About drawback or backspatter.

[Holly Goodhead]

You posted a link to his autopsy report not trial testimony... It was written before he knew most of the relevant information and doesn't refute the assessments made by the lab experts at trial who are the ones who assessed the issue that keep being debated....

But hey when did the truth matter to you?  How many lies did I catch you in just in 12 hours?  Bogus claims about the plastic bags covering Sheila's hands not being examined by the lab- the lie there was no blood on the stock,  your claims are all sheer fiction just like Mike.  The only difference is Mike knows more about the case than you do.

With regard to blood on the stock of the rifle my source is the CoA doc:

"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".

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

If the document is incorrect then I have relied on unreliable information.  I havent lied.  What would be the purpose of me lying?  I am interested in getting to the truth.  And whilst it's true I believe JB is the victim of a MoJ  I have no reason to lie or embellish. 

[scipio_usmc]

With regard to blood on the stock of the rifle my source is the CoA doc:

"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".

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

If the document is incorrect then I have relied on unreliable information.  I havent lied.  What would be the purpose of me lying?  I am interested in getting to the truth.  And whilst it's true I believe JB is the victim of a MoJ  I have no reason to lie or embellish.

The foregoing doesn't say there was no blood on the butt.  It says "and there was blood on the left side of the weapon". The blood on the left side was mainly on the butt but not exclusively. They didn't not detail where on the left side the blood was, you just assumed.  The lesson is not to just assume.

You are pro-Jeremy why didn't you bother to read what Lincoln's reports while on blue?  I know Jeremy is guilty and yet I still read the reports from Lincoln.

I will stop being mean to you about one thing though you should read Ann Eaton's statements anyway.  I sent you on a wild goose chase. Ann Eaton said the blood was near the opening not in it.  I just wanted to force you to read the whole thing to find it but I feel bad trying to trick you into informing yourself of everything she wrote.  You should do it because you want to and look at everything.

[Holly Goodhead]

The foregoing doesn't say there was no blood on the butt.  It says "and there was blood on the left side of the weapon". The blood on the left side was mainly on the butt but not exclusively. They didn't not detail where on the left side the blood was, you just assumed.  The lesson is not to just assume.

You are pro-Jeremy why didn't you bother to read what Lincoln's reports while on blue?  I know Jeremy is guilty and yet I still read the reports from Lincoln.

I will stop being mean to you about one thing though you should read Ann Eaton's statements anyway.  I sent you on a wild goose chase. Ann Eaton said the blood was near the opening not in it.  I just wanted to force you to read the whole thing to find it but I feel bad trying to trick you into informing yourself of everything she wrote.  You should do it because you want to and look at everything.

I should be able to assume that a document drafted by 3 appeal court judges, 2 QC's and with input from various experts is reliable and without ambiguity.  There's much contradiction between the CoA doc and the lab.  Eg the CoA doc states the rifle was in good working order the lab states it has some jamming issue.

You didnt send me on a wild goose chase re AE's W/S's.  I could pretty much retrieve any key piece in any doc on this forum within a couple of minutes to support my assertions.

Likewise I should apologise to you about the bags.  I normally post links to support my assertions but deliberately left out to catch you out. 

[scipio_usmc]

I should be able to assume that a document drafted by 3 appeal court judges, 2 QC's and with input from various experts is reliable and without ambiguity.  There's much contradiction between the CoA doc and the lab.  Eg the CoA doc states the rifle was in good working order the lab states it has some jamming issue.

You didnt send me on a wild goose chase re AE's W/S's.  I could pretty much retrieve any key piece in any doc on this forum within a couple of minutes to support my assertions.

Likewise I should apologise to you about the bags.  I normally post links to support my assertions but deliberately left out to catch you out.

1) Saying it jammed on occasion doesn't preclude it from being in working order.

2) You are the one who assumed there was no blood on the stock even though the court wrote and blood on the left side of the weapon.  You just assumed this meant the barrel though it didn't say it.

3) You constantly demonstrate great ignorance about the evidence in this case.  That there was blood on the stock was one of the first things I learned when reading the relevant documents.   

