Forensic evidence showing the silencer was used for the massacre:

[scipio_usmc]

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?

Weapon manufacturer specs and of course the entrance wound sizes fro the autopsy report.

Whether the difference in size between the moderator and barrle is great or small depends of course on how you look at it.  A difference in size of .055" (difference in the openings) or .39" (difference in overall diameter) are quite small in a grand scheme sense. 

Hoping to tell whether a wound in a photo is .4724" or .8661" in diameter would be quite hopeless unless there is a ruler over the wound or some sort of scale included in the photo itself. If a ruler is not right over the item you want to know the measurement of it will not be entirely accurate because the distance between the ruler and wound will create a margin of error. 

The Bamber moderator sticks out .5cm more than the barrel on all sides which means overall it is 1CM thicker in diameter.  In terms of percentage yes the moderator is 49% larger so that seems significant but it actually is not that much a difference in size, 1CM is not that large. Many moderators are much thicker than this. I fired an Ingram and the moderator was over 2" thick it was surprising.
 
In the pig skin test you can see that the tests on the left are slightly smaller in diameter than those on the right. That difference is 1CM.  You can see that while it is noticeable it is still slight enough that if you just had one test on a skin you would have no frame of reference for the size just from looking at a photo of it.

Someone who doesn't know what they are doing can be extremely dangerous because just like you can find all sorts of shapes in clouds you can find shapes in many other places including bruises and blood. I could play connect the dots with the specs of blood around Sheila's wound and come up with an imprint like this weapon makes (including the sights):



In the meantime this is what actual muzzle burns look like, you don't have to play connect the dots the outer lines are largely connected:







If you have shapes so unique as in these examples then you can tell what exact model of weapon was used and even rule out any moderator being attached when firing these shots but you frequently don't get this lucky. In fact many times when there are muzzle imprints they are not detailed enough to isolate the exact weapon that made them.   

 

[scipio_usmc]

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 on the river giving me the royal flush! (hopefully lol)

Once again you simply demonstrate you fail to comprehend the "game".

1) Your claim that Fowler proved the weapon is too weak to be able to produce drawback is totally false.  The location of a wound and the conditions in such location will dictate whether backspatter/drawback occurs not the weapon. This weapon and other 22 LR weapons even short barreled ones with less velocity have been documented as resulting in drawback and so too have these weapons been documented to result in drawback inside moderators.   

2) Mischaracterizing my position and then claiming you disproved it doesn't do anything except make you a distorter who is unable to refute the actual evidence and arguments so avoid them and just pretend to deal with the issues through a strawman.  Neither I nor the prosecution claimed that drawback occurs with every contact wound. What argument was put forth at trial about why drawback would have to have occurred?  It is the same argument I put forth so you should know it.  That argument is as follows:

Sheila's initial wound severed a major blood vessel causing extensive internal hemorrhaging in her neck. This caused her neck to become a blood filled cavity.  Cavitation is one of the known causes for backspatter to occur.  Given the blood/skin conditions in this area a subsequent shot into her neck area would result in backspatter.  If a contact wound then it would be in the form of drawback. Since the fatal wound was a contact shot this is why the blood would have to end up inside the weapon.  The assessment had nothing at all to do with the type of weapon. It had to do with the blood/skin considerations where the wound was delivered.  That is what will dictate whether backspatter/drawback will occur. You should have been able to figure out the prosecution argument yourself but I spoonfed you dozens of times anyway.

Either you are totally lacking in comprehension skills to the point where you are incapable of comprehending the issues and thus lack the ability to debate the issues or you understood the arguments and can't defeat the arguments so you decided to create a nonsense strawman argument that you could defeat. That nonsense strawman is the pretense that I and the prosecution made the simplistic argument that drawback will occur in all contact wounds and since the fatal wound was a contact wound this is why drawback would have to occur.

The heart and soul of the argument I made was that whether drawback will occur in any contact wound situation depends on the availability of blood, nature of the skin and other issues.  By definition my argument was that drawback will not always occur in all contact situations.  My argument intrinsically concedes that drawback doesn't occur with every contact wound thus you putting forth evidence to establish that drawback doesn't always occur in contact situations is a complete waste of time. It merely corroborates something that was not in dispute.

In order to "beat" me you need to refute the actual argument I made but you didn't even address it let alone refute it.  You ignore the actual argument completely and make up a strawman that you attack in order to pretend you won.   

3) The 1200 suicide study doesn't stand for the proposition you assert.  Not all 124 suicides by rifle were by contact shot.  Drawback can only occur with contact shots and since not all shots were contact shots this precludes drawback from occurring period in those particular instances. That is in part why some of them resulted in backspatter instead of drawback. 

The same physiological conditions that result in backspatter cause drawback. Drawback has an additional cause though, the gas discharge into the wound will be an additional factor with drawback. During a hard contact shot the gun is blocking the path of the backspatter so the blood has nowhere to go except inside and some argue that there will even be a vacuum effect to suck the blood inside. If a soft contact shot some will go inside the barrel and some will escape through the space between the wound and barrel and thus be able to get on the tip of the barrel.   

Blood was detected on the barrel 81% of the time for rifles and in the barrel 58% of times.  How many times was blood not detected at all?  Less than 10% of the time.  That means that more than 90% of the time in the suicides in question the location of the wound was a location that resulted in blood squirting out of the wound and depositing either inside the barrel or on the barrel.   

Far from standing for the proposition that rifles don't usually cause backspatter this supports that backspatter usually does result from a rifle suicide.  Drawback is a subset of backspatter. We can't even try to make any assessments about this subset since the data fails to detail how many shots were contact shots.

If it did detail how many were contact shots then we would need to look at the location of such contact shots and the precise conditions.

You avoid looking at these specifics here because the conditions in the Bamber case would have resulted in drawback.  There is no scientific way to refute the assessment by Hayward that Sheila's neck became a blood filled cavity and the conditions caused the optimal conditions for cavitation and thus optimal conditions for backspatter if not a contact wound and drawback if a contact wound.

You failed to dent any of my arguments or those presented at trial except in your own mind.  Your bogus efforts will not sway a court at all.  You don't have a straight What you hold in your hand is a 9 of clubs, 10 of clubs, 3 of spades, 4 of clubs, 6 of spades,  and  you delude yourself into believing that the latter 3 are the jack, King and Queen of clubs because that is what you wish they were.     

The same delusions resulting in such result in you thinking you found a breakthrough when in fact you simply found nothing and are wrong as always.

[david1819]

Once again you simply demonstrate you fail to comprehend the "game".

1) Your claim that Fowler proved the weapon is too weak to be able to produce drawback is totally false.  The location of a wound and the conditions in such location will dictate whether backspatter/drawback occurs not the weapon. This weapon and other 22 LR weapons even short barreled ones with less velocity have been documented as resulting in drawback and so too have these weapons been documented to result in drawback inside moderators.   

2) Mischaracterizing my position and then claiming you disproved it doesn't do anything except make you a distorter who is unable to refute the actual evidence and arguments so avoid them and just pretend to deal with the issues through a strawman.  Neither I nor the prosecution claimed that drawback occurs with every contact wound. What argument was put forth at trial about why drawback would have to have occurred?  It is the same argument I put forth so you should know it.  That argument is as follows:

Sheila's initial wound severed a major blood vessel causing extensive internal hemorrhaging in her neck. This caused her neck to become a blood filled cavity.  Cavitation is one of the known causes for backspatter to occur.  Given the blood/skin conditions in this area a subsequent shot into her neck area would result in backspatter.  If a contact wound then it would be in the form of drawback. Since the fatal wound was a contact shot this is why the blood would have to end up inside the weapon.  The assessment had nothing at all to do with the type of weapon. It had to do with the blood/skin considerations where the wound was delivered.  That is what will dictate whether backspatter/drawback will occur. You should have been able to figure out the prosecution argument yourself but I spoonfed you dozens of times anyway.

