound and the spatter is projected inside the weapon that is drawback. Othwerwise it is simply back spatter or more accurately high velocity impact back spatter. He makes it sound like back spatter only occurs during contact shots and when it does it only goes into the weapon.
Second, note how no source was cited for his claim. His generalization is wrong. It is incrediblity stupid to make a generalization about the trunk of the body when the various areas of the trunk are so different. My source was in contrast was citing the seminal study on drawnback which actually tested blood penetration using 22 claiber weapons. 22 calibers result in drawback from trunk contact shots quite frequently though again it depends on where. You can't generalize you have to have someone look at the specific location because even though in gneerla headshots from 22s don't result in spatter in some locations and instances they do.
The expert in this case did just that and analyzed the exact location of the wound and determined the skin and blood vessels in that location were ideal for backspatter to occur. Your source doesn't speak at all to the area in question and just makes a broad claim that is worthless for analyzing the issue at hand. The defense and you need to find an expert who would look at the skin and blood vessels in the location of the wound and to evaluated the claims of the prosecution expert regarding drawback. The defense found no one who coudl refute the claim.
There's a hole in your theory... dear Holly, dear Holly There's a hole in your theory... dear Holly, a hole! 8(*(
In any event in your link above the author/researcher states he has experienced a few cases where head shots with a small calibre weapon have not produced blow back ie it is unusual.
Own goal Scip @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
It seems to me the terms "back spatter" and "blowback" are rightly or wrongly interchanged? See following near bottom of link. That's why I normally state "back spatter/blowback".
http://www.crimescene-forensics.com/Crime_Scene_Forensics/Bloodstains.html
NGB stated the following:
"The whole issue of backspatter is problematical. First, there are two separate ways in which blood may end up on the shooter or his weapon, and these are often conflated. True backspatter can occur can occur when a bullet hits a body and can result in spots of blood being deposited on the shooter or the weapon. However this is unlikely to result in blood, certainly in any quantity, finding its way inside the gun barrel or sound moderator. There is also a phenomenon known as drawback or blowback, which results from pressure changes immediately following the discharge of the bullet. Gas can be drawn back into the gun barrel or sound moderator, and in the case either of a contact shot or a very close shot blood may be drawn back with the gas. This has been demonstrated with full bore weapons but it is by no means certain that this can be replicated with a .22 rimfire rifle.
The quality of expert evidence available to the defence at trial was very poor. Major Mead assisted the defence but in reality he was not a ballistics expert. Tests should have been conducted to examine whether drawback/blowback could occur with the Anschutz rifle fitted with a sound moderator. My personal view is that it could not, although I admit I have not carried out tests myself".
(I note NGB refers to "his" weapon. This is not the first time he has let slip sexism)
Scipio your source in your OP is nearly 4 decades old. Forensics, physics/quantum physics has moved on since then. In any event it is clear you have misunderstood. Your source is saying he has experienced a few cases where contact wounds to the head with a small calibre weapon did not produce blow back/back spatter (blood entering the weapon) meaning that it was unusual.
I stand by my claims:
- The closer the wound is to contact the more likely it is to produce blow back/back spatter
- The larger the calibre of weapon the more likely it is to produce blow back/back spatter
- The anatomical location is another important factor. A head wound is far more likely to produce blow back/back spatter than a wound elsewhere
- Bullet size is also an important factor. The larger the bullet size the more likely it is to produced blow back/back spatter.
- Angle is another factor.
I am not going to pretend I am some sort of expert in all of this because I am most definitely not but our links above support my claims and surely a basic understanding of physics will tell you that the conditions most likely to produce back spatter/blow back did not exist with SC's wounds:
Factors most likely to produce blow back/back spatter -V- SC's wounds
- Contact shot - V- Unclear whether contact or close contact
- Large calibre weapon - V -Small calibre weapon
- Large bullet - V -Small bullet
- Head wound - V - neck wounds
It is also questionable whether blood from blow back/back spatter would travel as far into the silencer as it was 'found' and whether it would have distributed as a flake &%+((£
The source you just posted states the following:
"When a bullet strikes a target, some high force impact spatter may be directed back toward the gun that fired the shot. This is known as "back spatter""
It doesn't claim that back spatter and drawback are synonomous terms.
The Indian publicaiton you posted got DRAWBACK wrong. Drawback by definition is blood drawn into a weapon. It is not a synsonym for back spatter. Back spatter is blood projected out of a wound back towards the location of the weapon causing the wound. Going on about blowback has no bearing on the criticism I leveled which was he got DRAWBACK wrong. Blowback has several different meanings including unburned powder so is a useless imprecise term unless it is defined at the time of use. When blowback is used to mean drawback as your Indian source was using it, it is not the same thing as back spatter. Back spatter travels outside the weapon while drawback refers to what is sucked inside the weapon. To say that by sucking blood inside the weapon it gets on the shooter is outright stupid and extremely sloppy writing.
NGB is correct that without a contact shot that blood will not find its way in the gun very deep. He is wrong that 22 calibers haven't been demonstrated to result in drawback. On the contrary the seminal work in the field establish they do. That is why neither the trial defense nor the appeal lawyers have been able to find any scientific way to refute the prosecution assertion that Sheila's fatal wound would result in drawback.
My source is from 2012. It cites testing from 1977 that has proved to still be valid to this day and that is why so many different people TODAY still cite those test results. Those studies didn't include testing to the head other subsequent testing was done in the head area. My source didn't mention those studies but did mention actual experience where head shots from 22 calibers did not result in drawback. My source draws a DISTINCTION between head shots from 22 calibers and shots by 22 calibers to fleshy locations. The former do not produce spatter on a regular basis like the latter.
Not only did I understand this I used it to refute your nonsense about how Nicholas' blood would have to be inside the moderator if it was used. This source refutes your claim that nicolas; blood would be likely to get inside but supports the prosecution assertions about the neck shot.
You are the one who fails to understand not me, I understand the issue extremely clearly.
BUZZ WRONG. Back spatter is not a function of the distance of the weapon from the wound. Back spatter depends upon the location of the wound specifically whther the channel made by the wound will fill with blood and air and then the closing of the wound by elastic tissue will force the material in the channel outside of the body. The distance of the weapon from the body makes no difference in whether backspatter will occur. The distance of the weapon detemrines whether the spatter that comes out of the wound will reach the weapon/shooter. If the weapon is within range of the spatter it will get on the weapon/shooter. If it is very close then it can get inside the weapon. The source above provides the distances required for blood to get inside up to 5mm deep. To go beyond that it needs to be a contact wound.
BUZZ WRONG. In general the larger the caliber the further the back spatter will travel and the more backspatter there will be because the wound channel is larger and thus mor emateiral fits in that channel to be projected out. However some high caliber bullets with low velocities can produce less spatter or spatter that travel less distances than smaller rounds with a higher velocity. So generlaizing only can go so far.
In wound locations where there is a small amount of tissue over bone that is close to the body surface back spatter is less likely to occur and mostly will occur from larger caliber rounds.
BUZZ WRONG. You are right that anatomical location is important but totally wrong in your claim that head wounds are more likely to result in back spatter. Head shots are the least likely locations to result in back spatter because there is bone covered by a small amount of flesh. The head lacks the elasticity and blood flow of other regions.
> this is a bullet channel in tissue, the point is where the bullet is while the rest is the wound channel made by the bullet. When the channel closes the material in it including the air in it is propelled int he opposition direction of the bullet so is projected out of the wound. That is back spatter 101. The more elasticity of the tissue the more air flow and thus more projection force. The head has less tissue elasticity than other regions of the body.
Only half right. The larger the bullet the larger the wound channel and thus larger the volume of back spatter and
in general it will travel further. In locations not ideal for back spatter to occur (where there is not much elastic tissue0 the larger the caliber the better the chance of some spatter occurring nontheless. This doesn't somehow equate to it being unlikely for 22 claiber rounds to be able to cause back spatter in locations ideal for it to occur.
Not only are you not an expert you have everything backwards and wrong. You took an unsupported erroneous claim from an Indian source and from that you jump to various wild conclusions.
It didnt't judge the likelihood of a 22 shot to the neck resulting in spatter. All it did was assert a head shot form a high caliber weapon is even more likely to result in spatter than a body shot from a 22. That doesn't equate to saying a body shot from a 22 is unlikely. In the meantime location in the head is a significant factor of whether a shot will result in spatter just suggesting any headshot from a high caliber is going to cause spatter in not really correct. What he wrote was very short and never explained in full.
Trying to pretend it establishes a contact wound from a 22 calibers in the location Sheila suffered her fatal wound is unlikely to result in spatter is a joke. you need to find someone who specifically addresses that lcoation and has solid evidence to refute the prosecution assertions. It is not a coincidence that the defense has failed to come up with anyone who could do that.
Scipio's claims:
"The elasticity of the tissue in the location of the wound and blood vessel characteristics determine whether the region is one where back spatter is likely to occur. The main cause of back spatter is the elastic tissue closes behind the bullet projecting the blood that filled the temporary cavity out. Studies show that the head lacks the necessary elasticity and thus head wounds are less likely to result in back spatter. Larger calibers have a better chance of doing so than smaller calibers".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6061.msg222281#msg222281
What studies would these be Scip? Are you able to provide links?
Claims from the following:
Stephens, BG
Chief medical examiner-coroner and forensic pathology fellow, San Francisco Medical Examiner's-Coroner's Office, San Francisco, CA
Allen, TB
Chief medical examiner-coroner and forensic pathology fellow, San Francisco Medical Examiner's-Coroner's Office, San Francisco, CA
"It is well known that gunshot wounding can produce fine droplets of blood spattered in a forward direction. Under certain circumstances blood droplets can also be propelled backwards in a direction against the line of fire. Although the phenomenon of back spatter of blood is most commonly seen in contact gunshot wounds of the head, its occurrence is not well recognized. In this article we summarize investigative and experimental observations concerning back spatter. We suggest that back spatter is a type of “blow-back” effect produced by discharge of a large volume of gas in a confined space".
http://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/JOURNALS/FORENSIC/PAGES/JFS11526J.htm
Blind me with science Scip and buzz me wrong ?>)()<
According to that last vague statement it's just as likely that more blood may be drawn back into a moderator than less or none at all.
So I think we're all agreed that the blood in the Anschutz moderator got there as a result of drawback, rather than through any deliberate attempt by police or anyone in the family to tamper with the evidence.
Here endeth the lesson. 8((()*/
A resounding NO from me!MacDonnell knew about the moderator, but through a misunderstanding in communication thought that it was attached to another rifle. His other general remarks about the bible, blood flow and trails still stand as sound reasoning that Sheila didn't kill herself.
I agree the link above is ambiguous and could mean more or less likely. Regardless I still think the whole phenomenon of draw back is rare and requires all the conditions to be A1: calibre of weapon, bullet size, contact wound, anatomical location, angle. As far as I can see the conditions at WHF were anything but A1. There's also the question of how far the blood could travel, distribution ie flake, and lack of accompanying biological material eg skin tissue, bone fragments.
Am I right in saying that Herb McDonnell evaluated WHF and came to the conclusion that JB was the likely perp, but at this stage he was unaware that a silencer had been used? When he found out a silencer had been used he said he would need to re-evaluate but that never happened as JB run out of funds? JB funded the initial evaluation from payment from Wilkes (book) for his input?
MacDonnell knew about the moderator, but through a misunderstanding in communication thought that it was attached to another rifle. His other general remarks about the bible, blood flow and trails still stand as sound reasoning that Sheila didn't kill herself.
I suggest we apply for a firearm's licence, all chip in to buy an '85 vintage Anschutz 525 + Parker-Hale moderator, and experiment on something living... so you'll be fully satisfied that drawback (and backspatter) does occur at close range.
... or maybe not, because then you'll get a bee in your apostolnik about something else.
http://watchingyouwatchingyme-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/bamber-report-from-prof-herbert-leon.html (http://watchingyouwatchingyme-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/bamber-report-from-prof-herbert-leon.html)
According to that last vague statement it's just as likely that more blood may be drawn back into a moderator than less or none at all.
So I think we're all agreed that the blood in the Anschutz moderator got there as a result of drawback, rather than through any deliberate attempt by police or anyone in the family to tamper with the evidence.
Here endeth the lesson. 8((()*/
Actually I think I've got it the wrong way round @)(++(* The baffles are nearer the end away from the barrel which would probably mean the 5th baffle is within the 3.8cm. But effectively the baffles reduce the aperture so surely the distance the blood could travel as a result of draw-back would be reduced? With larger calibre weapons the blood is capable of travelling further ie being drawn back further?
There's a dearth of info re draw-back with a silencer.
In general the larger the caliber the further the blood with be able to travel but the velocity of the rounds and other properties of the rounds also plays a role. Further means instead of the maximum travel distance being a few inches it can be 5 or 6. 45 caliber bullets by way of example are quite slow compared to most bullets out so different rules apply, there are always exceptions. This general rule applies to back spatter that flies outside a weapon as well as to drawback. Blood could travel several feet more outside the gun and several inches more inside a gun if a larger caliber projectile as opposed to a small caliber. So while it will travel maybe 4 inches deep for a 22 it can end up 6-8 inches for larger projectiles. Only the smaller drops make it to the maximum distance though. The larger drops have too much surface area so they don't go as far. The larger drops are still small though. These are macro and micro sized drops, the macro travel further. That is one reason why you see the volume heaviest towards the end and getting lighter deeper inside.
Generalizations only work to a limited extend since location of the body is such an important factor.
Calibre (internal diameter of the barrel) is one determinant in how far blood can be drawn back into the barrel. Therefore it seems to me that if a silencer is fitted this effectively reduces the internal diameter of the point the bullet exits and biological material can enter (see diagram below). I am not saying that it is not possible but I am saying based on my interpretation of MacDonnel's research it seems to me the distance the biological material could travel back into the silencer due to the phenomenon of drawback would be significantly reduced?On the contrary, the calibre of the moderator should in theory be slightly be larger than that of the rifle to allow for any misalignment when the barrel is threaded and/or a coupling is attached, before the moderator is screwed on. Otherwise when the bullet exits the rifle end and enters the moderator's expansion chamber it's liable to catch the baffles and knurled-end opening as it passes through them. In fact the instruction sheet states that the thread at the muzzle end must be cut in accurate alignment with the rifle bore. In the sectional drawing on the same sheet, look at the larger calibre of the moderator and coupling (right) in comparison to that of the rifle (left).
Results from your frequently quoted source (MacDonnel) as follows:
If all this is as clear as mud then please share the links and research showing outcomes with silencers.
I'm finding this very baffling indeed 8)-)))
On the contrary, the calibre of the moderator should in theory be slightly be larger than that of the rifle to allow for any misalignment when the barrel is threaded and/or a coupling is attached, before the moderator is screwed on. Otherwise when the bullet exits the rifle end and enters the moderator's expansion chamber it's liable to catch the baffles and knurled-end opening as it passes through them. In fact the instruction sheet states that the thread at the muzzle end must be cut in accurate alignment with the rifle bore. In the sectional drawing on the same sheet, look at the larger calibre of the moderator and coupling (right) in comparison to that of the rifle (left).
Compare also the calibre of three different moderators for .22 rifles - the Parker-Hale in the middle of the first photo and on the left in the second, which shows it to be slightly larger than the others. So even the narrower bore of the latter two must be capable of allowing the passage of a .22 bullet without hindrance.
That makes it more likely drawback blood (and possibly a small amount of backspatter) will enter the moderator end, not less.
(http://i.imgur.com/51Ch7qU.jpg)
Top to bottom - SAK, Parker-Hale, ASE Ultra.
(http://i.imgur.com/vTjSK4B.jpg)
Left to right - Parker-Hale, SAK, ASE Ultra.
(http://i.imgur.com/vVtHL17.jpg)
1) the depth quoted above is not entirely accurate it is taking distances at which they fired weapons and still found some blood 5mm inside and misrepresenting that distance as how far inside the blood was
2) Every case is different a general observation is a general observation it doesn't preclude variation so you have to be careful. There are drops that were found 7 inches of more in weapons by coroners BUT just a few drops at most that far and they will be small drops because larger ones can't travel that far. The bulk of the blood will be less deep. Even with respect to the data on blood in general going only 5mm or less inside when the gun is 1-1.5 inches away there were a few drops that managed to make it 6 or 7mm inside. When there is a huge difference between what has been observed by coroners and in tests then there is an issue that needs to be addressed. That issue could be something happening experts didn't think about before or could be attributale to something different than drawback. Obviously the blood on the side that screws into the rifle wasn't drawback for instance. Either the killer tranferred the blood from his hands or stick it in something bloody or it leaked from the rifle there. It could not have been from drawback.
You want there to be set things that happen to a precise distance no matter what without variation. There is no such thing. There will always be some variation. Even with 22 calibers a drop or 2 might get an inch further in one case than another despite the locations of a shot on one victim and another being almost the same.
Whether a particular location is likely to result in back spatter is first and foremost a factor of the location of the wound and the second most important factor is the properties of the bullet not just caliber of the bullet the various properties. Whether the blood that is projected back will hit the weapon/shooter or any will go inside the weapon is a factor of distance. At contact and near contact ranges an additional factor comes into play- the gases that are expelled. There already would be drawback in many circumstances without the gases but the gases make drawback even more likely- location of the shot is still a factor though.
So you have to look at the location of the wound like the experts in this case did and assess based on that location and the nature of the skin and the nature of the blood inside that area and the effects of all 3 causes for drawback mixing together what will happen. The experts did this very detailed look. You are not going to find any such detailed analysis of locations in ordinary literatire this is a very fact intensive inquiry.
You want Jeremy to be innocent so you can promote your agenda about mental problems and adoption etc. So you want evidence that the blood can't have resulted from drawback. you are not going to find it. There is nothing saying that drawback can't occur from a shot fired with a moderator or a 22 shot to the neck. It will be a futile search.
The evidence in publications comes from past criminal cases/homicide investigations and testing. There are cases where some blood made it deeper inside than it did in studies. Studies are not on real people and thus while they get patterns down pretty good and often they come close to replicting what is found in the field they can't preduct everything to the letter and slight variations always happen evne in the field when circumstances are very close.
