Hello Scipio. The weather here is lovely today.
Since in the main its 'just the two of us' I thought I would just reply to your post above instead of quoting it. I think the server might run out of space soon 
I haven't seen any reference anywhere showing that the blood found in the silencer was distributed in such a way proving that it was deposited via back-spatter? Now may I ask that if you wish to assert back-spatter was the cause that you provide some documentary evidence to back this up. Whilst your views are interesting (to say the least) they are just that and I am only concerned with what the experts say.
First of all the testimony at trial was that it was back spatter. Evne to somone who is as biased as you, you should recognize this is the evidentiary basis upon which the prosecution relied for it being back spatter. You even noted the expert who provided the testomony. You posted the following:
"78. Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert also expressed the opinion to the jury that the sound moderator had been fitted to the gun when Sheila Caffell had been shot. He attributed the presence of blood within the device to the phenomenon of "back-spatter". This occurs when the expansion of gases created by a bullet being discharged creates back pressure which in turn propels blood from the wound back towards the weapon. This effect is only seen when the muzzle of the weapon is in contact with, or very close contact to, the victim"
He determined the blood pattern to be back spatter. That means it was consistent with how back spatter would be distributed inside.
Second. I explained to you the process clearly. If you can't understand it after being spoon fed that just means you are not in any position to discuss the subject because yo ulack the required foundation to be able to intelligently discuss things.
Since you still can't even figure out how to quote, I guess maybe something a littl emore complex like back spatter would indeed be over your head.
Excerpt from CoA doc
76. Inside the moderator, on the four or five baffles nearest to the end from which the bullet would exit, there was a considerable amount of blood. At one point blood had pooled to form a flake when it dried, and this flake was subjected to group testing. Results were obtained for four of the five tests performed. Mr Hayward, the forensic scientist said that they showed that the blood could have come from Sheila Caffell but not from any of the other individuals involved. Mr. Hayward said that there was a possibility that the blood could be a mixture of blood from more than one person and if it was, a mixture of blood from Nevill Bamber and June Bamber could account for the findings in the grouping tests. However he judged that possibility to be a "remote" one
The biologist, Mr Hayward, stated the following
77. Mr Hayward added in evidence that he would be very surprised to find blood from a person, who had not been shot with a contact or very close contact shot, inside the muzzle of the moderator. He concluded that since (a) the blood inside the moderator belonged to the same group as Sheila Caffell and (b) there was no blood within the barrel of the rifle of the gun, that she had been shot whilst the moderator was fitted to the rifle.
Added to the above Scipio in your post as follows you state:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=6.0
"The only shot determined to definitely be a direct contact shot was the fatal shot to Sheila".
You claim that a contact shot is required to produce back-spatter yet if this is the case why did all concerned agree that there was a remote possibility that the blood found in the silencer could have been an "intimate" mix of NB's and June's when it was not proven that any of the shots they received were contact? This is all hypothetical anyway as the shots to Sheila were not definite contact shots. Taken from CoA:
45. Sheila Caffell was also dressed in her nightwear and bare-footed. She had received two contact or near contact bullet wounds to her throat.
On Blue a schedule of shots produced by Mr Fletcher is available and this shows that Nicholas was the only victim to receive a DEFINITE contact shot. If you wish to assert otherwise please provide supporting documentary evidence.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3781.msg152648.html#msg152648
First of all, since you are aware of this decision and these factual quotes, why do you keep misrepresenting that the only sure contact wound was to Nicholas? Even after I corrected you on no less than 3 occasions you still made the bogus claim even though the trial testimony was that the only shot that for sure was either a contact shot or within 1mm was the fatal shot to Sheila.
"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".
This is a summary of his testomony. His testimony was:
A) That the location and nature of the neck wound combined with the gun being held up and down that it was virtually certain that blood would get inside the barrel of the gun.
B) That even with the gun held horizontally instead of vertically (which would be the cas ewith someone else shooting her) that he still would expect back spatter inside the gun.
c) That the back spatter he would have expected was found inside the suppressor thus indicating the suppressor was attached while she was shot. He said that this blood was Sheila's blood type and of the nature he would expect to see based on the neck wound and behavior of back spatter.
On cross examination he was asked if Mr and Mrs Bamber had any contact wounds that could have caused the back spatter that was found in the suppressor: "Mr Fletcher was asked about the wounds to Mr and Mrs Bamber and whether they could have been contact wounds or wounds at such proximity that blood might have been propelled back into the moderator. He said that Mr Bamber had a wound that could have been a contact wound and that Mrs Bamber had one wound where there was a slight possibility that it was a contact wound."