Fowlers report does show the sound moderator was not attached during the fatal shots (Hands dealt 9♣10♣)

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.


Vanezis trial testimony also mentions bruising and residue marks around the corner (1st flop card J♣)


However he does mention the hemmorage of the veins that caused the severe bleeding thus making it very plausible that blood would enter the barrel (2nd flop card J♥)

However even if Blood did enter the barrel from the first shot, the second shot pierced through the chin into the mouth and would in the process force any possible blood from the 1st shot out of the barrel along with the projectile and propellant gasses. (3rd flop card Q♣)
 


The chin and tongue region not containing any major veins such as the neck does will not cause such a leakage of blood so not only does the second shot expel possible blood from the first shot it shows the gun was unable to produce enough impact to create drawback in parts of the body with less blood flow. (Turn K♣)

Forensic breakthrough  (River A♣)

You failed to dent any of my arguments or those presented at trial except in your own mind.  Your bogus efforts will not sway a court at all.  You don't have a straight What you hold in your hand is a 9 of clubs, 10 of clubs, 3 of spades, 4 of clubs, 6 of spades,  and  you delude yourself into believing that the latter 3 are the jack, King and Queen of clubs because that is what you wish they were.     

The same delusions resulting in such result in you thinking you found a breakthrough when in fact you simply found nothing and are wrong as always.

Your arguments withstood scrutiny only in your own mind. You are like Adolf Hitler in the final month of the war, sitting in your bunker confident of a glorious victory just around the corner when in reality your city is crumbling under a torrent of artillery strikes while the enemy troops close the pincer round the suburbs.

[scipio_usmc]

Fowlers report does show the sound moderator was not attached during the fatal shots (Hands dealt 9♣10♣)

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.

Fowler's report presented his UNSUPPORTED OPINION that the moderator was not attached during the shots.

His unsupported opinion was that abrasions around the non-fatal wound that Vanezis attributed as being bullet abrasions were in fact a muzzle burn and that this muzzle burn is consistent with the size of the rifle muzzle sans moderator.

You keep distorting and pretending that his unsupported opinion is established fact though it isn't.  His unsupported opinion doesn't trump Vanezis's assessment that it was a bullet abrasion.  When a bullet hits skin it touches not only the skin at the nose of the bullet but also the skin around the entrance hole.  The bullet is spinning and thus abrades the skin. This creates a bullet abrasion outside of the entrance wound.

Fowler has no ability to demonstrate it to be a fact that it was a muzzle imprint as opposed to a bullet abrasion he simply offers his unsupported opinion that this is the case and his unsupported opinion legally is insufficient to refute Vanezis assessment.

Vanezis trial testimony also mentions bruising and residue marks around the corner (1st flop card J♣)

His trial testimony matched what he put in his autopsy report. Vanezis assessed that there was a bullet abrasion and dirt ring outside of the entrance wound. Fowler SPECULATES that it was not a bullet abrasion and dirt ring but rather a muzzle burn from the rifle barrel.  Fowler's speculation means nothing legally and only people in the tank for Jeremy distort and pretend his speculation is worth anything.  Such distortions accomplish nothing.

However he does mention the hemmorage of the veins that caused the severe bleeding thus making it very plausible that blood would enter the barrel (2nd flop card J♥)

However even if Blood did enter the barrel from the first shot, the second shot pierced through the chin into the mouth and would in the process force any possible blood from the 1st shot out of the barrel along with the projectile and propellant gasses. (3rd flop card Q♣)

The chin and tongue region not containing any major veins such as the neck does will not cause such a leakage of blood so not only does the second shot expel possible blood from the first shot it shows the gun was unable to produce enough impact to create drawback in parts of the body with less blood flow. (Turn K♣)

Forensic breakthrough  (River A♣)

1) Your argument that all blood must be expelled by a second shot is nonsense. There are documented cases where 4 plus shots have been fired after blood entered a barrel and yet blood was still found inside barrel after those 4 plus shots. In barrels of guns the bullets travel where the blood is deposited.  In a moderator a bullet travels in between the baffles so will not disturb blood on the baffles. Since blood can remain inside a barrel after multiple subsequent shots then most certainly it can remain in a moderator after 1 shot.  You never have any idea what you are talking about.  The funny thing is I posted quotes from forensic texts that explicitly discussed this very issue of how blood was detected after multiple shots.  Some of the sources they relied upon were older but
a simple search of the subject through journals would have popped up with these recent articles:

"Persistence of Biological Traces at Inside Parts of a Firearm from a Case of Multiple Familial Homicide"- The same weapon was used to kill a family. The nature of the wounds precluded knowing whether they were contact wounds or not. They DNA tested the blood removed from the barrel to assess which victims it belonged to.  It belonged to all 3 victims.  So the blood of the first victim remained inside even after firing multiple shots into the subsequent 2 victims.

"Persistence of biological traces in gun barrels after fatal contact shots." Observed that blood and other traces remained inside barrels after multiple firings of the weapon.

You fail to research issues competently and simply make up whatever conclusions you desire.

2) Your premise that the first shot could result in drawback but not the second is likewise totally bogus.  The second shot had the far greater ability to result in drawback. You totally ignored the scientific data that when a shot is fired near the location of a prior wound that there is not only a greater likelihood of backspatter/drawback but the quantity of blood expelled will be greater. You talk about how there would be no blood present under her chin totally ignoring that her neck including chin area was full of blood because the internal hemorrhaging from the first shot.  You are ignoring the precise argument put forth at trial.  Ignoring it doesn't make it go away it just means you failed to refute it.

So both of your arguments totally fail.

Vanezis noting the hemmoraging inside her neck from the first shot:



The significance of that for backspatter:

Your arguments withstood scrutiny only in your own mind. You are like Adolf Hitler in the final month of the war, sitting in your bunker confident of a glorious victory just around the corner when in reality your city is crumbling under a torrent of artillery strikes while the enemy troops close the pincer round the suburbs.

You are projecting as usual, the one living in denial is in your mirror.

Your claim that any blood that entered the barrel from the first shot would have to be expelled by the second shot is patently false.

Your claim that the second shot would not result in drawback because the location of the wound lacked blood is patently false and totally ignores the hemorrhaging inside Sheila's neck.

Your supposed evidence to prove that the fatal shot was fired without the moderator amounts to nothing more than wild unsupported speculation. Fowler takes Vanezis' diagnosis of the wound being surrounded by a bullet abrasion and dirt ring and he opines that in fact this was a muzzle imprint and is consistent with the muzzle of the rifle but not the muzzle of the moderator.

Instead of seeing things as they are you choose to see things as you wish they were. 

[david1819]

Fowler's report presented his UNSUPPORTED OPINION that the moderator was not attached during the shots.

His unsupported opinion was that abrasions around the non-fatal wound that Vanezis attributed as being bullet abrasions were in fact a muzzle burn and that this muzzle burn is consistent with the size of the rifle muzzle sans moderator.

