Simple explanation of the use of the rifle to bludgeon

[scipio_usmc]

The rifle stock was used to bash Nevill largely by striking his face, arms and head with the butt in such manner:

   

Some people suggest that instead the killer held the rifle by the barrel and wielded it like a sledgehammer.  There are several pieces of evidence though that tell us that is not what happened and that it was wilded like in the photo above.  The killer helpd the narrow portion of the butt with one hand, the forwgrip with the other and jabbed Nevill with the butt.

I. The stress fractures to the stock

The rifle stock had several stress fractures and a piece that actually sheered off.  The stress fractures and piece that sheered off all ran in the same direction.  The fractures were all horizonal.  Why would the wood fracture horizontally?

Picure walls closing like something out of Indiana Jones.  Imagine the rifle stock being in between the walls with the metal buttplate against one wall and the smaller side against another.  How will it fracture as the walls compress it?  It will fracture the same way the murder weapon's stock did.  There will be horizontal fractures as it is squeezed.

The same force will be at work if the butt of the rifle stock is being bashed into something.   The stock is being crushed between the person pushing and the object being stuck, so it will be compressed.

If instead the gun were being swung like a sledge hammer then the damage would have been different.

1) the barrel could be bent or broken free from the receiver.  The murder weapon has a lightweight barrel that is not likely to hold up if the weapon is furiously wielded like a sledge hammer.  Depending on the location of a strike the barrel could actually bend in which case forget about firing it again until a new one is obtained.

The gun breaks down in half.  The barrel and foregrip as one unit and the receiver/stock as the other unit. 



Note the small section of the barrel that slides inside the receiver.  A great deal of force is going to damage it one way or another.

2) The stock attaches to the receiver in a rather simple way. The receiver has a metal projection sticking out at the end:

 

The wooden stock has a hole to match this and slides on it.  The trigger guard is screwed into the receiver on one end and the stock on the other and this is how the stock stays attached.  If the gun is used as a sledgehammer with the stock being the hammer part what is the first part of the stock that start to fracture?  The wood around the metal projection will start to fracture because the wood is going to be stressed against the metal projection.

Were there any fractures or damage to the area where it slides into the metal projection?  No.  Yet if the stock were being bent left, right, up or down that is eactly where the stress would be, where it stildes onto that projection.

Since the barrel was not damaged, the stock was not damaged near the porjection and instead was damaged by a motion of being compressed from front to back this tells us the rifle was used to bash Nevill like the photo demonstrates.

II. Lack of cast off

The gun had blood on it and that blood largely got on it when Nevill was being bashing.  He had blood on his body and that blood was mainly projected onto the weapon and the killer.  When someone swings a blood covered object like a stedge hammer or axe the blood on it is cast off onto other objects.  When the object is raised back up blood is cast off onto the ceiling and the wall behind the person swinging the weapon.  The ceiling did not have any cast off blood nor did any walls. This indicates the gun was not swung like an axe and confrims that the weapon was used in the striking motions shown the photo above.

III. Nevill's wounds

Nevill's wounds to his arm, face and head are all consistent with being hit by the butt of the rifle.

He had skin ripped off a finger, bruising to his elbow and his forearm had the wounds seen below.  The butt of the stock was jabbed into his arm and left gouges. The flat bottom, top or sides of the stock do not make gauges like that.  It was made by the butt of the rifle glancing off and digging in.



The buttplate has ridges and can thus gouge but worse look at the sharp corners of the butt



Nevill raised his right arm blocking his face with it. His elbow was facing to his right and his hand to his left.  The killer was striking his arm with the butt of the rifle.   


 


 

   

[John]

Thank you for posting such an excellent description as to how a rifle could be used to bludgeon a victim.  I have yet to see any plausible alternative which can explain how Nevill Bamber sustained the wounds to his body after being shot several times in his bedroom.