4) Catch me out?  On blue there was a document that noted the inside of each bag was swabbed before the hands were.  The hand swabs thus would have picked up anything left in the bags.  Mike deleted it and other Hammeresley COLP documents that disproved his lies.  He was lying his ass off about how they only tested the left hand hand because the right hand was crossed off. He also posted lies about how the hands were washed before the swabs were taken and that they were taken at 11AM but lost and retaken later and this is why they were negative.  This was of course all nonsense. Davidson made several clerical errors including planning to label each hand swab differently as well as the control swab differently. He was instructed by Cook (who was supervising them) that the swabs were all to go together. It is unclear whether the bags were ultimately placed in the same kit or not. They had bee issued their own numbers but that doesn't preclude them all being bagged together after the way all the blood samples were placed in a master bag.  Davidson didn't go into detail about it because no one cared to ask him, such wasn't relevant.

That is what you fail to understand things that are relevant are explored in great detail by courts while things not relevant have no need to be and thus usually are not explained in great detail to the court in the first place.

[scipio_usmc]

By the way you and the defense missed on of the arguments a defense attorney would typically raise about GSR.  GSR lasts much longer in hair but the head sample was not tested. 

 

[Holly Goodhead]

1) Saying it jammed on occasion doesn't preclude it from being in working order.

2) You are the one who assumed there was no blood on the stock even though the court wrote and blood on the left side of the weapon.  You just assumed this meant the barrel though it didn't say it.

3) You constantly demonstrate great ignorance about the evidence in this case.  That there was blood on the stock was one of the first things I learned when reading the relevant documents.   

4) Catch me out?  On blue there was a document that noted the inside of each bag was swabbed before the hands were.  The hand swabs thus would have picked up anything left in the bags.  Mike deleted it and other Hammeresley COLP documents that disproved his lies.  He was lying his ass off about how they only tested the left hand hand because the right hand was crossed off. He also posted lies about how the hands were washed before the swabs were taken and that they were taken at 11AM but lost and retaken later and this is why they were negative.  This was of course all nonsense. Davidson made several clerical errors including planning to label each hand swab differently as well as the control swab differently. He was instructed by Cook (who was supervising them) that the swabs were all to go together. It is unclear whether the bags were ultimately placed in the same kit or not. They had bee issued their own numbers but that doesn't preclude them all being bagged together after the way all the blood samples were placed in a master bag.  Davidson didn't go into detail about it because no one cared to ask him, such wasn't relevant.

That is what you fail to understand things that are relevant are explored in great detail by courts while things not relevant have no need to be and thus usually are not explained in great detail to the court in the first place.

1)  What's important is what the jury were told.  Malcolm Fletcher claimed there was an issue with the rifle:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=271.0;attach=871

The CoA doc claims the rifle was in good working order:

69. The rifle was a German made Anschutz model 525 .22 self-loading rifle in good working order.

2 and 3)  Whether there was blood on the stock or not the fact is there was so little blood on the rifle that it was insufficient for grouping:

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.

4)  DC Hammersley's trial testimony takes precedence.  He confirms no swabbing of SC was taken at SoC.  SC's hands and forehead only were swabbed at post-mortem.  What would be the point of this when any forensic evidence could potentially be lost in the bags her hands were in which were not forensically examined. 

Q: "At all events we may take it of course that no hand swabs were taken at the scene"?

A: "No hand swabs were taken at the scene".

Q: "And in relation to the plastic bags to which you referred, which covered the hands and the feet do you know whether they were ever sent for forensic examination?  I am talking about the plastic bags"?

A: "As far as I am aware, looking at my exhibit list, it would appear they were not submitted".

Q: "They were not submitted for forensic examination"?

A: "Only as far as I am aware".

Q: "You can only give your evidence and not any other.  So that if it be the case, if it be the case that those plastic bags contained anything of materiality, so far as you are aware they were not submitted for forensic examination"?

A: "Only as far as I am aware, yes".

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=165.0;attach=229

[scipio_usmc]

1)  What's important is what the jury were told.  Malcolm Fletcher claimed there was an issue with the rifle:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=271.0;attach=871

The CoA doc claims the rifle was in good working order:

69. The rifle was a German made Anschutz model 525 .22 self-loading rifle in good working order.

2 and 3)  Whether there was blood on the stock or not the fact is there was so little blood on the rifle that it was insufficient for grouping:

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.

4)  DC Hammersley's trial testimony takes precedence.  He confirms no swabbing of SC was taken at SoC.  SC's hands and forehead only were swabbed at post-mortem.  What would be the point of this when any forensic evidence could potentially be lost in the bags her hands were in which were not forensically examined. 

