Forensic evidence showing the silencer was used for the massacre:

[adam]

There was a silencer available inside WHF which fitted the rifle.

Bamber said he knew how to use the rifle. Which would include putting a silencer on and taking it off.

The silencer on this rifle is to assist in shooting vermin/rabbits. Bamber said he went out to shoot rabbits that night. So is likely to use it with the silencer.

People said they saw the rifle with the silencer attached before the massacre.

If the silencer was not attached to the rifle when Bamber went for supper, Bamber had the opportunity to put the silencer on while at supper.

Bamber also had the opportunity to put the silencer on when returning to WHF. Neville did not wake until shots had been fired.

There was no need to take off the silencer. The rifle fitted in the gun cupboard with the silencer attached.

A silencer makes the gun shot noise almost silent. Video available. This is a big advantage in a silent execution attempt.

Only Neville woke while he was laying next to June. Partly due to the low noise level of 26 gun shots.

Several of the victims received contact shots. However there was no blood back splatter on the rifle nozzle.

There was human blood inside the silencer. The rifle was quite new and had not been used by anyone outside of the family.

A blood expert said the human blood was Sheila's with a remote possibility of it being a mixture of June's and Neville's. They all received close range/contact shots.

There was paint from the aga inside the silencer. Which the judge said shows it was on during the kitchen fight.

The kitchen fight was certainly after June and Neville had been shot and possibly after the twins had been shot. There was no point in taking it off to shoot Sheila.

The rifle with the silencer on was too long for Sheila to shoot herself. Which explains why it had been put away.

The Arizona tests show that Neville's rifle burn marks were done with a rifle minus a silencer. Which explains why the paint, hair and blood evidence inside the silencer was not destroyed.

It is not possible for the relatives to expertly put incriminating blood and paint into the silencer.

There is no forensic evidence that the police and lab team fabricated the silencer evidence.

[adam]

It seems everyone on the Blue forum is in agreement that the silencer was used during the massacre. Which is good progress.

Supporters have been busy suggesting when Sheila put the silencer onto the rifle and why. Assumming she knew how to. Sheila's illness being blamed for this erratic decision (again).

But isn't it much more likely that someone planning a silent execution would ensure a silencer was attached to the rifle. If it was not already attached ? Bamber had the opportunity to do this a few hours beforehand at supper. 

[Opal]

Yes Adam....If Sheila had gone 'berserk' as claimed by JB after supposed phone call from NB...then there is no way she would have calmly attached a silencer to the rifle before shooting her family. In a  psychotic episode she wouldn't have cared if there was any noise or not...she was about to kill herself!  Sheila would not have been thinking rationally anyway.

[adam]

With 18 pieces of forensic evidence showing the silencer was used for the massacre, everyone has to accept Bamber is guilty.

There is no way Sheila would have the desire, know how or opportunity to do put the silencer on.

Bamber had all three, together with several motives to put the silencer away afterwards. 

[david1819]

There was a silencer available inside WHF which fitted the rifle.

Bamber said he knew how to use the rifle. Which would include putting a silencer on and taking it off.

The silencer on this rifle is to assist in shooting vermin/rabbits. Bamber said he went out to shoot rabbits that night. So is likely to use it with the silencer.

People said they saw the rifle with the silencer attached before the massacre.

If the silencer was not attached to the rifle when Bamber went for supper, Bamber had the opportunity to put the silencer on while at supper.

Bamber also had the opportunity to put the silencer on when returning to WHF. Neville did not wake until shots had been fired.

There was no need to take off the silencer. The rifle fitted in the gun cupboard with the silencer attached.

A silencer makes the gun shot noise almost silent. Video available. This is a big advantage in a silent execution attempt.

Only Neville woke while he was laying next to June. Partly due to the low noise level of 26 gun shots.

Several of the victims received contact shots. However there was no blood back splatter on the rifle nozzle.

There was human blood inside the silencer. The rifle was quite new and had not been used by anyone outside of the family.

A blood expert said the human blood was Sheila's with a remote possibility of it being a mixture of June's and Neville's. They all received close range/contact shots.

There was paint from the aga inside the silencer. Which the judge said shows it was on during the kitchen fight.

The kitchen fight was certainly after June and Neville had been shot and possibly after the twins had been shot. There was no point in taking it off to shoot Sheila.

