I claim back spatter is rare you disagree.
My opinion is based on scientific evidence while yours is based on bias and ignorance. The expert opinion evidence in this very case is that the fatal neck wound would have most likely resulted in back spatter. The chance of back spatter based on the nature of the wound and its LOCATION was not deemed minor it was deemed extremely likely. The neck tissue and considerable amount off blood in that area is what makes it likely. Not just any contact wound anywhere in the body is extremely likely to cause back spatter. It depends on the rigidity of the tissue and the blood flow in that area. The only information I have found about back spatter supports the trial testimony that a wound in the neck would most likely result in backspatter. The chance is not remote it is extremely likely. Since it was extremely likely and her blood was not found in the rifle that suggests a suppressor was used according to the testimony and it was found in the suppressor as expected.
The only victim to suffer a DEFINITE contact wound was Nicholas so please can you explain why his blood was not in the silencer.
First of all you are distorting. The only shot determined to definitely be a direct contact shot was the fatal shot to Sheila. There were 4 other shots determined that it was possible they were contact shots. The second shot to Sheila was one of these shots. Another was one of the shots to Nevill. A third was the shot between June's eyes. Testimony was that there was a slight chance this was contact shot but most likely it wasn't. The assessment was that 1 of the wounds to Nicholas was close range and it is POSSIBLE that it might even have been a contact wound. The assessment was not that it definitely was a contact wound. The pathologist reported that the only definite contact wound was Sheila's fatal shot.
Second, small caliber bullets are unlikely to cause back spatter when fired into the head. It depends on where in the head but the further from the face the less likely it is possible. Because the skull is so hard and there is such little skin covering the head back spatter is only likely to result from large caliber weapons. This is why assassins love 22 caliber pistols. A few shots to the head and the bullets bounce around in there causing damage, it is hard for a doctor to remove the bullets and in the meantime it leaves little physical evidence on the killer.
Testimony was that it was virtually certain there would be back spatter from her fatal wound and thus blood would get into the rifle or moderator if it had been fired with the moderator attached. Testimony was that there was only a very slight possibility of it not happening.
Please can you also supply some independent documentary evidence showing that back spatter is a common occurrence.
There are countless medical journal articles and even legal journal articles on the subject. If you don't mind paying I can refer you to some you can view online but otherwise you would have to find a library that has journals available. It is not by any stretch a rare occurrence for contact owunds to cause back spatter. It is common but as I already stated the location plays a big role in determining how likely for back spatter to result. This is why experts analyze and testify as to the likelihood in any given case.
In this case the testimony was that it was virtually certian to occur from Sheila's fatal wound and only a slight chance it would not. This is what the prosecution expert witnesses then used to bolster the claim that it was most likely Sheila's blood as opposed to June and Nevill's blood mixed. There was independent testimony of why this was most likely the case but the fact their wounds most likely were not contact wounds but hers definitely was and was almost certain to result in back spatter provided extra support for the assessment.
It has never been proven that Sheila's blood was in the silencer just her type/group which matches many including Robert Boutflour's.
Her blood type was found by both the prosecution and by the defense. Even though the prosuection removed all visible blood, the defense expert still found the presence of her blood type on the baffles. He found evidence of her blood as far back as the 7th baffle. After the 7th baffle he found no blood. Aside from the fact her cousin had no way of knowing they shared the same blood type so didn't know he could plant his own blood inside, the nature of the findings are not consistent with someone cutting themselves and then making blood drip inside. The nature of what was found was back spatter. I am not going to get into the minor details of how to assess this the fact is that this was the assessment of the defense and prosecution and that both assessed it was most likely Sheila's blood and only a remote chance it was a mixture of June and Nevill's blood. Because they both agreed the defense did not have their expert testify at trial. They simply argued the remote chance is what actually happened and that it was June and Nevill's blood.
Who else was shot with this gun who had her blood type whether by accident or on purpose? Unless you can come up with evidence of the gun being used on others the most likely way her blood type got there is by shooting her with it. The defense certianly had no suggestions of anyone with her blood type being shot with it so they argued it was June and Nevill's blood.
At the CoA hearing it was agreed by all concerned that the LCN DNA analysis was utterly meaningless due to the very real risk of contamination.
The main reason the DNA analysis is useless is because no DNA assessment can be made of the actual blood that was significant at trial. That is the evidence the defense needed to try to prove was not Sheilas but was instead June and Nevill's. The defense tried to do so before the court by arguing that June's DNA was definitely found, an unknown male's DNA was also found and that this means most likely that June and Nevill's blood were in there and that the blood spoke about at trial was their blood.
The court said not so fast, the fact June's DNA was found doesn't mean that the male DNA was Nevill's. Because various people touched the inside of the gun over the years the male DNA could belong to one of them. Worse yet there is no way to know for sure that the DNA was in fact from blood. Worse yet there is evidence to suggest the suppressor was compromised. As I already explained there is a real possibility that the baffles were moved around from their initial locations which could have caused contamination in various ways thus distorting the DNA findings.
IF the DNA findings are assumed to be blood then the results are that June's blood and Sheila's blood was in the silencer. (the defense tried to ignore the part about Sheila's DNA also being in there and tried to say a match of 17 DNA strands was not enough but mathmatically it is enough for us to say it was hers) He was already convicted so the appeal court had no need to suggest the evidence bolstered the posecuton's case. The job was to see if the evidence alleged by the defense was enough to overturn the appeal. The court ignored the evidence about Sheila's DNA being found in the gun and assessed whether June's DNA and the profile of an unknown male was enough to prove that it was June and Nevill's blood found in the silencer not Sheila's. The court said no it wasn't because of the reasons cited.
I still fail to see how the defense's argument is of any value though. The best the defense could hope to argue with this evidence in support is that the silencer was used to shoot June and Nevill but might not have been used to shoot Sheila. The best they could hope to say is that Sheila's wound produced no back spatter at all so left no evidence in the gun or silencer. This opens the door to the possibility that she removed the silencer after shooting her parents and killed herself without it.
But what is the likelihood that she would remove the silencer and then go put it away before killing herself? The act of putting the silencer away is an act to prevent authorities from finding out it was used during the commission of the crimes and why would she do that? Since this action of putting away the suppressor makes no sense and is not consistent with someone being in a crazy rage, it suggests that the killer was Jeremy. The appeal court did not have to include this in their decision though because there was not enough evidence to establish that it was definitely Nevill and June's blood and not Sheila's blood in the suppressor. It was thus an argument they had no need to reach.