You want a nice neat table like a multiplication table students use but there is no such thing.
The ONLY way to establish drawback can't result from a wound is by having somone assess the gun was too far away from the wound or that the specific location is impossible to result in drawback because of the nature of the body there. But there is always a possibility of a contact owund resulting in drawback, even though 22 calibers usually don't result in drawback they occasionally have done so thus it is not impossible.
So finding someone to say it is impossible is off the table unless you find someoen who says the gunshot was too far away. You at best can find an expert to assess drawback in a particualr area is not that likely to happen. The defense thus needed to find someone who disagreed that it was virtually certain to result in drawback and needed to find an expert who would assess it was unlikely that a contact wound to her neck in that location would result in drawback. The defense couldn't find any experts willing to assert that though.
The answer is not going to be found in any publications about drawback the reaosn why ther eis a "dearth" of information is it is a very fact intensive inquiry, you need to get an expert in medicine who is an expert in drawback to assess the 3 causes of drawback my source mentioned and apply the princilpes to the exact nature of the body in that area to assess whether drawback would be likely to occur there.
I doubt you know anyone with such expertise who you can turn to for free and doubt you want to pay. The defense already wound have had an expert testify to that effect if they had found one so that should clue you in that you are wasting your time and need another avenue of approach.
The WHF tragedy is now almost 3 decades old. The whole world has changed during this time. Not least in the way we communicate. The internet offers new opportunities to exchange information and identify and procure the very best expert witnesses from across the globe.
Imo JB's defence at trial was very poor. The prosecution's firearms expert, Malcolm Fletcher, went largely unchallenged. The defence was supported by Major Mead who, as I understand it, was not a firearms expert. That was then and this is now.
I am particularly impressed with Dr Jon Nordby:
http://www.finalanalysisforensics.com/media/pdfs/Jon-Nordby-CV-140813.pdf
I like the way he communicates complex information:
http://www.finalanalysisforensics.com/media/pdfs/BasicBloodstainPatternAnalysisTEXT.pdf
Dr Jon Nordby tells us the following:
"3. Draw-back effect
a) The draw-back effect sucks blood into the muzzle of a firearm
immediately after its discharge due to the partial vacuum created by
contracting discharge gasses.
b) The draw-back effect can be observed in contact gunshot wounds but
the effect(s) of compensators, suppressors and silencing devices as
well as any other intervening items may alter the outcome".
The jury was not told that a silencer might alter the outcome of draw-back. I am keen to understand how a silencer might alter the outcome of draw-back &%+((£
Contrary to your assertion forensics are fully supported by established branches of science eg physics, maths, logic, biology, chemistry. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that if the silencer was accidentally or deliberately contaminated that will now become apparent. I would suggest sooner rather than later. It is all to play for especially with regard to the distance the blood travelled ie the 5th baffle and the way in which it distributed ie a flake. I believe this will tell us whether the blood was there as a result of a gunshot wound or not.
With regard to your interest in what motivates individuals to take an interest in the WHF tragedy/Jeremy Bamber's case have you ever considered your own motivations? 8(0(*
Who do you think you are kidding? Nordby's simplistic definition doesn't even begin to discuss the 3 distinct causes of drawback which I posted about. I posted on purpose to show it has muliple causes and facets. The ONLY thing you care about is theat Nordby made the claim attachments sometimes alter drawback being found in the weapon. How? Well first of if long enough the drawback never reaches the weapon they sit in the attachment only. Smoe attachments don't have a flush face and have holes such as flash suppressors. This prevents the attachment from touching the body well and containing the blood of inhibits gases touchign but that doesn't mean the OTHER 2 causes of drawback still will not caus eit.
You are desperate to try to pretend that drawback will not end up in a mdoerator but it is wrong and documented in the field that bdrawback has ended up in moderators.
The defense couldn't find someone to rebut the proseuction expert's claims that the wound was a contact wound,that a contact wound in the location in question was virtually certain to result in drawback or rebut that drawback end sup in a moderator like the one belongign to the murder weapon.
Thinking you are going to find someone when the defense failed is just funny!
*I thought the Parker Hale silencer had 15 baffles not 17 as above? I'm baffled if I know 8)-)))Either the number of baffles changed with the year of manufacture (from enquiries made to Parker-Hale, as I remember reading on'tother side... which should be taken with a dollop of you know what), or Fletcher and Lincoln counted the additional washer and spring-washer as baffles, making the number up to 17. Only one washer is mentioned in the CoA document, so maybe there was a mistake in transcription there. The spring-washer is needed to keep the baffles tight and aligned.
Holly... where do you think that shootalike photo was taken?
Was it WHF?The Rick Astley photo has intrigued me since I first saw it in one of the Murder Casebook magazines. It was from the Anglia Press Agency just like other contemporary b&w photos taken about the WHF incident, such as the one of a detective (D.I. Ron Cook I think) examining NB's Citroen car parked outside Goldhanger cottage. The rifle has an undamaged stock where his right hand is, and the white-painted panelling behind him is similar to that at WHF, so I'm thinking the photo was taken there. I'm sure this was a different Anschutz and moderator to the murder weapon... maybe Anthony Pargeter's? Rick Astley is possibly a plain-clothes policeman, or might be AP himself at a long shot, although can't remember what he looked like. There is a photo somewhere or OS Quicktime video on YouTube showing a glimpse of AP.
Either the number of baffles changed with the year of manufacture (from enquiries made to Parker-Hale, as I remember reading on'tother side... which should be taken with a dollop of you know what), or Fletcher and Lincoln counted the additional washer and spring-washer as baffles, making the number up to 17. Only one washer is mentioned in the CoA document, so maybe there was a mistake in transcription there. The spring-washer is needed to keep the baffles tight and aligned.
If you're desperate, mail the original serial number to the current seller who took over from Parker-Hale, if you can find it in the gun supplier's police statement and see if they've any info in their records going back to '84...
http://www.bisley-uk.com/product_v3.php?i=PHSSA&c=23 (http://www.bisley-uk.com/product_v3.php?i=PHSSA&c=23)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Hale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Hale)
Failing that, try a firearms forum where someone is sure to know.
The only way to prove drawbackimpossible is to establish a wound was made from too far a distance for drawback to occur.
3 different things cause drawback but it only heppens when the gun is close enough.
The woudn was determined to be a contact wound that woudl result in drawback and thus tha thad the wepaon been used without the moderator blood would have been in the rifle but it wasn't. The defens ehas been completely unable to deal with this aspect let alone the blood found in the mdoerator. BOTH need to be dealth with.
As for the baffles the design was changed. It had 17 at the time Nevill's purchase but they were subsequently altered to 15 that is why the relacement sets have 15 baffles now.
Thanks for clarifying the baffles.
It's absolutely not true that all contact wounds result in draw-back.
It's not even certain SC's wounds were contact but even if they were the other conditions make it an unlikely occurrence:
- Small calibre weapon
- Small bullets
- Anatomical location - neck
Now factor in the gasses dissipating in the chamber with a reduction in pressure from circa 3000 psi to circa 60 psi.
Why do you think Dr Nordby states:
http://www.finalanalysisforensics.com/media/pdfs/BasicBloodstainPatternAnalysisTEXT.pdf
Page 6:
a) The draw-back effect sucks blood into the muzzle of a firearm
immediately after its discharge due to the partial vacuum created by
contracting discharge gasses.
b) The draw-back effect can be observed in contact gunshot wounds but
the effect(s) of compensators, suppressors and silencing devices as
well as any other intervening items may alter the outcome".
Please note the word "can" ie not that it will but it can.
Not only was it unlikely to have occurred with SC's wounds due to the above factors but there's much evidence to suggest it didn't:
- Lack of skin tissue
- Distance blood travelled back ie 8th baffle
- The way in which the blood was distributed
It should be possible for the likes of Dr Nordby to confirm one way or the other.
*I thought the Parker Hale silencer had 15 baffles not 17 as above? I'm baffled if I know 8)-)))Someone else was baffled as well...
You keep making up your own crap.
You took an Indian source that made very gernalized claims and hold that out as neck wounds rarely being able to reuslt is drawback or backspatter. I produced a source that stated striaght out that shots to areas of the turnk that have a lot of blood available can result in backsaptter hitting a shooter who is 4 meters away. You keep intentioanlyl twisting very generalized claims to suit your agenda.
You still keep ignoring that there are 3 distinct things that cause drawback and 2 of them are not related to contact wounds but rather back spatter generally. Those 2 result in back spatter even when the gun is far away from the muzzle. The distance is significant because that determines whether it will be able to go inside the gun or hit the shooter if not a contact wound. If a contact wound then the ADDED factor of the gases come into play.
You made up from whole cloth the notion that neck wounds in the location of the fatal wound under the conditions tha texisted with a lot of blood inside from the first owund would not be likely to result in spatter. You twisted a bunch of very generalized claims that offered nothing specifically related to the analysist that was conducted by the prosecution experts.
You also ar emaking up form whole cloth the notion 22 claibers virtually never result in spatter the truth is they often do BUT rarely result in spatter with head shots. It is the reverse of what you want to contend.
Your own source said tissue rarely enters inside but you twisted that too and declare tissue has to be inside. In the meantime there ocudl have been tissue for all you knwo the prosecution had no reason to mention it because until DNA testing we had no ability to try determining who tissue came from when there are multiple victims.
You make up all you own crap just like you made up all you own babble about June and Sheila's mental issues only you know even less about guns and the physiology behind bullet wounds than you do about psychology.
You ridiculously suggest you know better than the experts in the case and that based on very generlaized claims you can refute the prosecution experts though the defense found no one who could do so and still to this day have found no one who could do so. It is really laughable.
In the menatime the only research you are willing to do on drawbakc and back spatter is ion the Internet then you claim there is a dearth of information. The experts have a great deal of information. If you are willing to pay or to go to libraries that have major medical journals and publications you can read all about the studies. The books you are reaidng are to provide a very short overview so peopel are simply aware it exists.
I fed you a source that was onyl providing an overview but had more technical information than most by describing the 3 processes that can cause drawback. Most sources don't even bother noting there are 3 and only discuss gases. Those that do mention there are 3 usually don't bother to list them all and discuss them because they are only providing a very broad overview. You should be happy to have read how all 3 operate. It didn't discuss in detail how they interact with one another though it just mentions they do.
Making up your own claims that 22 claibers ar enot going to result in drawback goes no where. You have shown yourself to have little knowledge about guns and can't possibly refute the evidence of the experts. You need to get detailed expert evaluations to try to refute it. The defense failed so obviously your work at finding an expert is not going to be easy especially when you don't want to pay for it.
Someone else was baffled as well...
http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/260691-parker-hale-moderator-re-assembly-question/ (http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/260691-parker-hale-moderator-re-assembly-question/)
... but 17 was the correct number...
http://www.forensic-science.co.uk/bamber6.html (http://www.forensic-science.co.uk/bamber6.html)
I'm confused! Was it 15 then 17 or the other way round? Either way I wonder why the manufacturers decided to increase or decrease? &%+((£Parker-Hale must have used 17 baffles pre-1985 like the Bamber's moderator, then they found that 15 gave just as good a sound reduction as 17, so standardized on fewer and saved very slightly in manufacturing costs.
(See the top of your post above). Karma dear, Karma @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
We can all see when you start losing the argument. Posters and guests can judge for themselves.
I stand by my previous comments on this thread and others can carry out their own research and form their own opinions.
Holls -V- Scip ?>)()<
Parker-Hale must have used 17 baffles pre-1985 like the Bamber's moderator, then they found that 15 gave just as good a sound reduction as 17, so standardized on fewer and saved very slightly in manufacturing costs.
How am I losing? I have effectively demonstrated you don't care about the facts at all. You have decided to seek out anything you can spin to try to pretend that 22 calibers won't cause drawback so you can then resort to your theories about Sheila's mental health where you decide you know better than her own doctor who actually spoke to her verus you having practically know knowlege about her. You are ignoring the experts about the medical issues, forensics and mental health for your agenda.
Your own expert wrote, "Occasionally, pieces of skin and/or adispose tissue have been found inside the weapon." In which instances? Contact headshots mainly and even then only occasionally. You made up that tissue is always present with blood in drawback though your own source said occasionally. This is what you do with everything you discuss. You just make up what suits you and ignroe the facts.
You lost the debate long ago and just look foolish at this point.
Depends how it was reconfigured I guess:Think the overall length remained more or less the same - there are slight variations in length according to the source. The latest from the current seller is 173mm. (2015) whereas the Bamber moderator was 176mm. (1984). I suspect the baffles also stayed the same thickness (width) as they probably had thousands in stock. So maybe less metal was shaved from the inside circumference to create the ledge upon which the first baffle rested, making the expansion chamber larger with no detrimental effect on the moderator's sound reduction qualities, confirmed by testing in an R&D department if they had one. So your second option is probably the right one.
- The overall length shortened with all other components and expansion chamber remaining the same to cover the loss of two baffles?
- The overall length remaining the same but expansion chamber extended to account for the loss of two baffles with all other components remaining the same?
- The overall length remaining the same with the expansion chamber remaining the same but the width of the baffles being widened to account for the loss of two.
Have I missed any other permutations?
Might be a save in manufacturing costs or a marketing edge by making it more efficient in terms of power and accuracy with little or no trade off in an increase in sound?
You deploy a number of tactics when you start losing the argument. In your post above you attempt to cloud the issues by derailing the thread and referring to SC's mental health issues. And of course the usual personal comments and name calling. If you wish to discuss SC's mental health issues there are a number of existing threads. This thread is to discuss draw-back which you created and called out to me to come play with Scip...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6061.msg222006#msg222006
So here I am ready to play 8(>((
Please find me a post of mine where I have stated draw-back will not occur with a .22? I have repeatedly stated it is unlikely. There's a difference between impossible and unlikely. It might well prove to be impossible when the silencer is factored in.
This is what Malcom Fletcher told the jury and judges at the CoA hearing:
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
457. Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, gave evidence to explain how blood got into the moderator if it was attached, or into the barrel if there was no moderator attached. He said that the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated. However, the expanding gas when the bullet left the muzzle was under normal circumstances distributed into the atmosphere. However with a contact shot there was no opportunity for this escape and the gas would follow the bullet into the wound as it expanded. Back pressure would then build up forcing the gas back out of the wound taking with it blood and tissue which would in effect be blasted back into the barrel if there was no moderator or into the moderator if one was attached. He said that even without direct contact, the same effect might occur but only if the gap between the end of the barrel, or the moderator if attached, and the skin was less than one millimetre. He said that the likelihood of such an occurrence was to an extent dependent on the part of the body to which the shot was delivered and the amount of blood present at that point.
458. If the shot to Shelia Caffell, which was a contact shot to the throat, had been fired without the moderator in place, he would have expected to find blood in the barrel of the gun. If the moderator was attached it was "virtually certain" that Sheila Caffell's blood would get into the moderator. There was, he said "a very slight possibility of it not happening, but very slight".
You will note his explanation to account for blood from a wound being drawn back into the barrel of a gun or silencer is based on the gases which are generated by the bullet being discharged from the weapon. Normally these gases are distributed in the atmosphere. However with a contact wound or near contact wound (within 1mm - 2mm of skin) there's no opportunity for these gases to distribute in the atmosphere so effectively they enter the wound and are then propelled backwards taking blood and usually skin tissue with them. What Malcolm Fletcher has failed to take into account is that by using a silencer most of the gases are discharged in the silencer making it extremely unlikely that draw-back would occur.
It is possible to set up a reconstruction to confirm one way or the other. Even if draw-back takes place it will determine whether blood could be drawn back as far as the 8th baffle and whether it would have distributed the way in which it is claimed it was found. I have been in email contact with Dr Nordby. A letter is winging its way to JB for his approval to undertake a reconstruction. I have financial backers and the world's press are waiting in the wings ?>)()<
How silencers work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-keuXw5xfRs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfNFbpkOgqA
He also makes reference to a mechanism fault which made unloading the magazine difficult (I assume they mean loading?). Does this mechanism fault relate to the rifle model in question or the Bamber owned rifle? If the Bamber owned rifle then it was probably damaged during the events. If a piece broke off the stock then other parts may have been damaged too?No, he means unfastening an empty magazine from the rifle because you have to pull back on a latch to release a spring lock which prevents it from coming loose. To fasten it back on you just push it into the receiving slot so it clicks and locks itself in automatically, hence easier than unfastening. So some fault to do with the latch and/or spring lock. The fault was on the Bamber rifle, although I have read on some gun forums that the Anschutz firing mechanism in general was prone to jamming. I reckon any part of the mechanism could have been damaged because of the heavy-handed treatment the rifle received. It was enough to break a piece off the butt when NB was "putting up a spirited defence", as Vanezis pointed out at trial.
How am I clouding the issues? I am the one who posted the 3 mechanisms that cause drawback and discussed how important it is to assess the skin and lood attributes in a location to assess whether drawback will occur. You want to ignore such an just try twisting sources to preend they say things they don't so you cna misrepresent that drawback would not be likely to occur.
I simply brought up you do so in order to pretend Sheila did it so you can then advance your mental health agenda where you engage in the same sort of nonsense.
Your sources never stand for the propositions you assert you always distort them beyond recongition.
You produced no valid evidence that it is unlikely. You produced a source that merely claimed it is more likely for a high caliber headshot to produce back spatter than a shot to the trunk from a 22. That doesn't say a shot form a 22 is unlikely to cause spatter it says a shot to the head by a high caliber weapon is even more likely to produce spatter. In the meantime the source offered no evidence to establish the claim as true. The truth is that there are parts of the trunk more likely to result in spatter than the head. You have to do a detialed look at a locaiton. But in any event the claim it is even more likely for a high caliber head shot to cause spatter still doesn't say a shot from a 22 is unlikely. You twisted things.
You twisted even worse when you said that there would have to be tittue in the weapon if it were drawback when your own source said that only happens occasionally and didn't discuss if it ever happens in trunk shots.