The rifle with the silencer on was too long for Sheila to shoot herself. Which explains why it had been put away.

The Arizona tests show that Neville's rifle burn marks were done with a rifle minus a silencer. Which explains why the paint, hair and blood evidence inside the silencer was not destroyed.

It is not possible for the relatives to expertly put incriminating blood and paint into the silencer.

There is no forensic evidence that the police and lab team fabricated the silencer evidence.

That awkward moment when the burn mark fit's the muzzle sans sound moderator

[scipio_usmc]

That awkward moment when the burn mark fit's the muzzle sans sound moderator

There is no muzzle burn mark on her neck.  You are trying to pretend that isolated blood marks are burned skin outside the the entrance wound.   

In any event, the ring you circle is consistent with the moderator not the muzzle of the rifle.  Note how the moderator burn features the entrance wound, black area then a sizable area largely undamaged and finally an outer ring. In contrast the muzzle wound is solid. You circled an outer ring that has a sizable undamaged field of skin inside of it. You completely ignore that such is consistent with the moderator not the muzzle of the rifle.

As for your claim that the diameter of the outer ring matches up with the out edge of the muzzle of the rifle such is made up.  All you did was to post a photo of the gun muzzle superimposed over a photo of Sheila's neck though there is no way to do such to scale. The scaling of sorts resorted to was to scale it so that it would appear the diameter of the muzzle matches the ring though appearances are meaningless and the entire effort an exercise in futility and even if a photo had been taken by police of such nature it owuld have been worthless since objects can appear distorted in photos.



The outer pens are a little less than 2 inches apart. Though all are the same size in reality they appear to be different sizes. One who is unaware of this might mistake the pen on the left as a compact jotter. The compact jotter is 4.5 inches long while the ordinary jotter is 5 1/8 inches long.  The compact jotter also has a reduced diameter which appears to be the case.  If there were only 2 pens shows spaced as far apart as the outer pens one can easily be fooled. Only because there are 3 pens in between and you can see a different size from each pen can you figure out it is just an optical illusion.  For this reason people selling pens in lots will get barraged with questions from people asking the length of the pens.

Even if you actually took a picture of the tip of the gun several inches from the wound there would be such optical illusions given the distance one needs to measure the marks on the neck with precision to try to come to any conclusions.  But the photo just superimposed a photo of the gun over Sheila's photo.  That's even worse.

Vanezis didn't measure the diameter of the ring you circled.  He only measured the diameter of the entrance wounds. Only if he had measured with precision the diameter of the ring you circled could we be aware of the actual size.  Trying to figure out he size by just superimposing other photos fails it would be as invalid as superimposing a photo of a ruler and saying ok now we can measure the size.

So you make two different speculations. 1) you speculate the ring you circled is a muzzle burn though Vanezis didn't assess it to be such and 2) you speculate that the size matches the outer diameter of the rifle muzzle though you have no valid basis to establish such.  In the meantime you ignore that it looks more like the burn made by the moderator than the rifle barrel.

There is an additional consideration.  Not only does pig hide react different than living human flesh, the pig hide was simply hanging like a blanket with nothing behind it while the human flesh had something behind it to keep it from just freely moving backwards.  This also effects things.

One could try to get a general idea of the difference in size though by measuring several burns from the barrel and averaging them and then doing the same for the moderator to get a general idea of the difference between them.

That data would be of no value though unless someone actually measured the ring on Sheila's neck and assessed such ring to be a muzzle burn.  Only if she had a muzzle wound and it was measured would there be data to compare the testing data to.           

Your nonscientific superimposition fails.

[david1819]

There is no muzzle burn mark on her neck.  You are trying to pretend that isolated blood marks are burned skin outside the the entrance wound.   

In any event, the ring you circle is consistent with the moderator not the muzzle of the rifle.  Note how the moderator burn features the entrance wound, black area then a sizable area largely undamaged and finally an outer ring. In contrast the muzzle wound is solid. You circled an outer ring that has a sizable undamaged field of skin inside of it. You completely ignore that such is consistent with the moderator not the muzzle of the rifle.

As for your claim that the diameter of the outer ring matches up with the out edge of the muzzle of the rifle such is made up.  All you did was to post a photo of the gun muzzle superimposed over a photo of Sheila's neck though there is no way to do such to scale. The scaling of sorts resorted to was to scale it so that it would appear the diameter of the muzzle matches the ring though appearances are meaningless and the entire effort an exercise in futility and even if a photo had been taken by police of such nature it owuld have been worthless since objects can appear distorted in photos.



