No blood in the rifle barrel - conclusive proof of guilt?

[Mendoza]

As I understand it, no blood was found inside the barrel of the rifle, or blood spatter round the end. (I know there was a smear near the sight).

If this is the case, then:

The sound moderator must have been attached to the rifle when Sheila was shot, or her blood would have been present in the rifle barrel, as one or both of her wounds were contact shots. 

Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached to the rifle.

Therefore Jeremy Bamber is guilty.

Is this correct? Too simplistic? It just seems logical to me. John? Scipio? Any comments gratefully received.

[david1819]

As I understand it, no blood was found inside the barrel of the rifle, or blood spatter round the end. (I know there was a smear near the sight).

If this is the case, then:

The sound moderator must have been attached to the rifle when Sheila was shot, or her blood would have been present in the rifle barrel, as one or both of her wounds were contact shots. 

Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached to the rifle.

Therefore Jeremy Bamber is guilty.

Is this correct? Too simplistic? It just seems logical to me. John? Scipio? Any comments gratefully received.

No.

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.4 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.

Blood may be detected in the barrel even after the weapon has been discharged. In a
study of 25 revolvers and 36 pistols, in 40% of revolvers and in 42% of pistols, blood was
detected after one test firing.4 More remarkable was the fact that blood was still detected in
16% of revolvers and 25% of pistols after a second shot was fired.

Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques third edition by Vincent J.M. DiMaio page 326

[scipio_usmc]

As I understand it, no blood was found inside the barrel of the rifle, or blood spatter round the end. (I know there was a smear near the sight).

If this is the case, then:

The sound moderator must have been attached to the rifle when Sheila was shot, or her blood would have been present in the rifle barrel, as one or both of her wounds were contact shots. 

Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached to the rifle.

Therefore Jeremy Bamber is guilty.

Is this correct? Too simplistic? It just seems logical to me. John? Scipio? Any comments gratefully received.

2 things are necessary in order for drawback to occur (blood to get inside of a weapon):

1) it must be a hard contact or soft/loose contact wound.  A hard contact wound features the barrel pressed firmly against the skin a soft/loose contact wound features the barrel 1mm or less from the skin


2) The location of the wound must be such that it results in backspatter.


In order for blood to get deeper than 5mm inside a barrel in any real quantity you need these 2 things.

 
In the Bamber case Sheila's second wound was to an area that would result in drawback if a contact wound was suffered.  This is because among other things the first wound caused internal hemorrhaging and this created a cavity full of blood that was ideal for backspatter to occur.


Sheila's second wound was determined to be a contact wound and thus would result in drawback.  This is why her blood would have to have been in the rifle if it were fired without the moderator.  The absence of blood in the rifle in combination with the blood in the moderator establishes conclusively the moderator was attached when the second shot was fired into her neck.


There will be situations in which:

1) drawback will occur
2) drawback can occur but doesn't have to
3) drawback is unlikely to occur but may.
4) drawback cannot occur

Number 1 is a case like this where an expert assesses by the nature of the wound it will occur

Number 2 and 3 are cases where an expert can't say it will occur because the location of the wound is such that it will not necessarily result in drawback.

Number 4 is when the weapon is more than 1mm from the victim, drawback is not going to occur. Some tiny bits of blood may get inside but it will be very little and not get deeper than 5mm 

 
This being the case you can't jus make a blanket claim you have to do detailed analysis of location of the wound and range.


In instances where it may happen but doesn't have to finding drawback is how one knows whether it happened or not.

In this case even if the moderator had been disposed of and thus missing an inference could be drawn that the lack of blood suggests it was used and this is why it is missing or the weapon was cleaned.  Either way it is not good for Jeremy since dead people can't clean rifles.  But the moderator was found and did have blood in it.


Establishing such blood was planted would require proving that blood was removed from the barrel of the rifle in addition to blood being planted in the moderator since this is one of those situations where drawback would occur.
 

 

[scipio_usmc]

No.

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.4 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.

Blood may be detected in the barrel even after the weapon has been discharged. In a
study of 25 revolvers and 36 pistols, in 40% of revolvers and in 42% of pistols, blood was
detected after one test firing.4 More remarkable was the fact that blood was still detected in
16% of revolvers and 25% of pistols after a second shot was fired.

Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques third edition by Vincent J.M. DiMaio page 326

You have been corrected so many times but never learn. 

1) Not all of the suicides in question featured contact wounds.  So the reason why blood was not found in a number of the instances was because the weapons were too far away for drawback to occur.


2) These figures not only don't address range they don't consider the location of the wounds.  The location of a wound is extremely significant in whether a contact wound will result in drawback or not.


