Expanation and evaluation of Fowler's claims

[scipio_usmc]

Fowler:

"In my professional opinion, the complex just described of the lower entrance and two abrasions is consistent with the rifle not having a silencer."

What complex is he referring to?  He is referring to Vanezis' description of the non-fatal wound.



Vanezis decided both wounds had abrasion collars and described such in his report, though he failed to mention the size of the collars. An abrasion collar is formed around an entrance wound by the bullet scraping against the skin. Push you finger into you skin and watch it indent around your finger.  The skin does that when a bullet strikes and thus instead of just making a hole the skin around the hole brushes against the sides of the bullet and becomes bruised.   The wounds also had some blackening which is consistent with contact and intermediate gunshots.



Vanezis wrote:

"The lower wound was situated on the right side of the neck, 2" below the upper wound and slightly more later. It measured 1/4" in diameter, had slight bruising at the edges as well as apparent residue marks.  The surrounding skin area was also bruised."

Fowler read Vanezis' report and decided that to him slight bruising and residue marks amounts to Vanezis finding a muzzle imprint.  If Vanezis found a muzzle imprint he would have stated it, a bullet abrasion collar (the bruising) and residue marks (sooting) is very different from a muzzle imprint.  So Fowler decided he knows what Vanezis meant better than Vanezis himself just by reading the report not based on Fowler independently inspecting and evaluating the wound.  Fowler decided that there was two rings around the wound that amounted to a muzzle imprint.  Where did he get the BS about 2 rings?  He is counting the slight bruising around the edges of the entrance wound as 1 ring and the bruising beyond the edges of the entrance wound as another ring and says this is a muzzle imprint from a barrel.

Did he see the wound in person?  No  Did he see good closeups?  No he decided Vanezis description is a muzzle imprint though Vanezis himself just saw a bullet abrasion ring. 

Worse yet he declared that he muzzle imprint is consistent with the barrel of the rifle as opposed to a muzzle imprint of the moderator even though Vanezis provided no measurement of the size of the bruising only the size of the entrance wound itself.  Mind you this wound was not even determined to be a contact wound.  It was the fatal wound that was determined to for sure be a contact wound.

The fatal wound was described as follows:

"The upper wound was situated 1 3/4" below and to the right side of the point of the chin.  It measured 3/16" in diameter and had slight bruising and residue marks surrounding it."

So the fatal wound- the contact wound- doesn't mention 2 sets of bruises.  So the fatal wound doesn't lend itself to the warped interpretation he provided for the non-fatal wound.

Fowler had no basis at all to make the claims he did.  He just made up the notion that there was  a muzzle imprint and that the muzzle imprint that he made up was consistent with the muzzle of the rifle not the moderator.

It happens all the time with supposed experts. They say whatever the person who pays them would like to hear without regard to reality. 

All 3 of them have egg on their face and that is why the COA doesn't consider their claims to have any value at all.

It would be like me writing that I witnessed a red sports car run a red light and crash into a black BMW but then someone saying, "based on his description of events the black BMW driver was at fault for getting in the way of the sportscar."

Vanezis is the one who saw the wounds and would be in a position to decide what he saw.  Fowler was didn't look at the wounds and thus in no position to contradict Vanezis and decide that what Vanezis saw wasn't a bullet abrasion collar but rather a muzzle imprint.

A muzzle imprint CAN only happen during the course of a contact wound being delivered but doesn't ALWAYS happen.  Thus when there is a muzzle imprint it is useful evidence of what weapon was used but the absence of a muzzle imprint doesn't mean a wound wasn't a contact wound because a muzzle imprint is not always left.

There was no muzzle imprint discovered on Sheila by Vanezis.  The wounds had bullet abrasion collars and some sooting, that's it.  Jeremy's defense team got some experts to make up that the description of the lower wound sounded to them like a muzzle imprint of the barrel.  If Vanezis had found a muzzle imprint not only would he have noted it he would have used such as a basis to say the lower wound was definitely a contact wound because a muzzle imprint is only left by contact wounds.

So Fowler's claims are little more than BS.