The outer pens are a little less than 2 inches apart. Though all are the same size in reality they appear to be different sizes. One who is unaware of this might mistake the pen on the left as a compact jotter. The compact jotter is 4.5 inches long while the ordinary jotter is 5 1/8 inches long.  The compact jotter also has a reduced diameter which appears to be the case.  If there were only 2 pens shows spaced as far apart as the outer pens one can easily be fooled. Only because there are 3 pens in between and you can see a different size from each pen can you figure out it is just an optical illusion.  For this reason people selling pens in lots will get barraged with questions from people asking the length of the pens.

Even if you actually took a picture of the tip of the gun several inches from the wound there would be such optical illusions given the distance one needs to measure the marks on the neck with precision to try to come to any conclusions.  But the photo just superimposed a photo of the gun over Sheila's photo.  That's even worse.

Vanezis didn't measure the diameter of the ring you circled.  He only measured the diameter of the entrance wounds. Only if he had measured with precision the diameter of the ring you circled could we be aware of the actual size.  Trying to figure out he size by just superimposing other photos fails it would be as invalid as superimposing a photo of a ruler and saying ok now we can measure the size.

So you make two different speculations. 1) you speculate the ring you circled is a muzzle burn though Vanezis didn't assess it to be such and 2) you speculate that the size matches the outer diameter of the rifle muzzle though you have no valid basis to establish such.  In the meantime you ignore that it looks more like the burn made by the moderator than the rifle barrel.

There is an additional consideration.  Not only does pig hide react different than living human flesh, the pig hide was simply hanging like a blanket with nothing behind it while the human flesh had something behind it to keep it from just freely moving backwards.  This also effects things.

One could try to get a general idea of the difference in size though by measuring several burns from the barrel and averaging them and then doing the same for the moderator to get a general idea of the difference between them.

That data would be of no value though unless someone actually measured the ring on Sheila's neck and assessed such ring to be a muzzle burn.  Only if she had a muzzle wound and it was measured would there be data to compare the testing data to.           

Your nonscientific superimposition fails.

First of all the muzzle by the wound is the exact same muzzle from the same photo, i cut it out and moved it over another layer.

Secondly the CCRC never found an expert to challenge Fowlers conclusions so instead resorted to relying purely on the paint scratches.

[scipio_usmc]

Some measurements for people to consider:

1) Outer diameter measurement of rifle tip- .4724"
2) Diameter of rifle barrel opening- .236"
3) Outer diameter measurement of moderator- .8661"
4) Diameter of moderator opening- .291"

David is showing a blow up of a photo of the lower non-fatal wound.  The entrance wound was .25" in diameter so the entrance wound was larger than the opening in the rifle barrel.  It was larger because the bullet hit at an angle. It was a near contact shot which is incapable of leaving a muzzle burn.

Nothing done took into account the angling of the shots and simply were flat hard contact shots to pig skin.

Here is the photo blown up to a lesser extent and not altered by snipping the rifle barrel and superimposing it to the right of the wound:



Mind you that is still blown up the original photo invluded a wider area the above is a snip of this which in turn is a snip of another photo:



In this photo we can't tell exactly where the entrance wound is. It is inside the black area but some of that black area is a dirt ring that runs around the outside of the entrance wound thus the entrance wound itself is obscured.
While we know the size of the entrance wound, since it is obscured we can't try to extrapolate the size of the dirt ring let alone try to extrapolate the size of the circle David made.
 
What is readily apparent from this photo is that once you get outside of the dirt ring there is no burn ring but rather simply specks of blood. On the left especially you can see that there are just remnants of blood. These specks of blood are being misrepresented as a muzzle burn ring.  The right side features not merely blood but some black soot. This is not a muzzle burn but rather powder burning. Because the shot was fired at an angle the soot had more room to travel on the right side.

Vanezis didn't observe any muzzle burns for either wound and nothing in this photo or others taken suggests let alone establishes that Sheila had a muzzle burn outside of either wound that Vanezis failed to detect.

The autopsy photos would be the best photos of these wounds to try to use to assess their nature. But that would still be inferior to actual physical examination.


 

[scipio_usmc]

First of all the muzzle by the wound is the exact same muzzle from the same photo, i cut it out and moved it over another layer.