You keep distorting and pretending that his unsupported opinion is established fact though it isn't.  His unsupported opinion doesn't trump Vanezis's assessment that it was a bullet abrasion.  When a bullet hits skin it touches not only the skin at the nose but the skin around the entrance hole.  The bullet is spinning and thus abrades the skin. This creates a bullet abrasion outside of the entrance wound.

Fowler has no ability to demonstrate it to be a fact that it was a muzzle imprint as opposed to a bullet abrasion he simply offers his unsupported opinion that this is the case and his unsupported opinion legally is insufficient to refute Vanezis assessment.


His trial testimony matched what he put in his autopsy report. Vanezis assessed that there was a bullet abrasion and dirt ring outside of the entrance wound. Fowler SPECULATES that it was not a bullet abrasion and dirt ring but rather a muzzle burn from the rifle barrel.  Fowler's speculation means nothing legally and only people in the tank for Jeremy distort and pretend his speculation is worth anything.  Such distortions accomplish nothing.

1) Your argument that all blood must be expelled by a second shot is nonsense. There are documented cases where 4 plus shots have been fired after blood entered a barrel and yet blood was still found inside barrel after those 4 plus shots. In barrels of guns the bullets travel where the blood is deposited.  In a moderator a bullet travels in between the baffles so will not disturb blood on the baffles. Since blood can remain inside a barrel after multiple subsequent shots then most certainly it can remain in a moderator after 1 shot.  You never have any idea what you are talking about.  The funny thing is I posted quotes from forensic texts that explicitly discussed this very issue of how blood was detected after multiple shots.  Some of the sources they relied upon were older but
a simple search of the subject through journals would have popped up with these recent articles:

"Persistence of Biological Traces at Inside Parts of a Firearm from a Case of Multiple Familial Homicide"- The same weapon was used to kill a family. The nature of the wounds precluded knowing whether they were contact wounds or not. They DNA tested the blood removed from the barrel to assess which victims it belonged to.  It belonged to all 3 victims.  So the blood of the first victim remained inside even after firing multiple shots into the subsequent 2 victims.

"Persistence of biological traces in gun barrels after fatal contact shots." Observed that blood and other traces remained inside barrels after multiple firings of the weapon.

You fail to research issues competently and simply make up whatever conclusions you desire.

2) Your premise that the first shot could result in drawback but not the second is likewise totally bogus.  The second shot had the far greater ability to result in drawback. You totally ignored the scientific data that when a shot is fired near the location of a prior wound that there is not only a greater likelihood of backspatter/drawback but the quantity of blood expelled will be greater. You talk about how there would be no blood present under her chin totally ignoring that her neck including chin area was full of blood because the internal hemorrhaging from the first shot.  You are ignoring the precise argument put forth at trial.  Ignoring it doesn't make it go away it just means you failed to refute it.

So both of your arguments totally fail.

You are projecting as usual, the one living in denial is in your mirror.

Your claim that any blood that entered the barrel from the first shot would have to be expelled by the second shot is patently false.

Your claim that the second shot would not result in drawback because the location of the wound lacked blood is patently false and totally ignores the hemorrhaging inside Sheila's neck.

Your supposed evidence to prove that the fatal shot was fired without the moderator amounts to nothing more than wild unsupported speculation. Fowler takes Vanezis' diagnosis of the wound being surrounded by a bullet abrasion and dirt ring and he opines that in fact this was a muzzle imprint and is consistent with the muzzle of the rifle but not the muzzle of the moderator.

Instead of seeing things as they are you choose to see things as you wish they were.

Your the one in complete denial, fooling yourself into thinking that fowler just speculated based on vanezis written autopsy and you refuse to believe he examined the autopsy photographs 

I quote

New evidence obtained by Bamber's lawyers seem to rule out the possibility of the silencer being attached to the rifle during the killings. Three reports, by eminent experts, suggest the shots were fired without the silencer attached. One, compiled by David Fowler, the chief medical examiner of the US state of Maryland, has examined photographs of the victim's wounds and concluded they were caused by the rifle without the silencer attached.

Fowler, who has reviewed 3,000 shooting murders, says the wounds are consistent with "the rifle not having a silencer-attached". His conclusions are corroborated by two other American experts and a leading British forensic scientist. There have also been question marks over a witness in the case.

Now watch this.

https://youtu.be/VeLsEeE0zTI?t=1m55s

listen to the conversation, Philip Boyce clearly sais he has examined the wounds in the photographs of Sheila's neck

[scipio_usmc]

Your the one in complete denial, fooling yourself into thinking that fowler just speculated based on vanezis written autopsy and you refuse to believe he examined the autopsy photographs 

I quote

New evidence obtained by Bamber's lawyers seem to rule out the possibility of the silencer being attached to the rifle during the killings. Three reports, by eminent experts, suggest the shots were fired without the silencer attached. One, compiled by David Fowler, the chief medical examiner of the US state of Maryland, has examined photographs of the victim's wounds and concluded they were caused by the rifle without the silencer attached.

Fowler, who has reviewed 3,000 shooting murders, says the wounds are consistent with "the rifle not having a silencer-attached". His conclusions are corroborated by two other American experts and a leading British forensic scientist. There have also been question marks over a witness in the case.

Now watch this.

https://youtu.be/VeLsEeE0zTI?t=1m55s

listen to the conversation, Philip Boyce clearly sais he has examined the wounds in the photographs of Sheila's neck

His conclusion is an UNSUPPORTED OPINION that bears no legal credence at all. 

Blood inside a weapon is one of the main things used to establish whether a wound was a contact wound or not.  In the 2015 study I referenced above the coroner concluded all 3 victims were killed at contact range on the basis of the blood of all 3 being found inside. None of the victims had any muzzle imprints.  Muzzle imprints are only left during hard contact wounds. Blood could get inside during a soft contact wound not just a hard contact wound.

Photos of a wound are a very POOR way of assessing whether a wound is a hard contact wound. The strongest evidence of a hard contact wound is by examining the inside of the wound.  The inside of the wound will have evidence of severe damage being done by the gases and soot etc will be forced deep inside. Vanezis didn't observe any of this and didn't assess it to be a hard contact wound.

Vanezis saw the exterior of the wound up close in person.  He saw nothing that looked like a muzzle imprint. What Fowler claims looks to him like a muzzle imprint didn't look like one to Vanezis in person, doesn't look like one to me in the photos and doesn't look like one to some other ballistic experts. In fact, one would expect a muzzle imprint to consist of a number of rings.  The pigskin doesn't act like living human skin surrounding a body would.  There is nothing behind the pigskin the gasses simply go behind it without issue. In contrast the gases inside a hard contact wound cause the skin to envelop the muzzle. That results in the skin touching the sides of the muzzle not merely the face. The sides of the muzzle consist of threads that leave rings. Suppressors are illegal in the US, Fowler didn't do any testing of weapons with threaded barrels to a dummy that would simulate hard contact wounds to a human neck nor did anyone else.



In addition to noting how the skin will envelop the muzzle this notes hard contact wounds will have searing and sooting outside the entrance wound.  What does searing and sooting look like?  I have superimposed an image of a typical hard contact wound that contains searing and sooting over Sheila so that it is side by side with her wound. The difference could not be more stark.



There are no signs of searing and sooting similar to that of the actual contact injury.  Moreover, I have shown photos of actual muzzle imprints to you and the imprints looked nothing like the blood remnant marks outside of Sheila. Some of those blood remnant marks are outside the area you claim to be a muzzle imprint further proving your claim to be false.

That Fowler opines in his opinion the photos shows Sheila's to have the same attributes as the contact wound I showed you is clearly a questionable opinion. They look nothing alike. Nor is there anything that definitely is a muzzle imprint let alone definitely a muzzle imprint from the rifle sans moderator.

