Bullet DRH/5 (also referred to at the lab as item 49)

[scipio_usmc]

Please refrain from making any personal comments about other posters eg "projecting".  It is sufficient to say you disagree setting out your arguments.  Thanks.

Where's the documentary evidence supporting your arguments?

This thread is about DRH/5 and whether or not it pertained to an 8th gsw sustained by June which bruised her chest but didn't enter her body.  DRH/5 was found by the dressing table and described as "whole" by Malcolm Fletcher.  As you know when bullets leave a silencer/barrel they do so at tremendous speed.  The muzzle velocity of the Eley subsonic hollow points is 1040ft/s.  Yep that's 1040 feet per second.  Some on IA thought it might be possible for NB to dodge bullets.   Clearly the potential for a bullet to ricochet is significant especially when fired indoors!  In fact NB was involved in a shooting accident whereby a bullet he fired ricocheted off a tree blinding June's father in one eye who happened to be standing next to NB.  So it is entirely feasible that DRH/5 hit June without pentrating her body and ricocheted back towards the shooter. 

According to you DRH/5 pertains to a graze wound sustained by NB.  However the court/jury were told by MF that this bullet pertained to an 8th gsw sustained by June as outlined above.  Documentary evidence attached.

The upshot of all of this is that you want to claim NB was shot in the bedroom and I maintain he wasn't.

You are taking suggestions from the defense and elevating such to fact.  The testimony shows Vanezis and Fletcher saying that the graze wound to her breast MAY or MAY NOT be from a bullet.  That means the defense FAILED to establish it was a wound from a bullet.


Vanezis posited that if a bullet did cause the graze wound then in his view it would likely have been from the bullet that exited her arm.  He said the bullet could have exited her arm, crossed her breast and ended up in the pillow. We know he said such on direct because the defense attorney admitted it and then questioned Fletcher more about it.

Cross:



On redirect Fletcher went into more detail about why it would likely have been from the arm:



Your claim that the experts said the graze to the breast could not have been caused by any other bullet that injured June is false.  They could not establish it was a bullet wound at all but said if it were it could have been caused by other bullets that struck her in particular the ones that went through her leg and arm.  They especially felt the bullet that went though the arm was likely the cause based on the trajectory and body parts in question.

If a bullet did graze her breast while she was lying down and thus caused the scratch to her breast then the bullet ended up in the bed. It didn't ricochet off the bed or pillow.  It will only ricochet off hard objects like if it grazed Nevill then hit the wall or door.

The prosecution failed to try to recreate things and didn't question Vanezis about the scratch to Nevill's abdomen which happened to line up with the wound to his side. It is clear that the bullet grazed his side and continued across his chest after brushing his side. The scratch was directly in line with the wound to his side.

It was about an inch long but I made it longer just so you can see it better and how it lines up:



He had a graze wound to his side not an entrance wound. At most a few tiny slivers could have entered his side. The tiny slivers in his xray that were either in his clothing or inside his abdomen are way too small to account for an entire bullet. Nor is the linear graze to his abdomen in line with the side graze wound accounted for expect mby the bullet grazing both his side and abdomen.

 

[Holly Goodhead]

You are taking suggestions from the defense and elevating such to fact.  The testimony shows Vanezis and Fletcher saying that the graze wound to her breast MAY or MAY NOT be from a bullet.  That means the defense FAILED to establish it was a wound from a bullet.


Vanezis posited that if a bullet did cause the graze wound then in his view it would likely have been from the bullet that exited her arm.  He said the bullet could have exited her arm, crossed her breast and ended up in the pillow. We know he said such on direct because the defense attorney admitted it and then questioned Fletcher more about it.

Cross:



On redirect Fletcher went into more detail about why it would likely have been from the arm:



Your claim that the experts said the graze to the breast could not have been caused by any other bullet that injured June is false.  They could not establish it was a bullet wound at all but said if it were it could have been caused by other bullets that struck her in particular the ones that went through her leg and arm.  They especially felt the bullet that went though the arm was likely the cause based on the trajectory and body parts in question.

If a bullet did graze her breast while she was lying down and thus caused the scratch to her breast then the bullet ended up in the bed. It didn't ricochet off the bed or pillow.  It will only ricochet off hard objects like if it grazed Nevill then hit the wall or door.

The prosecution failed to try to recreate things and didn't question Vanezis about the scratch to Nevill's abdomen which happened to line up with the wound to his side. It is clear that the bullet grazed his side and continued across his chest after brushing his side. The scratch was directly in line with the wound to his side.

It was about an inch long but I made it longer just so you can see it better and how it lines up:



He had a graze wound to his side not an entrance wound. At most a few tiny slivers could have entered his side. The tiny slivers in his xray that were either in his clothing or inside his abdomen are way too small to account for an entire bullet. Nor is the linear graze to his abdomen in line with the side graze wound accounted for expect mby the bullet grazing both his side and abdomen.