[Holly Goodhead]

The rifle stock was used to bash Nevill largely by striking his face, arms and head with the butt in such manner:

   

Some people suggest that instead the killer held the rifle by the barrel and wielded it like a sledgehammer.  There are several pieces of evidence though that tell us that is not what happened and that it was wilded like in the photo above.  The killer helpd the narrow portion of the butt with one hand, the forwgrip with the other and jabbed Nevill with the butt.

I. The stress fractures to the stock

The rifle stock had several stress fractures and a piece that actually sheered off.  The stress fractures and piece that sheered off all ran in the same direction.  The fractures were all horizonal.  Why would the wood fracture horizontally?

Picure walls closing like something out of Indiana Jones.  Imagine the rifle stock being in between the walls with the metal buttplate against one wall and the smaller side against another.  How will it fracture as the walls compress it?  It will fracture the same way the murder weapon's stock did.  There will be horizontal fractures as it is squeezed.

The same force will be at work if the butt of the rifle stock is being bashed into something.   The stock is being crushed between the person pushing and the object being stuck, so it will be compressed.

If instead the gun were being swung like a sledge hammer then the damage would have been different.

1) the barrel could be bent or broken free from the receiver.  The murder weapon has a lightweight barrel that is not likely to hold up if the weapon is furiously wielded like a sledge hammer.  Depending on the location of a strike the barrel could actually bend in which case forget about firing it again until a new one is obtained.

The gun breaks down in half.  The barrel and foregrip as one unit and the receiver/stock as the other unit. 



Note the small section of the barrel that slides inside the receiver.  A great deal of force is going to damage it one way or another.

2) The stock attaches to the receiver in a rather simple way. The receiver has a metal projection sticking out at the end:

 

The wooden stock has a hole to match this and slides on it.  The trigger guard is screwed into the receiver on one end and the stock on the other and this is how the stock stays attached.  If the gun is used as a sledgehammer with the stock being the hammer part what is the first part of the stock that start to fracture?  The wood around the metal projection will start to fracture because the wood is going to be stressed against the metal projection.

Were there any fractures or damage to the area where it slides into the metal projection?  No.  Yet if the stock were being bent left, right, up or down that is eactly where the stress would be, where it stildes onto that projection.

Since the barrel was not damaged, the stock was not damaged near the porjection and instead was damaged by a motion of being compressed from front to back this tells us the rifle was used to bash Nevill like the photo demonstrates.

II. Lack of cast off

The gun had blood on it and that blood largely got on it when Nevill was being bashing.  He had blood on his body and that blood was mainly projected onto the weapon and the killer.  When someone swings a blood covered object like a stedge hammer or axe the blood on it is cast off onto other objects.  When the object is raised back up blood is cast off onto the ceiling and the wall behind the person swinging the weapon.  The ceiling did not have any cast off blood nor did any walls. This indicates the gun was not swung like an axe and confrims that the weapon was used in the striking motions shown the photo above.

III. Nevill's wounds

Nevill's wounds to his arm, face and head are all consistent with being hit by the butt of the rifle.

He had skin ripped off a finger, bruising to his elbow and his forearm had the wounds seen below.  The butt of the stock was jabbed into his arm and left gouges. The flat bottom, top or sides of the stock do not make gauges like that.  It was made by the butt of the rifle glancing off and digging in.



The buttplate has ridges and can thus gouge but worse look at the sharp corners of the butt



Nevill raised his right arm blocking his face with it. His elbow was facing to his right and his hand to his left.  The killer was striking his arm with the butt of the rifle.   

Scipio who are the two shaven headed guys, who you seem fond of presenting, and what is the relevance to the WHF case?

Your post above is supposition.  Dr V, the pathologist, makes it clear in his report that the injuries NB sustained which he was unable to attribute directly or indirectly to gunshot wounds were caused by:

- linear object
- blunt object
- blunt surface

He makes no reference to the rifle or indeed any other firearm.  If he was able to attribute the non gun shot injuries to the rifle he would say as much.  Please see page 3 - 5 of Dr V's report.