And note how I explained to you there are 3 different causes of backspatter, two of which are unrelated to the gases. Two of them happen regardless of the distance the gun is from the weapon when fired BUT can only be drawn more than a few MM inside the weapon when the shot is a contact shot. Gases still escape from the moderator into a wound mind unless the moderator has vents which the one in question doesn't..
Note also that coroners have determined FOR SURE drawback cna be foudn in moderators as there are documented cases so in addition to testing there are real World observations that result in such.
The 8th baffle is only a few inches deep and drawback will travel that far without a problem. No one reported seeing any blood on the 8th baffle only the defense found blood there and it was microscopic. The smallest blood travels the furthest and a little blood has been observed deeper than where it usually is found. A significant amount of blood found beyond a few inchest would be suspicious. The blood that was found on the opposite end was detemrined not to be drawback because it would not be able to get that far but rather to have gotten there by some other method such as transferred from the gloves of the person who unscrewed it.
The defense couldn't find any experts willing to say it was unlikely for drawback to occur from a neck wound in the lcoation of her fatal wound.
The defense couldn't find anyone to say drawback would not reach the first 8 baffles.
The data from coroners and studies is that drawback from 22 calibers travels several inches so the data confirms the possiiblity it was drawback.
The assertion that her blood would have gotten in the rifle is unrebutted. The gases certianly wouldn't have been in any way inhibited if the rifle had no moderator. So you can't even attempt to say all 3 causes of backspatter woudl not have interacted. You found no source discussing the area of the body where she suffered the shot and what impact the 3 causes of drawback would have in such area. You have nothing to refute the assertion that drawback woudl be virtually certian to occur in that area and thus would be found int he rifle had it not been attached.
You have nothign to say drawback can't end up in a mdoerator.
You have nothign at all to suggest the blood was planted in the moderator and that is the only way it could have gotten there other than drawback.
You have nothing at all except the desire to ignore the evidence so you can pretend Sheial did it so you can then advance your mental health agenda.
No, he means unfastening an empty magazine from the rifle because you have to pull back on a latch to release a spring lock which prevents it from coming loose. To fasten it back on you just push it into the receiving slot so it clicks and locks itself in automatically, hence easier than unfastening. So some fault to do with the latch and/or spring lock. The fault was on the Bamber rifle, although I have read on some gun forums that the Anschutz firing mechanism in general was prone to jamming. I reckon any part of the mechanism could have been damaged because of the heavy-handed treatment the rifle received. It was enough to break a piece off the butt when NB was "putting up a spirited defence", as Vanezis pointed out at trial.
*&(+(+ I understand now.I should have said pushed rather than pulled, because the pie-shaped triangular piece behind the magazine has to be forced upwards with a finger or thumb to release it.
And note (highlighted in your post above) how I will wait to hear from Dr Nordby rather than the views of someone who clearly doesn't know what he is talking about.
With regard to your post as follows and the three sources (subcutaneous gas effect, temporary cavity, tail splashing) that you keep banging on about in your post as follows:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6061.msg222363#msg222363
You will note your source (author/ess) is referring to back spatter and not draw-back. I have already asked you to use the correct terms ie draw-back. If your author/ess is unable to use the correct terminology what does that tell you about his/her competence?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6061.msg222516#msg222516
Your long waffly post as follows starts off:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6061.msg223614#msg223614
"How am I clouding the issues? I am the one who posted the 3 mechanisms that cause drawback and discussed how important it is to assess the skin and lood attributes in a location to assess whether drawback will occur".
Except you haven't posted the 3 mechanisms that cause draw-back have you? Your author/ess in the following post is referring to back spatter. Not once does he/she refer to draw back. Either you are deliberately twisting (for whatever reason(s)) or you are some sort of complete numpty.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6061.msg222516#msg222516
Please refer to Dr Nordby's explanation of back spatter and draw-back in the following on page 6:
http://www.finalanalysisforensics.com/media/pdfs/BasicBloodstainPatternAnalysisTEXT.pdf
Dr Nordby's cv:
http://www.finalanalysisforensics.com/media/pdfs/Jon-Nordby-CV-140813.pdf
Dr Nordby's website:
http://www.finalanalysisforensics.com/
Unless you can raise something substantially new I will not be wasting my time with you further. There's enough information above for posters and guests to make an informed view.
More info re how suppressors (silencers) work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umzYPNYjEiY
Malcolm Fletcher:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19861014&id=EoJDAAAAIBAJ&sjid=q6UMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1622,3082380
Malcolm Fletcher states in the newspaper article above that he carried out tests on the gun and silencer but this appears to be based on the length of the rifle and silencer only ie to show that a female of SC's height could not pull the trigger. He doesn't appear to have taken into account other measurements eg length of reach/arm length/span would also determine a person's ability to reach the trigger. See boxer Sonny Liston's arm length/span which doesn't always correlate to a person's overall height:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_span
Anyway all of this is a red herring and totally irrelevant as it is clear SC could not have shot herself in the bedroom and returned the silencer to the gun cupboard regardless of whether she could reach the trigger or not. It does place a question mark over Malcolm Fletcher's competence?
He doesn't make any reference to a reconstruction in terms of establishing if the draw-back effect would be possible with a .22 Anshutz semi-auto rifle model 525, .22 Eley subsonic hollow point bullets and Parker Hale sound moderator (silencer). &%+((£
He also makes reference to a mechanism fault which made unloading the magazine difficult (I assume they mean loading?). Does this mechanism fault relate to the rifle model in question or the Bamber owned rifle? If the Bamber owned rifle then it was probably damaged during the events. If a piece broke off the stock then other parts may have been damaged too?
What else is known about Malcolm Fletcher eg other cases, his credentials etc?
I thought I would post this and link it in to my facebook and twitter accounts for the benefit of my 4 facebook friends and 2 twitter followers 8)--))
A central plank of the prosecution's case is that blood found its way inside the silencer by the phenomenon known as draw-back. This is caused when a gunshot wound is inflicted with the barrel of a gun (or silencer?) in contact with the skin. Or close contact ie 1mm - 2mm away from the surface of the skin. When the trigger of a gun is pulled it releases a propellant. The propellant generates propulsion and moves the bullet, obviously at tremendous speed. When the propellant is ignited by the release of the trigger it generates hot gases which travel along with the bullet and once outside the end of the guns barrel or silencer will dissipate in the atmosphere. However when the guns barrel (or silencer?) are in contact with the skin or close contact (1mm - 2mm) the hot gas will be unable to dissipate in the atmosphere so it can be sucked into the wound and then propel backwards into the guns barrel (or silencer?) taking with it blood and often other biological material eg skin tissue, bone fragments from the wound. As the blood sample found in silencer matched SC's blood type/group the prosecution claim JB shot SC using the silencer and then returned it to the gun cupboard.
There's a plethora of info on the internet and youtube vids explaining the above. Google how a gun works, how a bullet works, how a silencer works etc.
At JB's 2002 CoA hearing the firearms expert employed by the Home Office, Malcolm Fletcher, told the jury the following:
457. Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, gave evidence to explain how blood got into the moderator if it was attached, or into the barrel if there was no moderator attached. He said that the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated. However, the expanding gas when the bullet left the muzzle was under normal circumstances distributed into the atmosphere. However with a contact shot there was no opportunity for this escape and the gas would follow the bullet into the wound as it expanded. Back pressure would then build up forcing the gas back out of the wound taking with it blood and tissue which would in effect be blasted back into the barrel if there was no moderator or into the moderator if one was attached. He said that even without direct contact, the same effect might occur but only if the gap between the end of the barrel, or the moderator if attached, and the skin was less than one millimetre. He said that the likelihood of such an occurrence was to an extent dependent on the part of the body to which the shot was delivered and the amount of blood present at that point.
458. If the shot to Shelia Caffell, which was a contact shot to the throat, had been fired without the moderator in place, he would have expected to find blood in the barrel of the gun. If the moderator was attached it was "virtually certain" that Sheila Caffell's blood would get into the moderator. There was, he said "a very slight possibility of it not happening, but very slight".
"Since the blood from inside the sound moderator belonged to the same group as Sheila Caffell, and since there was no blood inside the barrel of the rifle, I was led to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell had been shot whilst the sound moderator was fitted to the rifle."
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
At JB's trial the judge, Justice Drake, asked Malcolm Fletcher if there were any other possibilities to account for the blood being in the silencer. He replied "The only other possibility is that it was put there deliberately".
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19861015&id=E4JDAAAAIBAJ&sjid=q6UMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4879,3440832
However what Malcolm Fletcher overlooked, either out of incompetence or being persuaded to be economical with the truth, is that a silencer reduces the gases ejected with the bullet quite considerably thus reducing the pounds per square inch (psi) from around 3000 psi to 60 psi. With a silencer fitted to the guns barrel the bullet enters first an expansion chamber and then a number of baffles before it exits. The expansion chamber and baffles allow the hot gases to expand and slow their release. Meaning they dissipate in the silencer and the reduced amount that leaves the silencer does so slowly.
The following animated second image depicts this beautifully
http://www.industrytap.com/silencer-suppressor-inside-look-one-gun-enthusiasts-coolest-gadgets/26953
Dr Jon Nordby on page 6 states the following
"The draw-back effect can be observed in contact gunshot wounds but the effect(s) of compensators, suppressors and silencing devices as well as any other intervening items may alter the outcome."
http://www.finalanalysisforensics.com/media/pdfs/BasicBloodstainPatternAnalysisTEXT.pdf
This obviously puts a whole different complexion on the draw-back theory in JB's case and the central plank of the prosecution's case.
I think I am right in saying that Ann Eaton's husband, Peter Eaton, was a registered gun dealer. I wonder if he was familiar with draw-back? &%+((£ He was the person who handed the silencer to DS Jones having sat up drinking whisky with him &%+((£
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3580
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3582
The victims' samples were handed to EP (see top of page):
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=204.msg2228#msg2228
I haven't seen this mentioned previously on either forum (Blue or Red). Assuming it's new I can't take all the credit as without Scip starting up this thread - About drawback - I would not have researched the above. So a big thanks to Scip 8@??)( 8((()*/
This also shows that without vigorous debate and opposing views we would not be able to move forward in our quest for answers, albeit that JB has been found guilty in a court of law ?{)(**
All you are doing is repeating the same nonsense over and over again.
I already despatched your nonsense by pointing out:
1) none of your mumbo jumbo refutes the prosecution assertion that without the moderator there would have been drawback in the barrel of the weapon. Without the moderator there was nothing to dissipate the gases so nothing to prevent drawback from occurring. That was the argument made at trial that drawback would definitely occur from the wound had the rifle been used without the moderator and would have been deposited in the rifle itself.
2) Your mumbo jumbo fails to establish that it would have been impossible for drawback to get in the moderator.
A) Your own source simply says moderators and other things have the potential to alter the outcome not that drawback can't be deposited in mooderators. It is documented that blood has been drawn into moderators. The reaosn why you can't find anything that says it is impossible for blood to get in moderators is because blood has been drawn into moderators.
B) You intentionally ignore there are other causes of drawback than just the gases. I posted discussion of the things that mix together. I also pointed out that it is mor elikely and the volume increased when there is a nearby wound as there was in this case. You ignore all that, ignore that your own sources sya the full comlexity is not understood and jsut pretend only gases causes drawback nothing else and make up the fiction that therefore it is impossible for drawback to get in a moderator.
C) You even take figures that are unrelated to the mdoerator used and simply mention how low the gas output can be reduced to by certain moderators and then again create the ficiton this means drawback can't get in a moderator.
In conclusion:
You failed at providing ANY source that establishes it is impossible for blood to get in a moderator. That is because it is not impossible it is documented that it occurs.
You failed to even address let alone refute the prosecution arguments that based on the location and condition of the wound, had the rifle been used without a moderator then blood would have been drawn into the gun.
I think you might be in denial.
No you live in fantasy land not me.
Where did you post evidence that proves it is not possible for blood to get inside a moderator and therefore the blood in the moderator had to have been planted?
Answer- you didn't, all you did was post something that says moderators can "affect the outcome" and then made up the notion this means it is impossible for drawback to occur in moderators though it is an established fact it happens.
Where did you address all the various interactions that result in back spatter and drawback?
Answer you didn't you ignore them.
Where did you address the prosecution argument that had the rifle been used without the moderator, based on the location of the wound and nature of the wound it would have resulted in blood in the moderator?
Answer: You didn't.
You are the one in denial not me. You are a legend in your own mind.
I think you might be in denial.
In denial about what? It is a fact you failed to address the issues I raised.
You hid your head in the sand from my post about a shots near a location where there was already another wound causing spatter.
You took GENERAL posts from a website trying to give a very broad overview and distorted that such was an in deptch explanation of everything there is about drawback and backspatter to try to pretend the MUCH more detailed things I posted were not valid and depsite all these games you failed to dent the prosecution's evidence.
Post a realiable source that both declares and proves it is impossible for drawback to get in a moderator. The simple truth is that you can't because the claim drawback can't get in a moderator is false. So your effort to say it is impossible for the blood to have gotten there form drawback and had to be planted is false.
Post evidence that proves that a contact shot by the murder weapon sans moderator in the location where the fatal wound was delivered (which had a lot of blood inside the neck because of hemorraging from the non-fatal wound) would not be virtually certain to occur as the prosecution experts asserted and the defense failed to refute.
Talking about how the mdoerator would reduce gases doesn't in any way address let alone refute the argument that if the fatal wound was fired WITHOUT the moderator attached then it would have gotten drawback inside it.
Each time you simply repsond with your claim that I am in denial it is proof you can't address these things I am raising and instead are trying to PRETEND you already addressed them.
I think you might be in denial.
According to that last vague statement it's just as likely that more blood may be drawn back into a moderator than less or none at all.
So I think we're all agreed that the blood in the Anschutz moderator got there as a result of drawback, rather than through any deliberate attempt by police or anyone in the family to tamper with the evidence.
Here endeth the lesson. 8((()*/
I don't think we are &%&£(+
Your rationale for thinking it was planted doesn't hold up though.
You argue that if Jeremy used the mdoerator he would not have wanted a DNA test done.
1) guilty people routinely ask for DNA tests because they have nothing to lose and just do so hoping the results will be somethign they can spin in their favor
2) He knew that in 1999 he knew that the moderator had been tested for the presence of blood but none was found thus why would he fear a DNA test? Since no blood was detected he anticipated Sheila's DNA would not be found but if it was found then all he had to do was say it was not blood based but rather the result of contamination. Indeed Webster, one of his experts, had already laid out that anything inside coudl be from contamination and admits the DNA tests never had any ability to assess whose blood was removed in 1985-86:
"the DNA profiling results were not reliable evidence to point to the source or sources of the blood found in the sound moderator in 1986."
Which means the tests were just for propaganda purposes hoping the results could be used to trick the judges.
The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence at all to suggest the blood was planted which simultaneously would have required concealing that Sheila's blood had been found in the rifle. You don't even had solid theories of who did what to plant it let alone evidence to suggest it happened.
Your claim that the silencer held a 'fine mist' doesn't hold up either and it was stated that the silencer COULD have been deliberately contaminated in court. Fact is it's a possibility and I most certainly DO have an idea of who planted the blood but I'm not stupid enough to mention their names on an internet forum!
Actually, the DNA is ONLY one aspect of why I think it was contaminated and I have mentioned the others many times. I'm really bored of repeating the same things to have then have them dragged up again and the same questions asked. I Jeremy is guilty but that the silencer was faked - I think one of the 'conspirators' was Stan Jones the other a scenes of crime officer and other officers were aware.
I posted numerous sources discussing how high velocity sappter is a fine mist spray. Also how the macro particles travel further than the micro particles hence the larger blood will be early on while the most fine blood will be further away.
The blood dried onto the first 8 baffles with only macro blood drops on the 8th baffle they didn't evne see it, there was just microscopic blood found by Lincoln there.
My post holds up and you just refuse to face it.
You are also intentionally distorting with respect to what was said in court. In court the expert refuted the notion the blood coudl have accidentally got there by innocent contamination. He siad th eonly way for blood to ge tinside woudl be drawback or intentional planting. he didn't make any comment on it being realistically possible for the blood to have bene planted.
You are just being wholly irraitonal on this issue and anytime I point out your irrational thoughts you get defensive because you know your positon makes no sense at all and is not based on objective evidence but rather simply on irrational beliefs you choose to hold.
There was nothing about 'a fine mist' and by including 'intentional planting' the expert is saying it's possible, which is what I'm saying.
I'm not being defensive (really, I'm not!) and it's only irrational to you because you believe the opposite.
We won't agree on this aspect and I have no problem with you thinking I'm being irrational - I know I'm not &%&£(+
You are indeed being irrational. How does small drops of blood get on 8 successive baffles? The only way to acocmplish that is for blood to spray inside at all angles. Back spatter sprays at all angles. Pouring blood in with the moderator horizontal would result in the blood simply fallig to the bottom near the mouth. Pouring it in with it held vertically would result in it falling deep into the mdoerator or hitting 1-2 baffles if it dropped off the first one. It would not hit 8 baffles in a row.
I already provided this to you on blue but here it is again:
Drawback effect defined: "Process that results in atomized blood drawn into the barrel of a firearm when fired at contact range".
More about atomized blood to understand what it means:
"Blood in flight: high-velocity blood
This type of bloodstain is strictly defined by the size of the resulting drops; the majority of drops in a high-velocity or atomized stain will have a diameter of less than 1 mm. A simple, cursory glance at such a stain might reveal many drops of greater diameter, and there is a tendency to give greater weight to those larger drops that tend to dominate the pattern visually. However, a detailed examination of the stain will reveal that most (>50%) are 1 mm or smaller. Such a stain requires a great force to break up the blood to this degree. In a typical crime scene setting, the only force encountered sufficient to atomize blood is that which results from a fired bullet. As the bullet strikes the source of the blood (typically a body), it atomizes the blood into a fine spray.These small droplets have small mass and thus low momentum; they generally will not travel downrange laterally farther than two feet. Back spatter of atomized blood may also be observed, which will carry the droplets uprange in the direction of the shooter. See Figure 5."
http://www.forensic-lab.com/publications/bloodspatter.html
"In the usual case of a shooting where the projectile strikes exposed skin, the energy at impact is hydrostatically transmitted throughout much of the adjoining tissue. This results in the spattering of the blood in a very fine, almost mist-like spray. These atomized droplets of blood have a very high surface area and, therefore, cannot be projected very far in the horizontal direction."