I disagree.  Through a process of elimination MF agreed with Ed Lawson QC that DRH/5 pertained to a graze/bruise gsw sustained by June.  Effectively an 8th gsw unrelated to the 7 bullets that entered her body.  Documentary evidence attached. 

How could DRH/5 pertain to NB when the graze gsw NB sustained to his elbow entered his chest at a shallow angle?  Bullet fragments were observed radiographically.  Documentary evidence attached.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=676

It is often not possible for pathologists to recover fragmented bullets such as the one sustained by NC.  Documentary evidence attached.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=694

It is possible after DRH/5 hit June, causing the graze/bruise, it then ricocheted back towards SC causing the graze found on her her abdomen in the left lumbar region during autopsy.  Documentary evidence attached.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=670

[scipio_usmc]

I disagree.  Through a process of elimination MF agreed with Ed Lawson QC that DRH/5 pertained to a graze/bruise gsw sustained by June.  Effectively an 8th gsw unrelated to the 7 bullets that entered her body.  Documentary evidence attached. 

No he didn't. He staid consistent in saying that June's scratch might not have been from a bullet but if it was then it could have been from the bullet wound that exited her arm.

The family never found a 26th casing that police left behind because there was no 26th casing.

How could DRH/5 pertain to NB when the graze gsw NB sustained to his elbow entered his chest at a shallow angle?  Bullet fragments were observed radiographically.  Documentary evidence attached.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=676

1) Nevill's wound to his side was NOT AN ENTRANCE wound it was a GRAZE wound

2) The difference between an entrance wound and graze wound is that an entire bullet makes a hole and goes inside the body while a graze wound is caused by a bullet that scrapes against the body

3) Since Nevill only suffered a graze wound to his side and the bullet did not enter he suffered no internal injuries from the bullet

4) Vanezis said it is POSSIBLE that some slivers broke off and entered into the side but he was not sure if that occurred. The fragments in the xray could have been in his clothing and may not have been in his body.  If in his body they were very tiny thus caused little damage, did not make an entrance wound like a complete bullet would have done.

Here is his testimony where he said the bullet did not enter;



You claim that the entire bullet entered Nevill's side though there was no entrance wound.  Despite the entire bullet entering it not only failed to create an entrance wound it failed to cause any internal damage and simply fell apart into a few tiny parts.

In reality, the bullet simply grazed Nevill's arm, then grazed his side, then grazed the front of his torso (the grazes to his side and torso were 5 inches below his nipple) and ended up in the room. 
 
While I follow evidence where it leads you decide what you wish to be the case and then seek out whatever you can use to try to justify it no matter how incorrect it might be,

It is often not possible for pathologists to recover fragmented bullets such as the one sustained by NC.  Documentary evidence attached.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=694

Nonsense. When an entire bullet breaks apart into small pieces it it difficult to recover fragments.  The notion the bullet entered his side and then broke apart into tiny pieces as if his side were a brick wall is sheer fantasy.  It is also fantasy that the graze wound to his side was an entrance wound through which an entire bullet could enter.

When a bullet enters the body not only will there be an entrance wound but the path of the bullet will be observed.  There was no path found because there was no internal damage caused by such. That is why it was characterized as a graze wound.

It is possible after DRH/5 hit June, causing the graze/bruise, it then ricocheted back towards SC causing the graze found on her her abdomen in the left lumbar region during autopsy.  Documentary evidence attached.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=670

The evidence proves that Sheila didn't fire the weapon. That alone defeats such.
Moreover, Sheila's scratch was unrelated to the murders period hence why she had a band-aid on it. Finally, for the dozenth time a bullet doesn't bounce off a pillow, which is where the bullet that scratched the bottom of June's breast as she was lying down would end up.  The only way for a bullet to hit the bottom of her breast in the manner she was hit would be with her lying down. You keep ignoring that.

You keep ignoring all the evidence and just making up what suits.  You do this all the time like your claim that GSR form the ejection port and vents would have to get on sheila even if Jeremy shot her with the moderator attached though the vents and ejection port would be far from her body under such circumstances.  How far away?  With the moderator attached the vents and ejection port would be 2 feet away from a victim being shot by it.  In contrast if she shot herself the vents/ejection port would have been touching her gown.  You so desperately want to believe Sheila did it that you refuse to admit basic things and hide from reality.  rather than to face she didn't fire a weapon instead you pretend that she would have to have GSR on her from being shot and since the police found none they must have made a mistake and she actually must have had GSR on her gown and hands.  That is not following evidence that is ignoring the evidence to suit what you wish to pretend happened.  You do that same sort of thing with respect to any issue that stands in the way of Sheila being the killer.  Nevill's side wound was a graze wound the entire bullet did not enter his side, the bulk scratched the front of his chest and ended up in the room. 

 Edited

[John]

Please keep posts amiable. TY