About drawback or backspatter.

[scipio_usmc]

I thought I would post this and link it in to my facebook and twitter accounts for the benefit of my 4 facebook friends and 2 twitter followers 

A central plank of the prosecution's case is that blood found its way inside the silencer by the phenomenon known as draw-back.  This is caused when a gunshot wound is inflicted with the barrel of a gun (or silencer?) in contact with the skin.  Or close contact ie 1mm - 2mm away from the surface of the skin.  When the trigger of a gun is pulled it releases a propellant.  The propellant generates propulsion and moves the bullet, obviously at tremendous speed.  When the propellant is ignited by the release of the trigger it generates hot gases which travel along with the bullet and once outside the end of the guns barrel or silencer will dissipate in the atmosphere.  However when the guns barrel (or silencer?) are in contact with the skin or close contact (1mm - 2mm) the hot gas will be unable to dissipate in the atmosphere so it can be sucked into the wound and then propel backwards into the guns barrel (or silencer?) taking with it blood and often other biological material eg skin tissue, bone fragments from the wound.  As the blood sample found in silencer matched SC's blood type/group the prosecution claim JB shot SC using the silencer and then returned it to the gun cupboard.

There's a plethora of info on the internet and youtube vids explaining the above.  Google how a gun works, how a bullet works, how a silencer works etc.

At JB's 2002 CoA hearing the firearms expert employed by the Home Office, Malcolm Fletcher, told the jury the following:

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".

"Since the blood from inside the sound moderator belonged to the same group as Sheila Caffell, and since there was no blood inside the barrel of the rifle, I was led to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell had been shot whilst the sound moderator was fitted to the rifle."

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

At JB's trial the judge, Justice Drake, asked Malcolm Fletcher if there were any other possibilities to account for the blood being in the silencer.  He replied "The only other possibility is that it was put there deliberately".

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19861015&id=E4JDAAAAIBAJ&sjid=q6UMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4879,3440832

However what Malcolm Fletcher overlooked, either out of incompetence or being persuaded to be economical with the truth, is that a silencer reduces the gases ejected with the bullet quite considerably thus reducing the pounds per square inch (psi) from around 3000 psi to 60 psi.  With a silencer fitted to the guns barrel the bullet enters first an expansion chamber and then a number of baffles before it exits.  The expansion chamber and baffles allow the hot gases to expand and slow their release.  Meaning they dissipate in the silencer and the reduced amount that leaves the silencer does so slowly. 

The following animated second image depicts this beautifully 

http://www.industrytap.com/silencer-suppressor-inside-look-one-gun-enthusiasts-coolest-gadgets/26953

Dr Jon Nordby on page 6 states the following

"The draw-back effect can be observed in contact gunshot wounds but the effect(s) of compensators, suppressors and silencing devices as well as any other intervening items may alter the outcome."

http://www.finalanalysisforensics.com/media/pdfs/BasicBloodstainPatternAnalysisTEXT.pdf

This obviously puts a whole different complexion on the draw-back theory in JB's case and the central plank of the prosecution's case.

I think I am right in saying that Ann Eaton's husband, Peter Eaton, was a registered gun dealer.  I wonder if he was familiar with draw-back?   &%+((£ He was the person who handed the silencer to DS Jones having sat up drinking whisky with him  &%+((£

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3580

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3582

The victims' samples were handed to EP (see top of page):

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=204.msg2228#msg2228

I haven't seen this mentioned previously on either forum (Blue or Red).  Assuming it's new I can't take all the credit as without Scip starting up this thread - About drawback - I would not have researched the above.  So a big thanks to Scip   

This also shows that without vigorous debate and opposing views we would not be able to move forward in our quest for answers, albeit that JB has been found guilty in a court of law 

All you are doing is repeating the same nonsense over and over again.