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

[Myster]

The baldy on the left is a rifle butt-resistant, cauliflower-eared test dummy... the one on the right is alive and not so dumb.

The bruise marks to me look as if they were the result of three or possibly four quick successive blows from the narrow rifle barrel, rather than the wooden butt. This tallies with Dr Vanezis' linear object theory - the bruises being about 10 - 15mm wide, similar to the width of the narrow barrel. The gouges where the skin is broken possibly caused by either the front or rear fixed small sight (not the telescopic one which I don't believe was attached throughout the incident). Or even from just the metal barrel itself, an older person's skin being more fragile than that of someone younger.

[Holly Goodhead]

The baldy on the left is a rifle butt-resistant, cauliflower-eared test dummy... the one on the right is alive and not so dumb.

The bruise marks to me look as if they were the result of three or possibly four quick successive blows from the narrow rifle barrel, rather than the wooden butt. This tallies with Dr Vanezis' linear object theory - the bruises being about 10 - 15mm wide, similar to the width of the narrow barrel. The gouges where the skin is broken possibly caused by either the front or rear fixed small sight (not the telescopic one which I don't believe was attached throughout the incident). Or even from just the metal barrel itself, an older person's skin being more fragile than that of someone younger.

Yes I agree it seems that way, but how sure does a pathologist need to be before he/she can at least moot it as a possibility?  I am only prepared to go as far as the pathologist permits.

I note also in the CoA report, as highlighted in a recent post from John, it states:

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.

AND

42. The examination of Nevill Bamber's body also revealed black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back. The linear marks were consistent with Mr Bamber having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.

Who was the originator of the text above in bold?  I am especially concerned with the "possibly a gun" above.  This is not what the pathologist has stated and personally I think it is dangerous territory if 3 appeal court judges start acting as pathologist with add ons.  This is beyond their remit 

[scipio_usmc]

Scipio who are the two shaven headed guys, who you seem fond of presenting, and what is the relevance to the WHF case?

Your post above is supposition.  Dr V, the pathologist, makes it clear in his report that the injuries NB sustained which he was unable to attribute directly or indirectly to gunshot wounds were caused by:

- linear object
- blunt object
- blunt surface

He makes no reference to the rifle or indeed any other firearm.  If he was able to attribute the non gun shot injuries to the rifle he would say as much.  Please see page 3 - 5 of Dr V's report.

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

Saying they were "realtively" linear and hit with a blunt object SUPPORTS what I assessed.

The stcok in question is a blunt object which can cause the exact wounds in question.

The explanation provided is the ONLY one that accounts for the exact damage suffered by the stock.  The horizantal strss fractures would only occurr fron the stock being compressed. 

The broken stock is not a figment of anyone's imagination nor did Vanezis attempt to assess anything related to it. The limited assessment of Vanezis doesn't speak to the issue at all.

[scipio_usmc]

The baldy on the left is a rifle butt-resistant, cauliflower-eared test dummy... the one on the right is alive and not so dumb.

The bruise marks to me look as if they were the result of three or possibly four quick successive blows from the narrow rifle barrel, rather than the wooden butt. This tallies with Dr Vanezis' linear object theory - the bruises being about 10 - 15mm wide, similar to the width of the narrow barrel. The gouges where the skin is broken possibly caused by either the front or rear fixed small sight (not the telescopic one which I don't believe was attached throughout the incident). Or even from just the metal barrel itself, an older person's skin being more fragile than that of someone younger.

The bruise marks are not consitsent with blows from a smooth barrel.  The only way for the sights to do that wuld be to scrape the sights along as opposed to hitting someone with the barrel.  The sights are in front of where the rifle barrel would hit so would require dragging the rifle in a raking motion.

What you are describing is to hold it upside down like this and to drag it in the raking motion across the arm.