"In addition to mist-like dropets, several larger droplets will be produced as well. A typical spray pattern, characterized as high velocity impact spatter, may be seen in Figure II-18. Note that while the vast majority of these blood spots are well under one millimeter in diameter, many larger ones are also produced."
P34 of
https://books.google.com/books?id=-m_fb580Vx0C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
The above helps explain why it can't travel very far.
All that you have proved is that that is how drawback is usually defined - but we also have an expert at trial who indicated that blood may have been deliberately put into the silencer. I'm sure someone with forensic knowledge could make things look kosher - EP had their own Scenes of Crime dept. It wouldn't have been that difficult to fake in 1985.
All that you have proved is that that is how drawback is usually defined - but we also have an expert at trial who indicated that blood may have been deliberately put into the silencer. I'm sure someone with forensic knowledge could make things look kosher - EP had their own Scenes of Crime dept. It wouldn't have been that difficult to fake in 1985.
He didn't say it may have been planted you are intentionally distorting. He said the only way for blood to get inside would be through drawback or if someone intentionally placed it there. No one asked him what it would take in order to place blood inside so it would be distributed in he manner found.
The only way to get blood on the 8 baffles would be spraying it. The defense knew they had no ability to establish such a ridiculous thing.
Your positions are so irrational on this issue even Adam nailed you.
Adam pointed out that if Jeremy honestly believed the prosecution planted Sheila's blood and believed some of that blood was still inside then he would have feared it being found. Your argument that he knew it wasn't used so knew her blood could not be found inside makes no sense if you and he assert it was planted. Your whole argument was irrational from the outset.
It was even more irrational because convicted criminals even when guilty never have anything to lose in testing evidence. There is always hope the result can be spun in their favor and if it can't be spun in their favor no big loss because they can't receive a greater punishment as a result. If they don't do the testing they for sure are not getting out so have nothing to lose in trying.
But you also ignore they previous tested it for blood and found none so Jeremy had an instant out even if Sheila's DNA were found. Just say it wasn't blood based but rather contamination.
So your theory of why you believe Jeremy didn't use it makes no sense at all. It is a completely illogical contradictory mess of an argument.
You want to cling to this mess desperately no matter what and thus are willing to twist anything you can find to try to salvage it including trying to pretend in court the prosecution expert suggested the blood might have been planted. he made no such suggestion though he merely noted the only way for blood to get in a moderator is drawback or intentional planting blood can't be innocently transferred inside.
The defense didn't make any attempt to argue it was planted so he had no need to address if it were possible to plant blood so it would be distributed in he manner found and if it could be planted in such manner how to affect such.
Have you got a source on the court expert who said blood may have been deliberately put into the silencer ?
Did he say how to create a back splatter effect ?
You wouldn't know a backspatter effect from a mud pie!
Jeremy's innocent. Why ? He wrote me nice letters.
Holly, you took a source that merely said a laundry list of things can have an impact on drawback and misrepresented that it stated drawback can't occur when a moderator is used. The one spinning and not being truthful is in your mirror. The same who claims she can better diagnose Sheila's mental issues than the doctor who treated her though there is very limited information available to even make an attempt to evaluate her independently.
As for Caroline instead of following the evidence she has simply decided she doesn't want to believe the moderator was used. Her reasoning is not based on evidence that refutes it was used but rather simply her desire to believe it wasn't. When pushed to explain why she believes it she provides illogical claims not any rational ones and no evidence of any kind to suggest the blood was planted.
Adam is in left field most of the time and even Adam managed to come up with a very damning challenge to her.
Caroline argued that Jeremy expected no DNA would be found because he didn't use the moderator. Adam responded that if Jeremy truly believed that the police planted Sheila's blood then that means DNA could potentially be found. Caroline's rationale was refuted.
I further pointed pout that it was because of 1999 tests for blood that proved negative that Jeremy knew there was no blood left in the moderator. In fact in 1986 Jeremy knew from his own expert, Lincoln, that there was no visible blood present and that Lincoln found merely microscopic traces of blood and that since Lincoln removed what little blood remained there would not likely be any discernible blood found after that.
Moreover, the entire basis upon which Caroline was operating was false. Guilty convicts routinely request DNA tests, they have nothing to lose since they are already convicted. There is always hope to try to spin the results and that is what the defense hoped to do. Jeremy's own expert said the tests never had any hope of demonstrating whose blood was removed from the moderator in 1985 and 1986. He is the one who talked all about how any DNA found could simply be the product of contamination. Jeremy had an instant excuse if Sheila's DNA were found.
What Caroline should be evaluating is whether there is any evidence to suggest the blood was planted and blood was found in the rifle but this was concealed. There is no such evidence to suggest either happened let alone both. Caroline thus has no rational basis to believe the evidence was planted. She doesn't even look at what it would entail to plant blood on the first 8 baffles - upper baffles mind you.
It is as good as claiming she believes a fingerprint was planted by police without being able to explain how let alone finding and evidence to prove it was done.
Rational, objective people believe wild things happen only when there is evidence to prove it. if people choose to believe it in the absence of evidence then it is taking a leap of faith because of bias it is not objective.
I thought I would post this and link it in to my facebook and twitter accounts for the benefit of my 4 facebook friends and 2 twitter followers 8)--))
A central plank of the prosecution's case is that blood found its way inside the silencer by the phenomenon known as draw-back. This is caused when a gunshot wound is inflicted with the barrel of a gun (or silencer?) in contact with the skin. Or close contact ie 1mm - 2mm away from the surface of the skin. When the trigger of a gun is pulled it releases a propellant. The propellant generates propulsion and moves the bullet, obviously at tremendous speed. When the propellant is ignited by the release of the trigger it generates hot gases which travel along with the bullet and once outside the end of the guns barrel or silencer will dissipate in the atmosphere. However when the guns barrel (or silencer?) are in contact with the skin or close contact (1mm - 2mm) the hot gas will be unable to dissipate in the atmosphere so it can be sucked into the wound and then propel backwards into the guns barrel (or silencer?) taking with it blood and often other biological material eg skin tissue, bone fragments from the wound. As the blood sample found in silencer matched SC's blood type/group the prosecution claim JB shot SC using the silencer and then returned it to the gun cupboard.
There's a plethora of info on the internet and youtube vids explaining the above. Google how a gun works, how a bullet works, how a silencer works etc.
At JB's 2002 CoA hearing the firearms expert employed by the Home Office, Malcolm Fletcher, told the jury the following:
457. Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, gave evidence to explain how blood got into the moderator if it was attached, or into the barrel if there was no moderator attached. He said that the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated. However, the expanding gas when the bullet left the muzzle was under normal circumstances distributed into the atmosphere. However with a contact shot there was no opportunity for this escape and the gas would follow the bullet into the wound as it expanded. Back pressure would then build up forcing the gas back out of the wound taking with it blood and tissue which would in effect be blasted back into the barrel if there was no moderator or into the moderator if one was attached. He said that even without direct contact, the same effect might occur but only if the gap between the end of the barrel, or the moderator if attached, and the skin was less than one millimetre. He said that the likelihood of such an occurrence was to an extent dependent on the part of the body to which the shot was delivered and the amount of blood present at that point.
458. If the shot to Shelia Caffell, which was a contact shot to the throat, had been fired without the moderator in place, he would have expected to find blood in the barrel of the gun. If the moderator was attached it was "virtually certain" that Sheila Caffell's blood would get into the moderator. There was, he said "a very slight possibility of it not happening, but very slight".
"Since the blood from inside the sound moderator belonged to the same group as Sheila Caffell, and since there was no blood inside the barrel of the rifle, I was led to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell had been shot whilst the sound moderator was fitted to the rifle."
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
At JB's trial the judge, Justice Drake, asked Malcolm Fletcher if there were any other possibilities to account for the blood being in the silencer. He replied "The only other possibility is that it was put there deliberately".
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19861015&id=E4JDAAAAIBAJ&sjid=q6UMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4879,3440832
However what Malcolm Fletcher overlooked, either out of incompetence or being persuaded to be economical with the truth, is that a silencer reduces the gases ejected with the bullet quite considerably thus reducing the pounds per square inch (psi) from around 3000 psi to 60 psi. With a silencer fitted to the guns barrel the bullet enters first an expansion chamber and then a number of baffles before it exits. The expansion chamber and baffles allow the hot gases to expand and slow their release. Meaning they dissipate in the silencer and the reduced amount that leaves the silencer does so slowly.
The following animated second image depicts this beautifully
http://www.industrytap.com/silencer-suppressor-inside-look-one-gun-enthusiasts-coolest-gadgets/26953
Dr Jon Nordby on page 6 states the following
"The draw-back effect can be observed in contact gunshot wounds but the effect(s) of compensators, suppressors and silencing devices as well as any other intervening items may alter the outcome."
http://www.finalanalysisforensics.com/media/pdfs/BasicBloodstainPatternAnalysisTEXT.pdf
This obviously puts a whole different complexion on the draw-back theory in JB's case and the central plank of the prosecution's case.
I think I am right in saying that Ann Eaton's husband, Peter Eaton, was a registered gun dealer. I wonder if he was familiar with draw-back? &%+((£ He was the person who handed the silencer to DS Jones having sat up drinking whisky with him &%+((£
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3580
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3582
The victims' samples were handed to EP (see top of page):
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=204.msg2228#msg2228
I haven't seen this mentioned previously on either forum (Blue or Red). Assuming it's new I can't take all the credit as without Scip starting up this thread - About drawback - I would not have researched the above. So a big thanks to Scip 8@??)( 8((()*/
This also shows that without vigorous debate and opposing views we would not be able to move forward in our quest for answers, albeit that JB has been found guilty in a court of law ?{)(**
I found this on the OS. It's JB's account of how a silencer works.
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/silencer
Two things: Firstly JB states it was not legally possible to buy a silencer and yet I thought the Bamber owned Parker Hale silencer was purchased by NB and JB at Radcliffe's in Colchester along with the rifle and ammo? I wonder why PE as a registered gun dealer didn't supply them? Secondly I thought the purpose of a silencer was to eliminate the sound the gases make when they leave the barrel and hit the atmosphere with force? I thought the only way of eliminating/reducing the supersonic crack was by reducing the velocity of the bullet taking it subsonic?
I found this on the OS. It's JB's account of how a silencer works.
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/silencer
Two things: Firstly JB states it was not legally possible to buy a silencer and yet I thought the Bamber owned Parker Hale silencer was purchased by NB and JB at Radcliffe's in Colchester along with the rifle and ammo? I wonder why PE as a registered gun dealer didn't supply them? Secondly I thought the purpose of a silencer was to eliminate the sound the gases make when they leave the barrel and hit the atmosphere with force? I thought the only way of eliminating/reducing the supersonic crack was by reducing the velocity of the bullet taking it subsonic?
I think I am right in saying that some expert witnesses eg Dr Vanezis act for both prosecution and defence? Their evidence is considered bipartisan? Was this also the case with Malcolm Fletcher? According to the following his title was 'Scientific Officer' with a BSc. So it doesn't appear that he was an expert in ballistics although at the CoA/document he was described as the "firearms expert" &%+((£
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=271.0;attach=871
I'm not sure how reliable the following press article is but assuming it is accurate it surely begs the question:
1. If Daniel also received two contact gunshot wounds (both to head) why was his blood not in the silencer if MF is saying that a contact wound would result in draw-back ie blood being deposited in the barrel of the rifle or silencer if fitted?
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19861015&id=E4JDAAAAIBAJ&sjid=q6UMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4879,3440832
2. In the CoA doc MF states to some extent whether or not draw back occurs is dependent on the part of the body:
457. Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, gave evidence to explain how blood got into the moderator if it was attached, or into the barrel if there was no moderator attached. He said that the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated. However, the expanding gas when the bullet left the muzzle was under normal circumstances distributed into the atmosphere. However with a contact shot there was no opportunity for this escape and the gas would follow the bullet into the wound as it expanded. Back pressure would then build up forcing the gas back out of the wound taking with it blood and tissue which would in effect be blasted back into the barrel if there was no moderator or into the moderator if one was attached. He said that even without direct contact, the same effect might occur but only if the gap between the end of the barrel, or the moderator if attached, and the skin was less than one millimetre. He said that the likelihood of such an occurrence was to an extent dependent on the part of the body to which the shot was delivered and the amount of blood present at that point.
So is MF saying draw-back will always occur with contact or near contact wounds (near contact being within 1mm of skin) but he was able to rule it out with Daniel based on the part of body? My understanding is that draw-back and back spatter are more likely to occur with head wounds (although I am sure Scipio will be all too happy to tell me otherwise).
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
Also it doesn't appear that any firearms testing was carried out? Only tests on whether someone of around SC's height could reach the trigger. He also comments on breaking his nail (pah big girls blouse). Yet he tells the court/judge that the only other explanation for the blood being found in the silencer ie other than draw-back is that someone deliberately placed it there. So what tests did he carry out to eliminate this possibility? None as far as I can see? It surely must have been possible to set up a reconstruction to ascertain whether or not the way the blood was found in the silencer was there as a result of draw-back or not?
If I'm reading this correctly and not missing the point this guy, Malcolm Fletcher, seems the ultimate in numptiness &%+((£ In fact not only MF but surely the judge and Geoffrey Rivlin and Edmund Lawson would have switched on to the above?
Jeremy was wrong about them being illegal in the UK and also wrong about how it works it has nothing to do with the sonic crack of the bullets. The gases cause sound waves when they hit open air. The higher the pressure the louder the sound will be, the lower the pressure of the gases coming out the lower the noise it makes.The OS is writing absolute s***, as usual ... of all the people to ask about firearms they chose the one who killed his family! If, after thirty years in jail "fighting" his case JB doesn't know how a moderator works and whether they're illegal or not, then there's no hope.
The bullets make their own sonic crack unless the bullets are subsonic as was the case with the ones at WHF.
The Eaton's mainly sold shotguns. He went to them with his desires for a semi-auto shotgun. They said they are unsporting so they didn't have access to them and would not be able to help him. So he turned to someone else for a semi-auto but the only semi-auto Nevill would buy was the 22.
Jeremy was wrong about them being illegal in the UK and also wrong about how it works it has nothing to do with the sonic crack of the bullets. The gases cause sound waves when they hit open air. The higher the pressure the louder the sound will be, the lower the pressure of the gases coming out the lower the noise it makes.
The bullets make their own sonic crack unless the bullets are subsonic as was the case with the ones at WHF.
The Eaton's mainly sold shotguns. He went to them with his desires for a semi-auto shotgun. They said they are unsporting so they didn't have access to them and would not be able to help him. So he turned to someone else for a semi-auto but the only semi-auto Nevill would buy was the 22.
Jeremy was wrong about them being illegal in the UK and also wrong about how it works it has nothing to do with the sonic crack of the bullets. The gases cause sound waves when they hit open air. The higher the pressure the louder the sound will be, the lower the pressure of the gases coming out the lower the noise it makes.
The bullets make their own sonic crack unless the bullets are subsonic as was the case with the ones at WHF.
The Eaton's mainly sold shotguns. He went to them with his desires for a semi-auto shotgun. They said they are unsporting so they didn't have access to them and would not be able to help him. So he turned to someone else for a semi-auto but the only semi-auto Nevill would buy was the 22.
The OS is writing absolute s***, as usual ... of all the people to ask about firearms they chose the one who killed his family! If, after thirty years in jail "fighting" his case JB doesn't know how a moderator works and whether they're illegal or not, then there's no hope.
From Wikipedia...
In the United Kingdom, sales of suppressors fall into four categories of use. For replica and air guns, the purchase of a suppressor requires no license and in most cases, no identification requirement. For shotguns, these will probably require the presentation of the buyer's shotgun certificate but will not be recorded. If the shotgun is classified as a firearm (where capacity exceeds 3 cartridges) the firearm certificate (FAC) will need to show permission for the purchase of a suppressor. For a small- or full-bore rifle, the firearm certificate (FAC) will need to show permission for the purchase of a suppressor and also the firearm for which it is intended. All firearms certificates have the firearm and caliber approved by the police and annotated to the document before a suppressor may be purchased. Police forces usually approve applications for a suppressor for hunting and target shooters, as the risks of litigation for personal injury, especially high-tone deafness resulting from shooting-induced hearing loss, are significant; and noise pollution in general is a problem for shooting sports.
This is the reason I have never discussed his case with him:He's had access over recent years to any information required via his lawyers and support team. If they want to describe exactly how a moderator works then why not consult a reliable source?... it's very amateurish to do otherwise.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5638.msg199694#msg199694 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5638.msg199694#msg199694)
He posted in one of his blogs that not having access to the outside world by way of the internet and books is a real handicap in being able to research his case:
http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2014-12-23T13:47:00Z (http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2014-12-23T13:47:00Z)
He's had access over recent years to any information required via his lawyers and support team. If they want to describe exactly how a moderator works then why not consult a reliable source?... it's very amateurish to do otherwise.
I don't recall you explaining to either forum how silencers work prior to my links and explanation a few days ago? If I'm wrong then please retrieve your post confirming otherwise? You wouldn't by any chance be attempting to steal my thunder? ?>)()<Mmmm... a powerful five-shot 12 bore shotgun. Now let's think... one for each member of the family. Yep, that figures... he obviously thought his toy Anschutz wasn't powerful enough for the job.
NB and JB purchased the semi-auto rifle during Nov 1984. JB approached PE re a semi-auto shotgun during July 1985.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=2169 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=2169)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=2171 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=2171)
It's all hypocritical as shooters often have someone on hand re-loading another shooter during shoots.
Mmmm... a powerful five-shot 12 bore shotgun. Now let's think... one for each member of the family. Yep, that figures... he obviously thought his toy Anschutz wasn't powerful enough for the job.
