Yes, it was all done and dusted in 1986 when Jeremy Bamber was convicted of mass murder
There’s no need to Google “back spatter “ — proof of that was Sheila's back spatter in the silencer. I think, though I’m not sure, one of the twins had back spatter in the silencer too: I shall check
As for fingerprints on the gun: if they’re hard to retrieve due to ‘bluing’ why did forensics bother looking for them, and how did they find one of Sheila’s and Jeremy’s on there?
It’s obvious that Jeremy pressed Sheila’s finger firmly against the gun in order to frame her: the jury realised that. They also realised how very strange it was that only one of her prints were on there...
Jeremy had also covered himself by claiming he’d handled the gun just hours earlier...he thought some things through during his pre-planning, but not all. He obviously wiped/washed that gun clean prior to murdering Sheila, hence why as you rightly say — there was only one of his fingerprints on it when it should have been covered in them.
I’m slightly confused here: you’re contradicting yourself, Holly. On the one hand you’re saying ‘bluing’ prevents fingerprints from staying on the gun, then you say that as Jeremy had handled it that’s why one of his was found on the gun...
The silencer had no fingerprints on it because the family handled it carefully so as not to destroy and evidence. And the reason no prints were found on it was that Jeremy’s gloves would’ve wiped it clean and obviously had none of his on it due to the gloves he wore.
You still haven’t answered the other questions have you...
You haven’t explained why the silencer wasn’t next to Sheila’s body
Back spatter and drawback are totally different phenemenon. The former is caused when blood from a gunshot wound travels back against the line of fire and is known as high impact (or velocity) back spatter. The latter arise from a contact gunshot wound when the hot discharge gases which normally dissipate in the atmosphere are forced into the wound and travel back again where blood and tissue can deposit in/on barrel.
In this case none of the conditions present for either phenemenon to occur.
Back spatter is observed with large calibre firearms and high velocity ammo.
Drawback is observed also with large calibre firearms, high velocity ammo and head shots. When it does present the blood contains tissue which didn't present in this case. Moreover a silencer changes everything as instead of the hot discharge gases blasting into the wound they are cooled in the expansion chamber before being released slowly through a series of baffle plates.
It is possible to test whether the drawback phenemenon is possible with the rifle and ammo and this will form the basis of a third appeal.