Secondly the CCRC never found an expert to challenge Fowlers conclusions so instead resorted to relying purely on the paint scratches.

1) Fowler's views were indeed challenged and rejected.  They were challenged and rejected as pure speculation on his part.

Once again you are demonstrating you fail to comprehend "poker".

Vanezis saw the bodies. He described the wound as having an entrance wound surrounded by a bullet abrasion and dirt ring. He did not provide any measurements for the dirt ring or abrasion only the diameter of the entrance  wound.

Fowler SPECULATED that the dirt ring and bullet abrasion was actually a muzzle burn.  He additionally speculated that the outside diameter of the entire "complex" matched that of the rifle muzzle.

Both claims are unsupported speculation. He did not observe the body and thus was not in a position to say Vanezis was wrong and had mistaken a muzzle imprint for a bullet abrasion.  None of the photos reveal there was a muzzle imprint burned into her skin.  All you and others of your ilk are doing is speculating that what Vanezis found to be blood as looking to you like a burn ring.  That it looks like that to you and other supporters means nothing it is speculation on your part nothing more.

Offering speculation is not proof.  There is no way to prove your claims because her flesh is gone by this point so exhuming her would accomplish nothing.  Your speculation is unable to trump the assessment of the person who performed her autopsy.

I have seen muzzle burns and the photo in question doesn't reveal any.       

This ends the matter right there. There is no need to even get into Fowler's speculation about the size.  First it is necessary to establish there was a muzzle burn before one can assess what weapon the size and nature matches. It would be like failing to prove that something is a footprint and yet trying to say what size footprint it was.

Vanezis provided no measurements for anything other than the entrance wounds themselves.  He failed to measure the size of the dirt rings and abrasions that surrounded these entrance wounds. That being the case there is no way to know the outside diameter of these characteristics.  Since there is no way to know their size guessing amounts to pure speculation.  If there were photos that clearly showed the entrance wounds and the size of the dirt ring/abrasions in relation to the entrance wounds than one could extrapolate to a close degree but there are none.

The rifle in the police photo is no where near the wound let alone up against it so we can see the size difference between the barrel and ring you circled.  Taking the rifle from a different location and superimposing it is not  scientific at all. I just proved beyond question that a pen taken 1/4 inch away from another pen of the same exact size will appear to be different sizes. You failed to take this problem into account prior and even after being alerted to the problem you still ignore it.  You are the one who made the poker simile. What you are doing is the  the equivalent of holding a hand consisting of a 2 of hearts, 3 of hearts, 4 of hearts, 6 of diamonds and 7 of diamonds and insisting you have a flush because they are all red. A flush is all the same suit not color.  While you think your position is scientifically sound it is flawed.

You are jumping the gun anyway though. The area you circled is not even circular in the photo it is elliptical. There is an elliptical area surrounded by specks of blood. The elliptical area is not at all like the testing done to the pig skin.  The size of the circle you made is meaningless   That circle is meaningless in part because it is simply specks of blood not a muzzle burn.  You need to prove it is a muzzle burn before the measurement would become significant.  You possess no way to prove it is a muzzle burn so the size of it matters not one bit even though you can't prove the size either.

Since you can't grasp even these simple concepts why would you expect me or anyone else to believe that your supposed scientific breakthrough is accurate?  I have no doubt at all that your supposed breakthrough would not hold up to 5 minutes of scrutiny from someone objective and knowledgeable.

[scipio_usmc]

Note how there is not simply an elliptical ring around the wound but rather the same exact specs that form the outside of the ellipse are outside of that ellipse:



It is quite obvious these specs are simply blood not burn marks. If these marks were burns for a round barrel they would not be elliptical but rather round and there would not be the same kind of burns outside of the circle unless there were a sight at the end of the weapon.

Ignoring all marks of the same kind and cherry picking those you can make a circle out of is simply a waste of time it establishes nothing except one's bias.   

[david1819]

1) Fowler's views were indeed challenged and rejected.  They were challenged and rejected as pure speculation on his part.

Once again you are demonstrating you fail to comprehend "poker".

Vanezis saw the bodies. He described the wound as having an entrance wound surrounded by a bullet abrasion and dirt ring. He did not provide any measurements for the dirt ring or abrasion only the diameter of the entrance  wound.