Instead of being objective and unbiased you are an advocate for Jeremy.  As an advocate you have an agenda. Because of that agenda you mischaracterize any unsupported opinion you can find that supports Jeremy to fact and ignore anything that proves you wrong.

You base your claims on a house of cards which is why you don't want to reveal your breakthrough because you know that given enough time the government will be able to disprove it and hope that if it is sprung on them that they would not have enough time to come up with the evidence to disprove it.

[david1819]

His conclusion is an UNSUPPORTED OPINION that bears no legal credence at all. 

Blood inside a weapon is one of the main things used to establish whether a wound was a contact wound or not.  In the 2015 study I referenced above the coroner concluded all 3 victims were killed at contact range on the basis of the blood of all 3 being found inside. None of the victims had any muzzle imprints.  Muzzle imprints are only left during hard contact wounds. Blood could get inside during a soft contact wound not just a hard contact wound.

Photos of a wound are a very POOR way of assessing whether a wound is a hard contact wound. The strongest evidence of a hard contact wound is by examining the inside of the wound.  The inside of the wound will have evidence of severe damage being done by the gases and soot etc will be forced deep inside. Vanezis didn't observe any of this and didn't assess it to be a hard contact wound.

Vanezis saw the exterior of the wound up close in person.  He saw nothing that looked like a muzzle imprint. What Fowler claims looks to him like a muzzle imprint didn't look like one to Vanezis in person, doesn't look like one to me in the photos and doesn't look like one to some other ballistic experts. In fact, one would expect a muzzle imprint to consist of a number of rings.  The pigskin doesn't act like living human skin surrounding a body would.  There is nothing behind the pigskin the gasses simply go behind it without issue. In contrast the gases inside a hard contact wound cause the skin to envelop the muzzle. That results in the skin touching the sides of the muzzle not merely the face. The sides of the muzzle consist of threads that leave rings. Suppressors are illegal in the US, Fowler didn't do any testing of weapons with threaded barrels to a dummy that would simulate hard contact wounds to a human neck nor did anyone else.



I have shown photos of muzzle imprints to you and the imprints looked nothing like the blood remnant marks outside of Sheila. Some of those blood remnant marks are outside the area you claim to be a muzzle imprint further proving your claim to be false.

Instead of being objective and unbiased you are an advocate for Jeremy.  As an advocate you have an agenda. Because of that agenda you mischaracterize any unsupported opinion you can find that supports Jeremy to fact and ignore anything that proves you wrong.

You base your claims on a house of cards which is why you don't want to reveal your breakthrough because you know that given enough time the government will be able to disprove it and hope that if it is sprung on them that they would not have enough time to come up with the evidence to disprove it.

Fowlers evidence is admissible and valid. The CCRC did agree that it was however they concluded there was no realistic possibility of the COA overturning the conviction taking everything into account.



He set out that there was in general to be a two‑stage test:  first, is there a real possibility that the evidence would be received by the Court of Appeal, and secondly, if so is there a real possibility that the court would conclude that it might have affected the decision to convict?


Taking, therefore, the three grounds relied on together, and for this purpose making an assumption again in favour of Mr Bamber on the first point, but doing so on the basis that the second and third points, namely the report of Dr Caruso and the report of Dr Fowler, have been dealt with by the Commission in a way that is not open to challenge, it seems to me that properly understood the approach of the Commission has been one that is very favourable to Mr Bamber making the assumption, in the case of expert evidence in his favour, that it is admissible, and going on to make a judgment on that basis. 

There is, in my view, nothing at all wrong with a court or a body such as the Commission saying "Well there are two stages.  We will assume you get through stage 1, but you are bound to fail on stage 2."  It is often a much more economical way of proceeding.  It disadvantages the person, the subject of that decision, in no way, because a point that he might have found difficulty on is resolved in his favour.

 Thus in this particular case the first and essential ground that is now open to Mr Bamber is the question whether there can be a proper challenge to the judgment of the Commission, that there was no real possibility that the court would conclude that the new evidence might affect the decision of the jury to convict.



Then you ignore the fact that absence of blood in or on the barrel does not preclude a contact wound.
The evidence you used to say blood would be inside the barrel was just one case and not only that it was conducted using much more modern composite techniques not available in 1985 rendering it a rather nonsensical comparison

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

As for my 'forensic breakthrough' the idea of not going public was not my idea.

[scipio_usmc]

Fowlers evidence is admissible and valid. The CCRC did agree that it was however they concluded there was no realistic possibility of the COA overturning the conviction taking everything into account.

His evidence is not admissible it fails to meet the required tests.  The CCRC FAILED to apply those tests and simply chose to IGNORE the prerequisite inquiry because it failed both tests.  They decided to simply say well for the sake of argument if it were admissible would it be able to persuade a jury that Jeremy is innocent.  They decided they it could not persuade a jury because it was simply unsupported opinion that was contradicted by the trial experts and contradicted by other evidence produced at trial such as the blood in the moderator.

Fowler is not relying on any new science or things that the trial defense could not have tried arguing. The defense was free to hire an expert to argue against the blood evidence but chose not to do so. They lost their chance to give unsupported opinion.  The defense needs absolute evidence proving beyond question that the fatal wound was not a contact wound and thus was incapable of resulting in blood inside the weapon and evidence that establishes the blood was planted. Unsupported opinion of the ink of Fowler is worthless. This is the reason why it would not persuade an appeals court and thus why the CCRC rejected it.

That you find it valid means nothing you don't understand law, don't know much about weapons and gun injuries except in your mind and are guided solely by your agenda of supporting Jeremy.

The whole reason why professional lawyers exists is so we can take a step back and be objective enough to actually understand what is necessary form a legal standpoint. People who are ignorant of the law or so biased they are incapable of facing reality are worthless advocates.

He set out that there was in general to be a two‑stage test:  first, is there a real possibility that the evidence would be received by the Court of Appeal, and secondly, if so is there a real possibility that the court would conclude that it might have affected the decision to convict?


Taking, therefore, the three grounds relied on together, and for this purpose making an assumption again in favour of Mr Bamber on the first point, but doing so on the basis that the second and third points, namely the report of Dr Caruso and the report of Dr Fowler, have been dealt with by the Commission in a way that is not open to challenge, it seems to me that properly understood the approach of the Commission has been one that is very favourable to Mr Bamber making the assumption, in the case of expert evidence in his favour, that it is admissible, and going on to make a judgment on that basis. 

There is, in my view, nothing at all wrong with a court or a body such as the Commission saying "Well there are two stages.  We will assume you get through stage 1, but you are bound to fail on stage 2."  It is often a much more economical way of proceeding.  It disadvantages the person, the subject of that decision, in no way, because a point that he might have found difficulty on is resolved in his favour.

 Thus in this particular case the first and essential ground that is now open to Mr Bamber is the question whether there can be a proper challenge to the judgment of the Commission, that there was no real possibility that the court would conclude that the new evidence might affect the decision of the jury to convict.

You took such from the COA decision affirming the CCRC rejection. I will summarize the above in laymen English.  The CCRC determined that even if the evidence were admissible it would have no ability to contradict the evidence that convicted Jeremy and thus no ability to convince a reasonable juror that Jeremy was innocent.  As such the CCRC avoided analyzing the issue of admissibility and simply said that even assuming it was admissible it fails. Since the CCRC assumed admissibility for the sake of argument this means the COA had no reason to analyze the issue of admissibly and the defense had no basis to argue about admissibility.  The COA only had the duty to analyze the issue of whether the evidence could convince a rational juror of Jeremy's innocence.  The COA then addressed such and affirmed the CCRC finding that the evidence proffered was insufficient to refute the evidence adduced at trial and thus unable to convince a rational juror of Jeremy's innocence.