Q: "At all events we may take it of course that no hand swabs were taken at the scene"?

A: "No hand swabs were taken at the scene".

Q: "And in relation to the plastic bags to which you referred, which covered the hands and the feet do you know whether they were ever sent for forensic examination?  I am talking about the plastic bags"?

A: "As far as I am aware, looking at my exhibit list, it would appear they were not submitted".

Q: "They were not submitted for forensic examination"?

A: "Only as far as I am aware".

Q: "You can only give your evidence and not any other.  So that if it be the case, if it be the case that those plastic bags contained anything of materiality, so far as you are aware they were not submitted for forensic examination"?

A: "Only as far as I am aware, yes".

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=165.0;attach=229

The jury was told the rifle sometimes jammed and that it appeared to have been damaged during the attack.

The jury was told that the rifle stock was broken during the attack as well.

Now that you know the "blood on the left side of the weapon" was mainly on the butt this takes on added significance doesn't it: "there were splashes of blood to the left side of the [butt]. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding."

This means the butt was used to strike the victim and blood thus got on it.  This is before taking into account the assessment there were defensive wounds and evidence the butt was used to bash his skull in.  Quite obviously he didn't sit there letting Jeremy bash his skull in. He raised his arm to try to block the blows from the rifle butt resulting in defensive wounds to his arms from the butt. 

As for the bags he did indeed testify he wasn't sure if he sent the bags for testing but based on the limited information he had in front of him it didn't appear so.  We know though that the hand bags were swabbed at the autopsy because of something Mike posted and we know the defense never tried suggesting soot left her hand and got on the bag or all the lead and copper left her hands and got on the bags because they had no experts who would claim such nonsense.  Someone who ignored reality like yourself would alleged such nonsense but alleging such nonsense means nothing you have zilch to actually support it.  There was a head bag too by the way not feet and hands...

 

[david1819]

Knowing the government would not likely be able to retry the case doesn't mean the COA would acquit him if persuaded the conviction was unsafe.  It simply means the COA is going to not find it safe unless there is strong evidence to establish it as unsafe as opposed to relying on BS arguments but that is how they are supposed to act anyway. 

The only thing powerful enough to overcome the conviction in the legal sense would be for Julie to recant or there to be proof that the police concealed finding blood in the rifle and planted it in the moderator.  No other arguments would be legally sufficient. 

There does not need to be any proof any concealment of blood in the barrel because lack of blood in the barrel does not disprove suicide and likewise does not disprove contact wounds.

In Vincent J.M. DiMaios book Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, Third Edition (Practical Aspects of Criminal & Forensic Investigations)

[scipio_usmc]

There does not need to be any proof any concealment of blood in the barrel because lack of blood in the barrel does not disprove suicide and likewise does not disprove contact wounds.

In Vincent J.M. DiMaios book Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, Third Edition (Practical Aspects of Criminal & Forensic Investigations)

Once again you demonstrate tremendous ignorance of the evidence in this case even though I expressly spoon fed you countless times on blue.

The expert testimony in this case was that the fatal wound was a contact wound from with drawback would occur and therefore blood would have been found in the muzzle of weapon itself had the gun been used sans moderator or in the moderator if used with the moderator.  The initial shot caused her neck to fill with blood and under such conditions drawback would be sure to occur EVEN more surely if the moderator were not attached because the full effect of the gases would then be in effect.

The only way to establish it would not occur would be if one could prove it wasn't a contact wound but it is agreed by the defense experts that it was a contact wound.

The COA addressed this very issue in 2002:

"As to the moderator, there was the remarkable proposition raised by the defence case that Sheila Caffell having killed her family found that she could not shoot herself with the moderator on and instead of simply taking the moderator off and putting it down, went downstairs to an office, put the moderator in its proper place in the gun cupboard and then returned to her parents' bedroom where she sat or lay down on the floor and shot herself. There was in addition not merely the presence of the blood flake in the moderator but the absence of any blood in the barrel of the gun, the end of which would have been in contact with her neck when the shot was fired."

The COA explained previously why this was significant:

"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.

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".

The moderator reduces the chance of drawback very slightly but even with the moderator the chance of drawback not occurring was extremely slight.

The amount of blood inside her neck was considerable she hemorrhaged and thus drawback would occur if the fatal shot was a contact. Vanezis noting the hemmoraging inside her neck from the first shot:



The significance of that for backspatter/drawback:







-------

The Court of Appeals goes by the existing record int he case and the existing record is the testimony that drawback would have gotten in the rifle if the moderator was not attached. 

