You mean your ill-informed theories about draw-back, back spatter and GSR where you refuse to take into account that SIZE MATTERS!
Everything I posted about ballistics and blood evidence is accurate. You on the other hand make up things to suit your agenda. Bias can be harmful which is why lawyers who represent themselves have a fool for a client. Pretending things are how you wish accomplishes less than nothing.
One has to take the evidence as it is and deal with it. I presented the only ways Jeremy could get his conviction quashed:
1) if Julie changed her testimony
or
2) proving that the blood in the moderator was planted
AND either: a) blood found in the rifle muzzle was concealed or b) the fatal wound was not a contact wound or for some other reason not a wound that would result in drawback.
One can choose to be productive and analyze these things or be a fool and waste their time on meaningless crap that will accomplish nothing.
No one has turned up any evidence Julie has changed her tune so that is a dead end. No evidence has been turned up regarding her telling anyone a different story so as to justify her being forced to submit to questioning by any government bodies or defense counsel. So this is a dead end unless she were to voluntarily come forward to change her testimony. If that happened a CCRC submission could be made based on it but if it never happens then can't be.
Nor is there anything to support the blood was planted in the moderator and blood found int he rifle itself was concealed. Unless and until someone confessed to doing such there will not be any evidence to support such. So again nothing can be done it is simply a matter of IF someone were to come forward then the opportunity to raise such claim would present itself. The claims made would have to be investigated to try to find corroboration etc but only a confession of sorts would get the ball rolling.
There is no hope of proving the fatal wound wasn't a wound that would result in drawback. There is not enough evidence existing for review to be able to challenge Vanezis' assessment. Nothing in the photos enable such a conclusion and nothing Vanezis recorded would be able to refute his conclusions what he asserted supported his conclusions. This is why the defense wasn't able to challenge such at trial.
The biased games you engage in don't help your cause at all they just demonstrate you are unreliable. I posted a source explaining where GSR lands when firing a semi-auto 22LR like the murder weapon. It based such on testing and even showed the GSR plume which was captured by using a special camera. You chose to ignore this and simply make up that no rifle period will leave GSR on hands because you read a generalized statement that IN GENERAL long guns don't leave GSR on shooting hands. Generalized claims that don't take account variation between weapons can only go so far. There are always exceptions to generalizations. You choose to ignore specifics that prove you wrong and to instead run with broad generalizations that are inaccurate to the facts here. Taht doesn't help prove Jeremy innocent and doesn't help your reputation.
The things you make up like that rifles don't leave GSR on hands or that Your fantasy about 22LR not being able to result in drawback simply render you not credible.