I already despatched your nonsense by pointing out:

1) none of your mumbo jumbo refutes the prosecution assertion that without the moderator there would have been drawback in the barrel of the weapon.  Without the moderator there was nothing to dissipate the gases so nothing to prevent drawback from occurring.  That was the argument made at trial that drawback would definitely occur from the wound had the rifle been used without the moderator and would have been deposited in the rifle itself. 

2) Your mumbo jumbo fails to establish that it would have been impossible for drawback to get in the moderator.

A) Your own source simply says moderators and other things have the potential to alter the outcome not that drawback can't be deposited in mooderators.  It is documented that blood has been drawn into moderators.  The reaosn why you can't find anything that says it is impossible for blood to get in moderators is because blood has been drawn into moderators.

B) You intentionally ignore there are other causes of drawback than just the gases.  I posted discussion of the things that mix together.  I also pointed out that it is mor elikely and the volume increased when there is a nearby wound as there was in this case.  You ignore all that, ignore that your own sources sya the full comlexity is not understood and jsut pretend only gases causes drawback nothing else and make up the fiction that therefore it is impossible for drawback to get in a moderator.

C) You even take figures that are unrelated to the mdoerator used and simply mention how low the gas output can be reduced to by certain moderators and then again create the ficiton this means drawback can't get in a moderator.


In conclusion:

You failed at providing ANY source that establishes it is impossible for blood to get in a moderator. That is because it is not impossible it is documented that it occurs.

You failed to even address let alone refute the prosecution arguments that based on the location and condition of the wound, had the rifle been used without a moderator then blood would have been drawn into the gun.

[Holly Goodhead]

All you are doing is repeating the same nonsense over and over again.

I already despatched your nonsense by pointing out:

1) none of your mumbo jumbo refutes the prosecution assertion that without the moderator there would have been drawback in the barrel of the weapon.  Without the moderator there was nothing to dissipate the gases so nothing to prevent drawback from occurring.  That was the argument made at trial that drawback would definitely occur from the wound had the rifle been used without the moderator and would have been deposited in the rifle itself. 

2) Your mumbo jumbo fails to establish that it would have been impossible for drawback to get in the moderator.

A) Your own source simply says moderators and other things have the potential to alter the outcome not that drawback can't be deposited in mooderators.  It is documented that blood has been drawn into moderators.  The reaosn why you can't find anything that says it is impossible for blood to get in moderators is because blood has been drawn into moderators.

B) You intentionally ignore there are other causes of drawback than just the gases.  I posted discussion of the things that mix together.  I also pointed out that it is mor elikely and the volume increased when there is a nearby wound as there was in this case.  You ignore all that, ignore that your own sources sya the full comlexity is not understood and jsut pretend only gases causes drawback nothing else and make up the fiction that therefore it is impossible for drawback to get in a moderator.

C) You even take figures that are unrelated to the mdoerator used and simply mention how low the gas output can be reduced to by certain moderators and then again create the ficiton this means drawback can't get in a moderator.


In conclusion:

You failed at providing ANY source that establishes it is impossible for blood to get in a moderator. That is because it is not impossible it is documented that it occurs.

You failed to even address let alone refute the prosecution arguments that based on the location and condition of the wound, had the rifle been used without a moderator then blood would have been drawn into the gun.

I think you might be in denial.

[scipio_usmc]

I think you might be in denial.

No you live in fantasy land not me.

Where did you post evidence that proves it is not possible for blood to get inside a moderator and therefore the blood in the moderator had to have been planted?

Answer- you didn't, all you did was post something that says moderators can "affect the outcome" and then made up the notion this means it is impossible for drawback to occur in moderators though it is an established  fact it happens.

Where did you address all the various interactions that result in back spatter and drawback? 

Answer you didn't you ignore them.

Where did you address the prosecution argument that had the rifle been used without the moderator, based on the location of the wound and nature of the wound it would have resulted in blood in the moderator? 

Answer: You didn't.