Fowler SPECULATED that the dirt ring and bullet abrasion was actually a muzzle burn.  He additionally speculated that the outside diameter of the entire "complex" matched that of the rifle muzzle.

Both claims are unsupported speculation. He did not observe the body and thus was not in a position to say Vanezis was wrong and had mistaken a muzzle imprint for a bullet abrasion.  None of the photos reveal there was a muzzle imprint burned into her skin.  All you and others of your ilk are doing is speculating that what Vanezis found to be blood as looking to you like a burn ring.  That it looks like that to you and other supporters means nothing it is speculation on your part nothing more.

Offering speculation is not proof.  There is no way to prove your claims because her flesh is gone by this point so exhuming her would accomplish nothing.  Your speculation is unable to trump the assessment of the person who performed her autopsy.

I have seen muzzle burns and the photo in question doesn't reveal any.       

This ends the matter right there. There is no need to even get into Fowler's speculation about the size.  First it is necessary to establish there was a muzzle burn before one can assess what weapon the size and nature matches. It would be like failing to prove that something is a footprint and yet trying to say what size footprint it was.

Vanezis provided no measurements for anything other than the entrance wounds themselves.  He failed to measure the size of the dirt rings and abrasions that surrounded these entrance wounds. That being the case there is no way to know the outside diameter of these characteristics.  Since there is no way to know their size guessing amounts to pure speculation.  If there were photos that clearly showed the entrance wounds and the size of the dirt ring/abrasions in relation to the entrance wounds than one could extrapolate to a close degree but there are none.

The rifle in the police photo is no where near the wound let alone up against it so we can see the size difference between the barrel and ring you circled.  Taking the rifle from a different location and superimposing it is not  scientific at all. I just proved beyond question that a pen taken 1/4 inch away from another pen of the same exact size will appear to be different sizes. You failed to take this problem into account prior and even after being alerted to the problem you still ignore it.  You are the one who made the poker simile. What you are doing is the  the equivalent of holding a hand consisting of a 2 of hearts, 3 of hearts, 4 of hearts, 6 of diamonds and 7 of diamonds and insisting you have a flush because they are all red. A flush is all the same suit not color.  While you think your position is scientifically sound it is flawed.

You are jumping the gun anyway though. The area you circled is not even circular in the photo it is elliptical. There is an elliptical area surrounded by specks of blood. The elliptical area is not at all like the testing done to the pig skin.  The size of the circle you made is meaningless   That circle is meaningless in part because it is simply specks of blood not a muzzle burn.  You need to prove it is a muzzle burn before the measurement would become significant.  You possess no way to prove it is a muzzle burn so the size of it matters not one bit even though you can't prove the size either.

Since you can't grasp even these simple concepts why would you expect me or anyone else to believe that your supposed scientific breakthrough is accurate?  I have no doubt at all that your supposed breakthrough would not hold up to 5 minutes of scrutiny from someone objective and knowledgeable.

It was not just Fowler it was Boyce also and both made their judgments by studying the autopsy photographs. Autopsy photos you have not seen, so what puts you in a position to make a better judgement?

Vanezis has stated several times that knew little about guns so how would he know what to look for? autopsy photographs show a muzzle print and so does the photo I uploaded, its not blood as you claim, I can distinguish between red and black and so should you.


The evidence of Dr Fowler is set out in a more substantial report.  That report has been peer‑reviewed by Dr Dragovich, who is Chief Medical Examiner in Oakland County, Michigan and Dr Marcella Fierro, who is the retired Chief Medical Examiner to the Commonwealth of Virginia.  Both have qualifications as forensic pathologists.  In his careful report, Dr Fowler makes clear that he has reviewed the evidence, which was available in relation to the wounds. He concluded that the abrasions found were consistent with those of a rifle without a silencer, that there were no distinctive marks on the body which showed that a silencer had been attached, and the residue was consistent with contact wounds.  He refers to further work that needs doing, a matter to which I will return in a moment. 

The Commission's judgment on this matter, which is set out carefully in its decision, is at paragraphs 360 to 362. First of all, it is said that Dr Fowler did not deal with the fact that there was no residue found in the rifle, but there was the blood flake found in the silencer.  Although there is really no answer to the first half of that observation, as regards the second there is the point, on which I was prepared to make an assumption, namely that there may be a problem with the blood flake.  I have made that assumption because it seems to me that it is possible to do so by reference to the other reasons given by the Commission.

