No, you are interpreting the data in your way and your interpretations are just that 'yours'. The trajectories of gunshot wounds, wound tracks and distance of shots just mean that 'someone' fired the weapon. they don't reveal who.
Well let's just say I can't see the defence calling me as an expert witness at JB's 3rd appeal but I can see experts reconstructing the soc along the lines I have.
I've never said a soc reconstruction will show who fired the weapon but what it will do is show where victims were when they sustained gunshot wounds and where the perp was when he/she fired the weapon.
At JB's trial the court was told none of the 3 adult victims sustained gsw's outside the bedroom. This is wrong. NB did not sustain any gsw's in the bedroom and Afaik this has always been your position?
At the 2002 appeal MT QC argued that DCI Ainsley used the kitchen phone to dial out and in doing so inadvertently removed blood from the phone. This is clearly nonsense but more importantly shows JB's own lawyers were not up to speed with the soc. If this is the extent of your legal representation then what hope for the defendent?
It was important for the whole court at trial to understand who was shot where and the position of perp when the weapon was fired. As it was the court was left asking the obvious questions: how could NB have called JB when the pathologist said he was incapable of purposeful speech after the gunshot wounds sustained upstairs and given the pathologist said these wounds produced heavy blood loss internally and externally then where were the blood stains on the phone? Had a reconstruction been carried out as the vid I posted earlier re farmer Tony Martin it would show NB's facial wounds were inflicted as he stood on the landing stairs with the perp stood inside the bedroom firing out onto the landing and this puts a whole different complexion on the claimed phone call.