If people want to hide from reality be my guest but as a lawyer one's job is to face reality and try to deal with it.  The reality is one has to deal with not only the blood in the moderator but the absence of blood in the rifle because that is the way the courts view it.

The legal minded are concerned with what the court will require. 

In any event there will never be any evidence found of police planting blood in the moderator.  All places to look for evidence of such turned up nothing.  Those who think Jeremy used the gun without the moderator attached are living in fantasyland he wanted his shots to be as quiet as possible in hopes of not waking anyone up and after he killed Sheila he realized the gun was too long for her to kill herself with it attached so hid it and made up the lies that the gun didn't fit in the closet with the moderator attached, got it out to go after rabbits and left the gun out without the moderator attached.

Even Jeremy's supporters know they will never find any evidence but rather than admit they were wrong they choose to delude themselves with the fantasy that there is evidence that has never been released to the defense which establishes evidence was planted.  They are the same delusional people who say police failed to release all of Julie's statements to the defense and in order to support this lie they make up that there was a statement recorded every single occasion she had any interaction with police even though that is totally bogus.

Jeremy has as much chance of getting out of jail (by a method other than dying) as Obama does of being elected to a third term...   

[david1819]

Once again you demonstrate tremendous ignorance of the evidence in this case even though I expressly spoon fed you countless times on blue.

The expert testimony in this case was that the fatal wound was a contact wound from with drawback would occur and therefore blood would have been found in the muzzle of weapon itself had the gun been used sans moderator or in the moderator if used with the moderator.  The initial shot caused her neck to fill with blood and under such conditions drawback would be sure to occur EVEN more surely if the moderator were not attached because the full effect of the gases would then be in effect.

The only way to establish it would not occur would be if one could prove it wasn't a contact wound but it is agreed by the defense experts that it was a contact wound.

The COA addressed this very issue in 2002:

Its not tremendous ignorance at all, I consider Malcom Fletchers competence on the subject inadequate and the COA conclusions are wrong as a result. British Scientists like Fletcher used by the home office will only encounter a dozen or so gun related murders in their entire careers as opposed to the experts in your country who will encounter thousands of gun related deaths in their careers.

But back on the subject I was only saying that you don't need to prove concealment of blood in the barrel because scientific study prove it does not allways occur

Blood is more often detected on the outside of the muzzle than inside the barrel. In a study of 653 revolvers, 242 pistols, 181 shotguns, and 124 rifles used in suicides, blood was detected on the barrel 74% of the time for revolvers, 76% for pistols, 85% for shotguns, and 81% for rifles.' In contrast, blood was detected inside the barrel in 53% of the revolvers, 57% of pistols, 72% of shotguns, and 58% of rifles. The presence of blood inside the barrel of a gun indicates that the weapon was within a few inches of the body at the time of discharge. Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound. Thus, no blood was found on either the outside or inside of the barrel in 24% of the suicides using a revolver and 23% using a pistol.


Dr. Vincent Di Maio has had this published since 1999 and the book has had three revised editions to date with the above remaining unchallenged, If he is wrong you would have though someone who has read his published works would have informed him of his errors. yet they haven't
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio 

So if 124 rifles used in suicides and only 58% contain any blood in the barrel compound that with the fact that a hugely significant amount of rifle suicides are to neck/underchin region due to its length.

With this information if one is to claim the blood In the moderator is planted then it is not mandatory to accuse or prove concealment of blood in the barrel as its scientifically recognized that absence of blood is not an indicator of guilt and can in fact support innocence.

[scipio_usmc]

Its not tremendous ignorance at all, I consider Malcom Fletchers competence on the subject inadequate and the COA conclusions are wrong as a result. British Scientists like Fletcher used by the home office will only encounter a dozen or so gun related murders in their entire careers as opposed to the experts in your country who will encounter thousands of gun related deaths in their careers.