Now if Vanesis had assessed in his report that there was a muzzle imprint and that the diameter of the imprint was 1/2" that could potentially implicate the barrel of the rifle sans moderator. But if the rifle were pressed tight into the skin there would be additional larger rings around that from the threading.  This was not apparent from the pig skin tests because aside from the fact pig skin doesn't behave exactly like living human tissue, the pig skin tests featured skin just handing like rugs so it would give. Pushing into a human neck would result in the threads touching the neck skin.

So a muzzle imprint from the rifle itself would feature a 1/2" imprint with one or more larger rings around it.

A muzzle imprint from the moderator could feature a ring from just the hole or a ring from the entire face.  The hole was roughly 3/8" in diameter and entire face was roughly 13/16" in diameter. So the difference in diameter between the entire face of the moderator and the muzzle of the rifle (ignoring the threads) is only 5/16".  So even if there were a muzzle imprint the only way to try differentiating would be very careful measuring of the diameter. No muzzle imprint was described so Vanezis didn't find one to measure but even if Vanezis found one if he didn't describe the measurements and simply noted he found a muzzle imprint that would be useless because the main differentiation would be to look for a difference of 5/16" of an inch.  Uneven things on a gun often leave tell tale marks such as sights, and the threads I discussed.  The face of the moderator was flat so would have nothing likely to leave any such marks.  The rifle had the threaded barrel and iron sights that potentially could have left a mark so would be something else to look for.  Nothing is described that fits as a muzzle imprint of the gun or the moderator though.

My most simple challenge to anyone who wants to use Fowler's assessment is how can he say there was a muzzle imprint of the diameter of  1/2" based on the quotes posted above from Vanezis?  Where did Vanezis describe anything related to the non-fatal wound as being 1/2" in diameter? The only numbers he provided was that the entrance wound itself was 1/4" in diameter.  He provided no measurements related the how far the bruising extended or the sooting.  So how could Fowler decide the bruising had a diameter of 1/2" as opposed to 13/16"? He lacked the ability to make such a conclusion since Vanezis didn't provide the measurement.

Not only did Fowler decide that Vanezis erroneously assessed a muzzle imprint to be a bullet abrasion collar, he decided he knew the size though Vanezis didn't provide the measurement of the abrasion collar.

Anyone wanting to read more about the forensics invovled can do so here:

http://www.forensicmed.co.uk/wounds/firearms/gunshot-wounds-rifled-weapons/

30

[Holly Goodhead]

Fowler:

"In my professional opinion, the complex just described of the lower entrance and two abrasions is consistent with the rifle not having a silencer."

What complex is he referring to?  He is referring to Vanezis' description of the non-fatal wound. 

Vanezis decided both wounds had abrasion collars and described such in his report, though he failed to mention the size of the collars. An abrasion collar is formed around an entrance wound by the bullet scraping against the skin. Push you finger into you skin and watch it indent around your finger.  The skin does that when a bullet strikes and thus instead of just making a hole the skin around the hole brushes against the sides of the bullet and becomes bruised.   The wounds also had some blackening which is consistent with contact and intermediate gunshots.



Vanezis wrote:

"The lower wound was situated on the right side of the neck, 2" below the upper wound and slightly more later. It measured 1/4" in diameter, had slight bruising at the edges as well as apparent residue marks.  The surrounding skin area was also bruised."

Fowler read Vanezis' report and decided that to him slight bruising and residue marks amounts to Vanezis finding a muzzle imprint.  If Vanezis found a muzzle imprint he would have stated it, a bullet abrasion collar (the bruising) and residue marks (sooting) is very different from a muzzle imprint.  So Fowler decided he knows what Vanezis meant better than Vanezis himself just by reading the report not based on Fowler independently inspecting and evaluating the wound.  Fowler decided that there was two rings around the wound that amounted to a muzzle imprint.  Where did he get the BS about 2 rings?  He is counting the slight bruising around the edges of the entrance wound as 1 ring and the bruising beyond the edges of the entrance wound as another ring and says this is a muzzle imprint from a barrel.

Did he see the wound in person?  No  Did he see good closeups?  No he decided Vanezis description is a muzzle imprint though Vanezis himself just saw a bullet abrasion ring. 

Worse yet he declared that he muzzle imprint is consistent with the barrel of the rifle as opposed to a muzzle imprint of the moderator even though Vanezis provided no measurement of the size of the bruising only the size of the entrance wound itself.  Mind you this wound was not even determined to be a contact wound.  It was the fatal wound that was determined to for sure be a contact wound.