A witness is called by a specific party with the intention of having that witness provide a specific piece of testimony significant to what the side calling the witness wants to argue.
The other side gets to cross examine the witness but it has to be about something related to their testimony. If you want to ask them questions about things they didn't talk about in their testimony in chief you have to recall them to the stand when it is your turn to go.
All witnesses are supposed to tell the truth. You know in advance generally what the prosecution witnesses are going to say. If they are going to say something harmful you try to find your own witness to rebut them. If you can't then on cross you try to ask questions that guts their testimony to the best extent you can. If there is something that wasn't covered by their testimony and that you could not discuss on cross but you want it in the record you can call them to the stand when it is the turn of the defense.
He was not saying any and all contact wounds result in drawback. He was talking about the wound to the neck under the exact circumstances of this case (there was a nearby wound that caused hemorrhaging inside thus her neck was a cavity full of blood and thus ideal for backspatter (drawback in the case of a contact wound). It was an individualized assessment that such would would result in drawback. Contact wounds CAN result in drawback they don't always- location of the wound plays a major role. 22 calibers RARELY result in backspatter (or in the case of contact shots drawback) when the location of the shot is the head. Coroners very rarely find spatter/drawback fro 22 caliber head wounds. Experiments use various dummies not real heads and the dummies don't react the same way real human heads do. So while testing produces spatter from .22 calibers in the real world environment it is rare.
The experts disagreed with whether they were contact shots of not to his head but even if they were drawback would not be that likely let alone a sure thing.
You don't see to want to face that each circumstance requires an individualized look at all the variables that come into play you can't just take a general rule and apply it across the board to all circumstances.
There would still be a chance of drawback if the fatal shot had been the only one fired but it would not have been a sure thing. The reason it was a sure thing is because of the hemorrhaging in her neck from the first shot. The two words a lawyer used most in response to question are "it depends" which means the answer is contingent upon the specific circumstances there is no rule that applies to all situations and the same it true for science. You have to look at the exact circumstances.
I don't recall you explaining to either forum how silencers work prior to my links and explanation a few days ago? If I'm wrong then please retrieve your post confirming otherwise? You wouldn't by any chance be attempting to steal my thunder? ?>)()<
NB and JB purchased the semi-auto rifle during Nov 1984. JB approached PE re a semi-auto shotgun during July 1985.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=2169
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=2171
It's all hypocritical as shooters often have someone on hand re-loading another shooter during shoots.
Ok Scip so here's the 2002 appeal doc which covers the salient points at trial and everything pertaining to 2002 appeal. I can only see mention of Malcolm Fletcher with regard to ballistics/firearms:
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
Who was Malcolm Fletcher representing: both, defence or prosecution? I'm unable to find any mention anywhere of any other ballistics/firearms expert other than Major Mead (for defence) who appears to have played a minor role in this whole sorry saga and I haven't seen him mentioned in any official documents.
Malcolm Fletcher was not qualified to comment on SC's biology with regard to draw-back that fell to Dr Vanezis (the pathologist) and Mark Hayward (the biologist). I am unable to find any OFFICIAL document stating that SC's wounds and the potential for draw-back were in any way connected to haemorrhaging? Please supply.
If haemorrhaging was the critical factor then why did Malcolm Fletcher and Glynis Howard bother going to the trouble of placing themselves in a similar position to SC in an attempt to determine whether or not draw-back was possible based on whether SC could reach the trigger? And make a big deal about breaking their nails?
I have posted many times that Jeremy was wrong in what he asserted about the moderator. I also noted though that it MIGHT have been intentional misrepresentation because he was suggesting there was no value in using the moderator to make it look like it wasn't used.
That's even worse that it was only a month before the murders that he wanted to buy a semi-auto shotgun...
Fletcher was a prosecution witness. He worked in the crime lab and was called by the prosecution to testify, he was simply cross examined by the defense.
The only documents publicly available discuss the OVERALL testimony that a wound in THAT location would result in drawback. I am providing you with WHY that would be the case. The defense didn't question why that is the case in court. Their own experts didn't refute it so there was no point in questioning it. If you bothered to read the 3 different things that cause backspatter/drawback which I already posted for you then you would already see the issue of a blood filled cavity being hit. You can read all about temporary cavities and blood filled cavities and back spatter. It is not limited to contact wounds it happens regardless so there is plenty out there on the subject. Backspatter was the province of the firearms expert.
The testing to see in what positions the woman could activate the trigger had nothing to do with whether drawback would occur. It was to point out that the only way she could fire the gun was if she pushed the trigger with her finger tip but her nail was int he way and would have been damaged in the process.
The trigger was too far to use her thumb to pull the trigger. She had to push the trigger as you would push a button on a phone or a typewriter key with the tip of your finger. Doing that damaged her nails though because her nails extended past her finger tips.
She didn't have damaged fingers and was seated when shot not lying down anyway so this hurts the claims Sheila shot herself.
So in other words the defence did not instruct their own expert witness. It is highly unlikely that the likes of Paul Terezon (solicitor from Kingsley Napley) Geoffrey Rivlin QC and the late Edmund Lawson QC were up to cross examining Malcolm Fletcher about the mechanics of draw-back. Or Justice Drake was going to point them in the right direction. Lol you couldn't make it up.
Fletcher's testimony on this issue is here but you won't like because it confirms the things I said while refuting things you claimed, in particualr talking about the importance of the lcoation of a wound with respect to whether drawback or backspatter will occur and even talks about how the wound would have caused back spatter had the gun been farther away when fired:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3322.msg130425.html#msg130425
You really have a cheek! YOU are providing me with reasons WHY draw-back would occur with SC's wound and yet if I provide YOU with reasons WHY SC is the likely perpetrator from a psychological perspective YOU rubbish my claims and pour scorn on me that I claim to know more than SC's psychiatrist!
I've found my own source re:
- Subcutaneous gas effect
- Temporary Cavity
- Tail Splashing
As you will see the source is female and young because I am sick to the teeth of hearing from middle-aged elderly males, who in the main have proved to be nothing other than incompetent:
- Justice Drake
- Geoffrey Rivlin QC
- Edmund Lawson QC
- Paul Terzeon
- Maclolm Fletcher
- Dr Ferguson
https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/393/Gemma%20Radford%20MSc%20thesis%20examinedA.pdf?sequence=1
As you will see the upshot from Gemma Radford's thesis is that back spatter/draw back is dependent on the following:
- Anatomical location - head
- Weapon - large calibre
- Bullet - high velocity
None of the above are relevant to SC.
The anatomical location, weapon and bullets used at WHF:
- Anatomical location - SC - chin and neck. (DC - head)
- Weapon - small calibre
- Bullet - low velocity
No doubt you will trash my post and Gemma Radford's thesis. I am not going round the houses with you Skip. Tests will be carried out.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear with regard to Malcolm Fletcher and Glynis Howard's tests but what I was attempting to say is that they did not carry out any firearms testing rather they attempted to rule out draw-back with SC committing suicide on the basis of whether or not SC could reach the trigger. Which is all a nonsense as it is obvious to most that SC could not have shot herself once with the silencer fitted removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before shooting herself fatally.
It should be obvious to everyone that Macolm Fletcher was not a competent expert witness with regard to ballistics and firearms. His job title was Senior Scientific Officer:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=271.0;attach=871
I am not a member of The Jeremy Forum and therefore unable to access the link to confirm it supports your claims or refutes mine.
However as I have previously stated tests will be carried out to confirm whether or not the blood 'found' in the silencer was there as a result of draw-back as the jury were told.
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 8)><( 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".
3. MF refers to accompanying tissue and yet there was no tissue (other than perhaps a tissue of lies 8)-)))) 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.
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.
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:
(http://s23.postimg.org/pio8ctznv/mojreport.jpg)
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:
(http://s30.postimg.org/47lktyqa9/tissue.jpg)
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.
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.
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.
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 8)-))) 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"?
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?
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.”
8(0(*
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 8(0(*
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.
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.
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? &%+((£
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.
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.
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?
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 8(0(*
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 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 8(0(* 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 8(0(*
I have a feeling this whole silencer 'evidence' is going to prove a huge embarrassment to the judiciary.
[moderated content]
The body of knowledge about drawback hasn't increased substantially. So there is no new science to identfy let alone any new science that discredits the moderator evidence. There isn't any old science that discredits it either.
That is they the defense experts have chosen to try attacking it on a different basis. They created the false construct that there was amuzzle impression observed by Vanezis on Sheila and that the muzzle imprint corresponds to the rifle sans moderator. They rididculously claimed such with respect to a wound that was not even a contact wound though. They took a wound not a contact wound, a wound that images show no muzzle imprint around and then claim Vanezis described what to them sounds like a muzzle imprint and that it sounds like the muzzle imprint of a rifle sans moderator. It is laughable and demontrates desperation.
You have the same attitude as Charlie Brown- each Halloween he believed the Great Pumpkin would come and no matter how many times he was disappointed in the past he still refused to face the Great pumpkin didn't exist and would say next year...
Each time Jeremy loses his latest submissions you have the same attitude- well next time I feel will be different. Rational peopel would require seeing a sound argument supported by evidence before believing the defens ehas a valid position to raise and a strong chance of success.
The defense exhausted everything including the kitchen sink already. If they try to subit anything again it will truly be crap formt he bottom of the barrel.
The main difference between then, ie trial and 2002 appeal, and now is the power of the internet ie the ability to exchange information which offers significant potential in aiding JB and his defence in researching his case and procuring the most appropriate expert witnesses from around the globe. It is absurd to say that ballistics has not moved on in the last 3 decades. Malcolm Fletcher and his testimony would be laughed out of court today.
You talk to me as though I am responsible for what has happened with JB's case over the last 3 decades. I am not. I am simply a poster on an internet forum.
JB has very limited resources in every respect. He was/is dependent on the likes of Mike, his campaign team and the dodgy lawyer now behind bars. Although many of these people I'm sure were/are well intentioned in some ways they have been unhelpful. Mike with his ridiculous every changing claims. The campaign team placing a lot of emphasis on aspects of the case that will simply be written off as administrative errors (and which in all probability are administrative errors) SC in kitchen, phone call from NB etc. The dodgy lawyer now behind bars say no more. JB has been handicapped by not having a single on-going reliable support source/system as with other MoJ's:
Sally Clarke - Father and husband
Stefan Kiszko - Mother
Stephen Downing - Parents and sister
Michael Hickey (Bridgwater 4) - Mother
Guildford Four - Family
Maguire Seven - Family
Birmingham Six - Family
Barry George - Sister
There is nothing that has changed significantly in our understanding of drawback. That there have been changes in some ballistic areas is immaterial the issue is drawback.
The Internet has nothing to do with the expertise that experts had at the time of trial or now with regards to drawback.
You have found ZILCH to undermine any of the evidence you just say you refuse to accept the evidence. You twisted to try to pretend that drawback would nto get in a moderator and now want to pretend it can't get to the 8th baffle but you found no experts who say such isn't possible let aloen experts who have proof to back up such a position. The defense found no experts to challenge such nor have you. You have no reaosn to doubt the evidence you just choose not to accept it because of your bias and agenda.
Your expectation that the evidence will magicly be refuted is simply an unrealistic hope you have.
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.
This isn't really relevant to the thread but it relates to Jim Shelley above. It's an interview between JS and JB which I thought might be of interest:
http://jimshelley.com/crime/jeremy-bamber-qa/ (http://jimshelley.com/crime/jeremy-bamber-qa/)
I hadn't heard about the Jim Shelley links until I found them a couple of days ago while looking for something else.
“I can’t say that she’d had any particular experience with that particular weapon. It’s not difficult, not sophisticated. They’re simple things to operate. If she’d watched a cowboy movie, it’s almost as simple as that.”
No, it isn't... especially if she hadn't any "particular experience using that particular weapon" and was in the midst of a frenetic and violent assasination, requiring the magazine to be quickly reloaded at least three times. I thought he'd informed the police that Sheila was familiar with all the weaponry at WHF?
Someone remind me... in which movie did John Wayne fire an Anschutz? &%+((£
"My own personal belief, I believe that that’s a complete red herring. I don’t have evidence one way or the other on that, not hard evidence. I believe that she didn’t use the silencer.”
What else would you expect him to say?... because a hidden, bloodied and damaged moderator clearly lays the blame at the Deviant's door.
I've recently come across the following article by Jim Shelley. I've copied and pasted the sections that relate to draw-back and back spatter below and included the full link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Shelley_(TV_critic)
http://jimshelley.com/crime/jeremy-bamber/
Malcolm Fletcher - Senior Scientific Officer - Prosecution
"Apart from the traces of blood, there was nothing to indicate that the silencer had been used. Malcolm Fletcher, a firearms expert testifying for the prosecution, said: “I have been unable to establish whether any of these bullets or bullet fragments have been fired through a sound moderator (silencer).”
"He admitted under cross-examination that a .22 calibre weapon was “the least likely” weapon to produce “backspatter”, and that a silencer made it less likely still".
"Apart from the traces of blood, there was nothing to indicate that the silencer had been used. Malcolm Fletcher, a firearms expert testifying for the prosecution, said: “I have been unable to establish whether any of these bullets or bullet fragments have been fired through a sound moderator (silencer).”
John Hayward - ?Biologist - ?Prosecution
"At the trial, the Judge emphasised to the jury how, from experience, Hayward could judge the possibility of a mixture by appearance. Hayward had said the opposite and, in fact, under cross-examination, admitted he had never in all his experience seen “backsplatter” before".
Major Freddie Mead - ?Forensic Ballistics - Defence
"Freddie Mead, an expert in forensic ballistics and a specialist in the investigation of accidents involving firearms for the army, told me: “The speculation in the Learned Judge’s summing up is totally wrong.” Mead’s conclusion is that “there aren’t any grounds to believe a silencer was involved, apart from that the silencer was found.”
http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/helena
I've no idea who Helena is but she writes well and I think hits the nail right on the head when she says:
"However, it was the introduction of a sound moderator and the speed at which it became the integral factor of the case which baffled me most of all. Since it was believed from the outset that it was a murder/suicide investigation, it would seem to me that the rational process of thought would be to repudiate the sound moderator as opposed to an attempt to choreograph a correlation between the implement and the crime".
All this amounts to is gobbly gook.
The irrefuted evidence is that the Sheila's fatal wound would have resulted in drawback in the weapon if it had been fired without the moderator attached. Her neck was full of blood from her first wound thus the OPTIMAL conditions for drawback. Her blood was not in the rifle it was in the moderator. Coroners have dound drawback in 22 moderators despite you trying to pretend it wouldn't happen.
You have zilch to attack the moderator evidence and the defense can' find any credible way to attack it either which is why Jeremy's conviction will not be vacated.
No mater how much spinning you do you can't alter these realities.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=178.0;attach=451
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=178.0;attach=453
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=178.0;attach=455
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=204.0;attach=704
See handover at top of page.
Just referred to CAL/MF:I am with you (if I understand you correctly) in not trusting this kind of evidence. The trouble is they can't reproduce the conditions which gave rise to the observed results. Sion Jenkins went to prison because of that. So did David Camm (US) and Darlie Routier (on death row in Texas for about the last 20 years). They royally screwed the blood evidence in the Jodi Arias trial also. I had a case of my own some years ago where I thought all the 'experts' were just guessing about a skull fracture.
"Under Edmund Lawson's cross-examination the following morning, Fletcher acknowledged that not all gun experts were convinced by backspatter. To that end, Lawson pointed out that Nicholas had received at least one wound thought to have been caused when the weapon was against his skin, yet 'there's no forensic evidence to suggest that anything attributable to the body of young Nicholas wad found in the moderator or the gun'."
Fletcher explained that it might have been that the shot was inflicted after a fatal wound, when the blood was no longer pumping around his body. He added: 'You have to take into account the position of the actual wound themselves, and the amount of blood available at those particular points that could come out'."
So based on the above it appears physiology does determine the outcome of back spatter. Meaning when NB sustained a beating with the rifle if he was dead at this point it might account for lack of spatter on SC's person.
As far as I'm aware all the research shows back spatter from gun shot wounds is an unlikely occurrence with low velocity bullets and a small calibre weapon. What's less clear is any spatter associated with the beating NB sustained. I was wondering if it might make a difference if NB was dead at the point of impact with the rifle? I guess this might apply to gun shot wounds too?
Backspatter - blood travelling in the opposite direction of the bullet from an entrance wound AND
Blowback - blood travelling in the opposite direction of the bullet from an entance wound AND entering a silencer or barrel through a contact or very close contact wound (1 - 3mm)
is rare with:
- small calibre rifle such as that used in the murders
- low velocity bullets such as those used in the murders
- any anatomical location other than head
- hair and clothes can impede flight of blood
static/543841fce4b0299b22e1956a/t/54b97795e4b06ac27448bf30/1421440917393/Backspatter+in+Gunshot+Wounds+Boyd+Allen+1983.pdf
No evidence NB was beaten with the stock of rifle? No blood found on stock. The broken piece of stock was taken for forensic analysis and nothing was found. NOTHING no fibres, blood or any other debris.
From CoA:
71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding. On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful. A "pull-through" on the barrel of the rifle was conducted for any traces of blood within the weapon. There were none.
In fact the blood on the rifle was of such small quantity it was not possible to group and yet surprisingly there was sufficient quantity inside the silencer for grouping &%+((£
Sounds to me like someone needs to do their homework and up their game ?>)()<
I did my homework which is why I know everything you just posted is complete and utter nonsense.
The damage to Nevill was consistent with blows from the butt of the rifle not the muzzle. The muzzle was threaded. Stabbing or whacking someone with the muzzle would produce the kind of damage caused by a fat screw.
No one stabs someone with the muzzle of a weapon anyway unless it has a bayonet attached. You jab with the butt. The lateral damage can't be made by the muzzle. Nor were the roundish scabs made by the muzzle they were not screw type scabs but rather were made by the corner of the butt. The butt broke by being bashed into his skull not by the muzzle being used to beat him.