You are the one in denial not me.  [ moderated ]

[Holly Goodhead]

No you live in fantasy land not me.

Where did you post evidence that proves it is not possible for blood to get inside a moderator and therefore the blood in the moderator had to have been planted?

Answer- you didn't, all you did was post something that says moderators can "affect the outcome" and then made up the notion this means it is impossible for drawback to occur in moderators though it is an established  fact it happens.

Where did you address all the various interactions that result in back spatter and drawback? 

Answer you didn't you ignore them.

Where did you address the prosecution argument that had the rifle been used without the moderator, based on the location of the wound and nature of the wound it would have resulted in blood in the moderator? 

Answer: You didn't.

You are the one in denial not me.  You are a legend in your own mind.

I think you might be in denial.

[scipio_usmc]

And for the record Parker Hale MM1 moderators with 17 baffles ended production in November 1984.  They redesigned them to have 14 baffles because this was viewed as having superior performance.  In January 1986 they began producing the current 15 baffled version. They produced the 14 and 15 baffled versions side by side as they retooled and slowly phased out the 14 baffled version. In May 1986 production of the 14 baffle version was ended. The current 15 baffled version is considered to have the optimal performance avaialble.     

[scipio_usmc]

I think you might be in denial.

In denial about what?  It is a fact you failed to address the issues I raised.

You hid your head in the sand from my post about a shots near a location where there was already another wound causing spatter. 

You took GENERAL posts from a website trying to give a very broad overview and distorted that such was an in deptch explanation of everything there is about drawback and backspatter to try to pretend the MUCH more detailed things I posted were not valid and depsite all these games you failed to dent the prosecution's evidence.

Post a realiable source that both declares and proves it is impossible for drawback to get in a moderator.  The simple truth is that you can't because the claim drawback can't get in a moderator is false.  So your effort to say it is impossible for the blood to have gotten there form drawback and had to be planted is false. 

Post evidence that proves that a contact shot by the murder weapon sans moderator in the location where the fatal wound was delivered (which had a lot of blood inside the neck because of hemorraging from the non-fatal wound) would not be virtually certain to occur as the prosecution experts asserted and the defense failed to refute.   

Talking about how the moderator would reduce gases doesn't in any way address let alone refute the argument that if the fatal wound was fired WITHOUT the moderator attached then it would have gotten drawback inside it.

Each time you simply repsond with your claim that I am in denial it is proof you can't address these things I am raising and instead are trying to PRETEND you already addressed them.   

[Holly Goodhead]

In denial about what?  It is a fact you failed to address the issues I raised.

You hid your head in the sand from my post about a shots near a location where there was already another wound causing spatter. 

You took GENERAL posts from a website trying to give a very broad overview and distorted that such was an in deptch explanation of everything there is about drawback and backspatter to try to pretend the MUCH more detailed things I posted were not valid and depsite all these games you failed to dent the prosecution's evidence.

Post a realiable source that both declares and proves it is impossible for drawback to get in a moderator.  The simple truth is that you can't because the claim drawback can't get in a moderator is false.  So your effort to say it is impossible for the blood to have gotten there form drawback and had to be planted is false. 

Post evidence that proves that a contact shot by the murder weapon sans moderator in the location where the fatal wound was delivered (which had a lot of blood inside the neck because of hemorraging from the non-fatal wound) would not be virtually certain to occur as the prosecution experts asserted and the defense failed to refute.   

Talking about how the mdoerator would reduce gases doesn't in any way address let alone refute the argument that if the fatal wound was fired WITHOUT the moderator attached then it would have gotten drawback inside it.

Each time you simply repsond with your claim that I am in denial it is proof you can't address these things I am raising and instead are trying to PRETEND you already addressed them.

I think you might be in denial.

[scipio_usmc]

I think you might be in denial.

Post a realiable source that both declares and proves it is impossible for drawback to get in a moderator.  The simple truth is that you can't because the claim drawback can't get in a moderator is false.  So your effort to say it is impossible for the blood to have gotten there from drawback and had to be planted is false. 