The fatal wound was described as follows:

"The upper wound was situated 1 3/4" below and to the right side of the point of the chin.  It measured 3/16" in diameter and had slight bruising and residue marks surrounding it."

So the fatal wound- the contact wound- doesn't mention 2 sets of bruises.  So the fatal wound doesn't lend itself to the warped interpretation he provided for the non-fatal wound.

Fowler had no basis at all to make the claims he did.  He just made up the notion that there was  a muzzle imprint and that the muzzle imprint that he made up was consistent with the muzzle of the rifle not the moderator.

It happens all the time with supposed experts. They say whatever the person who pays them would like to hear without regard to reality. 

All 3 of them have egg on their face and that is why the COA doesn't consider their claims to have any value at all.

It would be like me writing that I witnessed a red sports car run a red light and crash into a black BMW but then someone saying, "based on his description of events the black BMW driver was at fault for getting in the way of the sportscar."

Vanezis is the one who saw the wounds and would be in a position to decide what he saw.  Fowler was didn't look at the wounds and thus in no position to contradict Vanezis and decide that what Vanezis saw wasn't a bullet abrasion collar but rather a muzzle imprint.

A muzzle imprint CAN only happen during the course of a contact wound being delivered but doesn't ALWAYS happen.  Thus when there is a muzzle imprint it is useful evidence of what weapon was used but the absence of a muzzle imprint doesn't mean a wound wasn't a contact wound because a muzzle imprint is not always left.

There was no muzzle imprint discovered on Sheila by Vanezis.  The wounds had bullet abrasion collars and some sooting, that's it.  Jeremy's defense team got some experts to make up that the description of the lower wound sounded to them like a muzzle imprint of the barrel.  If Vanezis had found a muzzle imprint not only would he have noted it he would have used such as a basis to say the lower wound was definitely a contact wound because a muzzle imprint is only left by contact wounds.

So Fowler's claims are little more than BS.

Now if Vanesis had assessed in his report that there was a muzzle imprint and that the diameter of the imprint was 1/2" that could potentially implicate the barrel of the rifle sans moderator. But if the rifle were pressed tight into the skin there would be additional larger rings around that from the threading.  This was not apparent from the pig skin tests because aside from the fact pig skin doesn't behave exactly like living human tissue, the pig skin tests featured skin just handing like rugs so it would give. Pushing into a human neck would result in the threads touching the neck skin.

So a muzzle imprint from the rifle itself would feature a 1/2" imprint with one or more larger rings around it.

A muzzle imprint from the moderator could feature a ring from just the hole or a ring from the entire face.  The hole was roughly 3/8" in diameter and entire face was roughly 13/16" in diameter. So the difference in diameter between the entire face of the moderator and the muzzle of the rifle (ignoring the threads) is only 5/16".  So even if there were a muzzle imprint the only way to try differentiating would be very careful measuring of the diameter. No muzzle imprint was described so Vanezis didn't find one to measure but even if Vanezis found one if he didn't describe the measurements and simply noted he found a muzzle imprint that would be useless because the main differentiation would be to look for a difference of 5/16" of an inch.  Uneven things on a gun often leave tell tale marks such as sights, and the threads I discussed.  The face of the moderator was flat so would have nothing likely to leave any such marks.  The rifle had the threaded barrel and iron sights that potentially could have left a mark so would be something else to look for.  Nothing is described that fits as a muzzle imprint of the gun or the moderator though.

My most simple challenge to anyone who wants to use Fowler's assessment is how can he say there was a muzzle imprint of the diameter of  1/2" based on the quotes posted above from Vanezis?  Where did Vanezis describe anything related to the non-fatal wound as being 1/2" in diameter? The only numbers he provided was that the entrance wound itself was 1/4" in diameter.  He provided no measurements related the how far the bruising extended or the sooting.  So how could Fowler decide the bruising had a diameter of 1/2" as opposed to 13/16"? He lacked the ability to make such a conclusion since Vanezis didn't provide the measurement.

Not only did Fowler decide that Vanezis erroneously assessed a muzzle imprint to be a bullet abrasion collar, he decided he knew the size though Vanezis didn't provide the measurement of the abrasion collar.