Your claim there was no blood on the butt is an out and out lie. The blood on the butt was determined to be medium velocity spatter EXCEPT blood on the broken area. That was determined to be a transfer that soaked into the area from a bloody hand or glove touching that portion of the stock. After it broke Jeremy still fired 4 shots into Nevill, 8 into the boys and 2 into Sheila. While shooting he had to touch the area of the stock that broke. A shooter places his hand around the narrow portion and it was this narrow portion which broke. His gloves had blood and transferred blood to that broken area.
Defense expert Lincoln admitted there was blood on the stock he used the word splashes for spatter and smears for blood transfers:
(http://s28.postimg.org/ix73xjh5p/lincolnreportstock.jpg)
Note how it says splashes of blood on the stock. Guess which side of the stock had the splashes- the left side which means the rifle rifle was not upside down but rather right side up when the butt was used to beat Nevill which means the bottom point of the moderator was digging into Nevill so fully consistent with that "knob" causing the roundish scabs. And glancing blows that scraped longways across him causing the lateral injuries.
Long ago I already proved you completely wrong about backspatter/drawback. I explained the processes involved and how location is key. I posted numerous sources explaining how the first shot filled her neck with blood creating a blood filled cavity and how that allowed the expert to testify it would be virtually certain that drawback would occur from the second shot fired into her.
You ignore it and just keep posting the lie that only a head shot results in backspatter. All that does is make you a joke. No expert will testify to that in court because it is false. You want to pretend that any expert would testify it is impossible for a 22lr shot to the neck under such conditions would result in drawback and that Jeremy and his lawyers were just too stupid to ask any experts about it. The truth is they could no find any experts who denied the the prosecution's testimony that it would be virtually certain for drawback to occur under such conditions. Ignoring reality just gives people reason to pay no attention to you.
I've asked you previously to post full documents rather that feed me snippets which are not properly referenced. The CoA doc does not make mention of any blood on the stock:
71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding. On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful. A "pull-through" on the barrel of the rifle was conducted for any traces of blood within the weapon. There were none.
8(8-))I'm not doubting the rifle was used to inflict some injuries on NB but this doesnt rule in or out SC or JB. The blood on the rifle was minimal hence it was insufficient for grouping so it doesnt follow that the perp would be covered in medium impact spatter as you claim. Please provide any case related documents: W/S's, forensic reports, trial testimony, CoA doc that refer to medium impact spatter.
The pathologist does not commit himself to identifying what caused NB's non gunshot wound injuries let alone any area of the rifle.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=205.0;attach=726
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=205.0;attach=728
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=205.0;attach=730
Where's all the evidence for your claims in the above post as follows:
Scipio's claims:
"The blood on the butt was determined to be medium velocity spatter EXCEPT blood on the broken area. That was determined to be a transfer that soaked into the area from a bloody hand or glove touching that portion of the stock. After it broke Jeremy still fired 4 shots into Nevill, 8 into the boys and 2 into Sheila. While shooting he had to touch the area of the stock that broke. A shooter places his hand around the narrow portion and it was this narrow portion which broke. His gloves had blood and transferred blood to that broken area".
You get completely carried away. The above are simply your own thoughts and are not corroborated by any case related docs or expert testimony.
Anyone can Google back spatter and blow-back aka draw-back and check out for themselves that the conditions for such didnt exist at WHF. That's not to say that it definitely did not occur just that it was unlikely.
The above are more likely to occur with
- large calibre rifle
- high velocity bullets
- contact head shots
- hair and clothes can impede flight of blood
The idea that the rifle and ammo used at WHF along with victims' site wounds would cause the perp to be covered in back spatter is simply wrong.
The splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon mainly is a reference to blood on the stock. There was a tiny drop that went on the metal part though so they simply lumped that all together as left side.Please provide W/S's, trial testimony, expert evidence to support your assertions above.
Lincoln's Defense report is many pages long. I posted the FULL section pertaining to the rifle. I didn't post just the sentence where he spoke about the stock. He had sections dealing with each piece of evidence. The one at issue for this topic is the rifle. It is not my fault that while you were a member of the blue forum that you failed to read all the reference materials posted there. That simply shows you are not as informed as you think which you might consider before making claims that might not be accurate.
The pathologist suggested the butt of the rifle caused the head injuries. Prior to knowing anything about the rifle being damaged, the rifle having a thread on the end, the moderator being attached or too much else he opined maybe the roundish scabs were made by the barrel stabbing him.
By the time he filed his report this was rejected, it was found out the barrel was threaded, the moderator was attached etc that blood on the weapon was consistent with the butt being used and the corner of the butt makes marks like the roundish ones. But he never bothered to change his report because he was lazy and simply filed the report as he drafted it in August. He was criticized for such but totally ignored the criticism that he should have changed it and simply tried to turn the tables and blamed police for not calling him to the scene and not providing him with information that changed things.
The trial featured other experts addressing these issues so his errors and lack of experience with people being beaten by rifle stocks didn't matter anyway. If he were a military doctor he would have recognized the injuries right away as being from the stock.
Wrong. These are the assertions of the experts. They are the ones who said the stain on the stock area that was missing a piece had a blood smear which was how they described a transfer stain. They are the ones who said the stock had splashes which is the term they used for spatter. They said a smear means it was transferred while a splash is from blood flying which today we call spatter.
You clearly didn't read most of the relevant documents and those you did read you choose to not understand because they refute all the BS you keep posting. For instance language you actually noted referenced blood being found on the weapon that was consistent with someone bloody being struck and the blood flying to the weapon. That is medium velocity impact backspatter being described. That you choose not to face this is what is being described is your problem not mine.What does that have to do with the issue of the area of the stock that broke being touched by the killer as he continued shooting the victims and though leaving blood transfers on that broken area of the stock as well as another area of the stock? AFTER that piece broke off the killer fired the weapon at least 14 times and perhaps 15 times. When the killer fired it these 14-15 times the killer had blood on his gloves and thus blood transferred to the stock in several areas including the broken area. The broken piece lying on the floor is totally immaterial to this.
I posted in depth analysis of the entire issue of drawback. The sources I posted explained three different things that individually cause it though most feature 2 or all 3 interacting together. I posted evidence regarding how when there is a prior shot this dramatically increases the likelihood of a subsequent shot featuring drawback. I posted the testimony from the expert at trial explaining how it was virtually certain that drawback would occur under these conditions.
You ignore all of this instead choosing to take generalized statements and saying this means it would not happen though those generalized statements failed to take into account any of the things at issue in this case. You can't find an expert to look at the exact issues in this case and say drawback would be unlikely because it is not true. That is why the defense can't find such an expert either.
You have decided what you want to believe before looking at any evidence and just try to twist the evidence to pretend it supports what you want to assert though it doesn't. You search for support and cherry pick what you think supports you while ignoring the truth.
Please provide W/S's, trial testimony, expert evidence to support your assertions above.
You don't provide any support for your claims so look them up yourself.
My post #143 provides links to expert testimony provided by the pathologist. He is unable to be specific about the cause of NB's non gunshot related injuries. You on the other hand want to make all sorts of claims that not only did the rifle cause the injuries but you narrow it down even further to specfic parts of the rifle!
Lol Lookout has rubbed off on you @)(++(*
You posted a link to his autopsy report not trial testimony... It was written before he knew most of the relevant information and doesn't refute the assessments made by the lab experts at trial who are the ones who assessed the issue that keep being debated....
But hey when did the truth matter to you? How many lies did I catch you in just in 12 hours? Bogus claims about the plastic bags covering Sheila's hands not being examined by the lab- the lie there was no blood on the stock, your claims are all sheer fiction just like Mike. The only difference is Mike knows more about the case than you do.
You posted a link to his autopsy report not trial testimony... It was written before he knew most of the relevant information and doesn't refute the assessments made by the lab experts at trial who are the ones who assessed the issue that keep being debated....
But hey when did the truth matter to you? How many lies did I catch you in just in 12 hours? Bogus claims about the plastic bags covering Sheila's hands not being examined by the lab- the lie there was no blood on the stock, your claims are all sheer fiction just like Mike. The only difference is Mike knows more about the case than you do.
With regard to blood on the stock of the rifle my source is the CoA doc:
"71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding. On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful. A "pull-through" on the barrel of the rifle was conducted for any traces of blood within the weapon. There were none".
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
If the document is incorrect then I have relied on unreliable information. I havent lied. What would be the purpose of me lying? I am interested in getting to the truth. And whilst it's true I believe JB is the victim of a MoJ I have no reason to lie or embellish.
The foregoing doesn't say there was no blood on the butt. It says "and there was blood on the left side of the weapon". The blood on the left side was mainly on the butt but not exclusively. They didn't not detail where on the left side the blood was, you just assumed. The lesson is not to just assume.
You are pro-Jeremy why didn't you bother to read what Lincoln's reports while on blue? I know Jeremy is guilty and yet I still read the reports from Lincoln.
I will stop being mean to you about one thing though you should read Ann Eaton's statements anyway. I sent you on a wild goose chase. Ann Eaton said the blood was near the opening not in it. I just wanted to force you to read the whole thing to find it but I feel bad trying to trick you into informing yourself of everything she wrote. You should do it because you want to and look at everything.
I should be able to assume that a document drafted by 3 appeal court judges, 2 QC's and with input from various experts is reliable and without ambiguity. There's much contradiction between the CoA doc and the lab. Eg the CoA doc states the rifle was in good working order the lab states it has some jamming issue.
You didnt send me on a wild goose chase re AE's W/S's. I could pretty much retrieve any key piece in any doc on this forum within a couple of minutes to support my assertions.
Likewise I should apologise to you about the bags. I normally post links to support my assertions but deliberately left out to catch you out.
1) Saying it jammed on occasion doesn't preclude it from being in working order.
2) You are the one who assumed there was no blood on the stock even though the court wrote and blood on the left side of the weapon. You just assumed this meant the barrel though it didn't say it.
3) You constantly demonstrate great ignorance about the evidence in this case. That there was blood on the stock was one of the first things I learned when reading the relevant documents.
4) Catch me out? On blue there was a document that noted the inside of each bag was swabbed before the hands were. The hand swabs thus would have picked up anything left in the bags. Mike deleted it and other Hammeresley COLP documents that disproved his lies. He was lying his ass off about how they only tested the left hand hand because the right hand was crossed off. He also posted lies about how the hands were washed before the swabs were taken and that they were taken at 11AM but lost and retaken later and this is why they were negative. This was of course all nonsense. Davidson made several clerical errors including planning to label each hand swab differently as well as the control swab differently. He was instructed by Cook (who was supervising them) that the swabs were all to go together. It is unclear whether the bags were ultimately placed in the same kit or not. They had bee issued their own numbers but that doesn't preclude them all being bagged together after the way all the blood samples were placed in a master bag. Davidson didn't go into detail about it because no one cared to ask him, such wasn't relevant.
That is what you fail to understand things that are relevant are explored in great detail by courts while things not relevant have no need to be and thus usually are not explained in great detail to the court in the first place.
1) What's important is what the jury were told. Malcolm Fletcher claimed there was an issue with the rifle:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=271.0;attach=871
The CoA doc claims the rifle was in good working order:
69. The rifle was a German made Anschutz model 525 .22 self-loading rifle in good working order.
2 and 3) Whether there was blood on the stock or not the fact is there was so little blood on the rifle that it was insufficient for grouping:
71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding. On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful. A "pull-through" on the barrel of the rifle was conducted for any traces of blood within the weapon. There were none.
4) DC Hammersley's trial testimony takes precedence. He confirms no swabbing of SC was taken at SoC. SC's hands and forehead only were swabbed at post-mortem. What would be the point of this when any forensic evidence could potentially be lost in the bags her hands were in which were not forensically examined.
Q: "At all events we may take it of course that no hand swabs were taken at the scene"?
A: "No hand swabs were taken at the scene".
Q: "And in relation to the plastic bags to which you referred, which covered the hands and the feet do you know whether they were ever sent for forensic examination? I am talking about the plastic bags"?
A: "As far as I am aware, looking at my exhibit list, it would appear they were not submitted".
Q: "They were not submitted for forensic examination"?
A: "Only as far as I am aware".
Q: "You can only give your evidence and not any other. So that if it be the case, if it be the case that those plastic bags contained anything of materiality, so far as you are aware they were not submitted for forensic examination"?
A: "Only as far as I am aware, yes".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=165.0;attach=229
Knowing the government would not likely be able to retry the case doesn't mean the COA would acquit him if persuaded the conviction was unsafe. It simply means the COA is going to not find it safe unless there is strong evidence to establish it as unsafe as opposed to relying on BS arguments but that is how they are supposed to act anyway.
The only thing powerful enough to overcome the conviction in the legal sense would be for Julie to recant or there to be proof that the police concealed finding blood in the rifle and planted it in the moderator. No other arguments would be legally sufficient.
There does not need to be any proof any concealment of blood in the barrel because lack of blood in the barrel does not disprove suicide and likewise does not disprove contact wounds.
In Vincent J.M. DiMaios book Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, Third Edition (Practical Aspects of Criminal & Forensic Investigations)
(http://s11.postimg.org/u5h43d4r7/gunshot_study.jpg)
Once again you demonstrate tremendous ignorance of the evidence in this case even though I expressly spoon fed you countless times on blue.
The expert testimony in this case was that the fatal wound was a contact wound from with drawback would occur and therefore blood would have been found in the muzzle of weapon itself had the gun been used sans moderator or in the moderator if used with the moderator. The initial shot caused her neck to fill with blood and under such conditions drawback would be sure to occur EVEN more surely if the moderator were not attached because the full effect of the gases would then be in effect.
The only way to establish it would not occur would be if one could prove it wasn't a contact wound but it is agreed by the defense experts that it was a contact wound.
The COA addressed this very issue in 2002:
Its not tremendous ignorance at all, I consider Malcom Fletchers competence on the subject inadequate and the COA conclusions are wrong as a result. British Scientists like Fletcher used by the home office will only encounter a dozen or so gun related murders in their entire careers as opposed to the experts in your country who will encounter thousands of gun related deaths in their careers.
But back on the subject I was only saying that you don't need to prove concealment of blood in the barrel because scientific study prove it does not allways occur
Blood is more often detected on the outside of the muzzle than inside the barrel. In a study of 653 revolvers, 242 pistols, 181 shotguns, and 124 rifles used in suicides, blood was detected on the barrel 74% of the time for revolvers, 76% for pistols, 85% for shotguns, and 81% for rifles.' In contrast, blood was detected inside the barrel in 53% of the revolvers, 57% of pistols, 72% of shotguns, and 58% of rifles. The presence of blood inside the barrel of a gun indicates that the weapon was within a few inches of the body at the time of discharge. Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound. Thus, no blood was found on either the outside or inside of the barrel in 24% of the suicides using a revolver and 23% using a pistol.
Dr. Vincent Di Maio has had this published since 1999 and the book has had three revised editions to date with the above remaining unchallenged, If he is wrong you would have though someone who has read his published works would have informed him of his errors. yet they haven't
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio)
So if 124 rifles used in suicides and only 58% contain any blood in the barrel compound that with the fact that a hugely significant amount of rifle suicides are to neck/underchin region due to its length.
With this information if one is to claim the blood In the moderator is planted then it is not mandatory to accuse or prove concealment of blood in the barrel as its scientifically recognized that absence of blood is not an indicator of guilt and can in fact support innocence.
The study simply evaluated how many times blood was found on or inside weapons. It didn't get into specifics at all of a nature of each wound and thus is not relevant to the testimony in this case. It doesn't look at where the wounds were and whether they were contact wounds and evaluate the likelihood of drawback occurring given any particularized set of facts let alone the exact facts of this case.
You constantly have no comprehension of what you are reading. Whether drawback would occur requires looking at the specifics of the case at hand the material you just posted doesn't do that and thus can't be used to try to contradict the experts in this case which DID evaluate the specific factors.
You and Holly don't want to face that the testimony in the case is the record. The defense found no experts then and has no experts now (who through some new science) can argue given the bleeding in her neck from the previous wound that drawback would not occur. The evidence you posted most certainly doesn't address that it simply notes in how many cases blood was found in and on weapons.
What new medical knowledge has come forward to cast doubt on the assessment that her neck was full of blood and that temporary cavitation would have occurred and thus drawback? None if anything we know now even more that it will happen unless it wasn't a contact wound. The only thing capable of defeating drawback from occurring given the conditions would be if it wasn't a contact wound. The defense experts agree it was a contact wound so the only hope is lost.
I look at this case as I would if I were hired by the defense to try to help them. That requires looking honestly as what the trial testimony was and what the courts would require to vacate Jeremy's conviction. Instead of looking at it as they would you look at it through your own eyes. Your own eyes are clouded but even if they weren't it would not matter because you have to tailor your arguments to your audience by their rule and that is the COA.
Short of dealing with the lack of blood in the rifle and as well as explaining away the blood in the moderator there is no chance in hell of winning on any scientific grounds. If Julie were to change her testimony that would be the only non-science way to win a new trial because her testimony was so damning and the judge said that they could convict solely on the basis of her testimony if they believed it.
Nothing else stands any chance of success because nothing else refutes either of the 2 legs of the case that were cited by the judge as sufficient to convict. If the lawyers want to work for free and totally waste their time it is their business but if they are going to spend someone else's money then they have an ethical obligation to admit the unlikely chance of success and why it is not likely to have a chance of success.
I post this once again with but I have now colour coded it for you incase selective reading gets the better of you.
Blood is more often detected on the outside of the muzzle than inside the barrel. In a study of 653 revolvers, 242 pistols, 181 shotguns, and 124 rifles used in suicides, blood was detected on the barrel 74% of the time for revolvers, 76% for pistols, 85% for shotguns, and 81% for rifles.' In contrast, blood was detected inside the barrel in 53% of the revolvers, 57% of pistols, 72% of shotguns, and 58% of rifles. The presence of blood inside the barrel of a gun indicates that the weapon was within a few inches of the body at the time of discharge. Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound. Thus, no blood was found on either the outside or inside of the barrel in 24% of the suicides using a revolver and 23% using a pistol.
Can you see the words highlighted in Red and Blue? and if so is it apparent to you what the author is saying and how it relates to this case?