Post evidence that proves that a contact shot by the murder weapon sans moderator in the location where the fatal wound was delivered (which had a lot of blood inside the neck because of hemorraging from the non-fatal wound) would not be certain to occur as the prosecution experts asserted and the defense failed to refute.   

Talking about how the moderator would reduce gases doesn't in any way address let alone refute the argument that if the fatal wound was fired WITHOUT the moderator attached then it would have gotten drawback inside it.

Each time you simply respond with your claim that I am in denial it is proof you can't address these things I am raising and instead are trying to PRETEND you already addressed them.   

[Caroline]

According to that last vague statement it's just as likely that more blood may be drawn back into a moderator than less or none at all.

So I think we're all agreed that the blood in the Anschutz moderator got there as a result of drawback, rather than through any deliberate attempt by police or anyone in the family to tamper with the evidence.

Here endeth the lesson. 

I don't think we are  &%&£(+

[scipio_usmc]

I don't think we are  &%&£(+

Your rationale for thinking it was planted doesn't hold up though.

You argue that if Jeremy used the mdoerator he would not have wanted a DNA test done.

1) guilty people routinely ask for DNA tests because they have nothing to lose and just do so hoping the results will be somethign they can spin in their favor

2) He knew that in 1999 he knew that the moderator had been tested for the presence of blood but none was found thus why would he fear a DNA test?  Since no blood was detected he anticipated Sheila's DNA would not be found but if it was found then all he had to do was say it was not blood based but rather the result of contamination.  Indeed Webster, one of his experts, had already laid out that anything inside coudl be from contamination and admits the DNA tests never had any ability to assess whose blood was removed in 1985-86:

"the DNA profiling results were not reliable evidence to point to the source or sources of the blood found in the sound moderator in 1986."

Which means the tests were just for propaganda purposes hoping the results could be used to trick the judges.

The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence at all to suggest the blood was planted which simultaneously would have required concealing that Sheila's blood had been found in the rifle. You don't even had solid theories of who did what to plant it let alone evidence to suggest it happened.

 

[Caroline]

Your rationale for thinking it was planted doesn't hold up though.

You argue that if Jeremy used the mdoerator he would not have wanted a DNA test done.

1) guilty people routinely ask for DNA tests because they have nothing to lose and just do so hoping the results will be somethign they can spin in their favor

2) He knew that in 1999 he knew that the moderator had been tested for the presence of blood but none was found thus why would he fear a DNA test?  Since no blood was detected he anticipated Sheila's DNA would not be found but if it was found then all he had to do was say it was not blood based but rather the result of contamination.  Indeed Webster, one of his experts, had already laid out that anything inside coudl be from contamination and admits the DNA tests never had any ability to assess whose blood was removed in 1985-86:

"the DNA profiling results were not reliable evidence to point to the source or sources of the blood found in the sound moderator in 1986."

Which means the tests were just for propaganda purposes hoping the results could be used to trick the judges.

The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence at all to suggest the blood was planted which simultaneously would have required concealing that Sheila's blood had been found in the rifle. You don't even had solid theories of who did what to plant it let alone evidence to suggest it happened.

Your claim that the silencer held a 'fine mist' doesn't hold up either and it was stated that the silencer COULD have been deliberately contaminated in court. Fact is it's a possibility and I most certainly DO have an idea of who planted the blood but I'm not stupid enough to mention their names on an internet forum!

Actually, the DNA is ONLY one aspect of why I think it was contaminated and I have mentioned the others many times. I'm really bored of repeating the same things to have then have them dragged up again and the same questions asked. I Jeremy is guilty but that the silencer was faked - I think one of the 'conspirators' was Stan Jones the other a scenes of crime officer and other officers were aware.

