Author Topic: About drawback or backspatter.  (Read 52764 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: About drawback or backspatter.
« Reply #120 on: April 16, 2015, 05:30:36 PM »
That is not what the jury was told.  They were told that both SC and DC suffered contact wounds.  You transcribed MF's testimony for me confirming these facts.  The trial judge and prosecutor proceeded on this basis.  Here's the transcript:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6061.msg225885#msg225885

You know full well that the most likely anatomical location for draw-back (contact wound where blood is drawn back into the barrel of a gun or silencer (silencer is an unknown due to gases)) and back spatter (non-contact wound  where blood spatters in a forward projection from the entrance wound and can land anywhere including inside the barrel of a gun or silencer if close enough (silencer is an unknown due to gases)) is a head wound.

Your OP tells us that blood (from back spatter not draw-back) had been found in gun barrels (same might apply to silencer but unknown due to gases) as far as 5mm deep from shots as far away as 1 - 1/5 inches or 2.5 - 3cms:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6061.msg222006#msg222006

The two non-contact shots DC suffered were described as "close proximity".  The shot June received between the eyes MF said may have been contact but he thought it "unlikely".  MF said NB's head and facial shots were fired within inches of his skin.  No blood from any other victims was identified either inside the barrel of the gun or silencer or externally.  The reason for this is no great mystery it is simply based on the fact that the small calibre rifle and low velocity bullets used are unlikely to result in draw-back or back spatter.  The only mystery is how SC's wound was the only wound that produced draw-back resulting in the only blood deposit capable of producing the four results which matched SC's blood group/type:

ABO = Blood Group System

EAP = Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase (Enzyme)

AK = Adenylate Kinase (Enzyme)

HP = Haptoglobin (Protein)

Blood In Silencer      A, EAP BA, AK1,Hp2-1

Sheila Caffell            A,EAP BA, AK1,Hp2-1

Well its no big mystery really when you consider that EP were in receipt of SC's blood sample  8(0(*

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=204.0;attach=704

You are always telling us that if SC was responsible she would have had back spatter on her person  from the other victims.  You describe this back spatter as high velocity spatter which resembles a fine mist and yet there was no fine mist identified either inside the barrel of the gun or silencer or externally or indeed anywhere?  The rifle was said to contain smears and splashes which Dr Vanezis said in his opinion was likely to have come from NB when it is thought he was hit with the rifle.  Yet again these smears and splashes were not capable of producing blood type/group results?
 
You seem to forget that the WHF murders occurred 3 decades ago.  What was known then about ballistics is a world away from today.  The defence lawyers made no attempt to discredit the silencer 'evidence'.  Geoffrey Rivlin came up with the bizarre idea of SC using the silencer and returning it to the gun cupboard with the blood in the silencer being representative of NB's and June's.  There was imo an over-reliance on expert testimony.  They just seemed to accept what they were told.  There doesn't appear to have been any joined up thinking between the defence, Dr Vanezis, Mark Hayward and Malcolm Fletcher. 

Firearms reconstruction is common place and it will be straight forward to establish whether the small calibre rifle and low velocity bullets used with the silencer would result in 1) draw-back 2) the blood being located where it was found 3) the blood being distributed the way it was found.  Not only that a biologist will be able to input and confirm whether or not the flake would have  been capable of withstanding the following and still producing blood type/group results: any heat in the silencer; then living in the gun cupboard, in a box, in a plastic bag for some 3 days.  Followed by a trip in the back of AE's Ford Sierra to Oak Farm where it  was handled by the relatives until DS Jones came to collect it a day or so later and wrapped it in the inner of a kitchen roll taped at the ends.  What exactly happened to it after that until it arrived at FSS I have no idea  8(0(* A biologist should hopefully be able to shed some light on why the silencer was the only exhibit capable of producing blood group/type results.  No blood type/group results from any of the other victims on any of the other exhibits  8(0(*

I have a feeling this whole silencer 'evidence' is going to prove a huge embarrassment to the judiciary.

[ moderated content]

The body of knowledge about drawback hasn't increased substantially.  So there is no new science to identfy let alone any new science that discredits the moderator evidence.  There isn't any old science that discredits it either. 

That is they the defense experts have chosen to try attacking it on a different basis.  They created the false construct that there was  amuzzle impression observed by Vanezis on Sheila and that the muzzle imprint corresponds to the rifle sans moderator.  They rididculously claimed such with respect to a wound that was not even a contact wound though.  They took a wound not a contact wound, a wound that images show no muzzle imprint around and then claim Vanezis described what to them sounds like a muzzle imprint and that it sounds like the muzzle imprint of a rifle sans moderator.  It is laughable and demontrates desperation.