The external jugular vein is towards the back of the neck aligned with the spine as the image bellow illustrates
(http://www.scancrit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/veins-e1333950891531.jpg)
The initial impact of the bullet to her neck will pass through skin and muscle, You also have much less gas build up in a rifle.
The peak pressure is responsible for the majority of the work in accelerating the projectile. At, or shortly previous to reaching peak pressure, the bullet begins to move down the barrel. ”When the projectile reaches enough velocity and the space behind it increases enough that the volume of gas is increasing at the same rate, the pressure will begin to drop as the bullet continues and increases the space. The bullet is moving fast enough to supply
more space behind it than the advancing gases can fill and maintain pressure, so the pressure drops” [3]. High pressure is characterized towards the start of the barrel, with a transition to projectile momentum dominance occurring in the medium to longer lengths of the barrel. The precise length and location of these transitions is characteristic to the bore and cartridge, but may also be influenced by bullet length, seating depth, and the bullet to case tightness, to name a few. Thus, the louder report of carbines may be explained by the barrel length becoming short enough to enter this primarily pressure dominated region, effectively increasing the gas pressures at the muzzle. In contrast, the less intimidating reports of long barreled rifles may be explained by allowing the barrel length to enter the momentum dominated region of the barrel. Thus, as the projectile exits the long barrel, it is carried out mostly by its own momentum, and has relatively low muzzle pressures.
A similar study in which contact shots were evaluated regarding barrel length changes for a shotgun and rifle produced results which also validate previous claims: “Gas pressure and velocity of the gas jet at the muzzle increases with shortening of the barrel” [4]. Other research on the subject, produced a more quantitative analysis of the report; “Dr. William L. Kramer (Ball State University) found that muzzle blast noise (report) increases 1 decibel for each inch a barrel is reduced”
Now compound the above with the fact we are talking about a long barrelled weapon firing a .22 calibre weapon the gas build up will be minimal and its the gas that causes the drawback.
Gas alone doesn't cause drawback if it did then there would be no such thing as backspatter only drawback. When it doesn't go inside a weapon it is simply backspatter when blood gets inside a weapon it is drawback. Your claim that with a long barreled weapon drawback will not occur is nonsense. You constantly make up your own BS. If it would not occur with long barreled weapons then the defense would have found an expert who opined that such can't happen with a long barreled weapon. They didn't because its fictional.
I posted to you in the past the 3 forces that individually result in drawback and thus also do so in combination. I also posted the additional considerations of the hemorrhaging inside her neck. This is why the expert opined drawback would occur.
Far from coming up with an expert who assessed the precise conditions in this case and was willing to testify in court that drawback would not occur you simply made it up yourself that drawback would not occur and made it up by trying to twist sources beyond belief. Your efforts fall flat totally...
I didn't make anything up at all, I copied and pasted modern scientific studies and that is there to be read.
As for the image you posted
documented. The occurrence and the quantity of backspatte-r depend on a variety of ballistic and anatomical parameters. The kinetic energy necessary for the acceleration of blood and tissue particles can come from three different sources:
1. Subcutaneous gas effect: The rapid expansion of hot muzzle gases trapped below the elastic skin and especially between the skin and a bony abutment causes the temporary development of a pocket-like subcutaneous space. When this space collapses immediately. the biological particles are expelled together with the resulting backwards stream of escaping gases [94, 96, 98, 103, 104, 105]. 2. Temporary cavity: Temporary cavitation produces overpressures inside the wound which also escape retrogradely to the line of fire [102, 103, 105]. Anatomical structures similar to liquid-filled cavities such as the head, the heart, or the eye provide the best conditions for violent temporary cavitation and backward hurling of particles. 3. Tail splashing: If a projectile penetrates tissue, there is always backward streaming of fluid and tissue particles along the lateral surface of the bullet in the direction of the entrance wound [11, 99, 103]. In most cases, these three driving forces act combined. The hot muzzle gases can only be effective in contact and close-to-contact gunshots, especially in the presence of a bony abutment. The presence of backspattered brain particles [106. 107] can only be explained by intracranial temporary cavitation, which is clearly enhanced by the confined space of the neurocranium (see Sect. 2.4). Therefore, backspatter mainly occurs in close-range gunshots to the head but is not limited to such cases, as is demonstrated by a gunshot to the heart (liquid-filled cavity) from a distance of 4 m resulting in massive backspatter travelling up to 2.5 m [105]. The spin of the bullet [108] or a momentary suction effect of the barrel aspiring material into the muzzle [106, 109] clearly do not contribute to backspatter [102. 103].
It simply explains how it happens and does not mention the neck as in ideal condition for it to take place. and most importantly it does not allways happen as the studies show
1) The expert testimony in this case is the record and you failed to dent it let alone to come up with an expert willing to testify he was wrong.
2) I posted how many sources discussing blood filled cavities including one which talked about just how far blood from such cavity will be projected? I discussed the evidence of how the first wound caused her neck to become a blood filled cavity.
Saying that drawback will not always occur from a general wound to the neck fails to address the specifics in this case that caused the expert to say drawback would occur. The COA in 2002 noted that not only does the blood in the moderator have to be overcome but the lack of blood in the rifle because of that testimony.
Nothing you posted comes close except in your mind. Generalized claims mean nothing. You need an expert to assess the precise conditions in this case and to convince an appeal court that new medical information not available at the time of the trial establishes drawback would not be sure to occur under such conditions. I have stressed the most significant issue of all for this assessment- assessing a shot to a blood filled neck. It is not some accident the defense could not find any experts to refute the assessment. Tests show it will happen with a blood filled cavity and that is a huge problem for trying to find an expert who can establish otherwise. The expert not only needs to suggest otherwise but needs proof. When you find an expert who simulates a contact shot to blood filled neck and can get drawback not to occur on a repeat basis you can let us know.
The expert testimony in this case is inadequate. I have not posted 'Generalized claims' I have posted scientific facts from two independent sources one a professional published expert the other from an academic institution.
There is no point having Jeremy's defence use the experts that I have cited as expert witnesses because it does not refute the blood in the sound moderator. In the unlikely event that Jeremy somehow proves 100% the blood was planted and the COA accepts it, only then the defence has the obstacle of refuting the absence of blood in the barrel and only then do they need to present the evidence I have posted. That is if the Crown continues to argue the case that is.
Jeremy can only send new evidence to the CCRC, COA once. It would be foolish to submit the kind of evidence I have posted without proof the blood in moderator is planted. Make sense? The COA could accept expert testimony from those who have authored the works I have presented but it wont mean anything if the COA still use the blood in the moderator.
This debate we are having stems form you claiming that they will need to prove concealment of blood in the barrel and now we know they don't as there are innocent explanations that can be put forward. But its an argument that cannot be used until the authenticity of the silencer is accepted as false by the CCRC,COA.
what impact, if any, does hollow-point ammo have on drawback and backspatter?
Only in the sense that the inside wounds end up bigger than they might have otherwise been and thus might result in a little more bleeding than a lead round nose would have but I seriously doubt the impact would be very noticeable.
Here is a scenario where it would have an appreciable difference:
A lead round nose bullet would have missed Sheila's vein but because a hollow-point expanded it hit and severed her vein and the internal bleeding that resulted caused the drawback that occurred from the second shot to be greater. Is there anything that suggests a lead round nose bullet would have missed and that it was only severed because the bullet was a hollow-point? No I made this up just to illustrate what it would take for it to have any real significance.
Location of a wound and the conditions at the location of the wound is what matters really. That is why an expert has to look with specificity at the conditions of the location. Jeremy has several things to kick himself in the ass for. If he only fired the fatal shot maybe drawback would not have occurred. The hemorrhaging from the first shot which failed to kill her ensured drawback occurred. So the nonfatal shot bit him in the ass in a way most don't consider.
Obviously if he removed the moderator before killing her with it then he would have eliminated the problem so this is something people recognize he is mad at himself over. Clearly he also beats himself over having told Julie so much. When you are in jail you have much time to contemplate such things. He tries to spend his time doing other things to try to forget though.
If there's a retrial then I'm sure the silencer/blood evidence and JM's testimony will be reevaluated!
If there's a retrial then I'm sure the silencer/blood evidence and JM's testimony will be reevaluated!
Never in the world of pigs pudding, Holl. Re: the silencer, there's nothing left to examine, and Julie has offered to testify again. She's also said that her testimony wouldn't change. The campaign team seem to have embarrassingly scant knowledge of the case, the Bamber forum is a farce, only you have done extensive groundwork. Yet you're still tilting at windmills, clutching at straws, Sugarplum. You HAVE to question why Bamber blames the police, but doesn't dare challenge Julie. Why doesn't he hound her? Pour all the resources into negating her statements?
I think you know why.
I don't take any notice of anything JB says. Whether he's innocent or guilty he will have lost sense of reality after 30 years incarceration imo. Plus he has been misguided over the years by the likes of Mike and the dodgy lawyer Di Stefano. I'm not sure how he would go about challenging JM? I thought it was a criminal offence to interfere with witnesses? Personally I would have thought the less said the better. If I had my way this ghastly video would be removed from the OS:
http://jeremybamber.org/julie-mugford/
Those that criticise JM could do with looking at how competent JB's defence was at cross-examining her!
Happens all the time middle-aged professional men are taken in by young woman. One only has to look at how four 13 year old girls hoodwinked David Waddington QC at Stefan Kiszko's trial. I don't blame the prosecution witnesses. I blame the highly trained and qualified QC's.
Those that criticise JM could do with looking at how competent JB's defence was at cross-examining her!
Happens all the time middle-aged professional men are taken in by young woman.
Your claim that the testimony of the trial experts is inadequate is a laugh. You made that up in your mind you have no ability to establish it as inadequate.
I don't lack the ability to read trial transcripts nor are the transcripts made up in my mind.
(http://s11.postimg.org/rg6a6mi0z/trialusgun.jpg)
Your mind has been made up by nonsense and things you made up as opposed to anything rational.Why do you keep assuming I make things up and don't look at the evidence? Only for me to prove you wrong over and over and over again?
Your reading skills are about as worthless as Mike's. You made up that police told COLP Sheila's body was moved,I did not make that up the sources are below they come from the police themselves, not from my imagination that you like to believe.
that Davidson told COLP he saw a rifle barrel with paint on it,
Big deal that Vanezis admitted his experience with gunshots was limited that in no way undermines any of the evidence submitted in court by the lab experts. He admitted his own limitations in assessing murder or suicide from the location of the wounds simply.
When all is said and done you live in a fantasy world. You made a big deal on blue that Jeremy's lawyer claimed Julie didn't know anything that she could not have learned elsewhere. Of course he would say that he is Jeremy's attorney. Only a fool would be surprised by his claims.
Why do you keep assuming I make things up and don't look at the evidence? Only for me to prove you wrong over and over and over again?
I did not make that up the sources are below they come from the police themselves, not from my imagination that you like to believe.
You have the audacity to accuse me of making things up when you made up that Vanezis claim to CAL was a 'ridiculous' statement due to his rusty memory when in actual fact he made those very statements in court 29 years ago.
Yes that is a big deal. Relying on experts that have only read second hand accounts and never had any hands on experience on the matter.
I live on planet Earth actually. It was not Jeremy's lawyer it was his defending barrister Rivlin QC, he told the Jury
"There is not one single thing that Mr Bamber ever told her that she could only have got from him," he said. "In all that time they were together after the dreadful incident, you could expect that she would have heard one thing that only the murderer could have told her, but she didn't."
"That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"
A member of the Queen's Counsel is not going to make up baseless nonsense on the spot. As it goes he does not live far from me I wonder if I should try and pay him a visit? would be very interesting if he would be kind enough to give me the time to chat with him.
I don't assume I know you make things up because I actually know how to read. What things actually state versus your mischaracterizations are never the same.
I already explained a dozen times how and why your claims are complete distortions. You chose not to rebut my points because you could not and instead just pretend I never posted any rebuttal because you would rather live in fantasyland than face reality.,
At least a dozen times here and on blue I pointed out to you that in the following Adams simply tells COLP to query other police about the state of Sheila's body:
I pointed out that COLP queried the people in question and they said the photos the crime scene police say they took before moving Sheiala's body accurately depict how her body was found by the raid team. You choose to IGNORE the testimony of the raid team and the crime scene officers in favor of Adams who admits his memory was foggy because 6 years had passed and thus said ask the others they woudl know better than him. Only a fool or someone out to intentionally lie would assert the above notes is absolute proof that her body was moved and that the above notes should be given to blood experts to use in assessing photos of her body. Are you a fool or intentionally distorting?
I have also pointed out numerous times to you how you totally mischaracterized Davidson's testimony. No where in his testimony did he claim to collect a weapon that had red paint on the barrel. The CID6 forms he filled out were even provided to him as exhibits so he could see what he collected from the scene on Aug 7-8. These forms are posted on blue. He simply said he heard that blood was on the barrel of a rifle found downstairs. What rifle did he find downstairs? He didn't find any rifle downstairs. The only rifle he collected was the murder weapon. The only other firearm they seized was a shotgun. They took the Anschutz and a shotgun. He didn't say anything about personally seeing a rifle downstairs let alone seeing a rifle that had red paint nor did he claim he personally took any rifle from downstairs. You thus MADE UP the claim that he said he personally saw a rifle with red paint on it. He said no such thing he said that he HEARD that there was paint on a rifle and that is why they took paint samples. Either 1) he heard people talking about paint on the moderator and assumed it was found on some other weapon or 2) back in 1985 he knew it was on the moderator but because this was 6 years he later he forgot and was thoroughly mixed up and could no longer remember accurately.
So your claims were totally untrue and either the product of extreme incompetence or intentional distortion which is the case?
As for Vanezis his claims to CAL were absurd and totally contrary to his trial testimony. At trial he testified the insides of her hands were free of blood when she arrived at the mortuary. Therefore his suggestion to CAL that maybe she had blood on the inside of her hands when she arrived at the mortuary but he washed such off is clearly wrong and the product of memory loss 26 years later. BUT EVEN WORSE, he told CAL maybe he meant in his autopsy report that the inside of her hands were free of blood after he washed them. That is absolutely ludicrous. What matters is whether she had blood before being washed. To say she was free of blood after being washed would be a totally ridiculous statement. I have never read a ME report that indicated any body part was clean after being washed. They always detail the condition before being washed because that is what is relevant. Anyone who fails to recognize such is either biased or a fool.
How dare I give the autopsy report its natural logical meaning which accords which his trial testimony. How dare I choose to accept his trial testimony which was given when things were still fresh in his mind instead of going with claims made 26 years later that conflict with his contemporaneous statements and are absurd. But I'm funny like that I am not controlled by bias I actually want the real facts so I don't pretend extra rifles were collected from WHF when they were not and don't pretend extra rifles had been present at WHF when they were not and don't pretend that Sheila's body was moved before the initial photos taken since there is no evidence to support the claim.
In contrast people who are biased and want to pretend that Sheila had blood inside her hand choose to ignore the contemporaneous evidence and instead rely upon a ridiculous claim that maybe Vanezis meant her inside hands were free of blood after being washed. People who are biased and want to pretend that police lied about paint being on the moderator say it was on a rifle downstairs on the basis of Davidson's hearsay even though there were no other rifles at the scene and all the testimony establishes it was on the moderator. Biased people who want to pretend police moved her body before the initial photos were taken will distort anything they can to pretend there is evidence of such though there is none. In the meantime such has nothing to do with reading the blood evidence.
The blood was dry by the time police entered. So even if police had moved her body it has no implications at all for reading the blood evidence. The blood proves Sheila was sitting propped up against something when shot. Had she been lying down the blood would not have leaked down her gown. After she died someone moved her causing the blood flow to change and causing a blood pool to form. The Bible was placed in such pool of blood.
He didn't simply have second hand accounts he had handled gunshots before simply not as many as in America. This was given as an excuse for why he missed things she should have recognized like a problem with Sheila holding the gun at non-contact range at an odd angle to fire the first shot. While he missed things he should not have those things he recognized can't be discounted and are still supported today including that she was seated when shot because the blood evidence proves it. This doesn't undermine the testimony of the other experts at all. You just don't want to believe the evidence so make up any pathetic excuse you can to justify ignorign the evidence. That doesn't make you live on planet Earth it means you are controlled and consumed by bias and choose to live in an alternate reality.
Julie could not have gotten from the extended relatives that Jeremy was plotting to kill his family and frame Sheila. She could not have gotten from the family the notion he told her tonight is the night when they spoke around 11PM. She could not have gotten from the family that in his call after the murders that he told her he had not gone to bed yet and the plan was going well. The family certainly had no reason to tell her to make up a hitman story nor would she make such up. He didn't want her to know he was so heartless he personally killed the boys. The family could not have told her about the glove coming off. The family could not have told her about the drugs or robbery. Rivlin said what he said solely to try to get the jury to downplay what Julie said because what she said was so damning. He was Jeremy's advocate that was his job there is nothing surprising at all that he said such unless one lives in bizarro world.
My claims are not distortions it is you who infact distort, I only copy and paste images or texts of the evidence to prove a source, you then cover the evidence I present in a thick layer of BS consisting of your opinions and assumptions hoping people will buy it.
As for Police moving the body, How can I ignore the Raid team testimony when it has never been publicly released? What has been presented as raid team 'testimony' are typed up statements all IDENTICAL to one other the only difference is the name and signature on the paper. The original notebooks and raid testimony will most probably prove the Police messed up the body before taking the crime scene photos, thus they have presented typed testimony identical to one another and refuse to release the originals.
Before Jeremy got access to those COLP interviews describing the discrepancies in the crime scene photos and the desciptions of those who had first witnessed the body with their own eyes. This was presented to the COA as part of new prosecution evidence.
518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress.
With the notes from the police this can now infact be used as part of defence. And if the original Raid team statements get released then even better.
Again your making assumptions, all I did was post the transcripts of the relevant COLP interview, it speaks for itself
Neither!
Again your ignorance of the evidence shows no limit.
