You ignore the fact that had shelia killed herself and fired a second shot via vervous reflex or other body movement its possible the first shot was the contact wound,
hence the second partial contact wound would expel any drawback out the barrell.
[ moderated ]
1) The fatal wound was determined to be a contact wound by Vanezis because of the characteristics of the wound. He didn't even know there was blood in the moderator. If you read the various posts on this site and blue you will see countless times I posted the exact traits that differentiate the distance. Not one expert has ever suggested that Vanezis was wrong and that they observed traits establishing it had to be fired at non-contact range. For instance if powder stippling indicating an intermediate range shot had be observed outside the wound by Vanezis and he noted it but misinterpreted the significance or it was found in autopsy photos. But what he assessed are traits associated with contact wounds and nothing in the photos supporting anything other than a contact wound. The experts consulted by the defense agreed it was a contact wound thus the defense was unable to assert at trial or on appeal that the fatal wound was not a contact wound.
I could stop right here because your allegations are rendered meaningless but you are wrong about somethign else.
2) Drawback has still been found in rifled barrels after multiple bullets were fired subsequent to the shot that caused drawback. Multiple meaning 3-5 shots. In the meantime that is in rifled barrels where the bullets physically touch the inside barrel where the blood is stuck and thus would be expected to remove the blood from the rifling. Here we are talking about blood on baffles where a bullet doesn't touch and in fact the bullet is coming from the opposite direction of where the blood was deposited. So even if another shot had been fired subsequently it would not remove the blood.
3) The first wound was not a contact wound but even if it had been it would not be definite that it would result in drawback. That first shot is what caused internal hemorrhaging inside her neck. Her neck was full of blood because of the damage from the first shot and that is what made it a certainty that drawback would occur from the second shot. The fact that drawback would occur if the fatal shot was fired at contact range in combination with the irrefuted evidence that it was a contact shot is what resulted in the Appeal Court saying that blood would have to have been in the rifle if the moderator wasn't used and the fact it wasn't supports the moderator was used just as much as the blood inside of it does. To any rational person this means that in order to prevail Jeremy would need to prove either:
1) that the blood was planted and blood was found int he rifle but this fact was illicitly concealed
or
2) that Sheila's fatal wound wasn't a contact wound and thus didn't result in drawback (thus her blood was in neither the rifle nor moderator).
I already explained why they can't prove the latter. Quite obviously they can't prove the former either so Jeremy is screwed.
Again you rely on evidence that has not only been poorly handled and lacks a chain of custody. It has passed through the hands of those with a major financial interest in securing a conviction.[/quote]
The chain of custody was established. The family never had control of the weapon so had no ability to conceal the finding of blood inside. Nor did they have access to Sheila's blood. know what blood type she was or even know she suffered a contact wound. They didn't even know what drawback was let alone know how to plant blood in a manner which would mimic it. For these reasons and others the defense can't come up with a plausible allegation of them planting the evidence. It is quite clear the family didn't plant it. The defense would need to prove it is reasonably likely they planted the evidence but can't under the facts here which is why the defense didn't make such an allegation at trial or on appeal. Indeed if they had planted it blood would have been found in the rifle itself.
Nor is there anything to suggest police planted the evidence and found her blood in the rifle but concealed such. So once again the defense has nada.
Even though OJ Simpson was guilty the defense did make some rational arguments when trying to take apart some of the evidence. They did come up with some evidence to support blood being planted on a sock. They were able to make the allegation based on the follow expert testimony (that is how evidence is presented it is by testimony):
A) the blood was tested and had a preservative agent in it. That suggests it came from a blood sample because such agents are used to preserve blood after it is drawn such agents are not found in the body.
B) the drops of blood leaked through to the other side of the sock. If a foot was inside when the blood hit then it would not have been able to do that so that means the blood got on the sock when no one was wearing it. This refutes that the blood was spatter which got on the sock during commission of the murders. It had to have been subsequent to the murders.
This is how you make scientific arguments to refute evidence. You get an expert to refute the SPECIFIC evidence IF you can find an expert who refutes it. In this case they found none. Lincoln agreed with the prosecution so ended up being useless to the defense.
Your entitled to your opinion on Websters work.
Yes.
Transcript PMS/10 page 58): Malcom Fletcher "The most likely explanation for the blood being in the sound
moderator is that it was fitted to the gun at the time the contact wound to Sheila Caffell's neck was fired. There is a very very slight possibility that I am wrong in my opinion, but I don't think so"
For steadfast Jeremy supporters conspiracy theory is the final refuge for them, that we can agree on.
They have the peer reviewed report by Pathologist Dr David fowler and the experiments carried out by Firearms Expert Philip Boyce, both coming to the same conclusion that the silencer was not attached.
They also have the report by Professor Marco Meloni and Dr Cavelli claiming Jeremy was outside at the time of Shelia's death
If all these experts are correct then that would mean a substantial conspiracy has taken place.
The courts tore their irrational SPECULATION to shreds. You still can't get it through your head that irrational speculation means nothing at all.
Science as we know it today says that if 2 people suffer contact shots resulting in drawback with a moderator in close proximity (time-wise) then their blood will intimately mix inside anywhere where the blood overlaps. Testing substantiates this including testing done by the expert in this very case.
Webster speculated that maybe there is some magical way that blood would not intimately mix in the moderator but admitted he didn't precisely know how it could happen and said he lacked the ability to test if it was possible for it to not intimately mix. He got ZERO support from the scientific community for his speculation.
You want us to ignore that he has no support and just pretend his speculation has merit even though it is quite clear it doesn't, indeed he LIED about one written source supporting him which didn't and he also made up that it happened in a prior case but then had to backtrack and admit that case concerned blood on cloth. He got his ass handed to him. If you want us to take you seriously then you need to come up with something else.
As for Fowler how many times does it have to be pointed out to you that all Fowler did was speculate that Vanezis saw a muzzle imprint left my the rifle barrel sans moderator though Vanezis himself said there was no muzzle imprint, though the photos show no muzzle imprint and though what he actually described was a bullet abrasion. It doesn't matter how many clowns he paid to support his speculation it is still just unsupported speculation rejected by prosecution experts that is not worth anything.
We know their claims were nonsense lies because we know for a fact that Vanezis didn't provide any measurements for abrasion collar only the measurements for the entrance wounds themselves. So when they claimed they know the measurements of the abrasion collar which they think is actually a muzzle imprint and say they know it is the same size that a rifle muzzle imprint would be they are full of crap because they didn't inspect the body to get any measurements nor did Vanezis provide the measurements so they can't have any measurements. A rational person would take all of this into account like the courts did and this is why the courts rejected their nonsense.
You want us to believe not only that there was a wide ranging conspiracy but also that Vanezis was too stupid to know the difference between a bullet abrasion and a muzzle imprint and that these men are so smart that they could know the size because they are omniscient.
[ moderated - there is no need for insults ]