You have the same attitude as Charlie Brown- each Halloween he believed the Great Pumpkin would come and no matter how many times he was disappointed in the past he still refused to face the Great pumpkin didn't exist and would say next year...

Each time Jeremy loses his latest submissions you have the same attitude- well next time I feel will be different.  Rational peopel would require seeing a sound argument supported by evidence before believing the defens ehas a valid position to raise and a strong chance of success.   

The defense exhausted everything including the kitchen sink already. If they try to subit anything again it will truly be crap formt he bottom of the barrel.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2015, 10:01:07 AM by John »
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: About drawback or backspatter.
« Reply #121 on: April 16, 2015, 06:04:22 PM »
[moderated content]

The body of knowledge about drawback hasn't increased substantially.  So there is no new science to identfy let alone any new science that discredits the moderator evidence.  There isn't any old science that discredits it either. 

That is they the defense experts have chosen to try attacking it on a different basis.  They created the false construct that there was  amuzzle impression observed by Vanezis on Sheila and that the muzzle imprint corresponds to the rifle sans moderator.  They rididculously claimed such with respect to a wound that was not even a contact wound though.  They took a wound not a contact wound, a wound that images show no muzzle imprint around and then claim Vanezis described what to them sounds like a muzzle imprint and that it sounds like the muzzle imprint of a rifle sans moderator.  It is laughable and demontrates desperation.

You have the same attitude as Charlie Brown- each Halloween he believed the Great Pumpkin would come and no matter how many times he was disappointed in the past he still refused to face the Great pumpkin didn't exist and would say next year...

Each time Jeremy loses his latest submissions you have the same attitude- well next time I feel will be different.  Rational peopel would require seeing a sound argument supported by evidence before believing the defens ehas a valid position to raise and a strong chance of success.   

The defense exhausted everything including the kitchen sink already. If they try to subit anything again it will truly be crap formt he bottom of the barrel.

The main difference between then, ie trial and 2002 appeal, and now is the power of the internet ie the ability to exchange information which offers significant potential in aiding JB and his defence in researching his case and procuring the most appropriate expert witnesses from around the globe.  It is absurd to say that ballistics has not moved on in the last 3 decades.  Malcolm Fletcher and his testimony would be laughed out of court today.

You talk to me as though I am responsible for what has happened with JB's case over the last 3 decades.  I am not.  I am simply a poster on an internet forum.

JB has very limited resources in every respect.  He was/is dependent on the likes of Mike, his campaign team and the dodgy lawyer now behind bars.  Although many of these people I'm sure were/are well intentioned in some ways they have  been unhelpful.  Mike with his ridiculous every changing claims.  The campaign team placing a lot of emphasis on aspects of the case that will simply be written off as administrative errors (and which in all probability are administrative errors) SC in kitchen, phone call from NB etc.  The dodgy lawyer now behind bars say no more.  JB has been handicapped by not having a single on-going reliable support source/system as with other MoJ's:

Sally Clarke - Father and husband

Stefan Kiszko - Mother

Stephen Downing - Parents and sister

Michael Hickey (Bridgwater 4) - Mother

Guildford Four - Family

Maguire Seven - Family

Birmingham Six - Family

Barry George - Sister


« Last Edit: April 21, 2015, 10:02:23 AM by John »
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: About drawback or backspatter.
« Reply #122 on: April 16, 2015, 07:16:19 PM »
The main difference between then, ie trial and 2002 appeal, and now is the power of the internet ie the ability to exchange information which offers significant potential in aiding JB and his defence in researching his case and procuring the most appropriate expert witnesses from around the globe.  It is absurd to say that ballistics has not moved on in the last 3 decades.  Malcolm Fletcher and his testimony would be laughed out of court today.

You talk to me as though I am responsible for what has happened with JB's case over the last 3 decades.  I am not.  I am simply a poster on an internet forum.