How dare you ignore Vanezis original autopsy were he claims it appear that Sheilas hand caused the hand print on the dress. instead you go by an autopsy report he makes over a month later after the bodies are cremated and his memory is not fresh
(http://s28.postimg.org/gk420nb0t/vanezisnote.jpg)
You then continue to go by the very version of his autopsy that he himself contradicts under oath at trial
Rivlin - I am asking you about the staining, and I am asking you whether it occurred to you then, or if it didn't then whether it occurs to you now, that this staining which appears on that nightdress may have been caused by directly pressing blood-stained fingers against the cloth?
Vanezis - Yes, I mean of course it is an obvious position
Rivlin - It is an obvious position and it assumes that obvious appearance doesn't it?
Vanezis. That is right yes.
And if you are still in denial this is also mentioned at the COA paragraph 517.
However, whilst Mr Ismail rightly recorded the evidence of Dr Vanezis, Mr Turner was able to point to a note made by Dr Vanezis at the time of the post-mortem examination that read:
"bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. "
The evidence from Dr Cavalli and Professor Marco Meloni shows the blood the was still wet when the photographs were taken.
The usual ramblings and insults when you have nothing else to say
There is no proof Jeremy said "tonight is the night" as it comes from Julie alone and is absent from her original statements. For all we know she could have got the Hitman theory from the relatives. The relatives were onto Matthew McDonald after it was discovered that he and Jeremy were cultivating cannabis plants and would often smoke drugs together, Mathew Macdonald was rumoured locally to be a mercenary in North Africa. This is what he said
“this was pure fabrication but I kept it going at times because it made people think I was somebody but it was totally untrue.”
It makes perfect sense. Jeremy's drugs buddy is believed by many to be a mercenary/hitman. Hence its very possible that Robert Boultflour brought Macdonald into his theories.
1) By definition originals are never provided to the defense the defense always gets copies
2) They got copies of the handwritten notes not just the typewritten the defense received everything. Mike and other supporters lie pretending there is still being evidence to sort through to pretend the raid team said something different that they did but the defense can't prove it because it is hidden.
3) COLP had access to everything including personally questioning the raid team. That questioning resulted in them convinced police didn't move her body. You falsely claim there is evidence they were moved on the basis of Adams telling COLP to ask the others if she was moved because he wasn't sure. That is all you produced a single notepage where Adams told COLP to query specific officers as to whether she was moved.
It is indeed dishonest to suggest that Adams telling COLP to query the other officers is proof that she was moved. Worse you keep saying you have statements plural though that is notes from a single statement- that of Adams. Did you not learn the difference between singular and plural in grade school?
Of the people Adams asked COLP to query did any of the tell COLP that they moved her body or saw anyone move her body before leaving the scene to the crime scene officers? NO! Did any of the crime scene officers say they moved her body before taking the initial photos? No they told COLP the same thing they testified to at trial- that they took photos and then moved her so they could take photos showing the blood on her gown. Your claim police admitted to COLP they moved her body was a blatant lie. You are little better than Mike and indeed like Mike you keep suggesting that there are hidden statements and that the typewritten statements are vastly different from the ones they handwrote. What a joke!
Once again you demonstrate how clueless you truly are.
1) There are no COLP statements plural that claim police moved Sheila's body.
2) There is not even a COLP statement singular where a cop says Sheila's body was moved. There is a statement singular where Adams said to query others as to whether Sheila was moved before the initial photos were taken because he wasn't sure. These others were queries and the raid team members as well as Jones all said that none of them moved her body and the photos reflect how she was found and the crime scene personnel say they didn't move her until after the initial photos were taken and then after that they moved her and took additional photos.
3) Ismail's evidence absolutely kills Jeremy if offers no value to the defense at all. Ismail asserted that Sheila was moved by the killer very soon after she was killed. Ismail said:
A) Sheila was not lying flat when she died because the way the blood leaked down her gown
B) After dying she was dragged flat and the gun placed on her body
C) After being dragged flat blood leaked down the side of her neck to the floor
D) While the pool of blood referred to in B was still wet the killer placed the Bible in it
Thus he concluded someone else had to be at the scene when Sheila died. The police moving Sheila's body many hours after her blood was dry would not affect any of these assessments. Only someone delusional would claim that the above assessments can be used to aid Jeremy. They prove Sheila didn't kill herself. The notion that police moved her flat then stuck the gun on her and placed the Bible in the pool of blood is absurd. Her blood was already dry by the time police entered. The raid team says she was flat and the gun was already on her body when they entered. That is also how Dr. Craig said he saw her body when he declared her dead. If the raid team had moved her flat then no blood would have leaked down the side of her neck and no blood pool would have formed because her wounds were all dry at that point. None of them say they moved the Bible to the pool of blood and indeed it would have been dry so would not have gotten on the bible had they placed there.
You keep spouting nonsense from Mike and the campaign team who are to this case what the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are to 9/11. In the process you look quite bad.
I'm ignorant for facing reaility?
You didn't post a single transcript that established police moved Sheila's body before taking the initial photos. You posted notes taken from an interview of Adams. The notes said Adams was unsure whether the photos showed Sheila as he saw. He suggested they query other officers. To someone who understand English it means he wasn't sure if she was moved or not so suggested they ask other officers. That is not proof they moved her except in your imagination.
As for Davidson no where does he suggest he personally saw a rifle with red paint on it. He said he heard they took samples because a rifle found downstairs had red paint on it. Your claim he said he saw such is false. That means either you intentionally lied or you are incompetent at understanding what you read. Either way you don't look very good.
I don't ignore anything. I take everything into account while you cherry pick to pretend things are as you wish them to be instead of how they are.
In his hand written notes he indicated blood was on her outer palm. In his autopsy report and on the witness stand he called this area her wrist. He didn't want to confuse anyone into thinking he meant there was blood on the inside palm of her hand so called it the wrist in his autopsy report. This is the area he said that caused the stain to her dress.
On the witness stand he said it might look to a layman like the stain on her dress was made by fingers but it wasn't, it was made by her hand. Your attempt to say he admitted her fingers caused the stain is nonsense. You spend your life distorting and for what reason I have no idea because all it does it make you look foolish.
They presented their joke of an opinion that the blood was wet when the photos were taken. Your claim they presented evidence to prove such is false. They had no proof of any kind to back up their claims other than the lie that Woodcock said the blood was still wet. Woodcock said no such thing even though he used leaking he meant leaked. The blood on her face was dry when police entered and still dry when Dr Craig declared her dead and still dry hours later when the photos were taken.
Every lie Mike and the campaign team advance you adopt it is hilarious how gullible you are.
You are confused as usual.
1) Jeremy's advocate suggested the family and Julie conspired because he was desperate and that was the best he could come up with. That he claimed such crap would only be surprising to someone who is clueless.
2) Julie claimed Jeremy told her many things and these had nothing at all to do with the extended family. He called her shortly before the murders and 2 times shortly after the murders including calling her before police. The family has nothing to do with what they discussed during these calls. Her testimony about what was said is credible while his is not indeed he even lied about calling police before her. But the issue is the family has nothing to do with this.
3) NO ONE EXCEPT JEREMY had any reason to suggest a hitman had been used. Jeremy had no alibi. Had Jeremy not told Julie that a hitman had been used then Julie, police and the extended family would not have thought anything about a hitman they would have simply felt he personally killed everyone himself which is what they believed when he was tried. Your claim that they would instinctively suspect a hitman is nonsense.
You can slag off the experts all you like wont change anything.
Lets look at PC Delgados Colp interview
(http://s9.postimg.org/5kvrkv2db/PCDelgadocolp.jpg)
Looked at video of crime scene photos as a result PC Collins and I not happy with the position of the bible by Shelia's body. I was happy with position of body in relation to the furniture. We felt they were real concerns and we spoke to DI Jones and DCI Jones.
We know photos have been withheld or destroyed its on record
(http://s15.postimg.org/pmunfwb0r/photolist.jpg)
We know photos and a crime scene video have been destroyed along with other evidence and statements its on Essex police own destruction schedule
(http://s12.postimg.org/50ya3nunh/evidence_destroy.jpg)
Why do you expect the police to be honest? if you believe they will be honest about any mishandling you are far more gullible than I am.
I have been trying to see things from your point of view but I just can't get my head that far up my ass.
@)(++(*
In what you posted Delgado said that weeks later they were shown a slideshow of the photos (which he incorrectly called a video) and that he was satisfied with the location of the body but had concerns about the location of the Bible. How does that suggest her body was moved? In them meantime their concerns about the Bible wound up having no merit. Others said the Bible had not been moved and the blood evidence proves it was indeed sitting in the pool of blood not down by her waist.
You have no raid team members or an other police who say they moved her body or anything else EXCEPT those who say that after photographing her they moved her then took additional photos.
You have police who say that when they saw the photos a month later when their memory was hardly fresh- they thought the Bible was closer to her waist but were not sure and ULTIMATELY were satisfied that nothing was moved. Naturally you left that part out.
You have Adams saying 6 years later he could remember anymore and to Query others.
That doesn't even remotely establish she was moved except in your irrational mind.
There is no evidence of any photos being destroyed. What you posted showing items destroyed was meaningless things like aerial tape of the countryside and correspondence such as a letter from Collin's parents that there was no reason at all to retain.
This is the complete defense created document you took part of:
Mike periodically makes up nonsense about this to try to pretend that there are hidden photos such as the one he said he saw of Sheila int he kitchen and another of Sheila on the bed.
My view is the rational accurate one while you have the same irrational mentality as Mike hence adopt all his bogus claims.
Again and again I have to post more first hand accounts till it sinks through your thick head!. PI Millers handbook written on the day seen with his own eyes. "Daughter with .22 rifle by her right side" contradicting the photos showing it across the centre. Yet if Essex Police typed a statement a month later with a typed signature saying they found a space alien in the farm that night you would probably believe them.
(http://s23.postimg.org/842l0v2p7/dimillarnotes.png)
Yes I have the full documents, what is wrong with just cutting the relevant parts out instead of cluttering the post and have visitors read things they don't have to?
And how are they meaningless? extracts of police calls are not meaningless. They destroyed the silicone impressions of the mantel scratches! if that is not important then what is? If the scratch marks were so such damning evidence why destroy the evidence them? Because it don't prove what Essex police have been saying.
(http://s22.postimg.org/n6ku5035d/destroy2.jpg)
We have all seen the full documents. We all know that in 1996 the police were unaware that the appeal was considered open and got rid of many things that were largely useless. There is nothing at all sinister about such.
We also know that some of the negatives were lost so that they only had the photos not the negatives for some. That's not sinister either. Nor was ACC Simpson taking some of the photos from the master bundle to use for lectures sinister.
The rifle wasn't down the middle of Sheila's body it was more to the right side as Miller described it. The other police agree that is where it was and the photo confirms it. The one making up alien stories are you and Mike...
(http://i.imgur.com/r5SkwHH.jpg?1)
"By her right side" By someones side is a preposition for "beside" = the side of; next to; or parallel to. meaning not even or her.
(http://users.skynet.be/dosscrim/jeremybamber/Sheila_Caffell_crime_scene.jpg)
The exhibits were destroyed just two month before a law was to come into effect making such act illegal, this is no innocent coincidence
(http://s14.postimg.org/5hhfgldb5/soames.jpg)
What was destroyed were not exhibits they were materials not used at trial. The things they got rid of were of no conceivable value anyway.
On the contrary, The blood on these exhibits could have solved many answered questions. Blood patterns on Sheilas Dress and the Bible held clues not to mention DNA. Also Nevills Pajama top may have helped solve the burn marks also
(http://s14.postimg.org/d0tz568pt/evidence1996.jpg)
1) By definition originals are never provided to the defense the defense always gets copies
2) They got copies of the handwritten notes not just the typewritten the defense received everything. That is how Mike was able to post some of the handwritten ones. Mike and other supporters lie pretending there is still evidence concealed to pretend the raid team wrote something different than the typed statements say but the defense can't prove it because the police won't reveal them. This is sheer horse crap. Various police testified at trial, were interviewed by Dickinson and also by COLP.
3) COLP had access to everything including personally questioning the raid team. That questioning resulted in them convinced police didn't move her body. You falsely claim there is evidence they were moved on the basis of Adams telling COLP to ask the others if she was moved because he wasn't sure. That is all you produced a single notepage where Adams told COLP to query specific officers as to whether she was moved.
It is indeed dishonest to suggest that Adams telling COLP to query the other officers is proof that she was moved. Worse you keep saying you have statements plural though all you can point to is notes from a single statement- that of Adams. Did you not learn the difference between singular and plural in grade school?
All Adams said is to query others because he was unsure. Of the people Adams asked COLP to query did any of the tell COLP that they moved her body or saw anyone move her body before leaving the scene to the crime scene officers? NO! Did any of the crime scene officers say they moved her body before taking the initial photos? No they told COLP the same thing they testified to at trial- that they took photos and then moved her so they could take photos showing the blood on her gown. Your claim police admitted to COLP they moved her body was a blatant lie. You are little better than Mike and indeed like Mike you keep suggesting that there are hidden statements and that the typewritten statements are vastly different from the ones they handwrote. What a joke!
Once again you demonstrate how clueless you truly are.
1) There are no COLP statements plural that claim police moved Sheila's body.
2) There is not even a COLP statement singular where a cop says Sheila's body was moved. There is a statement singular where Adams said to query others as to whether Sheila was moved before the initial photos were taken because he wasn't sure. These others were queried and the raid team members as well as Jones all said that none of them moved her body and the photos reflect how she was found and the crime scene personnel say they didn't move her until after the initial photos were taken and then after that they moved her and took additional photos.
3) Ismail's evidence absolutely kills Jeremy if offers no value to the defense at all. Ismail asserted that Sheila was moved by the killer very soon after she was killed. Ismail said:
A) Sheila was not lying flat when she died because the way the blood leaked down her gown
B) After dying she was dragged flat and the gun placed on her body
C) After being dragged flat blood leaked down the side of her neck to the floor
D) While the pool of blood referred to in B was still wet the killer placed the Bible in it
Thus he concluded someone else had to be at the scene when Sheila died. The police moving Sheila's body many hours after her blood was dry would not affect any of these assessments. Only someone delusional would claim that the above assessments can be used to aid Jeremy. They prove Sheila didn't kill herself. The notion that police moved her flat then stuck the gun on her and placed the Bible in the pool of blood is absurd. Her blood was already dry by the time police entered. The raid team says she was flat and the gun was already on her body when they entered. That is also how Dr. Craig said he saw her body when he declared her dead. If the raid team had moved her flat then no blood would have leaked down the side of her neck and no blood pool would have formed because her wounds were all dry at that point. None of them say they moved the Bible to the pool of blood and indeed it would have been dry so would not have gotten on the bible had they placed there.
You keep spouting nonsense from Mike and the campaign team who are to this case what the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are to 9/11. In the process you look quite bad.
I'm ignorant for facing reality?
You didn't post a single transcript that established police moved Sheila's body before taking the initial photos. You posted notes taken from an interview of Adams. The notes said Adams was unsure whether the photos showed Sheila as he saw her. He suggested they query other officers. To someone who understands English it means he wasn't sure if she was moved or not so suggested they ask other officers. That is not proof they moved her except in your imagination.
As for Davidson no where does he suggest he personally saw a rifle with red paint on it. He said he heard they took samples because a rifle found downstairs had red paint on it. Your claim he said he saw such is false. That means either you intentionally lied or you are incompetent at understanding what you read. Either way you don't look very good. There was no rifle found downstairs period let alone with paint on it. There was only 1 rifle at the scene. Davidson misunderstood what others told him or he had a faulty memory 6 years later. That is all his statement establishes. Pretending he said he saw another rifle with paint on it and can establish such a rifle was collected from the scene and sent to the lab fails miserably.
I don't ignore anything. I take everything into account while you cherry pick to pretend things are as you wish them to be instead of how they are.
In his hand written notes he indicated blood was on her outer palm. In his autopsy report and on the witness stand he called this area her wrist. He didn't want to confuse anyone into thinking he meant there was blood on the inside palm of her hand so called it the wrist in his autopsy report. This is the area he stated in his autopsy report and testified at trial caused the stain to her dress.
On the witness stand on cross examination he said it might look to a layman like the stain on her dress was made by fingers but maintained it wasn't, he maintained it was made by her hand meaning her wrist and outer palm.
Your attempt to say he admitted her fingers caused the stain is nonsense. You spend your life distorting and for what reason I have no idea because all it does it make you look foolish.
They presented their joke of an opinion that the blood was wet when the photos were taken. Your claim they presented evidence to prove such is false. They had no proof of any kind to back up their claims other than the lie that Woodcock said the blood was still wet. Woodcock said no such thing even though he used leaking he meant leaked. The blood on her face was dry when police entered and still dry when Dr Craig declared her dead and still dry hours later when the photos were taken.
Every lie Mike and the campaign team advance you adopt it is hilarious how gullible you are.
You are confused as usual.
1) Jeremy's advocate suggested the family and Julie conspired because he was desperate and that was the best he could come up with. That he claimed such crap would only be surprising to someone who is clueless.
2) Julie claimed Jeremy told her many things and these had nothing at all to do with the extended family. He called her shortly before the murders and 2 times shortly after the murders including calling her before police. The family has nothing to do with what they discussed during these calls. Her testimony about what was said is credible while his is not indeed he even lied about calling police before her. But the issue is the family has nothing to do with this.
3) NO ONE EXCEPT JEREMY had any reason to suggest a hitman had been used. Jeremy had no alibi. Had Jeremy not told Julie that a hitman had been used then Julie, police and the extended family would not have thought anything about a hitman they would have simply felt he personally killed everyone himself which is what they believed when he was tried and convicted. Your claim that they would instinctively suspect a hitman is nonsense. Only if he had an alibi would anyone suspect he used a hitman.
"By her right side" By someones side is a preposition for "beside" = the side of; next to; or parallel to. meaning not even or her.
(http://users.skynet.be/dosscrim/jeremybamber/Sheila_Caffell_crime_scene.jpg)
The exhibits were destroyed just two month before a law was to come into effect making such act illegal, this is no innocent coincidence
(http://s14.postimg.org/5hhfgldb5/soames.jpg)