The COA didn't say the evidence was admissible nor did the CCRC the CCRC simply said even if it were admissible it would be meaningless. 

Then you ignore the fact that absence of blood in or on the barrel does not preclude a contact wound.

I didn't say anything about contact wounds having to result in blood in a barrel. I said the inverse- that if blood is found in a barrel it means that wound is a contact wound.  This is 100% true.

The evidence you used to say blood would be inside the barrel was just one case and not only that it was conducted using much more modern composite techniques not available in 1985 rendering it a rather nonsensical comparison

I posted snippets from 2 different forensic text books noting that when there is a follow up shot fired near a prior wound that it is common for cavitation to occur and thus for the second shot to result in backspatter/drawback.  This wasn't observed in a single case it is observed as a rule.

This is highly relevant to us because in the Bamber case a trial expert testified that backspatter was certain to occur from the second wound for this very reason and that since it was a contact wound that it would result in drawback and thus blood would be inside the moderator if the moderator were attached or the rifle muzzle if it lacked the moderator when fired.

You ignored this and simply made up that the second would could not result in drawback though you have no scientific basis to challenge the expert so ignore the issue of cavitation and simply argue about the chin area if there had been no hemorrhaging.  So you ignore the actual conditions and choose to pretend that her neck was not full of blood and ripe for cavitation. Ignoring the issue doesn't refute it which is what must be done in order to secure a new trial.

In addition to your bogus argument that the second wound could not have resulted in any drawback you made the bogus argument that for sure the fatal bullet would have removed all blood from the barrel and left it free of blood. I presented multiple sources which refute this. This is not an obscure issue.  Numerous tests discuss how in both testing and in practice it has been observed that even after 4 plus shots that blood has been found in barrels.  This is was observed prior to the advent of DNA testing not merely after. Your claim that any of Sheila's blood inside that arrived from the first wound would have to be removed by the fatal shot is baseless. You have zero evidence to support such. The forensic community states quite the opposite that 1 bullet rarely sufficient to  to remove drawback from the barrel. Playing games doesn't accomplish a thing other than to establish you are trying to distort.

Blood is more often detected on the outside of the muzzle than inside the barrel.

A wholly worthless stat in assessing whether the conditions that existed in Sheila's neck at the time she received her fatal contact wound would result in drawback and thus of no value in trying to refute evidence used to convict Jeremy.

You need to get an expert to refute the argument made at trial- that hemorrhaging inside her neck creating the conditions where cavitation was virtually certain to occur and thus her blood would be found inside the moderator or barrel if the moderator were not attached. The defense found no expert it could use at trial to challenge this and to this day still doesn't though on appeal the bar is greater. They need not only to find an expert to challenge it but the expert either has to base the decision on new science unavailable at the time of the trial or it has to be ironclad and beyond reproach. You don't go after this issue head on but rather avoid it.  You ignore the issue of the first wound causing the blood filled cavity which would result in drawback from a second shot.  It's correct so you can't refute it but because of your agenda you don't want to face it so you just ignore it and try to pretend it doesn't exist hoping it will just go away.  It won't go away the decision was based on it. No appeal can be successful without refuting it.   

As for my 'forensic breakthrough' the idea of not going public was not my idea.

This is little more than a dishonest copout.

1) Before you came up with this pathetic excuse you told me in a PM that the reason why you didn't want your theory to be released publicly is because you feared that you might be wrong and didn't want the campaign team to be using an erroneous theory that you came up with for propaganda purposes

2) Just because someone else told you that you should keep it a secret because he/she fears the government is trolling the blue forum and will find out about the theory and will have extra time trying to refute it doesn't mean such is a rational position or that you must obey such person.

The case is closed.  The government doesn't have anyone working on this case.  It is irrational to believe the government will task someone with investigating claims made on a website.  It is irrational to believe some government worker will do such on their own time.

In any event if your theory were valid then it could withstand all scrutiny and even if someone decided to waste their time trying to refute it they would not be able to do so.

Someone who thinks they have come up with a great defense to hackers will invite hackers to try to hack it to test whether it is actually up to par. 



 

[adam]

Bamber testified Sheila had 'limited' experience with guns. He should have said 'no', but that would have meant game over for him. Limited in this case means Sheila once saw Neville pick up a rifle.

To include the forensic evidence Sheila had to -

Insert the silencer. Pre massacre.

Chamber the rifle.

Fire 11 accurrate shots.

Struggle/fight with Neville in the kitchen while holding the rifle by the aga paint.

Reload the rifle again.

Chamber the rifle again. 

Shoot Neville again.
 
Take the silencer off to burn Neville's back.

Put the silencer back on.

Go upstairs and shoot the twins and perhaps June again.

Reload the rifle again

Chamber the rifle again.
 
Shoot herself once with the silencer on which was physically impossible for her.

Take the silencer off, go downstairs and put it away.

Go back upstairs and shoot herself again without the silencer attached.

[david1819]

His evidence is not admissible it fails to meet the required tests.  The CCRC FAILED to apply those tests and simply chose to IGNORE the prerequisite inquiry because it failed both tests.  They decided to simply say well for the sake of argument. if it were admissible would it be able to persuade a jury that Jeremy is innocent. They decided they it could not persuade a jury because it was simply unsupported opinion that was contradicted by the trial experts and contradicted by other evidence produced at trial such as the blood in the moderator.

His evidence is admissible as the court did establish. The reason why Jeremy took the CCRC to court in the first place was because the CCRC did not and could not challenge Fowlers evidence. They hired Andrew Laws to challenge Peter Suthurst's evidence and found it 'inconclusive' yet name me the expert that the CCRC used challenge Fowler? Nobody, Failing to refute the evidence is what got the CCRC in court however no sound moderator does not prove Jeremy Innocent and proof of innocence is how high the bar has raised hence the crown accepted the CCRCs decision not to make a referral.

Not only do you ignore the forensic evidence that shows the sound moderator was not on the gun, you completely ignore the dubious and unsafe circumstances it was handled in before it was handed over to the police. The Sound moderator was 'discovered' by the relatives who would be the beneficiaries of the estate in the event of a conviction and it Just so happens part of that estate was the very farm they were living on. So they collect the moderator take it back to their farm. In their possession on the farm is several other sound moderators of the exact same make and model (identical) how can you be sure the one you are relying on is the genuine one they allegedly found? not only that how can you rely on such evidence when the person who handled it was caught out in a lie about not being able to open the sound moderator?

Rivlins examination of Boutflour trial transcript

RIVLIN: When was the last time you saw the silencer before it was recovered by the police?
A. The last time i saw the silencer to my recall was in Ann's kitchen in the presence of Ann and my brother-in-law Peter.
 
JUSTICE DRAKE (To the Witness): Was that the occasion when you tried to undo the knurl?
A. I believe that must have been the occasion when I tried to undo the knurl, because that was the occasion when I noticed the spot of red on the end of the nut.

RIVLIN: If I may say so, it is now not too difficult to undo it? A. I notice that.
RIVLIN: Because I am doing it now am I not? A. You are.
RIVLIN: And therefore it is obviously not very tight at the moment? A. It is loose.