JB has very limited resources in every respect.  He was/is dependent on the likes of Mike, his campaign team and the dodgy lawyer now behind bars.  Although many of these people I'm sure were/are well intentioned in some ways they have  been unhelpful.  Mike with his ridiculous every changing claims.  The campaign team placing a lot of emphasis on aspects of the case that will simply be written off as administrative errors (and which in all probability are administrative errors) SC in kitchen, phone call from NB etc.  The dodgy lawyer now behind bars say no more.  JB has been handicapped by not having a single on-going reliable support source/system as with other MoJ's:

Sally Clarke - Father and husband

Stefan Kiszko - Mother

Stephen Downing - Parents and sister

Michael Hickey (Bridgwater 4) - Mother

Guildford Four - Family

Maguire Seven - Family

Birmingham Six - Family

Barry George - Sister

There is nothing that has changed significantly in our understanding of drawback.  That there have been changes in some ballistic areas is immaterial the issue is drawback.

The Internet has nothing to do with the expertise that experts had at the time of trial or now with regards to drawback.

You have found ZILCH to undermine any of the evidence you just say you refuse to accept the evidence.  You twisted to try to pretend that drawback would nto get in a moderator and now want to pretend it can't get to the 8th baffle but you found no experts who say such isn't possible let aloen experts who have proof to back up such a position.  The defense found no experts to challenge such nor have you.  You have no reaosn to doubt the evidence you just choose not to accept it because of your bias and agenda. 

Your expectation that the evidence will magicly be refuted is simply an unrealistic hope you have.



“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: About drawback or backspatter.
« Reply #123 on: April 17, 2015, 10:05:25 PM »
There is nothing that has changed significantly in our understanding of drawback.  That there have been changes in some ballistic areas is immaterial the issue is drawback.

May I suggest you read MF's testimony which you kindly transcribed for me:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6061.msg225885#msg225885

Followed by a general overview of ballistics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistics

Then say Dr Nordby's CV and website:

http://finalanalysisforensics.com/media/pdfs/Jon-Nordby-CV-131212.pdf

http://www.finalanalysisforensics.com/

Spot the difference?  It aint difficult

The Internet has nothing to do with the expertise that experts had at the time of trial or now with regards to drawback.

How do you think defence lawyers sourced expert witnesses in a pre-internet age?  Thumbing journals?  Panels?  Word of mouth? 

I repeat no ballistics expert input to the trial or 2002 appeal.  MF was a home office senior scientific officer not an expert in ballistics.

You have found ZILCH to undermine any of the evidence you just say you refuse to accept the evidence.  You twisted to try to pretend that drawback would nto get in a moderator and now want to pretend it can't get to the 8th baffle but you found no experts who say such isn't possible let aloen experts who have proof to back up such a position.  The defense found no experts to challenge such nor have you.  You have no reaosn to doubt the evidence you just choose not to accept it because of your bias and agenda. 

Your expectation that the evidence will magicly be refuted is simply an unrealistic hope you have.

[moderated] I have asked you to produce a post where I have stated draw-back could not occur with the rifle, ammo and silencer used at WHF. You have been unable to do so for the simple reason I have never claimed such.  I have said it is unlikely and testing is required not only to establish whether draw-back would occur with the small calibre rifle, low velocity ammo and silencer but also whether the blood would have located and distributed the way in which it was found by the staff at FSS.

In any event it is largely irrelevant as it can easily be proved that the blood in the silencer, supposedly as a result of draw-back and kept at ambient temperature for some 5 days, would have degraded and been incapable of producing the blood group/type results.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2015, 10:04:16 AM by John »
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.

Offline John

Re: About drawback or backspatter.
« Reply #124 on: April 21, 2015, 09:58:04 AM »
I exchanged emails with Dr Nordby.  He was very helpful.  I then sent emails to JB via the prison system and then sent a letter offering to organise and fund the tests.  He responded to my letter but no mention of the tests. 

I also sent a message to JB's campaign team via the official site - no response whatsoever.

No surprises there then.  They like to appear to be in control.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline John

Re: About drawback or backspatter.
« Reply #125 on: April 21, 2015, 10:05:48 AM »
Holly and Scipio, please attack the issues and not each other. TY
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: About drawback or backspatter.
« Reply #126 on: April 23, 2015, 12:52:20 PM »
I've recently come across the following article by Jim Shelley.  I've copied and pasted the sections that relate to draw-back and back spatter below and included the full link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Shelley_(TV_critic)

http://jimshelley.com/crime/jeremy-bamber/

Malcolm Fletcher - Senior Scientific Officer - Prosecution

"Apart from the traces of blood, there was nothing to indicate that the silencer had been used. Malcolm Fletcher, a firearms expert testifying for the prosecution, said: “I have been unable to establish whether any of these bullets or bullet fragments have been fired through a sound moderator (silencer).”

