Absence of blood in/on rifle barrel proves silencer was used and JB guilty?

[Holly Goodhead]

No!

From puglove:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8500.msg429865#msg429865

Steven Hawking is a physicist.  Only a ballistics expert is capable of offering up expert opinion in this regard.

Internationally renowned expert Dr Vincent DiMaio specialises in the pathology of gunshot wounds:

Backspatter (Blowback) on Weapons in Cases of Contact Wounds

"In addition to examining the hands for blood, if possible, one should examine
the gun for the presence of blood or tissue. Examination for blood should
be both visual and chemical. 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.3 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 either on the outside or inside of the barrel in 24% of the suicides
using a revolver and 23% using a pistol".

Page 384 from 'Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics and Forensic Techniques' by Dr Vincent J M DiMaio.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio

[John]

The absence of blood in such circumstances is also indicative of the weapon having been wiped prior to fingerprints being applied by someone intent upon incrimination of others.

[Holly Goodhead]

The absence of blood in such circumstances is also indicative of the weapon having been wiped prior to fingerprints being applied by someone intent upon incrimination of others.

No not at all.  I exchanged emails with a forensic scientist who specialises in fingerprints who confirmed fingerprints are difficult to recover from firearms due to the coating known as 'bluing'.  I sent a copy of the email to Myster who confirmed on the forum at the time.  I will dig it out and send you a copy.  The fact a fingerprint was found from both JB and SC supports JB's earlier use (bunny hunting) and SC as perp.   

[John]

No not at all.  I exchanged emails with a forensic scientist who specialises in fingerprints who confirmed fingerprints are difficult to recover from firearms due to the coating known as 'bluing'.  I sent a copy of the email to Myster who confirmed on the forum at the time.  I will dig it out and send you a copy.  The fact a fingerprint was found from both JB and SC supports JB's earlier use (bunny hunting) and SC as perp.

And why weren't Nevill's found on it?  Doesn't that just prove that JB didn't leave the rifle out that night as he claimed otherwise the ever cautious Nevill would have put it away given that two young boys were staying with them?

Had Sheila actually used the rifle as claimed by the defence then her trigger finger and thumb would have been heavily stained by gsr.

[Holly Goodhead]

And why weren't Nevill's found on it?  Doesn't that just prove that JB didn't leave the rifle out that night as he claimed otherwise the ever cautious Nevill would have put it away given that two young boys were staying with them?

Had Sheila actually used the rifle as claimed by the defence then her trigger finger and thumb would have been heavily stained by gsr.

I understand it is difficult to recover fingerprints from firearms for the reason stated above.  Obviously it is not impossible otherwise a fingerprint from both JB and SC would not have been recovered.  If NB picked the rifle up to remove this would suggest limited handling.  If JB went out bunny hunting on 6th Aug and SC was perp on 7th Aug this would suggest more extensive handling than simply picking the rifle up to move it to another location.  I guess the more it is handled the more chance of a fingerprint depositing.

The silencer was also coated in the same substance which perhaps explains why we never hear about fingerprints on it.  The relatives handled it extensively before handing it over to the police.

I don't believe GSR leaves stains.  I understand it presents as fine particles of various matter.  However it dissipates after a few hours even without movement.  SC's hand was moved at soc and swabs were not taken until PM after her body/limbs were moved and placed in and out of bags.  The bags were not foresnically examined.

There's a reason the UK gov found the FSS wanting during the 80's:

"3.3 FSS Quality

3.3.1 Following some high profile quality failures in the 1980s the FSS implemented accreditation to quality standards from 1993 onwards, a world first for forensic science".

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm

Incompetent forensic scientists and lawyers = miscarriages of justice.

[Holly Goodhead]

The jury was misled at trial.  From the CoA:

458. 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". (He being Malcolm Fletcher).

This is completely wrong based on tests undertaken by Dr DiMaio post #1 of thread.  Who seems the most credible:

Dr Vincent DiMaio:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio

Or the prosecution expert at JB's trial Malcolm Fletcher who told the court his relevant experience included experience with an air rifle as a small boy?

By the government's own admission the FSS was incompetent: "high profile quality failures in the 1980s"

3.3 FSS Quality

3.3.1 Following some high profile quality failures in the 1980s the FSS implemented accreditation to quality standards from 1993 onwards, a world first for forensic science.

[John]

The jury was misled at trial.  From the CoA:

458. 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". (He being Malcolm Fletcher).

This is completely wrong based on tests undertaken by Dr DiMaio post #1 of thread.  Who seems the most credible:

Dr Vincent DiMaio:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio

Or the prosecution expert at JB's trial Malcolm Fletcher who told the court his relevant experience included experience with an air rifle as a small boy?

By the government's own admission the FSS was incompetent: "high profile quality failures in the 1980s"

3.3 FSS Quality

3.3.1 Following some high profile quality failures in the 1980s the FSS implemented accreditation to quality standards from 1993 onwards, a world first for forensic science.

There are so many variables at play here Holly, angle of the barrel to the victim, distance from the skin etc etc.  No two such events are ever the same but drawback is a known phenomena as in most contact or near contact cases blood particles are sucked in by the vacuum left in the barrel or silencer after a round is discharged.  I understand the more powerful the ammunition the greater the drawback.