[scipio_usmc]

Your claim that the silencer held a 'fine mist' doesn't hold up either and it was stated that the silencer COULD have been deliberately contaminated in court. Fact is it's a possibility and I most certainly DO have an idea of who planted the blood but I'm not stupid enough to mention their names on an internet forum!

Actually, the DNA is ONLY one aspect of why I think it was contaminated and I have mentioned the others many times. I'm really bored of repeating the same things to have then have them dragged up again and the same questions asked. I Jeremy is guilty but that the silencer was faked - I think one of the 'conspirators' was Stan Jones the other a scenes of crime officer and other officers were aware.

I posted numerous sources discussing how high velocity sappter is a fine mist spray.  Also how the macro particles travel further than the micro particles hence the larger blood will be early on while the most fine blood will be further away. 

The blood dried onto the first 8 baffles with only macro blood drops on the 8th baffle they didn't evne see it, there was just microscopic blood found by Lincoln there.

My post holds up and you just refuse to face it.

You are also intentionally distorting with respect to what was said in court.  In court the expert refuted the notion the blood coudl have accidentally got there by innocent contamination.  He siad th eonly way for blood to ge tinside woudl be drawback or intentional planting.  he didn't make any comment on it being realistically possible for the blood to have bene planted.

You are just being wholly irraitonal on this issue and anytime I point out your irrational thoughts you get defensive because you know your positon makes no sense at all and is not based on objective evidence but rather simply on irrational beliefs you choose to hold.

[Caroline]

I posted numerous sources discussing how high velocity sappter is a fine mist spray.  Also how the macro particles travel further than the micro particles hence the larger blood will be early on while the most fine blood will be further away. 

The blood dried onto the first 8 baffles with only macro blood drops on the 8th baffle they didn't evne see it, there was just microscopic blood found by Lincoln there.

My post holds up and you just refuse to face it.

You are also intentionally distorting with respect to what was said in court.  In court the expert refuted the notion the blood coudl have accidentally got there by innocent contamination.  He siad th eonly way for blood to ge tinside woudl be drawback or intentional planting.  he didn't make any comment on it being realistically possible for the blood to have bene planted.

You are just being wholly irraitonal on this issue and anytime I point out your irrational thoughts you get defensive because you know your positon makes no sense at all and is not based on objective evidence but rather simply on irrational beliefs you choose to hold.

There was nothing about 'a fine mist' and by including 'intentional planting' the expert is saying it's possible, which is what I'm saying.

I'm not being defensive (really, I'm not!) and it's only irrational to you because you believe the opposite.

We won't agree on this aspect and I have no problem with you thinking I'm being irrational - I know I'm not  &%&£(+

[scipio_usmc]

There was nothing about 'a fine mist' and by including 'intentional planting' the expert is saying it's possible, which is what I'm saying.

I'm not being defensive (really, I'm not!) and it's only irrational to you because you believe the opposite.

We won't agree on this aspect and I have no problem with you thinking I'm being irrational - I know I'm not  &%&£(+

You are indeed being irrational.  How does small drops of blood get on 8 successive baffles?  The only way to acocmplish that is for blood to spray inside at all angles.  Back spatter sprays at all angles.  Pouring blood in with the moderator horizontal would result in the blood simply fallig to the bottom near the mouth.  Pouring it in with it held vertically would result in it falling deep into the mdoerator or hitting 1-2 baffles if it dropped off the first one.  It would not hit 8 baffles in a row.

I already provided this to you on blue but here it is again:

Drawback effect defined: "Process that results in atomized blood drawn into the barrel of a firearm when fired at contact range".