Next the Rivlin got him to admit there was a slight possibility the blood was a mixture of June and Nevill's blood instead of Sheila's blood.
2) Though this issue has been explained to you multiple times already. It was explained by the experts at trial as well which means either you refuse to research competently or simply do not have the requisite scientific understanding to comprehend the trial testimony.
Even though I explained it multiple times previously I will try to do so one last time. I will use the same example I did in the past. It is a simple example which my 8 year old niece was able to comprehend. She asked me what I was doing. After I explained to her she comprehended it but said how boring why am i not playing agame instead.
If 2 blood types mix together intimately then both blood types will be able to be detected in a mixed sample. If blood does not mix together intimately then it is possible for certain elements not to be present in the mixed sample and could be mistaken for a single sample of blood that is different.
Example:
Holly's blood has elements A, and B
Jenny's blood has elements A, B and C
Sally's blood has elements B, C and D.
A blood stain is found which has elements A, B and C. Whose blood is it?
As long as the blood is intimately mixed then it has to be Jenny's blood type. This is because if Holly and Sally's blood intimately mixed then all of the following elements would be detected: A,B,C, and D. Jenny's blood doesn't contain D so it could not be hers and would have to be a mix.
What if the blood did not intimately mix?
If the blood did not intimately mix then it is theoretically possible for it to be Holly and Sally's blood. How so? If blood is not intimately mixed then it is possible that the unique element (D which Jenny's blood doesn't contain contain) did not make it into the blood sample and that these elements are in a different blood sample.
So you have a blood stain made by 2 blood types that is intimately mixed. You divide it in half and test each half independently. Because it was intimately mixed each will have the same result because each will have all elements.
You have a blood stain that is not intimately mixed. You divide it in half. Will both halves necessarily have all the elements of both blood types? No it is possible for the division to be unequal in terms of distribution of the elements.
How is it possible not to intimately mix? If one of the blood samples is dry before the second blood sample touches it then there is chance that intimate mixing will not occur.
Example: Sally's blood dries on a surface. Holly's blood spashes the dried blood. Some of Sally's dry blood doesn't make it into the sample either because that tiny portion was not scraped off the surface along with the other blood or that scraping falls to the floor and is lost before making it into the evidence container. If that portion happens to be the portion that contaied element D then the test will only detect elements A, B and C because element D didn't make it into the sample.
The only way for intimate mixing to not occur would be if the blood was not wet the same time like in this example and a portion containing unique elements didn't make it into the sample. It requires these 2 things.
So it was theoretically possible the blood could be a mix of Nevill and June's blood (no other blood combo's would account for the test results) but in order for the sample to be their blood that means the blood of one would have to have dried before the blood of the other got inside and the sample taken would up not containing all the blood mixed but rather some remained behind and what remained behind had an element that SHeila's blood lacked. So you need a few different things to all happen for the sample to be a mix of June and Nevill's blood.
How likely is it that the blood of one would dry before the vblood of the other would get inside? Is there any evidence there was a large gap in time between the shooting of one victim and the shooting of the other? No they were shot in the same room so obviously were shot close in time to one another.
The prosecution tested whether the gun could produce enough heat to dry back spatter of 1 person before back spatter from a second person entered. Test firing it did not result in enough heat to rapidly dry the back spatter. The prosecution thus contended that the chance that the blood would not have intimately mixed was remote.
So the prosecution told the jury the following:
A) That the location and nature of the neck wound combined with the gun being held up and down that it was virtually certain that blood would get inside the barrel of the gun.
B) That even with the gun held horizontally instead of vertically (which would be the case with someone else shooting her) that he still would expect back spatter inside the gun.
c) That the back spatter that was expected to be found was found inside the suppressor thus indicating the suppressor was attached while she was shot. This blood was Sheila's blood type and of the nature he would expect to see based on the neck wound and behavior of back spatter.
D) That there was a remote chance that June and Neill's blood could mix together without intimately mixing and produce the result that the prosecution and defense detected.
E) That there was only a remote chance that June and Neill both suffered shots that could have resulted in both sending back spatter into the suppressor.
Put all these together and you get a remote chance of it being June and Nevill's blood instead of Sheila's. That is what was told to the jury with a detailed explanation of why based on the above.
If you still can't understand the prosecution's position afte rlal of this then that is your problem not mine.