Anyone wanting to read more about the forensics invovled can do so here:

http://www.forensicmed.co.uk/wounds/firearms/gunshot-wounds-rifled-weapons/

I thought the CCRC had already rejected Dr Fowler's claims in JB's last application?

[scipio_usmc]

I thought the CCRC had already rejected Dr Fowler's claims in JB's last application?

They did and I am explaining why since so many people still place stock in it.  The defense will not release the 2 CCRC that explained why Fowler's claims were worthless.  The COA opinion merely noted the CCRC considered his claims speculation they didn't detail anything more than that.

This thread is to lay out the detials of what he was claiming and why such speculation is insufficient to refute the evidence.

[Holly Goodhead]

They did and I am explaining why since so many people still place stock in it.  The defense will not release the 2 CCRC that explained why Fowler's claims were worthless.  The COA opinion merely noted the CCRC considered his claims speculation they didn't detail anything more than that.

This thread is to lay out the detials of what he was claiming and why such speculation is insufficient to refute the evidence.

The COA?  You mean judicial review? 

http://www.187fleetstreet.com/index.php?pr=profile&ba_id=116

I'm having some difficulty finding the summary.  It is in the public domain and I've previously read it.  Are you able to provide?

What does CACD stand for?

[Myster]

Is this (FULL TRANSCRIPT) what you're looking for...

https://www.crimeline.info/case/bamber-v-criminal-cases-review-commission

[Holly Goodhead]

Is this (FULL TRANSCRIPT) what you're looking for...

https://www.crimeline.info/case/bamber-v-criminal-cases-review-commission

Yes.  Thank you Myster.

[scipio_usmc]

Yes.  Thank you Myster.

It provides a summary of some of the issues and notes how there were just prelimianry conclusions reached.  Sadly we can't see in full the CCRC's smackdown we just know they rejected the claims as mere unsupported speculation that failed to address the lack of blood being found in the rifle.

"He [Fowler] concluded that the abrasions found were consistent with those of a rifle without a silencer, that there were no distinctive marks on the body which showed that a silencer had been attached, and the residue was consistent with contact wounds.  He refers to further work that needs doing, a matter to which I will return in a moment."

The abrasions being referred to were determined by Vanezis to be bullet abrasions.  The drawing I posted explains how those abrasions are made by bullets.  Fowler decided what Vanezis despribed must be barrel abrasions.  He had no measurments for them but decided the size would be right for the barrel but not for the moderator. It was all just speculation on his part they would need a lot more to actually establish the size and that they were barrel imprints as opposed to bullet abrasions.

What I find interesting is that that were corresponding with these experts for quite some time and they still hadn't done what they should have as far as trying to get measurements and photos of the wounds and to seriously try to establish their suggestions as true. It is rather obvious they were just making up claims and had no hope of proving their claims to be true.

if there were a muzzle imprint Vanesis would have found and noted such not mistake a barrel imprint for a bullet abrasion.  The whole thing was a rather stupid theory. But then again other experts they contacted thought maybe the flake of blood was a flake of soot and the expert didn't relaize it.  I have to wonder where they found the people Jeremy defense contacted.  None took the time to really do a decent job.

 

[John]

What you posted earlier about these so-called Court experts is in many cases spot on Scipio.  All too often I have seen the Crown expert say one thing while the Defence expert says the opposite.  How they get away with it and retain any credibility is beyond me.

[scipio_usmc]

David loves to cite Fowler's unsupported opinion as evidence but hides from a debate over what his unsupported claims are and why his unsupported opinions were rejected by the CCRC.

[david1819]

David loves to cite Fowler's unsupported opinion as evidence but hides from a debate over what his unsupported claims are and why his unsupported opinions were rejected by the CCRC.

Unlike you Scipio I actually make enquires and consult those involved and have access to the information, instead you prefer to speculate to make things up to suit what you believe, but never mind

I have actually been in touch with people who not only have a copy of Fowlers report that is supported by three other experts, I  have also been given a brief summary of why the appeal failed and it has nothing to with the CCRC rejecting fowlers claims. I am not going to go into detail as I have been entrusted to respect the ongoing legal challenges.

As for your explanation Scipio no only have you never read or seen Dr Fowlers report that is supported by two other medical examiners and supported by experiments carried out by ballistics experts Philip Boyce you actually don't have a clue what you are talking about, When it comes to Medical Pathology and Forensic Science your education and experience in those fields is nothing!