So the CCRC finds two excuses first excuse was no blood being found in the rifle.

I can answer that here 

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.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.
Page 362 of Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques by Vincent J.M. DiMaio

Second excuse was Fowler does not deal with the blood flake. Well if the contact wounds show the silencer was not attached and that studies show "Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound" the only possible answer is the blood flake was planted there deliberately. Since we can now establish the blood was planted deliberately you cannot know for sure the paint has not been planted deliberately also.

[Myster]

It was not just Fowler it was Boyce also and both made their judgments by studying the autopsy photographs. Autopsy photos you have not seen, so what puts you in a position to make a better judgement?

Why did Boyce use a carbine version of the Anschutz instead of a longer one like the original murder weapon if he was meant to be comparing like with like? Surely more burnt powder would be ejected from the barrel's end in the shortened version, resulting in more being deposited on the pigskin as it had less distance to travel through the bore, thereby giving inaccurate results?

[scipio_usmc]

It was not just Fowler it was Boyce also and both made their judgments by studying the autopsy photographs. Autopsy photos you have not seen, so what puts you in a position to make a better judgement?

Vanezis has stated several times that knew little about guns so how would he know what to look for? autopsy photographs show a muzzle print and so does the photo I uploaded, its not blood as you claim, I can distinguish between red and black and so should you.


The evidence of Dr Fowler is set out in a more substantial report.  That report has been peer‑reviewed by Dr Dragovich, who is Chief Medical Examiner in Oakland County, Michigan and Dr Marcella Fierro, who is the retired Chief Medical Examiner to the Commonwealth of Virginia.  Both have qualifications as forensic pathologists.  In his careful report, Dr Fowler makes clear that he has reviewed the evidence, which was available in relation to the wounds. He concluded that the abrasions found were consistent with those of a rifle without a silencer, that there were no distinctive marks on the body which showed that a silencer had been attached, and the residue was consistent with contact wounds.  He refers to further work that needs doing, a matter to which I will return in a moment. 

The Commission's judgment on this matter, which is set out carefully in its decision, is at paragraphs 360 to 362. First of all, it is said that Dr Fowler did not deal with the fact that there was no residue found in the rifle, but there was the blood flake found in the silencer.  Although there is really no answer to the first half of that observation, as regards the second there is the point, on which I was prepared to make an assumption, namely that there may be a problem with the blood flake.  I have made that assumption because it seems to me that it is possible to do so by reference to the other reasons given by the Commission.

So the CCRC finds two excuses first excuse was no blood being found in the rifle.

I can answer that here 

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.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.
Page 362 of Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques by Vincent J.M. DiMaio

Second excuse was Fowler does not deal with the blood flake. Well if the contact wounds show the silencer was not attached and that studies show "Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound" the only possible answer is the blood flake was planted there deliberately. Since we can now establish the blood was planted deliberately you cannot know for sure the paint has not been planted deliberately also.

You are wrong on every single aspect.  You lack the facts and also lack the legal understanding of the issues.

1) Vanezis didn't need to know how to fire a gun and everything about their loading and operation to know the difference between blood, soot and a burn.  Trying to pretend others who didn't see the body were in a superior position to assess whether something is a burn is absurd. 

2) Fowler did not claim that the ring you drew was proof positive there was a muzzle burn. You drew that ring not him. He did not use photos as basis of his argument that a burn was present.  He took the description Vanezis provided and stated that in his opinion the description provided by Vanezis sounded like a muzzle imprint.

He took this UNSUPPORTED SPECULATION that it was a muzzle imprint and looked at the photos and said the size was too small to be made by the moderator and said it must have been made by the rifle muzzle even though for all he knows the rifle muzzle was smaller or larger. He had no way to know since he had no idea of the actual size only the size of the entrance wound.

The government argued this was all just unsupported speculation and the CCRC agreed with such.

The CCRC noted that this UNSUPPORTED SPECULATION was refuted by the blood evidence found in the moderator.  Legally in order to defeat the blood evidence the defense needs to account for how the blood got there if it wasn't used during the murders.  The CCRC noted that the defense failed to come up with anything to account for such.  That blood evidence was used at trial and that blood evidence must be overcome in order for there to be a new trial.  The defense failed to come up with anythign to refute such evidence.  The CCRC held that this speculation failed to refute it. 