That you find it valid means nothing you don't understand law

What do you know of the law in my country? I remember not so long ago you said something along the lines of  "A barrister Just means he can charge more money and wear a silly hat" Brilliant scholarly observations there Scipio.

One reason why you are so convinced Jeremy is guilty is probably down your lack of understand of the British legal system and your assume our legal system applies the same practice to the legal system you are accustom to and knowledgeable of. You fail to appreciate you live in a free(er) country where by everyone has protection under the constitution. British legal system is not built around a constitution, it’s driven by precedent and various acts of parliament some of them going back to the 1200s many of them are diverse and contradictory enabling the courts to pick and choose when it suits.

This is the reason they abolished the death penalty it was indirect acknowledgement the Crown was killing innocent people and could not trust itself with the power of life and death

In addition to your bogus argument that the second wound could not have resulted in any drawback you made the bogus argument that for sure the fatal bullet would have removed all blood from the barrel and left it free of blood. I presented multiple sources which refute this. This is not an obscure issue.  Numerous tests discuss how in both testing and in practice it has been observed that even after 4 plus shots that blood has been found in barrels. 
This is was observed prior to the advent of DNA testing not merely after. Your claim that any of Sheila's blood inside that arrived from the first wound would have to be removed by the fatal shot is baseless. You have zero evidence to support such.
The forensic community states quite the opposite that 1 bullet rarely sufficient to  to remove drawback from the barrel. Playing games doesn't accomplish a thing other than to establish you are trying to distort.

Its not me making bogus claims and distorting its you. You cited a study conducted not long ago Persistence of biological traces in gun barrels after fatal contact shots and cherry picked a case that study showing on particular case that suited your argument.


In that study not all tests came back positive as can be read in the abstract

For samples taken after the first shot DNA-analysis yielded STR profiles eligible for reliable
individualization in 17 of 20 cases. After a second shot had been fired 8 or more STR systems were
amplified successfully in 14 of 20 barrels.

Ten years ago, we initiated systematic inspection of the barrels
of firearms used in cases of suicide by utilizing technical
endoscopes. While in most cases the morphological findings were
positive, PCR amplification of short tandem repeats (STR) for
identification purposes failed in about half of the cases. Samples of
tissue or blood, retrieved from a firearm’s barrel indeed present a
challenge for molecular analysis. Such samples are most often of
tiny size and have been exposed to the extreme temperature,
pressure and friction associated with a gun shot.




Not only that but the technology used is far more sophisticated and even with all this some results showed negative

Four different forensic STR-multiplex-PCR-Kits dedicated to the
profiling of challenging DNA samples were used in this study:
AmpFlSTR1 NGM SElectTM and MiniFilerTM PCR Amplification Kits
(Applied Biosystems) and PowerPlex1 ESX 17 and ESI 17 Systems
(Promega, Madison, WI, USA). All kits were utilized following the
instructions provided by the manufacturer. Summed up, the four
kits cover 20 different STR-systems with multiple overlaps for
several STR-systems as described previously [16]. Fragment
detection was performed on a 310 Genetic Analyzer (Applied
Biosystems), Data analysis was done using the GeneMapper
software (v3.2) (Applied Biosystems).

The case is closed.  The government doesn't have anyone working on this case.  It is irrational to believe the government will task someone with investigating claims made on a website.  It is irrational to believe some government worker will do such on their own time.

You misunderstand what I am saying, I do not claim the government is actively looking at this forum and I know that not to be the case. What I mean is that if my 'forensic breakthrough' was put on here it wont be long at all until the public get in the loop about it.

Someone who thinks they have come up with a great defense to hackers will invite hackers to try to hack it to test whether it is actually up to par.

Its Jeremy's barrister that will do that in court not me. And sooner or later we shall see.

[Myster]

David, you really are clutching at straws with your view that David Boutflour actually LIED in court about the moderator's end being a tight fit. Who's to say that the cap wasn't originally screwed on tight and difficult to undo when he found it?  It was no doubt unscrewed and screwed back on several times in the lab when the baffles were examined, but not necessarily tight enough to be unremoveable with ease when it came to be handled by Rivlin in Court.

[scipio_usmc]

His evidence is admissible as the court did establish.

Lying just harms your own credibility.  The court explicitly stated that it had no need to assess whether the evidence would be admissible because the CCRC assumed for the sake of argument that it was admissible.  Your claim that the COA found the evidence was admissible is blatantly false the court didn't explore the issue at all because there was no need to do so. ONLY if the evidence was of such quality that it could convince a jury of Jeremy's innocence would the question of admissibility have to be decided.

"The assumption made in this case by the Commission is that the first stage could be satisfied. The Commission were not accepting that it was,but were prepared to assume it could be.. It has been accepted, very properly by Mr McKay today that, in the light of that assumption that has been made, it cuts away a ground of challenge to the decision as to whether the Commission properly applied the first stage of the test.

There is, in my view, nothing at all wrong with a court or a body such as the Commission saying "Well there are two stages. We will assume you get through stage 1, but you are bound to fail on stage 2." It is often a much more economical way of proceeding. It disadvantages the person, the subject of that decision, in no way, because a point that he might have found difficulty on is resolved in his favour.

Thus in this particular case the first and essential ground that is now open to Mr Bamber [before this court]
is the question whether there can be a proper challenge to the judgment of the Commission, that there was no real possibility that the court would conclude that the new evidence might affect the decision of the jury to convict."

The CCRC held that even assuming for the sake of argument that the evidence were admissible it would still be meaningless. The COA did not evaluate whether the evidence was admissible or not but rather simply evaluated whether the CCRC made an error in concluding the evidence was not sufficient to overturn the verdict even if it had been admissible. 

The reason why Jeremy took the CCRC to court in the first place was because the CCRC did not and could not challenge Fowlers evidence. They hired Andrew Laws to challenge Peter Suthurst's evidence and found it 'inconclusive' yet name me the expert that the CCRC used challenge Fowler? Nobody, Failing to refute the evidence is what got the CCRC in court however no sound moderator does not prove Jeremy Innocent and proof of innocence is how high the bar has raised hence the crown accepted the CCRCs decision not to make a referral.

You have things totally backwards as you always do. Fowler was trying to contradict the ORIGINAL experts who testified at trial.  These original experts are the government witnesses who disagreed with Fowler.  He tried to contradict the original experts with unsupported opinion.  The CCRC rejected Fowler's unsupported opinion as insufficient for a jury to find Jeremy innocent and the COA upheld such assessment.

The trial evidence:

A) Fatal wound

Vanezis assessed that the fatal wound was a soft contact wound based on tell tale signs he observed inside and outside the wound. Fletcher and Hayward agreed with this assessment.  They further assessed that the fatal wound had to have been delivered subsequent to the non-fatal wound. They further assessed the non-fatal wound resulted in internal hemorrhaging inside Sheila's neck which cause it to fill with blood.  This caused her neck to become a blood filled cavity and firing into this area from contact range would be certain to result in drawback.

B) Non-fatal wound

There are specific traits deep inside a wound that help differentiate a hard contact shot from other kinds of wounds. Vanezis described finding none of these internal traits and thus failed to find any evidence it was a hard contact shot. On the exterior Vanezis observed a bullet abrasion ring and band of soot. A bullet abrasion ring and band of soot are features shared by hard contact wounds, soft-contact wounds and near-contact wounds so don't help in any way to help differentiate the 3.  Other exterior features typical to hard-contact wounds such as searing of the skin and a muzzle imprint were lacking thus hard contact wound was ruled out. 