Based on the accordance with reason and logic who should I listen to?

A) Three Chief medical examiners two of whom hold a Phd and have studied thousands of gun homicides, Along with a forensic scientist in firearms who could back them up with experiments.

Or

B) The opinion of Scipio -  A stranger on the internet who fancies himself a medical examiner, Produces unresearched opinion formed on the basis of incomplete information, Is untrained, inexperienced, unqualified in all the relevant subjects hence is not recognized as a practitioner or expert witness. In short someone who likes to play expert on internet forums.

Its not difficult to understand why I choose A


Here is the CV of Philip Boyce
http://www.forensicequity.com/philip-boyce-bsc.-msc---firearms-expert-e-6.html

Feel free to upload your CV Scip and explain what makes your opinion hold more weight than his.

[scipio_usmc]

Unlike you Scipio I actually make enquires and consult those involved and have access to the information, instead you prefer to speculate to make things up to suit what you believe, but never mind

I have actually been in touch with people who not only have a copy of Fowlers report that is supported by three other experts, I  have also been given a brief summary of why the appeal failed and it has nothing to with the CCRC rejecting fowlers claims. I am not going to go into detail as I have been entrusted to respect the ongoing legal challenges.

As for your explanation Scipio no only have you never read or seen Dr Fowlers report that is supported by two other medical examiners and supported by experiments carried out by ballistics experts Philip Boyce you actually don't have a clue what you are talking about, When it comes to Medical Pathology and Forensic Science your education and experience in those fields is nothing!

Based on the accordance with reason and logic who should I listen to?

A) Three Chief medical examiners two of whom hold a Phd and have studied thousands of gun homicides, Along with a forensic scientist in firearms who could back them up with experiments.

Or

B) The opinion of Scipio -  A stranger on the internet who fancies himself a medical examiner, Produces unresearched opinion formed on the basis of incomplete information, Is untrained, inexperienced, unqualified in all the relevant subjects hence is not recognized as a practitioner or expert witness. In short someone who likes to play expert on internet forums.

Its not difficult to understand why I choose A


Here is the CV of Philip Boyce
http://www.forensicequity.com/philip-boyce-bsc.-msc---firearms-expert-e-6.html

Feel free to upload your CV Scip and explain what makes your opinion hold more weight than his.

My opinion's come from Vanezis and other experts.  Vanezis happens the be the guy who examined the body.  So according to the courts and logic I have the strongest evidence on my side since Vanezis is the only one in a position to assess the marks because he saw them in person.  But even those who saw the photos agree with him.  Not one person including Fowler has been able to find anything in the photos to counter his assessment.  Fowler doesn't claim to see a muzzle imprint in the photos because there is none visible.

I quoted from Fowler's report.  I presented his exact assessment.  I presented a detailed explanation of his claims and why his claims are worthless.

You REFUSE to discuss the details and instead just say that he is an expert so you choose to accept his claims no matter how pathetic they are.


It doesn't matter if he found two clowns or ten who say they agree with his speculation that doesn't refute the evidence of the actual examiner or other experts who say they are full of crap and have explained why.

He SPECULATED that Vanezis misinterpreted a muzzle imprint as a bullet abrasion.  He had no basis to speculate such and thus has no evidence to provide to substantiate his speculation. 

Since Vanezis didn't measure the bullet abrasion Fowler has no basis at all to claim the size is more consistent with the barrel than the moderator. He made that up as well.

It doesn't matter how many degrees he has, he made the claims up since he didn't inspect the victim himself and didn't have any evidence by way of photos etc to counter Vanezis assessments.

The CCRC found experts who refuted such nonsense and supported Vanezis.  You ignore such and dishonestly suggest his assessment was scientifically supported because two clowns said they agree with him.  That is as good as finding two clowns who say they agree Jeremy is innocent and saying that proves he is innocent without regard to whether they have valid evidence to support their claims.

The only way for you to prove yourself is to provide evidence to support Fowler instead of just saying he is an expert so you choose to believe him. 

[david1819]

My opinion's come from Vanezis and other experts.  Vanezis happens the be the guy who examined the body.  So according to the courts and logic I have the strongest evidence on my side since Vanezis is the only one in a position to assess the marks because he saw them in person.  But even those who saw the photos agree with him.  Not one person including Fowler has been able to find anything in the photos to counter his assessment.  Fowler doesn't claim to see a muzzle imprint in the photos because there is none visible.