If someone is doing that you try to grab it as opposed to simply leaving your arm above your face.

Moreover you are forgetting about the moderator which probaly would have hit Nevill in the face if he were blocking the rifle not the moderator.

It also is not natural or comfortable to hold it upside down to try to hit someone in such manner let alone effective. You bash with the stock because it is more substantial and an easier motion.

The only thing that accounts for the stress marks and piece sheered off is to use the weapon in a butt strok similar to the one above. Of course when the person is bent over or you want to hit a lower place the rifle butt is angled down towards where you want to strike.

The end of the butt will leave gouges of the size and nature seen of Nevill and account for the damage to his head while other theories will not.

[scipio_usmc]

Yes I agree it seems that way, but how sure does a pathologist need to be before he/she can at least moot it as a possibility?  I am only prepared to go as far as the pathologist permits.

I note also in the CoA report, as highlighted in a recent post from John, it states:

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.

AND

42. The examination of Nevill Bamber's body also revealed black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back. The linear marks were consistent with Mr Bamber having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.

Who was the originator of the text above in bold?  I am especially concerned with the "possibly a gun" above.  This is not what the pathologist has stated and personally I think it is dangerous territory if 3 appeal court judges start acting as pathologist with add ons.  This is beyond their remit 

Striking with the butt of the weapon would result in the exact damage Nevill suffered including the gouges and also can account for the blood.  A blunt wound can be caused by any object even a fist.  It simply means something without a sharp point or surface liek a knife which has a blade that cuts and usually a point that stabs. 

Forensiscs has come a long way since then including blood pattern analysis which establishes Sheila was dragged flat after she was killed a fact they never realized with their limited skill set.

When there is a moderator being hit into your face you are not going to block all the way up the barrel so far that the killer can rake the iron sights against your arm.  You are going to try to block the moderator or to grab it.

The flaw people make it so not examine every single aspect involved at once but instead in piecemeal.  You have to look at what the killer would likely do, what the reaction of the person being attacked would do in response, all aspects of the injuries, the blood staining and the damage to the rifle.

The simplistic assumption that because there was blood on the barrel that means the barrel had to have struck the victim is much too simplistic and ignores the blood all around the weapon including many places on the stock.

We are are at disavantage because we don't have the trial testimony of all the experts.  In some details the summary of the Appeal Court has been established to be wrong and lacking. but they did fail to address in scientific detail how the head was bashed in.  Obviously it could not have been done with a rifle barrel but it seems they never bothered to go the extra step of explaining it.  Had they bothered a lightbulb might have gone off and then they would have realized ok so the head was bashed in with the stock and the victim tried to block the blows so that means the defensive wounds were likely caused by the stock as well. Could the stock cause such blunt injures?  Absolutely!  Not only the roundist gouges but the abrasions relatively linear because the stock would be moving in a linear fashion. 

The kind of damage a smooth barrel does is like a mopstick, they cause bruising not abrasions.  Attributing the linear abrasion to a gun barrel doesn't work at all. A friend who fancied himself as Bruce Lee unscrewed the mod end and used a mop to attack me.  I blocked with my right forearm as I tried to grab it or punch him with my lft (I am a Southpaw).  Afterwards my arm was black and blue. Only the barrel of the handle hit me so it didn't break through the skin.  When the end of a stick sratches it digs into the skin and leaves marks like this:







These wounds are indicative of something narrow and long like a stick or rifle barrel.

My arm was hit at least 7 times so bruises merged moreover when you cblock with the arm only a certian portion will come in contact with the object. Your arm has to be twisted a lot for the bulk of it to come in contact with an object.  If you bend your arm then a blow will hit the meat of your arm as opposed to the bone running along the outside.  In many instances you prefer the bone but in some you don't.  The bone is nice to hurt a hand or other body part of an opponent.  A stick or the like hitting the bone not so fun. The angle of impact plays a big role. A rifle barrel causes bruising like this:



Again the bruising can link up and make it difficult to distinguish what came from what blow.  I see nothing like this in the photos and that is what everyone but Vanezis worked off of.