It is very difficult to tell the difference between a soft-contact wound and near contact wound because they often look virtually the same:



Since they look so similar one must look to whether there are tell tale signs within the injury tract itself that reveals whether it was a contact wound or not.  Sometimes there are such tell tale signs like in the instance of the fatal wound but other times there are not tell tale signs in which case it is impossible to say whether a wound is a contact wound or not.  Sometimes analysis of the weapon itself helps reveal whether wounds were indeed contact wounds. If blood is found deeper than 5mm inside the barrel of a weapon then it was a contact wound.

Blood was indeed found in the moderator more than 5mm deep indicating it was used to deliver a contact wound.  The experts said for sure blood got in the moderator while the fatal shot was delivered.  There is no way to know whether this blood was exclusively from the fatal shot or whether any of it got inside from the first shot as well.  As such it fails to help reveal whether the non-fatal shot was a contact shot or not. That being the case the blood evidence was inconclusive as to whether the non-fatal shot was a loose contact shot or near contact shot.

Ultimately there were no other tell-tale features to help differentiate between soft-contact and near contact thus Vanezis, Hayward and Fletcher said the non-fatal wound was either a near contact wound or soft contact wound. 

Fowler:

Fowler did not evaluate the fatal shot at all.  He evaluated the non-fatal shot.

Fowler asserted the fatal shot was not a soft contact shot or near contact shot like the prosecution trial experts contended but rather was a hard contact shot. Fowler asserted it was a hard contact shot which had a muzzle imprint and that the muzzle imprint matched the rifle.

Nothing Vanezis described as to the interior of the wound helped identify it as a hard contact wound. He is the only one who examined the body. Fowler was unable to point to anything indicative of a hard contact wound let alone exclusive such as all soot forced inside and none around the exterior. Indeed Vanezis said there was a soot ring around the outside of the wound. 

As to the exterior Fowler pointed to a soot ring which is shared by soft-contact wounds and near-contact wounds.  The only thing Fowler pointed to that is unique to a hard-contact wound is a muzzle imprint.  HOWEVER, the trial experts say there was no muzzle imprint so this is where Fowler and the trial experts conflict.

Had the trial experts found a muzzle imprint they would have indicated such and said this proves it was a hard-contact wound.

Fowler's claim that there was a muzzle imprint amounted solely to his unsupported opinion.  What he claimed looks like a muzzle imprint to him doesn't look like the actual photos of muzzle imprints that are contained in forensic text books.  Moreover, he did not examine the body. A muzzle imprint cannot be washed away. He does't know whether what he claims are muzzle burns could be wiped away easily or not.  These are things Vanezis would know and took into account when making his assessment but were not taken into account by Fowler.   

So first of all Fowler speculates that this was a hard contact wound that resulted in a muzzle imprint.  Then Fowler built upon this speculation by speculating the size matches the imprint the gun would leave. He had no measurements of the area he claimed was a muzzle imprint nor did he do any testing so his speculation was baseless and unsupported.

The defense argued that this speculation proves that the moderator was not attached when the non-fatal fatal shot was fired and that because it was not attached during this shot it must not have been attached during the fatal shot so undermines the trial expert conclusion that the moderator was attached during the fatal shot. 

The CCRC rejected Fowler's unsupported speculation as being insufficient to rely upon it to establish the non-fatal shot was fired sans-moderator and furthermore that it failed to address let alone refute the blood evidence that proved it was used.

The Prosecution can rely on their trial experts there is no need to bring in new experts.  The burden is on the defense to prove their experts are 100% correct and they bear the burden of refuting the trial evidence.  Fowler ignored the trial evidence related to the fatal wound and tried to impeach it indirectly though it was an incompetent effort that was rejected by the CCRC and that rejection was upheld by the COA.  You are so biased you either can't recognize or dishonestly refuse to admit that the CCRC and COA both rejected Fowler's claims as unsupported speculation that proved nothing and instead keep insisting his claims are irrefutable. 

His claims were nothing more than unsupported opinion that failed to undermine the prosecution case as such the prosecution has no need to gather additional experts to refute his claims.  The burden only shifts when the defense can make a prima facie showing.

Refuting his babble is easy though.  First of all a muzzle imprint from skin wrapping around the muzzle would have resulted in bands from the threads.  Second, it is well known that muzzle imprints are at least 1/3 larger than the weapon that made them and often twice the size. The barrel of the weapon is behind Sheila so in the photo actually looks smaller than it really was in relation to her wounds.  It's readily apparent the size of the alleged muzzle imprint is too small to be one and is smaller than the actual muzzle. Third, it looks nothing like photos of actual muzzle imprints.  Fourth, if it were a muzzle imprint then Vanezis would have noticed when examining it in person.
   
Fowler's opinions were a joke.  That you adopt them is not surprising since you will adopt anything supportive of Jeremy no matter how baseless.

You simply widen the chasm in your credibility gap though when distorting and trying to pretend that the COA and CCRC found his evidence admissible and correct.

Not only do you ignore the forensic evidence that shows the sound moderator was not on the gun,

Fowler's unsupported opinion doesn't constitute forensic evidence.  Unsupported opinion legally must be ignored.  In an event I didn't ignore it I shredded it.  His opinion is totally bogus and baseless. Making up that there is a muzzle imprint doesn't in any way undermine the evidence that proves the moderator was used.  You are taking unsupported opinion rejected by the CCRC and COA and insisting that we must accept it as Gospel.  You are the one ignoring evidence and logic not me.

you completely ignore the dubious and unsafe circumstances it was handled in before it was handed over to the police. The Sound moderator was 'discovered' by the relatives who would be the beneficiaries of the estate in the event of a conviction and it Just so happens part of that estate was the very farm they were living on. So they collect the moderator take it back to their farm. In their possession on the farm is several other sound moderators of the exact same make and model (identical) how can you be sure the one you are relying on is the genuine one they allegedly found? not only that how can you rely on such evidence when the person who handled it was caught out in a lie about not being able to open the sound moderator?

I have repeatedly addressed this issue so your claim I ignore it is simply another of your legion bogus claims.

1) Your claim that it was stored with multiple moderators that were exactly the same is false. The moderator was taken to the Eaton residence and that is where it was kept until it was picked up by police.  The two Boutflour moderators were at the Boutflour residence. One of the Boutflour moderators was a different significantly shorter than Nevill's moderator.  The other Boutflour moderator was a similar length but the outside shape was slightly different. 

2) The only way the family would doctor Nevill's the moderator with blood would be if they knew all about drawback.  In addition to knowing all about drawback they would need to know that the fatal wound was a contact wound; would need to know Sheila's blood type or to have a source of her blood in storage; and wound need to know exactly how to spray blood inside so it would mimic drawback by resulting in blood landing on the first 8 baffles in diminishing quantity. 

3) If they planted blood on and in it why would they bother planting paint on it as well?
evidence that the family knew anything about

4) If they planted drawback they would press the police about the blood findings but failed to do so.

5) The family not only had no way to know if Sheila had a contact wound but whether any other victim had suffered a contact wound. If the family did know all about drawback then they would know blood would be found in the Anschutz barrel- not only Sheila's blood but blood of any other victims who suffered contact wounds could have been inside. This would deter planting blood in the moderator because blood being found in the rifle would refute the use of the moderator and betray the blood in the moderator was planted.  The family had no access to try to clean the rifle.