I quoted from Fowler's report.  I presented his exact assessment.  I presented a detailed explanation of his claims and why his claims are worthless.

You REFUSE to discuss the details and instead just say that he is an expert so you choose to accept his claims no matter how pathetic they are.


It doesn't matter if he found two clowns or ten who say they agree with his speculation that doesn't refute the evidence of the actual examiner or other experts who say they are full of crap and have explained why.

He SPECULATED that Vanezis misinterpreted a muzzle imprint as a bullet abrasion.  He had no basis to speculate such and thus has no evidence to provide to substantiate his speculation. 

Since Vanezis didn't measure the bullet abrasion Fowler has no basis at all to claim the size is more consistent with the barrel than the moderator. He made that up as well.

It doesn't matter how many degrees he has, he made the claims up since he didn't inspect the victim himself and didn't have any evidence by way of photos etc to counter Vanezis assessments.

The CCRC found experts who refuted such nonsense and supported Vanezis.  You ignore such and dishonestly suggest his assessment was scientifically supported because two clowns said they agree with him.  That is as good as finding two clowns who say they agree Jeremy is innocent and saying that proves he is innocent without regard to whether they have valid evidence to support their claims.

The only way for you to prove yourself is to provide evidence to support Fowler instead of just saying he is an expert so you choose to believe him.

Your making things up. I have been given details on Fowler's report and the CCRC's position on it. what your saying is your own assumptions on evidence you have not seen. With what I know now your speculations are false. Nevertheless proving the silencer was not attached does not exonerate Jeremy of the accusations against him.

[scipio_usmc]

Your making things up. I have been given details on Fowler's report and the CCRC's position on it. what your saying is your own assumptions on evidence you have not seen. With what I know now your speculations are false. Nevertheless proving the silencer was not attached does not exonerate Jeremy of the accusations against him.

You have not demonstrated you understand a thing about his claims. You have been unable to discuss the details at all.  You just keep posting his CV and saying this means his claims are true.

I have discussed in detail what he claims and why his claims are just nonsense speculation.  You have not responded with any substantive points or evidence you just keep saying he is an expert who should be trusted because he is an expert.

Vanezis is an expert too and he is the expert who actually inspected her body. In the eyes of the courts and rational people that puts him in a much stronger position than other experts because he actually saw the body while they did not.  The only thing that experts can do to refute him is to establish he relied on bad science or say they observe something in photos he missed.

Fowler SPECULATES Vanezis observed a muzzle imprint from the rifle but misinterpreted it as a bullet abrasion.  He says the size of this muzzle imprint is consistent with the rifle muzzle not the size of the hole in the moderator though Vanezis didn't take any measurements nor did anyone else so he has no scientific basis to make such a claim.  Objectively, Fowler had no scientific basis to claim the size matched the rifle even if it had been a muzzle imprint.  But he has no scientific basis to say it is a muzzle imprint either he simply made it up from nothing that it was a muzzle imprint as opposed to bullet abrasion and dirt ring.  Since he had no evidence his unsupported speculation was dismissed as unsupported speculation by the CCRC.

Can you provide evidence to support his assessment and prove Vanezis was wrong and tha tit was a muzzle imprint?  No of course not because Fowler could not even provide any evidence.  Can you provide any evidence that the abrasion and dirt in were measured? No because it is crystal clear in the autopsy that only the entrance wounds were measured.  So what evidence could proffered that the abrasions were the same size as the rifle barrel?  None!

You ignore reality and childishly say that his claims should be trusted because he is an expert. 

[adam]

Was Fowler someone team Bamber sought out ? If they try hard enough they will always find someone to say what they want.

[scipio_usmc]

Was Fowler someone team Bamber sought out ? If they try hard enough they will always find someone to say what they want.

Yes he was retained by the defense.  He claimed exactly what I stated above opining that Vanezis screwed up and misinterpreted a muzzle imprint from the rifle as a bullet abrasion and dirt ring.  He had zilch to establish Vanezis was wrong and that it was actually a muzzle imprint so he speculation was rejected.   David can't provide anything in support of his claims either he simply says we should trust his claims without question because he found two clowns who agree with him.