Sheila's fatal wound was a contact wound and it was in a location that wound result in drawback because the conditions in her neck in the location where the wound was suffered.


Posting statistics that don't address the relevant issues means little.

[adam]

Seems conclusive to me.

If some of the shots were contact shots there would be human blood on or in the rifle barrel. Although David says this can also happen in non contact shots that were still from close range. 

David also says there is a strong chance of this happening with a rifle. This chance will be magnified at least a dozen times over as 26 bullets were fired from close range or were contact shots. All hitting their targets. Rather than just one or two.

As Scipio said, the location of the shot is important. Both June and Sheila getting Neck shots. The twins and Neville almost certainly all got contact shots as they put up up no resistance for 12 of their 16 shots.

As everyone knows there was human blood in the silencer but no blood on or in the rifle barrel.

[Mendoza]

Thank you David1819, Adam and Scipio.

I had previously thought that JB might have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice, as I had been studying the material on the Official website, which (naturally!) mentions none of this. The more I have looked at the documents/information here, and read the books on the case, the more I am inclined to believe that Jeremy Bamber is guilty. The facts speak for themselves. IMO:

 Sheila's blood/DNA in the moderator, and:

 The absence of blood in the rifle barrel after such a shot to her neck through a "reservoir" of blood,

seem to be indicators that Jeremy Bamber carried out these murders. Add to that the wealth of circumstantial evidence, and I think he is probably where he belongs.

I will keep reading the forum though, it is very interesting to hear everyone's point of view.

Thanks again guys.

[david1819]

Posting statistics that don't address the relevant issues means little.

Try reading

study of 653 revolvers, 242 pistols, 181 shotguns, and 124 rifles used in suicides

Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound

You have been corrected so many times but never learn. 

Try telling that to the Texas Forensic Science Commission that conducted the study

[david1819]

Thank you David1819, Adam and Scipio.

I had previously thought that JB might have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice, as I had been studying the material on the Official website, which (naturally!) mentions none of this. The more I have looked at the documents/information here, and read the books on the case, the more I am inclined to believe that Jeremy Bamber is guilty. The facts speak for themselves. IMO:

 Sheila's blood/DNA in the moderator, and:

 The absence of blood in the rifle barrel after such a shot to her neck through a "reservoir" of blood,

seem to be indicators that Jeremy Bamber carried out these murders. Add to that the wealth of circumstantial evidence, and I think he is probably where he belongs.

I will keep reading the forum though, it is very interesting to hear everyone's point of view.

Thanks again guys.

The blood in the moderator was planted. One can easily unscrew the device by hand, then the baffle plates fall out the tube. Dry or liquid blood can then be placed on the baffle plates before the moderator is reassembled.

The abrasion marks on Sheila's chin show the moderator was not attached when the shots were fired.

https://youtu.be/VeLsEeE0zTI

[Mendoza]

Thank you David1819, I will watch it when I have more time, and comment later.

[scipio_usmc]

Seems conclusive to me.

If some of the shots were contact shots there would be human blood on or in the rifle barrel. Although David says this can also happen in non contact shots that were still from close range. 

David also says there is a strong chance of this happening with a rifle. This chance will be magnified at least a dozen times over as 26 bullets were fired from close range or were contact shots. All hitting their targets. Rather than just one or two.

As Scipio said, the location of the shot is important. Both June and Sheila getting Neck shots. The twins and Neville almost certainly all got contact shots as they put up up no resistance for 12 of their 16 shots.

As everyone knows there was human blood in the silencer but no blood on or in the rifle barrel.

A tiny drop of blood found in a barrel and blood found in some quantity (allbeit a small quantity) more than 5mm inside are 2 different things. 

Backspatter will fly at different angles. A tiny drop of backspatter that by amazing coincidence happens to enter a barrel is not drawback.  It will simply be a tiny drop and will not go more than 5mm inside.  No conclusions can be drawn by a tiny amount of blood 5mm or less inside other than backspatter occurred and the weapon had to be within range of the backspatter. 


When blood is found more than 5mm deep in any appreciable quantity this is drawback and since this will not occur with non-contact shots we know the weapon was at contact range.  We can't know if it is a loose or had contact wound but know it was a contact wound nonetheless.


Statistics will not inform whether a wound will result in drawback one has to examine the exact wound in question in detail.  Only in those instances where the localized conditions would be such that drawback would occur can conclusions be drawn by the absence of drawback.


In those instances where it is assessed drawback can occur but doesn't have to the absence alone is not proof of anything.


Of course in this case we have a situation where drawback would occur and drawback found in the moderator but not in the rifle which indicates the moderator was used to shoot Sheila.