But back on the subject I was only saying that you don't need to prove concealment of blood in the barrel because scientific study prove it does not allways occur

Blood is more often detected on the outside of the muzzle than inside the barrel. In a study of 653 revolvers, 242 pistols, 181 shotguns, and 124 rifles used in suicides, blood was detected on the barrel 74% of the time for revolvers, 76% for pistols, 85% for shotguns, and 81% for rifles.' In contrast, blood was detected inside the barrel in 53% of the revolvers, 57% of pistols, 72% of shotguns, and 58% of rifles. The presence of blood inside the barrel of a gun indicates that the weapon was within a few inches of the body at the time of discharge. Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound. Thus, no blood was found on either the outside or inside of the barrel in 24% of the suicides using a revolver and 23% using a pistol.


Dr. Vincent Di Maio has had this published since 1999 and the book has had three revised editions to date with the above remaining unchallenged, If he is wrong you would have though someone who has read his published works would have informed him of his errors. yet they haven't
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio 

So if 124 rifles used in suicides and only 58% contain any blood in the barrel compound that with the fact that a hugely significant amount of rifle suicides are to neck/underchin region due to its length.

With this information if one is to claim the blood In the moderator is planted then it is not mandatory to accuse or prove concealment of blood in the barrel as its scientifically recognized that absence of blood is not an indicator of guilt and can in fact support innocence.

The study simply evaluated how many times blood was found on or inside weapons.  It didn't get into specifics at all of a nature of each wound and thus is not relevant to the testimony in this case.  It doesn't look at where the wounds were and whether they were contact wounds and evaluate the likelihood of drawback occurring given any particularized set of facts let alone the exact facts of this case.

You constantly have no comprehension of what you are reading.  Whether drawback would occur requires looking at the specifics of the case at hand the material you just posted doesn't do that and thus can't be used to try to contradict the experts in this case which DID evaluate the specific factors.

You and Holly don't want to face that the testimony in the case is the record. The defense found no experts then and has no experts now (who through some new science) can argue given the bleeding in her neck from the previous wound that drawback would not occur. The evidence you posted most certainly doesn't address that it simply notes in how many cases blood was found in and on weapons. 

What new medical knowledge has come forward to cast doubt on the assessment that her neck was full of blood and that temporary cavitation would have occurred and thus drawback?   None if anything we know now even more that it will happen unless it wasn't a contact wound.  The only thing capable of defeating drawback from occurring given the conditions would be if it wasn't a contact wound.  The defense experts agree it was a contact wound so the only hope is lost.   

I look at this case as I would if I were hired by the defense to try to help them.  That requires looking honestly as what the trial testimony was and what the courts would require to vacate Jeremy's conviction.  Instead of looking at it as they would you look at it through your own eyes. Your own eyes are clouded but even if they weren't it would not matter because you have to tailor your arguments to your audience by their rule and that is the COA.

Short of dealing with the lack of blood in the rifle and as well as explaining away the blood in the moderator there is no chance in hell of winning on any scientific grounds.   If Julie were to change her testimony that would be the only non-science way to win a new trial because her testimony was so damning and the judge said that they could convict solely on the basis of her testimony if they believed it.

Nothing else stands any chance of success because nothing else refutes either of the 2 legs of the case that were cited by the judge as sufficient to convict. If the lawyers want to work for free and totally waste their time it is their business but if they are going to spend someone else's money then they have an ethical obligation to admit the unlikely chance of success and why it is not likely to have a chance of success.

[david1819]

The study simply evaluated how many times blood was found on or inside weapons.  It didn't get into specifics at all of a nature of each wound and thus is not relevant to the testimony in this case.  It doesn't look at where the wounds were and whether they were contact wounds and evaluate the likelihood of drawback occurring given any particularized set of facts let alone the exact facts of this case.

You constantly have no comprehension of what you are reading.  Whether drawback would occur requires looking at the specifics of the case at hand the material you just posted doesn't do that and thus can't be used to try to contradict the experts in this case which DID evaluate the specific factors.

You and Holly don't want to face that the testimony in the case is the record. The defense found no experts then and has no experts now (who through some new science) can argue given the bleeding in her neck from the previous wound that drawback would not occur. The evidence you posted most certainly doesn't address that it simply notes in how many cases blood was found in and on weapons. 

What new medical knowledge has come forward to cast doubt on the assessment that her neck was full of blood and that temporary cavitation would have occurred and thus drawback?   None if anything we know now even more that it will happen unless it wasn't a contact wound.  The only thing capable of defeating drawback from occurring given the conditions would be if it wasn't a contact wound.  The defense experts agree it was a contact wound so the only hope is lost.   

