I am not a member of The Jeremy Forum and therefore unable to access the link to confirm it supports your claims or refutes mine.
Judge Drake: I think I have Nicholas Caffell, the muzzle was in contact with the skin. You would have expected to find blood from Nicholas inside the sound moderator if used, or the barrel of the rifle if not?
Fletcher: There is one rider I can add. You have to take into account the position of the actual wounds themselves, and the amount of blood available at those particular points, that could come out.
Judge Drake: That is a very important qualification. I was going to put to you how do you account for the fact that no one has found traces of Nicholas’s blood in the sound moderator or in the barrel of the gun.
Fletcher: It could be due purely to that rider sir, to the availability.
Judge Drake: So you said a moment ago if the muzzle or sound moderator which was in contact, you think would have certainly have got blood in the sound moderator, but you qualify that by now saying dependent upon the wound?
Fletcher: Well the amount inside the muzzle would depend on the amount of blood available to come back out of the wound, depending where the wound was.
…
Arlidge: What did that evidence indicate to you? We have also heard the blood was in there and it bore the same grouping as Sheila Caffell’s. The expert looked at that also dealt with this and he said there was a remote possibility it could have been a mix of June and Ralph Bambers’.
Fletcher: Yes
Arlidge: What do you say from what you see about the contact wound, and what you hear about the blood sample?
Fletcher: My opinion on this is that the blood in the sound moderator was due to the contact shot o the neck of Sheila Caffell. The mechanism whereby the blood gets in there is quite complicated, and it is probably not fully appreciated yet but simply the expanding gas when the bullet goes out of the muzzle, under normal circumstances distributes and expands in the atmosphere, but with a contact shot where the muzzle of the gun, whether it be a sound moderator, muzzle or whatever, is pressed into contact with, in this particular case, the skin, then the expanding gas follows the bullet into the wound, and it will expand in whatever direction it is easiest for it to take. It is quite well known that you will get a back pressure fro this expanding gas, coming back out of the wound taking with it blood and tissue. It will be that effect which blasts the blood and the tissue back into the gun, into the sound moderator.
Arlidge: If it is not in contact with the skin, but is say a short way apart form the skin, can one get the same effect or not?
Fletcher: I think if you have got very close proximity, we are talking something like a illimeter distance between the skin and the front of the sound moderator, you could still get that effect. But anything greater than that, no.
Judge Drake: A millimeter is a tiny tiny distance.
Fletcher: It is yes, my lord.
Arlidge: Because if it is in contact with the skin seen the size of the hole at the end of the moderator. If it goes back in the moderator it has to get through that small hole?
Fletcher: Yes
Arlidge: If the moderator is backed from the skin at all, if there was any blood that came out would you expect to see a lot on the outside?
Fletcher: If we are talking about the same particular wound at a slightly greater range, yes I would.
Judge Drake: I have not followed that.
Fletcher: If the wound we are interested in, the contact wound here. If the muzzle of the gun had in fact been a short distance away form the skin the amount of blood coming out, it would have sprayed around the front end of the moderator. I would have expected more blood around the outside.
Judge Drake: SO if it is in contact you may get it inside the moderator?
Fletcher: You would get it inside the moderator. It is virtually certain my lord. There is a very slight possibility of it not happening, but very slight.
Judge Drake: A little away you would expect it to get on the outside?
Fletcher: Indeed yes.
------------------------------------------------
So he was testifying that the location of the wound and availablity of blood in the area of the wound are why backspatter wound occur and if the wound was a contact wound it would go in the weapon whereas if not it woudl go outside of the weapon. He was never asked to specifically discuss the amount of blood available and elasticity of skin etc that goes into the detialed inquiry. But I posted the kinds of things tha tatter including a wound nearby. The nearby wound caused hemmorhaging inside Sheila's neck creating the ideal conditions for teproary cavitation.
Note how I always discuss specifics while you keep trying to stick with broad rules that don't aplly such as the made up rule that only head shots result in back spatter so you can try to pretend drawback can't occur with a neck wound.
You claim you want to have more in depth knowledge but when such detailed issues are pointed out, you ignore them because they go against your agenda.
However as I have previously stated tests will be carried out to confirm whether or not the blood 'found' in the silencer was there as a result of draw-back as the jury were told.
What testing is being done?
There is no testing going on where they are constructing a fake neck and are trying to simulate conditions roughly similar to the conditions inside her neck to see if drawback can occur.
The only testing that the defense contemplated it to test what kind of muzzle impressions are made when the gun is fired with/without the moderator at hard contact range and then to try to see if the photos evidence a muzzle impression like that made by the rifle sans moderator.
This testing is a waste of time because the shot was a soft contact shot which left no muzzle impression. There is nothing in the photos that can be established as a muzzle impression. The testing thus stands no chance of success at all.
The only thing the defense can do at this point is to have medical experts assess whether it would be impossible for drawback occur in the lcoation in question under the conditions in question. The defense could find no experts to assess such which is why they had none testify at trial or on appeal. At this point if they were to find one as most they could submit such opinion in support of an applciaiton for clemency because it would not constitute new evidence unless the science used by the person were new science.