[Holly Goodhead]

Thank you David1819, Adam and Scipio.

I had previously thought that JB might have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice, as I had been studying the material on the Official website, which (naturally!) mentions none of this. The more I have looked at the documents/information here, and read the books on the case, the more I am inclined to believe that Jeremy Bamber is guilty. The facts speak for themselves. IMO:

 Sheila's blood/DNA in the moderator, and:

 The absence of blood in the rifle barrel after such a shot to her neck through a "reservoir" of blood,

seem to be indicators that Jeremy Bamber carried out these murders. Add to that the wealth of circumstantial evidence, and I think he is probably where he belongs.

I will keep reading the forum though, it is very interesting to hear everyone's point of view.

Thanks again guys.

Pauline with regard to the DNA the CoA established the following:

497. We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:

i) June Bamber's DNA was in the sound moderator at the time of the DNA examination;

ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other whether it was; and

iii) there was evidence of DNA from at least one male.

However the overall conclusion was as follows due to the potential for contamination amongst other factors:

69. These characteristics of LCN DNA profiling often limit the relevance of results obtained when applied to any case. In my opinion, there are specific features of this case that render the results obtained completely meaningless (our emphasis added).

LCN DNA is not capable of identifying the biological source eg skin cells, blood etc.  Even if it could be proven SC's DNA was in the silencer and the bilogical source was blood it wouldn't prove how it came to be there.

It has never been proven SC's blood was in the silencer only that the flake matched SC's blood groups by way of ABO groupings, 2 enzymes and 1 protein.  RB also shared these groups.  And no I'm not suggesting he placed his own blood in the silencer, just that this illustrates the blood groupings found in the silencer are shared by many and are not unique to SC.

If there was a "reservoir" of blood it surely begs the question why there was so little blood on the outside of the silencer (including the bore) to the extent that Glynnis Howard required a powerful light and cotton threads to remove blood from the bore.  None of this blood was capable of being grouped.  And yet inside John Hayward claims he found a "considerable amount" and a flake measuring a 1/4 of an inch was capable of being grouped by way of the ABO grouping, 2 enzymes and 1 protein.  The upper baffles were capable of being grouped by way of ABO grouping and 1 enzyme.  The silencer was the only exhibit capable of providing 4 blood test results. 

[scipio_usmc]

The blood in the moderator was planted. One can easily unscrew the device by hand, then the baffle plates fall out the tube. Dry or liquid blood can then be placed on the baffle plates before the moderator is reassembled.

The abrasion marks on Sheila's chin show the moderator was not attached when the shots were fired.

https://youtu.be/VeLsEeE0zTI

It is pure fantasy that she has abrasion marks from the rifle.  It is also fantasy that someone planted tiny bits of blood in reduced volume on each successive baffle then reassembled it in proper order.  Only the lab knew anything about drawback. 


You constantly misrepresent your wild unsupported speculations as fact.

[Mendoza]

"The blood in the moderator was planted. One can easily unscrew the device by hand, then the baffle plates fall out the tube. Dry or liquid blood can then be placed on the baffle plates before the moderator is reassembled.

The abrasion marks on Sheila's chin show the moderator was not attached when the shots were fired.

https://youtu.be/VeLsEeE0zTI"

(Sorry - don't know how to show previous posts that I'm replying to, so have just copied and pasted!)

Do you mean the relatives planted the blood? I don't see how they could have had access to Sheila's blood - they were not at the crime scene until days later when everything had been cleared away, and anyway, how did they know her blood type! The lab could have planted it, but that is much too far-fetched to be feasible.

On balance I believe it was her blood/DNA in the moderator, and that's why Jeremy Bamber is still in jail.

[Mendoza]

Holly - I always find your posts very interesting and well researched, even if I sometimes don't agree with you. Thank you for replying to mine. It's all a bit technical for my feeble brain but will keep at it!  You seem to have a wide knowledge of forensics, are you a scientist?

Scipio - please don't stop posting on the JB forum - I love reading your posts, and they have been instrumental in changing my mind from innocent to (probably) guilty.

[Holly Goodhead]

Holly - I always find your posts very interesting and well researched, even if I sometimes don't agree with you. Thank you for replying to mine. It's all a bit technical for my feeble brain but will keep at it!  You seem to have a wide knowledge of forensics,are you a scientist?

Scipio - please don't stop posting on the JB forum - I love reading your posts, and they have been instrumental in changing my mind from innocent to (probably) guilty.

Perhaps I should put Dr before my user name Dr Holly Goodhead 

No I'm not a scientist.  I am a bit geeky though and can quite happily spend an age analysing something looking for meaning and I don't just mean in relation to the Bamber case