I look at this case as I would if I were hired by the defense to try to help them.  That requires looking honestly as what the trial testimony was and what the courts would require to vacate Jeremy's conviction.  Instead of looking at it as they would you look at it through your own eyes. Your own eyes are clouded but even if they weren't it would not matter because you have to tailor your arguments to your audience by their rule and that is the COA.

Short of dealing with the lack of blood in the rifle and as well as explaining away the blood in the moderator there is no chance in hell of winning on any scientific grounds.   If Julie were to change her testimony that would be the only non-science way to win a new trial because her testimony was so damning and the judge said that they could convict solely on the basis of her testimony if they believed it.

Nothing else stands any chance of success because nothing else refutes either of the 2 legs of the case that were cited by the judge as sufficient to convict. If the lawyers want to work for free and totally waste their time it is their business but if they are going to spend someone else's money then they have an ethical obligation to admit the unlikely chance of success and why it is not likely to have a chance of success.

I post this once again but I have now colour coded it for you incase selective reading gets the better of you.

Blood is more often detected on the outside of the muzzle than inside the barrel. In a study of 653 revolvers, 242 pistols, 181 shotguns, and 124 rifles used in suicides, blood was detected on the barrel 74% of the time for revolvers, 76% for pistols, 85% for shotguns, and 81% for rifles.' In contrast, blood was detected inside the barrel in 53% of the revolvers, 57% of pistols, 72% of shotguns, and 58% of rifles. The presence of blood inside the barrel of a gun indicates that the weapon was within a few inches of the body at the time of discharge. Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound. Thus, no blood was found on either the outside or inside of the barrel in 24% of the suicides using a revolver and 23% using a pistol.

Can you see the words highlighted in Red and Blue? and if so is it apparent to you what the author is saying and how it relates to this case?

The external jugular vein is towards the back of the neck aligned with the spine as the image bellow illustrates


The initial impact of the bullet to her neck will pass through skin and muscle, You also have much less gas build up in a rifle.

The peak pressure is responsible for the majority of the work in accelerating the projectile. At, or shortly previous to reaching peak pressure, the bullet begins to move down the barrel. ”When the projectile reaches enough velocity and the space behind it increases enough that the volume of gas is increasing at the same rate, the pressure will begin to drop as the bullet continues and increases the space. The bullet is moving fast enough to supply
more space behind it than the advancing gases can fill and maintain pressure, so the pressure drops” [3]. High pressure is characterized towards the start of the barrel, with a transition to projectile momentum dominance occurring in the medium to longer lengths of the barrel. The precise length and location of these transitions is characteristic to the bore and cartridge, but may also be influenced by bullet length, seating depth, and the bullet to case tightness, to name a few. Thus, the louder report of carbines may be explained by the barrel length becoming short enough to enter this primarily pressure dominated region, effectively increasing the gas pressures at the muzzle. In contrast, the less intimidating reports of long barreled rifles may be explained by allowing the barrel length to enter the momentum dominated region of the barrel. Thus, as the projectile exits the long barrel, it is carried out mostly by its own momentum, and has relatively low muzzle pressures.

A similar study in which contact shots were evaluated regarding barrel length changes for a shotgun and rifle produced results which also validate previous claims: “Gas pressure and velocity of the gas jet at the muzzle increases with shortening of the barrel” [4]. Other research on the subject, produced a more quantitative analysis of the report; “Dr. William L. Kramer (Ball State University) found that muzzle blast noise (report) increases 1 decibel for each inch a barrel is reduced”

Now compound the above with the fact we are talking about a long barrelled weapon firing a .22 calibre weapon the gas build up will be minimal and its the gas that causes the drawback.

[scipio_usmc]

I post this once again with but I have now colour coded it for you incase selective reading gets the better of you.

Blood is more often detected on the outside of the muzzle than inside the barrel. In a study of 653 revolvers, 242 pistols, 181 shotguns, and 124 rifles used in suicides, blood was detected on the barrel 74% of the time for revolvers, 76% for pistols, 85% for shotguns, and 81% for rifles.' In contrast, blood was detected inside the barrel in 53% of the revolvers, 57% of pistols, 72% of shotguns, and 58% of rifles. The presence of blood inside the barrel of a gun indicates that the weapon was within a few inches of the body at the time of discharge. Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound. Thus, no blood was found on either the outside or inside of the barrel in 24% of the suicides using a revolver and 23% using a pistol.