To try to refute a position you must comprehend it. One who fails to comprehend the argument has no hope of refuting any of it.
From the appeal court decision:
"In dealing with this evidence, the defence were limited by the evidence available from their own expert. They called no such evidence at trial but the material that they had obtained pre-trial has been disclosed in the course of this appeal. The defence had instructed Dr Patrick Lincoln, whose expertise in such matters was well known. On 29 April 1986, he visited the forensic science laboratory and examined the relevant material. He carried out tests on all seventeen baffles. The first eight plates all gave weak or very weak positive reactions for blood. There was no blood clearly visible to the naked eye and Dr Lincoln concluded that 'such findings could be consistent with an item having been previously swabbed by a forensic scientist to remove blood stains for testing'. The other nine plates "did not produce any evidence for the presence of blood". He agreed with Mr Hayward's conclusion that the combination of blood groups revealed in his testing of the inside of the moderator could have come solely from Sheila Caffell but did not come from any one of the other individuals."
Lincoln was the defense's expert. Lincoln found blood on the first 8 baffles even though no blood was visible because the prosecution had already removed all visible blood. I kept saying 7, but was mistaken it was 8 according to this appeal court decision. Though the blood was weak he was still able to test it and the test results mirrored those of the prosecution. It could only have been Sheila's blood type not anyone else's.
Why was he not called by the defense at trial? Because the blood he found was more damning than the prosecution. He found microscopic traces of blood that were the same blood type as Sheila or alternatively a remote chance it was June and Nevill's mixed. Would dry blood chips being placed inside account for this? No. Would wet blood be able to spash all 8 initial baffles? No. As I explained already it would have to be sprayed to hit 8 consecutive baffles. Bringing this up to a jury would really hurt to Rivlin did not mention his expert's findings.
Of course the scientists might have concluded that the blood sample found in the silencer was SC's but were they aware of:
1.) Who found the silencer, when and how and the fact that these individuals who 'found' it then 'examined' it? They tampered with it using a razor blade and blood stained clothing was hanging about in the vicinity?
2.)Were the scientists also able to confirm that the blood samples taken from the victims by the pathologist and handed to DS Cook and DI Davidson arrived at FSS in tamper proof vials.
My views re potential contamination are not important. What is important is that the jury were aware of the finding of the silencer and how it was subsequently handled prior to arriving at FSS so that they were in a position to either accept or reject contamination as a distinct possibility.
Who found it is immaterial to the science.
The science doesn't change.
No matter who found it:
A) Sheila's fatal contact wound was virtually certain to result in back spatter
B) The expected back spatter was not found in the rifle barrel thus raising a major question of whether a suppressor of some kind was attached (there are various types of suppressors not just sound, for instance flash suppressors)
C) The expected back spatter was found in the suppressor
D) The blood had to be Sheila's blood type if a single type of blood. If mixed it had to be Nevill and June's blood
For it to be june and Nevill's blood requires
E) The only way for it to be June and Nevill's blood is if their blood did not intimately mix and certain elements present in their blood that Sheila lacked were in different blood samples instead of the sample that was tested
F) The only way for their blood not to intimately mix is if the blood of one dried before the blood of the other was deposited.
These scientific principles do not change at all depending upon who found what.
The jury was in fact told the complete circumstances of the finding of the suppressor so was aware of all pertinent facts.
You have dodged the question I posed to you yet again. I assure you that until you answer I will not stop asking it. Each time you refuse to answer you demonstrate to everyone that you are running away from the question and there is only one reason why you would do so. Because if you answer it will betray that you honesty do not believe Jeremy is innocent rather you just want to pretend you believe it.
The only way Jeremy could be innocent is if the blood was planted. The defense expert found Sheila's blood type on the first 8 baffles after the prosecution already removed all visible blood. That means wet blood had to be planted on all 8 initial baffles. How would someone plant wet blood on these baffles? It would have to be sprayed inside in order to hit them all. Stick 8 plates of steel back to back with a 1 inch gap between each. How do you get water from a hose to spash on more than the initial plate? You shoot at an angle instead of head on and the spray can hit each. To get on all of the first 8 baffles you need to spray blood inside. There is no way for this to happen accidentally.
Do you have the guts to answer a simple question or will you continue to avoid it? I will keep asking till you answer. Do you honestly believe someone planted blood of the same group as Sheila's inside the suppressor? A simple yes or no is required. Elaboration as to who or why if you believe is was planted would be welcome but is not necessary a yes or no is sufficient.
