You deploy a number of tactics when you start losing the argument. In your post above you attempt to cloud the issues by derailing the thread and referring to SC's mental health issues. And of course the usual personal comments and name calling. If you wish to discuss SC's mental health issues there are a number of existing threads. This thread is to discuss draw-back which you created and called out to me to come play with Scip...
How am I clouding the issues? I am the one who posted the 3 mechanisms that cause drawback and discussed how important it is to assess the skin and lood attributes in a location to assess whether drawback will occur. You want to ignore such an just try twisting sources to preend they say things they don't so you cna misrepresent that drawback would not be likely to occur.
I simply brought up you do so in order to pretend Sheila did it so you can then advance your mental health agenda where you engage in the same sort of nonsense.
Your sources never stand for the propositions you assert you always distort them beyond recongition.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6061.msg222006#msg222006
So here I am ready to play 
Please find me a post of mine where I have stated draw-back will not occur with a .22? I have repeatedly stated it is unlikely. There's a difference between impossible and unlikely. It might well prove to be impossible when the silencer is factored in.
You produced no valid evidence that it is unlikely. You produced a source that merely claimed it is more likely for a high caliber headshot to produce back spatter than a shot to the trunk from a 22. That doesn't say a shot form a 22 is unlikely to cause spatter it says a shot to the head by a high caliber weapon is even more likely to produce spatter. In the meantime the source offered no evidence to establish the claim as true. The truth is that there are parts of the trunk more likely to result in spatter than the head. You have to do a detialed look at a locaiton. But in any event the claim it is even more likely for a high caliber head shot to cause spatter still doesn't say a shot from a 22 is unlikely. You twisted things.
You twisted even worse when you said that there would have to be tittue in the weapon if it were drawback when your own source said that only happens occasionally and didn't discuss if it ever happens in trunk shots.
This is what Malcom Fletcher told the jury and judges at the CoA hearing:
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
457. Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, gave evidence to explain how blood got into the moderator if it was attached, or into the barrel if there was no moderator attached. He said that the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated. However, the expanding gas when the bullet left the muzzle was under normal circumstances distributed into the atmosphere. However with a contact shot there was no opportunity for this escape and the gas would follow the bullet into the wound as it expanded. Back pressure would then build up forcing the gas back out of the wound taking with it blood and tissue which would in effect be blasted back into the barrel if there was no moderator or into the moderator if one was attached. He said that even without direct contact, the same effect might occur but only if the gap between the end of the barrel, or the moderator if attached, and the skin was less than one millimetre. He said that the likelihood of such an occurrence was to an extent dependent on the part of the body to which the shot was delivered and the amount of blood present at that point.
458. 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".
You will note his explanation to account for blood from a wound being drawn back into the barrel of a gun or silencer is based on the gases which are generated by the bullet being discharged from the weapon. Normally these gases are distributed in the atmosphere. However with a contact wound or near contact wound (within 1mm - 2mm of skin) there's no opportunity for these gases to distribute in the atmosphere so effectively they enter the wound and are then propelled backwards taking blood and usually skin tissue with them. What Malcolm Fletcher has failed to take into account is that by using a silencer most of the gases are discharged in the silencer making it extremely unlikely that draw-back would occur.
It is possible to set up a reconstruction to confirm one way or the other. Even if draw-back takes place it will determine whether blood could be drawn back as far as the 8th baffle and whether it would have distributed the way in which it is claimed it was found. I have been in email contact with Dr Nordby. A letter is winging its way to JB for his approval to undertake a reconstruction. I have financial backers and the world's press are waiting in the wings 
How silencers work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-keuXw5xfRs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfNFbpkOgqA
And note how I explained to you there are 3 different causes of backspatter, two of which are unrelated to the gases. Two of them happen regardless of the distance the gun is from the weapon when fired BUT can only be drawn more than a few MM inside the weapon when the shot is a contact shot. Gases still escape from the moderator into a wound mind unless the moderator has vents which the one in question doesn't..
Note also that coroners have determined FOR SURE drawback cna be foudn in moderators as there are documented cases so in addition to testing there are real World observations that result in such.
The 8th baffle is only a few inches deep and drawback will travel that far without a problem. No one reported seeing any blood on the 8th baffle only the defense found blood there and it was microscopic. The smallest blood travels the furthest and a little blood has been observed deeper than where it usually is found. A significant amount of blood found beyond a few inchest would be suspicious. The blood that was found on the opposite end was detemrined not to be drawback because it would not be able to get that far but rather to have gotten there by some other method such as transferred from the gloves of the person who unscrewed it.
The defense couldn't find any experts willing to say it was unlikely for drawback to occur from a neck wound in the lcoation of her fatal wound.
The defense couldn't find anyone to say drawback would not reach the first 8 baffles.
The data from coroners and studies is that drawback from 22 calibers travels several inches so the data confirms the possiiblity it was drawback.
The assertion that her blood would have gotten in the rifle is unrebutted. The gases certianly wouldn't have been in any way inhibited if the rifle had no moderator. So you can't even attempt to say all 3 causes of backspatter woudl not have interacted. You found no source discussing the area of the body where she suffered the shot and what impact the 3 causes of drawback would have in such area. You have nothing to refute the assertion that drawback woudl be virtually certian to occur in that area and thus would be found int he rifle had it not been attached.
You have nothign to say drawback can't end up in a mdoerator.
You have nothign at all to suggest the blood was planted in the moderator and that is the only way it could have gotten there other than drawback.
You have nothing at all except the desire to ignore the evidence so you can pretend Sheial did it so you can then advance your mental health agenda.