Your claim that the specs of blood in the photos is definitely burned skin is patently false. I already pointed to how such specs are outside of the ring that you drew and claimed is the outside of the muzzle.  There is nothing else on the muzzle that could make the marks outside of it so that alone refutes your claim that these marks were made by the muzzle of the rifle. 

I have spoon fed you no less that 2 dozen times but you never want to learn about law, science or other facts.  Your claims will be false no matter how many times you ignore reality and make them. You don't even understand what the experts you glorify argued or basis of their arguments.

 

[Holly Goodhead]

Some measurements for people to consider:

1) Outer diameter measurement of rifle tip- .4724"
2) Diameter of rifle barrel opening- .236"
3) Outer diameter measurement of moderator- .8661"
4) Diameter of moderator opening- .291"

Off the top of my head I would have said the silencer opening was smaller than the rifle opening.  And I wouldn't have thought the difference between the outer diameter of the rifle tip and the diameter of the rifle barrel opening were as great as above but I'm sure you're right.  Where did you get the figs from?

[david1819]

You are wrong on every single aspect.  You lack the facts and also lack the legal understanding of the issues.

1) Vanezis didn't need to know how to fire a gun and everything about their loading and operation to know the difference between blood, soot and a burn.  Trying to pretend others who didn't see the body were in a superior position to assess whether something is a burn is absurd. 

2) Fowler did not claim that the ring you drew was proof positive there was a muzzle burn. You drew that ring not him. He did not use photos as basis of his argument that a burn was present.  He took the description Vanezis provided and stated that in his opinion the description provided by Vanezis sounded like a muzzle imprint.

He took this UNSUPPORTED SPECULATION that it was a muzzle imprint and looked at the photos and said the size was too small to be made by the moderator and said it must have been made by the rifle muzzle even though for all he knows the rifle muzzle was smaller or larger. He had no way to know since he had no idea of the actual size only the size of the entrance wound.

The government argued this was all just unsupported speculation and the CCRC agreed with such.

The CCRC noted that this UNSUPPORTED SPECULATION was refuted by the blood evidence found in the moderator.  Legally in order to defeat the blood evidence the defense needs to account for how the blood got there if it wasn't used during the murders.  The CCRC noted that the defense failed to come up with anything to account for such.  That blood evidence was used at trial and that blood evidence must be overcome in order for there to be a new trial.  The defense failed to come up with anythign to refute such evidence.  The CCRC held that this speculation failed to refute it. 

Your claim that the specs of blood in the photos is definitely burned skin is patently false. I already pointed to how such specs are outside of the ring that you drew and claimed is the outside of the muzzle.  There is nothing else on the muzzle that could make the marks outside of it so that alone refutes your claim that these marks were made by the muzzle of the rifle. 

I have spoon fed you no less that 2 dozen times but you never want to learn about law, science or other facts.  Your claims will be false no matter how many times you ignore reality and make them. You don't even understand what the experts you glorify argued or basis of their arguments.

I am just copying and pasting this information 1st part is from the CCRC and the 2nd part is from a Forensic Science book. Its me spoon feeding you

The evidence of Dr Fowler is set out in a more substantial report.  That report has been peer‑reviewed by Dr Dragovich, who is Chief Medical Examiner in Oakland County, Michigan and Dr Marcella Fierro, who is the retired Chief Medical Examiner to the Commonwealth of Virginia.  Both have qualifications as forensic pathologists. In his careful report, Dr Fowler makes clear that he has reviewed the evidence, which was available in relation to the wounds. He concluded that the abrasions found were consistent with those of a rifle without a silencer, that there were no distinctive marks on the body which showed that a silencer had been attached, and the residue was consistent with contact wounds.


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.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.
Page 362 of Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques by Vincent J.M. DiMaio

Out of 124 suicides involving rifles and only 58% of rifles had blood in the barrel.  You always have claimed that there would be blood inside rifle barrel if the moderator was not attached giving you a FullHouse  But this now gives me four of a kind but not only that. Dr Fowlers evidence has also proved the rifle was not powerful enough to create drawback in the first place since the moderator was not attached and no blood was in the barrel. Giving me a StraightFlush  ♣9 ♣10 ♣J ♣Q ♣K  now my forensic breakthrough is the coming ♣A on the river giving me the royal flush! (hopefully lol)