I don't just know this because I was beaten with a stick though.  A forensic course I took explained the various issues so that if you defend a client then you need to understand the basics of wound patterns and know what to ask experts to help your client.

In trials today experts testify in detail about how injuries resulted and what would have caused them not the gneral claims that used to be used years ago.  Things are much more detailed today.  Part is to make cases even more ironclad but also to preempt defense lawyers.

[John]

I find it hard to believe that a piece was broken off the stock when it came into contact with soft human tissue.  The way I see it the stock must have come into contact with something hard, even the kitchen floor.  It could also have been damaged in an earlier fall possibly causing it to split but not break completely.  Is there any reference anywhere to the stock being damaged before the night of the murders?




ETA  Having seen the photograph of where the piece of stock ended up there is one object which is as hard as an anvil and that is the Aga cooker.  Could it have been the Aga which sustained the blow during the struggle?

 

[Holly Goodhead]

I find it hard to believe that a piece was broken off the stock when it came into contact with soft human tissue.  The way I see it the stock must have come into contact with something hard, even the kitchen floor.  It could also have been damaged in an earlier fall possibly causing it to split but not break completely.  Is there any reference anywhere to the stock being damaged before the night of the murders?




ETA  Having seen the photograph of where the piece of stock ended up there is one object which is as hard as an anvil and that is the Aga cooker.  Could it have been the Aga which sustained the blow during the struggle?

I haven't seen any.  Extract from CoA:

Relevant events before 7 August 1985 21. Anthony Pargeter, Nevill Bamber's nephew and a competition standard shot, stayed at White House Farm between 26-28 July 1985. He saw the .22 rifle in the gun cupboard in the ground floor office. The telescopic sights and sound moderator were attached and the gun appeared in a "new" condition. There were no scratches or marks upon it. Later the appellant, himself a good shot, took the rifle out for some target practice.

I haven't seen any reference to the broken stock piece being forensically analysed in an attempt to determine what it may have come into contact with?

[John]

If it struck the Aga there would be a tell-tale mark left behind.  There are some excellent photos of the Aga so must have a look later.

[scipio_usmc]

The damage to the stock helps inform the manner it was used when it broke.  The horizonal fractures indicate it was compressed as someone jabbed the butt into something.  Had instead the sides of the stock been used the stress would have been around the metal projection sticking out for the reciever.

Vanezis suggested that the butt was used to cause the skull fractures.  He overlooked that the stock could also have caused the damage to the arm.  A stock is linear and causes blunt force injuries.  The corner of the stock can and does cause gouges like observed on the arms and also could have caused the damage to the face.

Are we honestly supposed to believe that when the killer tried to beat Nevill with the rifle barrel that he blocked the blows but when the killer tried to bash his hea din that he no longer tried to defend himself and protect from the blows?  That makes no sense at all.  If the killer tried using the barrel then switched to the butt because the barrel wasn't working (as Vanezis suggested to an extent) then it would stand to reason that some defensive wounds on the arm would be caused by the rifle barrel while others would be caused by the the butt.

But Vanezis failed to take into account that the moderator was attached and thus his proposed theory was impossible.



"such injuries could have been caused by multiple blows by a linear object with a rounded end either by hitting the forearm with the side of the linear object, 3 or possibly 4 times and 4 times with the rounded end of that object"

So he is saying it would require hitting the arm 7-8 times.  3-4 with the side of the object and another 4 with just the round end.  There was a moderator attached so how could the rounded end of the barrel have hit his arm?  The end was concealed by the moderator.  In the meantime a rifle barrel will not cause the bruises he thinks.  He did not test to see what damage will be caused by the side of a linear object with a round end and ventured no guess as to what force would be required to cause the wounds.  That is what lab personnel were to try to figure out.  I have seen what damage a rifle stock will do and it can cause deep abrasions and fractures.
 