"He admitted under cross-examination that a .22 calibre weapon was “the least likely” weapon to produce “backspatter”, and that a silencer made it less likely still".

"Apart from the traces of blood, there was nothing to indicate that the silencer had been used. Malcolm Fletcher, a firearms expert testifying for the prosecution, said: “I have been unable to establish whether any of these bullets or bullet fragments have been fired through a sound moderator (silencer).”

John Hayward - ?Biologist - ?Prosecution

"At the trial, the Judge emphasised to the jury how, from experience, Hayward could judge the possibility of a mixture by appearance. Hayward had said the opposite and, in fact, under cross-examination, admitted he had never in all his experience seen “backsplatter” before".

Major Freddie Mead - ?Forensic Ballistics - Defence

"Freddie Mead, an expert in forensic ballistics and a specialist in the investigation of accidents involving firearms for the army, told me: “The speculation in the Learned Judge’s summing up is totally wrong.” Mead’s conclusion is that “there aren’t any grounds to believe a silencer was involved, apart from that the silencer was found.”

http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/helena

I've no idea who Helena is but she writes well and I think hits the nail right on the head when she says:

"However, it was the introduction of a sound moderator and the speed at which it became the integral factor of the case which baffled me most of all.  Since it was believed from the outset that it was a murder/suicide investigation, it would seem to me that the rational process of thought would be to repudiate the sound moderator as opposed to an attempt to choreograph a correlation between the implement and the crime".
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: About drawback or backspatter.
« Reply #127 on: April 23, 2015, 01:02:51 PM »
This isn't really relevant to the thread but it relates to Jim Shelley above.  It's an interview between JS and JB which I thought might be of interest:

http://jimshelley.com/crime/jeremy-bamber-qa/

I hadn't heard about the Jim Shelley links until I found them a couple of days ago while looking for something else.
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.

Offline Myster

Re: About drawback or backspatter.
« Reply #128 on: April 24, 2015, 05:25:53 AM »
This isn't really relevant to the thread but it relates to Jim Shelley above.  It's an interview between JS and JB which I thought might be of interest:

http://jimshelley.com/crime/jeremy-bamber-qa/

I hadn't heard about the Jim Shelley links until I found them a couple of days ago while looking for something else.

“I can’t say that she’d had any particular experience with that particular weapon. It’s not difficult, not sophisticated. They’re simple things to operate. If she’d watched a cowboy movie, it’s almost as simple as that.”

No, it isn't... especially if she hadn't any "particular experience using that particular weapon" and was in the midst of a frenetic and violent assasination, requiring the magazine to be quickly reloaded at least three times. I thought he'd informed the police that Sheila was familiar with all the weaponry at WHF?
Someone remind me... in which movie did John Wayne fire an Anschutz?  &%+((£

"My own personal belief, I believe that that’s a complete red herring. I don’t have evidence one way or the other on that, not hard evidence. I believe that she didn’t use the silencer.”

What else would you expect him to say?... because a hidden, bloodied and damaged moderator clearly lays the blame at the Deviant's door.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: About drawback or backspatter.
« Reply #129 on: April 24, 2015, 01:58:16 PM »
“I can’t say that she’d had any particular experience with that particular weapon. It’s not difficult, not sophisticated. They’re simple things to operate. If she’d watched a cowboy movie, it’s almost as simple as that.”

No, it isn't... especially if she hadn't any "particular experience using that particular weapon" and was in the midst of a frenetic and violent assasination, requiring the magazine to be quickly reloaded at least three times. I thought he'd informed the police that Sheila was familiar with all the weaponry at WHF?
Someone remind me... in which movie did John Wayne fire an Anschutz?  &%+((£

"My own personal belief, I believe that that’s a complete red herring. I don’t have evidence one way or the other on that, not hard evidence. I believe that she didn’t use the silencer.”

What else would you expect him to say?... because a hidden, bloodied and damaged moderator clearly lays the blame at the Deviant's door.

As I've said before I don't know why a test wasn't set up with say half a dozen novices who get one opportunity to observe an experienced handler prepare the rifle for fire without any verbal instruction and then see how many can successfully copy.  The exercise could be repeated to see how many times the novices need to observe before they can successfully copy.

The pathology report tells us that the initial shots June and NB received would have killed them had other shots not supervened so I don't believe time was of the essence in reloading.

Question is who was the deviant?  JB or EP and relatives.  I say EP and relatives as its difficult to see how one could have fabricated the silencer evidence without involving the other, if indeed they did fabricate the silencer evidence. 