[Holly Goodhead]

There are so many variables at play here Holly, angle of the barrel to the victim, distance from the skin etc etc.  No two such events are ever the same but drawback is a known phenomena as in most contact or near contact cases blood particles are sucked in by the vacuum left in the barrel or silencer after a round is discharged.  I understand the more powerful the ammunition the greater the drawback.

By Malcolm Fletcher's own admission "the mechanism [drawback] was complicated and not then fully appreciated" at the time of JB's trial:

457. 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.

458. 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".

Above taken from CoA:

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

According to Dr DiMaio's experience, as stated in post #1 of this thread, he reviewed 124 rifles used in suicides and 58% presented with blood inside.  This means for almost every rifle presenting with blood inside the barrel another will not show the presence of blood.  The bottom line is the court/jury was misled at JB's trial.  Jurors were told "a very slight possibility of it not happening".  The reality is the complete opposite; there's a very high probability of it not happening.  Michael Turner QC was negligent at JB's 2002 appeal hearing in not pursuing this aspect of the case eg carrying out proper research.

[John]

By Malcolm Fletcher's own admission "the mechanism [drawback] was complicated and not then fully appreciated" at the time of JB's trial:

457. 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.

458. 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".

Above taken from CoA:

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

According to Dr DiMaio's experience, as stated in post #1 of this thread, he reviewed 124 rifles used in suicides and 58% presented with blood inside.  This means for almost every rifle presenting with blood inside the barrel another will not show the presence of blood.  The bottom line is the court/jury was misled at JB's trial.  Jurors were told "a very slight possibility of it not happening".  The reality is the complete opposite; there's a very high probability of it not happening.  Michael Turner QC was negligent at JB's 2002 appeal hearing in not pursuing this aspect of the case eg carrying out proper research.

As I already stated, it depends on many factors so I disagree strongly that a percentage can be applied.  All one can really say is that blood isn't always drawn back into the firearm.

[Holly Goodhead]

As I already stated, it depends on many factors so I disagree strongly that a percentage can be applied.  All one can really say is that blood isn't always drawn back into the firearm.

But the jury was told:

"There was, he said "a very slight possibility of it not happening, but very slight".

This is wrong there's a very significant probability of it not happening.

[John]

But the jury was told:

"There was, he said "a very slight possibility of it not happening, but very slight".

This is wrong there's a very significant probability of it not happening.

I don't think you can even say that.  It happens on most but not every occasion, percentages are meaningless imo.

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't think you can even say that.  It happens on most but not every occasion, percentages are meaningless imo.

I think you can.  We can even see it with this case insofar as NC sustained 2 contact gsw's and his blood groupings were not found in/on the rifle barrel or silencer. 

[adam]

Obviously with all 25 shots being contact or close range shots, there would be blood back splatter inside the rifle nozzle or silencer.

Back splatter being inside the silencer shows the silencer was used to help ensure a quiet massacre.

The aga paint going onto the silencer during the fight & it being Sheila's blood in the silencer,  shows the silencer was on the rifle from first shot to last.

Bamber took the silencer off after shooting Sheila twice. Then put it away, in a box almost out of site.

[Holly Goodhead]

Obviously with all 25 shots being contact or close range shots, there would be blood back splatter inside the rifle nozzle or silencer.

Back splatter being inside the silencer shows the silencer was used to help ensure a quiet massacre.

The aga paint going onto the silencer during the fight & it being Sheila's blood in the silencer,  shows the silencer was on the rifle from first shot to last.

Bamber took the silencer off after shooting Sheila twice. Then put it away, in a box almost out of site.

I think we need to clarify the definitions here:

Backspatter = where blood travels backwards towards the line of fire and may deposit on the shooter, firearm and other objects in the vicinity.  Blood can enter the firearm if held close to the victim but unlikely since we are talking about a small apeture even with large calibre firearms.  This is where the firearm is fired at a victim from close range but not in contact with the skin or close contact ie <2mm.

Blowback aka drawback = where the firearm is in contact or very close contact ie <2mm with victims' skin.  The gases are unable to dissipate in the atmosphere and are forced into the wound and back again towards the line of fire taking blood and tissue which may deposit in/around the barrel of firearm/barrel or silencer if attached.  A silencer makes it less likely as the PSI is reduced.  (PSI = pounds per sq inch/pressure).

Both are dependent on a number of factors presenting and as it happened these factors don't present in this case:

Factors more likely to produce back spatter/blowback aka drawback:

- Large calibre firearm
- High velocity ammo
- Anatomical location - head (NC did sustain two gsw's to his head)

Factors present at WHF:

- Small calibre firearm
- Subsonic ammo
- Anatomical location SC - neck

According to MF's TT a small amount of blood did present around the muzzle of the rifle.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[John]

The blood in the silencer is a mute point in any event in my opinion and has never persuaded me one way or another as to Jeremy Bamber's guilt or innocence.  There is a mountain of other evidence which points to what occurred that fateful morning at White House Farm and it is that evidence which we should concentrate on.