Can you see the words highlighted in Red and Blue? and if so is it apparent to you what the author is saying and how it relates to this case?

The external jugular vein is towards the back of the neck aligned with the spine as the image bellow illustrates


The initial impact of the bullet to her neck will pass through skin and muscle, You also have much less gas build up in a rifle.

The peak pressure is responsible for the majority of the work in accelerating the projectile. At, or shortly previous to reaching peak pressure, the bullet begins to move down the barrel. ”When the projectile reaches enough velocity and the space behind it increases enough that the volume of gas is increasing at the same rate, the pressure will begin to drop as the bullet continues and increases the space. The bullet is moving fast enough to supply
more space behind it than the advancing gases can fill and maintain pressure, so the pressure drops” [3]. High pressure is characterized towards the start of the barrel, with a transition to projectile momentum dominance occurring in the medium to longer lengths of the barrel. The precise length and location of these transitions is characteristic to the bore and cartridge, but may also be influenced by bullet length, seating depth, and the bullet to case tightness, to name a few. Thus, the louder report of carbines may be explained by the barrel length becoming short enough to enter this primarily pressure dominated region, effectively increasing the gas pressures at the muzzle. In contrast, the less intimidating reports of long barreled rifles may be explained by allowing the barrel length to enter the momentum dominated region of the barrel. Thus, as the projectile exits the long barrel, it is carried out mostly by its own momentum, and has relatively low muzzle pressures.

A similar study in which contact shots were evaluated regarding barrel length changes for a shotgun and rifle produced results which also validate previous claims: “Gas pressure and velocity of the gas jet at the muzzle increases with shortening of the barrel” [4]. Other research on the subject, produced a more quantitative analysis of the report; “Dr. William L. Kramer (Ball State University) found that muzzle blast noise (report) increases 1 decibel for each inch a barrel is reduced”

Now compound the above with the fact we are talking about a long barrelled weapon firing a .22 calibre weapon the gas build up will be minimal and its the gas that causes the drawback.

Gas alone doesn't cause drawback if it did then there would be no such thing as backspatter only drawback.  When it doesn't go inside a weapon it is simply backspatter when blood gets inside a weapon it is drawback.  Your claim that with a long barreled weapon drawback will not occur is nonsense.  You constantly make up your own BS.  If it would not occur with long barreled weapons then the defense would have found an expert who opined that such can't happen with a long barreled weapon.  They didn't because its fictional.

I posted to you in the past the 3 forces that individually result in drawback and thus also do so in combination.  I also posted the additional considerations of the hemorrhaging inside her neck.   This is why the expert opined drawback would occur. 

Far from coming up with an expert who assessed the precise conditions in this case and was willing to testify in court that drawback would not occur you simply made it up yourself that drawback would not occur and made it up by trying to twist sources beyond belief.  Your efforts fall flat totally...




 

[david1819]

Gas alone doesn't cause drawback if it did then there would be no such thing as backspatter only drawback.  When it doesn't go inside a weapon it is simply backspatter when blood gets inside a weapon it is drawback.  Your claim that with a long barreled weapon drawback will not occur is nonsense.  You constantly make up your own BS.  If it would not occur with long barreled weapons then the defense would have found an expert who opined that such can't happen with a long barreled weapon.  They didn't because its fictional.

I posted to you in the past the 3 forces that individually result in drawback and thus also do so in combination.  I also posted the additional considerations of the hemorrhaging inside her neck.   This is why the expert opined drawback would occur. 

Far from coming up with an expert who assessed the precise conditions in this case and was willing to testify in court that drawback would not occur you simply made it up yourself that drawback would not occur and made it up by trying to twist sources beyond belief.  Your efforts fall flat totally...

I didn't make anything up at all, I copied and pasted modern scientific studies and that is there to be read.