I am totally convinced that numerous tests could be carried out to determine whether the blood flake found in the silencer was there as a result of draw-back or not. 

http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/blood-sperm-how-are-preserved.html

"Blood is a common type of evidence and this evidence should never receive exposure to intense heat or humidity. In fact, it should be refrigerated until it is brought to a crime laboratory".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7UW5AkWqOY

The conversation runs from 2 min in to 4 min in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HzMLvrF6u4

I don't believe the flake would have withstood the heat in the silencer and still been capable of providing results for the ABO grouping along with the two enzymes Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase and Adenylate Kinase and the protein Haptoglobin.
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: About drawback or backspatter.
« Reply #130 on: April 24, 2015, 03:12:55 PM »
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: About drawback or backspatter.
« Reply #131 on: April 28, 2015, 08:39:44 AM »
I've recently come across the following article by Jim Shelley.  I've copied and pasted the sections that relate to draw-back and back spatter below and included the full link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Shelley_(TV_critic)

http://jimshelley.com/crime/jeremy-bamber/

Malcolm Fletcher - Senior Scientific Officer - Prosecution

"Apart from the traces of blood, there was nothing to indicate that the silencer had been used. Malcolm Fletcher, a firearms expert testifying for the prosecution, said: “I have been unable to establish whether any of these bullets or bullet fragments have been fired through a sound moderator (silencer).”

"He admitted under cross-examination that a .22 calibre weapon was “the least likely” weapon to produce “backspatter”, and that a silencer made it less likely still".

"Apart from the traces of blood, there was nothing to indicate that the silencer had been used. Malcolm Fletcher, a firearms expert testifying for the prosecution, said: “I have been unable to establish whether any of these bullets or bullet fragments have been fired through a sound moderator (silencer).”

John Hayward - ?Biologist - ?Prosecution

"At the trial, the Judge emphasised to the jury how, from experience, Hayward could judge the possibility of a mixture by appearance. Hayward had said the opposite and, in fact, under cross-examination, admitted he had never in all his experience seen “backsplatter” before".

Major Freddie Mead - ?Forensic Ballistics - Defence

"Freddie Mead, an expert in forensic ballistics and a specialist in the investigation of accidents involving firearms for the army, told me: “The speculation in the Learned Judge’s summing up is totally wrong.” Mead’s conclusion is that “there aren’t any grounds to believe a silencer was involved, apart from that the silencer was found.”

http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/helena

I've no idea who Helena is but she writes well and I think hits the nail right on the head when she says:

"However, it was the introduction of a sound moderator and the speed at which it became the integral factor of the case which baffled me most of all.  Since it was believed from the outset that it was a murder/suicide investigation, it would seem to me that the rational process of thought would be to repudiate the sound moderator as opposed to an attempt to choreograph a correlation between the implement and the crime".

All this amounts to is gobbly gook.

The irrefuted evidence is that the Sheila's fatal wound would have resulted in drawback in the weapon if it had been fired without the moderator attached.  Her neck was full of blood from her first wound thus the OPTIMAL conditions for drawback.  Her blood was not in the rifle it was in the moderator.  Coroners have dound drawback in 22 moderators despite you trying to pretend it wouldn't happen. 

You have zilch to attack the moderator evidence and the defense can' find any credible way to attack it either which is why Jeremy's conviction will not be vacated.

No mater how much spinning you do you can't alter these realities.     
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: About drawback or backspatter.
« Reply #132 on: April 28, 2015, 09:02:40 AM »
All this amounts to is gobbly gook.

The irrefuted evidence is that the Sheila's fatal wound would have resulted in drawback in the weapon if it had been fired without the moderator attached.  Her neck was full of blood from her first wound thus the OPTIMAL conditions for drawback.  Her blood was not in the rifle it was in the moderator.  Coroners have dound drawback in 22 moderators despite you trying to pretend it wouldn't happen. 

You have zilch to attack the moderator evidence and the defense can' find any credible way to attack it either which is why Jeremy's conviction will not be vacated.

No mater how much spinning you do you can't alter these realities.     

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6061.msg232712#msg232712

"Blood is a common type of evidence and this evidence should never receive exposure to intense heat or humidity. In fact, it should be refrigerated until it is brought to a crime laboratory".

http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/blood-sperm-how-are-preserved.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tJ7heDIqXU
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: About drawback or backspatter.
« Reply #134 on: April 29, 2015, 03:09:18 PM »
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.