More about atomized blood to understand what it means:

"Blood in flight: high-velocity blood
This type of bloodstain is strictly defined by the size of the resulting drops; the majority of drops in a high-velocity or atomized stain will have a diameter of less than 1 mm. A simple, cursory glance at such a stain might reveal many drops of greater diameter, and there is a tendency to give greater weight to those larger drops that tend to dominate the pattern visually. However, a detailed examination of the stain will reveal that most (>50%) are 1 mm or smaller. Such a stain requires a great force to break up the blood to this degree. In a typical crime scene setting, the only force encountered sufficient to atomize blood is that which results from a fired bullet. As the bullet strikes the source of the blood (typically a body), it atomizes the blood into a fine spray.These small droplets have small mass and thus low momentum; they generally will not travel downrange laterally farther than two feet. Back spatter of atomized blood may also be observed, which will carry the droplets uprange in the direction of the shooter. See Figure 5."

http://www.forensic-lab.com/publications/bloodspatter.html

"In the usual case of a shooting where the projectile strikes exposed skin, the energy at impact is hydrostatically transmitted throughout much of the adjoining tissue. This results in the spattering of the blood in a very fine, almost mist-like spray.  These atomized droplets of blood have a very high surface area and, therefore, cannot be projected very far in the horizontal direction."

"In addition to mist-like dropets, several larger droplets will be produced as well. A typical spray pattern, characterized as high velocity impact spatter, may be seen in Figure II-18.  Note that while the vast majority of these blood spots are well under one millimeter in diameter, many larger ones are also produced."

P34 of

https://books.google.com/books?id=-m_fb580Vx0C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

The above helps explain why it can't travel very far. 

[Caroline]

You are indeed being irrational.  How does small drops of blood get on 8 successive baffles?  The only way to acocmplish that is for blood to spray inside at all angles.  Back spatter sprays at all angles.  Pouring blood in with the moderator horizontal would result in the blood simply fallig to the bottom near the mouth.  Pouring it in with it held vertically would result in it falling deep into the mdoerator or hitting 1-2 baffles if it dropped off the first one.  It would not hit 8 baffles in a row.

I already provided this to you on blue but here it is again:

Drawback effect defined: "Process that results in atomized blood drawn into the barrel of a firearm when fired at contact range".

More about atomized blood to understand what it means:

"Blood in flight: high-velocity blood
This type of bloodstain is strictly defined by the size of the resulting drops; the majority of drops in a high-velocity or atomized stain will have a diameter of less than 1 mm. A simple, cursory glance at such a stain might reveal many drops of greater diameter, and there is a tendency to give greater weight to those larger drops that tend to dominate the pattern visually. However, a detailed examination of the stain will reveal that most (>50%) are 1 mm or smaller. Such a stain requires a great force to break up the blood to this degree. In a typical crime scene setting, the only force encountered sufficient to atomize blood is that which results from a fired bullet. As the bullet strikes the source of the blood (typically a body), it atomizes the blood into a fine spray.These small droplets have small mass and thus low momentum; they generally will not travel downrange laterally farther than two feet. Back spatter of atomized blood may also be observed, which will carry the droplets uprange in the direction of the shooter. See Figure 5."

http://www.forensic-lab.com/publications/bloodspatter.html

"In the usual case of a shooting where the projectile strikes exposed skin, the energy at impact is hydrostatically transmitted throughout much of the adjoining tissue. This results in the spattering of the blood in a very fine, almost mist-like spray.  These atomized droplets of blood have a very high surface area and, therefore, cannot be projected very far in the horizontal direction."

"In addition to mist-like dropets, several larger droplets will be produced as well. A typical spray pattern, characterized as high velocity impact spatter, may be seen in Figure II-18.  Note that while the vast majority of these blood spots are well under one millimeter in diameter, many larger ones are also produced."

P34 of

https://books.google.com/books?id=-m_fb580Vx0C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

The above helps explain why it can't travel very far.

All that you have proved is that that is how drawback is usually defined - but we also have an expert at trial who indicated that blood may have been deliberately put into the silencer.  I'm sure someone with forensic knowledge could make things look kosher - EP had their own Scenes of Crime dept. It wouldn't have been that difficult to fake in 1985.