Vanezis did not examine the rifle.  Nor did he say the wounds to the arms were definitely caused by the barrel which even if true would not negate my points about the way the rifle hit the head which many want to ignore.  He didn't say anything about the barrel of the rifle causing the wounds to the head he suggested the butt was used to do so.

Vanezis said the arm wounds COULD have been caused by a linar object WITH A ROUNDED END.  He did not say there were all definitely caused by the rifle barrel.  A rifle stock is linear as well and is known to cause linear wounds including linear skull fractures and the end of it can cause the relatively round wounds on the arm though they are not perfectly round by any stretch and especially the long linear wounds can be caused by a butt.

The suggestion maybe they were caused by the rifle barrel doesn't hold up though when one looks at the actual marks made by the side of a barrel (bruises) and mind you he made the claim without taking into account that the barrel was threaded and worse the moderator was attached so it is impossible for the tip of the barrel to have caused the wounds.

He didn't try to piece together what actually happened in total by looking at all the evidence in total.

When you piece it together and look at the evidence proving the stock was bashed against his skull causing "severe fractures", and that this is what Nevill was trying to block it with his arm then it puts things in perspective and you realize some if not all of that arm damage had to be from blocking rifle butt blows.  The only way they would not be would be if he was already passed out from something else prior to the rifle blows to his skull being attempted.       

[Myster]

I find it hard to believe that a piece was broken off the stock when it came into contact with soft human tissue.  The way I see it the stock must have come into contact with something hard, even the kitchen floor.  It could also have been damaged in an earlier fall possibly causing it to split but not break completely.  Is there any reference anywhere to the stock being damaged before the night of the murders?




ETA  Having seen the photograph of where the piece of stock ended up there is one object which is as hard as an anvil and that is the Aga cooker.  Could it have been the Aga which sustained the blow during the struggle?

I have the same opinion that the Anschutz might have been dropped or slipped suddenly out of Jeremy Bamber's grasp during the struggle, with the end of the wooden stock pointing towards the floor or the AGA, and this forced the wood where it was joined to the bullet receiver/chamber into the metal causing a piece to break off. If it didn't break off immediately because of this but was simply weakened and split, then it might have broken off as scipio says with blows to the right arm and/or face from the butt end. The two lines of stress damage to the rifle's stock leads me to think that these were also caused at the same time by dropping of the rifle, although the drawing doesn't make clear exactly how bad these were. Neither are they clearly visible on the photos. Blood was found on the metal edge of the chamber but this could have been deposited there anytime before or after the shard broke off, either from blood on JB's hands/gloves or NB's wounds.

[scipio_usmc]

I have the same opinion that the Anschutz might have been dropped or slipped suddenly out of Jeremy Bamber's grasp during the struggle, with the end of the wooden stock pointing towards the floor or the AGA, and this forced the wood where it was joined to the bullet receiver/chamber into the metal causing a piece to break off. If it didn't break off immediately because of this but was simply weakened and split, then it might have broken off as scipio says with blows to the right arm and/or face from the butt end. The two lines of stress damage to the rifle's stock leads me to think that these were also caused at the same time by dropping of the rifle, although the drawing doesn't make clear exactly how bad these were. Neither are they clearly visible on the photos. Blood was found on the metal edge of the chamber but this could have been deposited there anytime before or after the shard broke off, either from blood on JB's hands/gloves or NB's wounds.

The damage to the stock was linear fractures.  Dropping it would not cause linear fractures unless it was dropped on the butt and even then it would require more firce of actually throwing it to the grand like a spear or forcing it into the ground.

Ther fractures ran like this:

receiver of gun_______Fractures______________ Butt

There were horizontal.

Dropping the gun would result in vertical fractures, especially where the receiver locks into the stock. It still would require a good amount of force not just a simple drop though from a couple of feet high.