I've asked you previously to post full documents rather that feed me snippets which are not properly referenced. The CoA doc does not make mention of any blood on the stock:
71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding. On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful. A "pull-through" on the barrel of the rifle was conducted for any traces of blood within the weapon. There were none.
The splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon mainly is a reference to blood on the stock. There was a tiny drop that went on the metal part though so they simply lumped that all together as left side.
Lincoln's Defense report is many pages long. I posted the FULL section pertaining to the rifle. I didn't post just the sentence where he spoke about the stock. He had sections dealing with each piece of evidence. The one at issue for this topic is the rifle. It is not my fault that while you were a member of the blue forum that you failed to read all the reference materials posted there. That simply shows you are not as informed as you think which you might consider before making claims that might not be accurate.
8(8-))I'm not doubting the rifle was used to inflict some injuries on NB but this doesnt rule in or out SC or JB. The blood on the rifle was minimal hence it was insufficient for grouping so it doesnt follow that the perp would be covered in medium impact spatter as you claim. Please provide any case related documents: W/S's, forensic reports, trial testimony, CoA doc that refer to medium impact spatter.
The pathologist does not commit himself to identifying what caused NB's non gunshot wound injuries let alone any area of the rifle.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=205.0;attach=726
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=205.0;attach=728
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=205.0;attach=730
The pathologist suggested the butt of the rifle caused the head injuries. Prior to knowing anything about the rifle being damaged, the rifle having a thread on the end, the moderator being attached or too much else he opined maybe the roundish scabs were made by the barrel stabbing him.
By the time he filed his report this was rejected, it was found out the barrel was threaded, the moderator was attached etc that blood on the weapon was consistent with the butt being used and the corner of the butt makes marks like the roundish ones. But he never bothered to change his report because he was lazy and simply filed the report as he drafted it in August. He was criticized for such but totally ignored the criticism that he should have changed it and simply tried to turn the tables and blamed police for not calling him to the scene and not providing him with information that changed things.
The trial featured other experts addressing these issues so his errors and lack of experience with people being beaten by rifle stocks didn't matter anyway. If he were a military doctor he would have recognized the injuries right away as being from the stock.
Where's all the evidence for your claims in the above post as follows:
Scipio's claims:
"The blood on the butt was determined to be medium velocity spatter EXCEPT blood on the broken area. That was determined to be a transfer that soaked into the area from a bloody hand or glove touching that portion of the stock. After it broke Jeremy still fired 4 shots into Nevill, 8 into the boys and 2 into Sheila. While shooting he had to touch the area of the stock that broke. A shooter places his hand around the narrow portion and it was this narrow portion which broke. His gloves had blood and transferred blood to that broken area".
You get completely carried away. The above are simply your own thoughts and are not corroborated by any case related docs or expert testimony.
Wrong. These are the assertions of the experts. They are the ones who said the stain on the stock area that was missing a piece had a blood smear which was how they described a transfer stain. They are the ones who said the stock had splashes which is the term they used for spatter. They said a smear means it was transferred while a splash is from blood flying which today we call spatter.
You clearly didn't read most of the relevant documents and those you did read you choose to not understand because they refute all the BS you keep posting. For instance language you actually noted referenced blood being found on the weapon that was consistent with someone bloody being struck and the blood flying to the weapon. That is medium velocity impact backspatter being described. That you choose not to face this is what is being described is your problem not mine.
The broken piece of stock was sent for forensic analysis and NO DEBRIS of any description was identified.[/quote]
What does that have to do with the issue of the area of the stock that broke being touched by the killer as he continued shooting the victims and though leaving blood transfers on that broken area of the stock as well as another area of the stock? AFTER that piece broke off the killer fired the weapon at least 14 times and perhaps 15 times. When the killer fired it these 14-15 times the killer had blood on his gloves and thus blood transferred to the stock in several areas including the broken area. The broken piece lying on the floor is totally immaterial to this.
Anyone can Google back spatter and blow-back aka draw-back and check out for themselves that the conditions for such didnt exist at WHF. That's not to say that it definitely did not occur just that it was unlikely.
The above are more likely to occur with
- large calibre rifle
- high velocity bullets
- contact head shots
- hair and clothes can impede flight of blood
The idea that the rifle and ammo used at WHF along with victims' site wounds would cause the perp to be covered in back spatter is simply wrong.
I posted in depth analysis of the entire issue of drawback. The sources I posted explained three different things that individually cause it though most feature 2 or all 3 interacting together. I posted evidence regarding how when there is a prior shot this dramatically increases the likelihood of a subsequent shot featuring drawback. I posted the testimony from the expert at trial explaining how it was virtually certain that drawback would occur under these conditions.
You ignore all of this instead choosing to take generalized statements and saying this means it would not happen though those generalized statements failed to take into account any of the things at issue in this case. You can't find an expert to look at the exact issues in this case and say drawback would be unlikely because it is not true. That is why the defense can't find such an expert either.
You have decided what you want to believe before looking at any evidence and just try to twist the evidence to pretend it supports what you want to assert though it doesn't. You search for support and cherry pick what you think supports you while ignoring the truth.