As for the image you posted

documented. The occurrence and the quantity of backspatte-r depend on a variety of ballistic and anatomical parameters. The kinetic energy necessary for the acceleration of blood and tissue particles can come from three different sources:
1. Subcutaneous gas effect: The rapid expansion of hot muzzle gases trapped below the elastic skin and especially between the skin and a bony abutment causes the temporary development of a pocket-like subcutaneous space. When this space collapses immediately. the biological particles are expelled together with the resulting backwards stream of escaping gases [94, 96, 98, 103, 104, 105]. 2. Temporary cavity: Temporary cavitation produces overpressures inside the wound which also escape retrogradely to the line of fire [102, 103, 105]. Anatomical structures similar to liquid-filled cavities such as the head, the heart, or the eye provide the best conditions for violent temporary cavitation and backward hurling of particles. 3. Tail splashing: If a projectile penetrates tissue, there is always backward streaming of fluid and tissue particles along the lateral surface of the bullet in the direction of the entrance wound [11, 99, 103]. In most cases, these three driving forces act combined. The hot muzzle gases can only be effective in contact and close-to-contact gunshots, especially in the presence of a bony abutment. The presence of backspattered brain particles [106. 107] can only be explained by intracranial temporary cavitation, which is clearly enhanced by the confined space of the neurocranium (see Sect. 2.4). Therefore, backspatter mainly occurs in close-range gunshots to the head but is not limited to such cases, as is demonstrated by a gunshot to the heart (liquid-filled cavity) from a distance of 4 m resulting in massive backspatter travelling up to 2.5 m [105]. The spin of the bullet [108] or a momentary suction effect of the barrel aspiring material into the muzzle [106, 109] clearly do not contribute to backspatter [102. 103].

It simply explains how it happens and does not mention the neck as in ideal condition for it to take place. and most importantly it does not allways happen as the studies show

[scipio_usmc]

I didn't make anything up at all, I copied and pasted modern scientific studies and that is there to be read.

As for the image you posted

documented. The occurrence and the quantity of backspatte-r depend on a variety of ballistic and anatomical parameters. The kinetic energy necessary for the acceleration of blood and tissue particles can come from three different sources:
1. Subcutaneous gas effect: The rapid expansion of hot muzzle gases trapped below the elastic skin and especially between the skin and a bony abutment causes the temporary development of a pocket-like subcutaneous space. When this space collapses immediately. the biological particles are expelled together with the resulting backwards stream of escaping gases [94, 96, 98, 103, 104, 105]. 2. Temporary cavity: Temporary cavitation produces overpressures inside the wound which also escape retrogradely to the line of fire [102, 103, 105]. Anatomical structures similar to liquid-filled cavities such as the head, the heart, or the eye provide the best conditions for violent temporary cavitation and backward hurling of particles. 3. Tail splashing: If a projectile penetrates tissue, there is always backward streaming of fluid and tissue particles along the lateral surface of the bullet in the direction of the entrance wound [11, 99, 103]. In most cases, these three driving forces act combined. The hot muzzle gases can only be effective in contact and close-to-contact gunshots, especially in the presence of a bony abutment. The presence of backspattered brain particles [106. 107] can only be explained by intracranial temporary cavitation, which is clearly enhanced by the confined space of the neurocranium (see Sect. 2.4). Therefore, backspatter mainly occurs in close-range gunshots to the head but is not limited to such cases, as is demonstrated by a gunshot to the heart (liquid-filled cavity) from a distance of 4 m resulting in massive backspatter travelling up to 2.5 m [105]. The spin of the bullet [108] or a momentary suction effect of the barrel aspiring material into the muzzle [106, 109] clearly do not contribute to backspatter [102. 103].

It simply explains how it happens and does not mention the neck as in ideal condition for it to take place. and most importantly it does not allways happen as the studies show

1) The expert testimony in this case is the record and you failed to dent it let alone to come up with an expert willing to testify he was wrong.

2) I posted how many sources discussing blood filled cavities including one which talked about just how far blood from such cavity will be projected?  I discussed the evidence of how the first wound caused her neck to become a blood filled cavity.

Saying that drawback will not always occur from a general wound to the neck fails to address the specifics in this case that caused the expert to say drawback would occur.  The COA in 2002 noted that not only does the blood in the moderator have to be overcome but the lack of blood in the rifle because of that testimony.

Nothing you posted comes close except in your mind.  Generalized claims mean nothing.  You need an expert to assess the precise conditions in this case and to convince an appeal court that new medical information not available at the time of the trial establishes drawback would not be sure to occur under such conditions.  I have stressed the most significant issue of all for this assessment- assessing a shot to a blood filled neck. It is not some accident the defense could not find any experts to refute the assessment.  Tests show it will happen with a blood filled cavity and that is a huge problem for trying to find an expert who can establish otherwise.  The expert not only needs to suggest otherwise but needs proof.  When you find an expert who simulates a contact shot to blood filled neck and can get drawback not to occur on a repeat basis you can let us know.