Even today drawback is obscure but then it was even more obscure. There is zero evidence the family knew anything about drawback let alone had a source of her blood to plant, would be able to expertly plant it and
would have been able to access the rifle barrel to remove blood from it.  There is zero evidence the family understood the blood related to drawback or pressed police to test the blood.

Given the evidence would a rational, objective, reasonable juror believe that it was reasonably likely that  a member of the family planted blood in the moderator?  The answer is no.  You need to establish that it is reasonably likely the family planted the blood in order to discount it but you have failed miserably at doing so.

Alleging it is a distant possibility means nothing you must provide evidence that establishes it is reasonably likely to have occurred. The same way saying it is a distant possibility someone planted your fingerprint at a crime scene would mean nothing. If you want to get the fingerprint evidence discounted then you need to provide evidence that establishes it is reasonably likely to have occurred.

The phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" by design contains the word "reasonable".  Triers of fact must decide what is reasonably likely to have occurred based on the evidence presented.

You have presented zero evidence to establish it is reasonably likely that any specific family member planted the evidence at any time that it was at WHF or Oak Farm let alone removed blood from the murder weapon.

Just making up that it is a possibility is woefully insufficient from a legal standpoint.

I don't bear the burden of proving it wasn't doctored, you bear the burden of proving it is reasonably likely that it was doctored.

[scipio_usmc]

Rivlins examination of Boutflour trial transcript

RIVLIN: When was the last time you saw the silencer before it was recovered by the police?
A. The last time i saw the silencer to my recall was in Ann's kitchen in the presence of Ann and my brother-in-law Peter.
 
JUSTICE DRAKE (To the Witness): Was that the occasion when you tried to undo the knurl?
A. I believe that must have been the occasion when I tried to undo the knurl, because that was the occasion when I noticed the spot of red on the end of the nut.

RIVLIN: If I may say so, it is now not too difficult to undo it? A. I notice that.
RIVLIN: Because I am doing it now am I not? A. You are.
RIVLIN: And therefore it is obviously not very tight at the moment? A. It is loose.


What do you know of the law in my country? I remember not so long ago you said something along the lines of  "A barrister Just means he can charge more money and wear a silly hat" Brilliant scholarly observations there Scipio.

I understand the law of your country quite well, the law of my country is based upon it.

You don't know anything about law or care.  You totally disregard burdens of proof and what beyond a reasonable doubt means.

The testimony you cite mentions nothing about doctoring the moderator.  It mentions taking it from WHF to Oak Farm and it remaining there until police picked it up.  Who doctored it while it was at WHF and when?  Did anyone see it being doctored?

The aforementioned provides no basis to claim it was doctored let alone helps establish it is reasonably likely anyone doctored it.

You take your unsupported opinions and the unsupported opinions of others and elevate them to facts. That is in no way part of the legal system of your country.

One reason why you are so convinced Jeremy is guilty is probably down your lack of understand of the British legal system and your assume our legal system applies the same practice to the legal system you are accustom to and knowledgeable of. You fail to appreciate you live in a free(er) country where by everyone has protection under the constitution. British legal system is not built around a constitution, it’s driven by precedent and various acts of parliament some of them going back to the 1200s many of them are diverse and contradictory enabling the courts to pick and choose when it suits.

This is the reason they abolished the death penalty it was indirect acknowledgement the Crown was killing innocent people and could not trust itself with the power of life and death

I believe he is guilty because the evidence of his guilt is overwhelming.  You choose to ignore that evidence though ignoring it in no way refutes it.

I look at this case in an objective manner logically evaluating the evidence while you are exclusively evaluate based on your biases and feelings.  I go by the law while you do not.

Its not me making bogus claims and distorting its you. You cited a study conducted not long ago Persistence of biological traces in gun barrels after fatal contact shots and cherry picked a case that study showing on particular case that suited your argument.

No I posted sources that thoroughly and completely refuted your argument.

You claimed if the non-fatal shot to Sheila resulted in blood in a weapon that the subsequent shot would got sure have removed all blood from the moderator and it would be impossible for blood to have gotten inside from the fatal shot.

My sources refuted your claim that blood would not be able to get inside from the fatal shot and refuted your claim that the fatal shot would have to have removed any blood previously inside.

To prove you wrong all I needed to provide is a single instance where a second shot did not remove all blood.  That alone is sufficient to prove your claim wrong that the fatal shot would have to have removed all blood in it prior.

What actual tests show is not only that it is possible for blood to remain inside when a single shot is fired but that is it RARE that all blood is removed by a single subsequent shot.  Your claim that Sheila's fatal shot would have to have removed all blood inside prior was completely baseless.

These observations relate to weapon barrels not moderators.  These observations are even more true about moderators because moderators will get blood in areas where a bullet has no ability whatsoever to touch and thus has no ability to remove. The blood on the baffles and at the bottom of the baffle could not be removed by a bullet period.

In that study not all tests came back positive as can be read in the abstract

For samples taken after the first shot DNA-analysis yielded STR profiles eligible for reliable
individualization in 17 of 20 cases. After a second shot had been fired 8 or more STR systems were
amplified successfully in 14 of 20 barrels.

Ten years ago, we initiated systematic inspection of the barrels
of firearms used in cases of suicide by utilizing technical
endoscopes. While in most cases the morphological findings were
positive, PCR amplification of short tandem repeats (STR) for
identification purposes failed in about half of the cases. Samples of
tissue or blood, retrieved from a firearm’s barrel indeed present a
challenge for molecular analysis. Such samples are most often of
tiny size and have been exposed to the extreme temperature,
pressure and friction associated with a gun shot.




Not only that but the technology used is far more sophisticated and even with all this some results showed negative

Four different forensic STR-multiplex-PCR-Kits dedicated to the
profiling of challenging DNA samples were used in this study:
AmpFlSTR1 NGM SElectTM and MiniFilerTM PCR Amplification Kits
(Applied Biosystems) and PowerPlex1 ESX 17 and ESI 17 Systems
(Promega, Madison, WI, USA). All kits were utilized following the
instructions provided by the manufacturer. Summed up, the four
kits cover 20 different STR-systems with multiple overlaps for
several STR-systems as described previously [16]. Fragment
detection was performed on a 310 Genetic Analyzer (Applied
Biosystems), Data analysis was done using the GeneMapper
software (v3.2) (Applied Biosystems).

1) You needed them to find no blood period ever in order for your claim to hold up that blood would always be completely ejected by a subsequent shot.

2) Blood was still found in each case.  That they could not successfully DNA test the blood in every instance doesn't change the fact it was there and discovered and that swabbing it turned it up. If the Anschutz had been used sans moderator then they would have found blood inside of it (they found none) even if they could not successfully type it though they would have been able to successfully type it since they were able to type it in the moderator.  The irrefuted assessment was that the fatal wound would result in drawback.  The defense never refuted this at trial nor did so on appeal. Nor have you done so except in your imagination.

You misunderstand what I am saying, I do not claim the government is actively looking at this forum and I know that not to be the case. What I mean is that if my 'forensic breakthrough' was put on here it wont be long at all until the public get in the loop about it.

Its Jeremy's barrister that will do that in court not me. And sooner or later we shall see.

I don't misunderstand you at all. If you believe your theory is unassailable then you should have no fear in allowing anyone and everyone to crack it and even daring people to do so.  More importantly you should want to make sure your theory is tested rather than have a bogus theory be used to improperly fee someone with the hope that he will be free before the theory is disproved.

The only reason to keep it hidden so that the government and others have less time to refute it is if you believe it will be refuted and want them to do so after it is too late.

It is the same dishonest reason that lawyers will want to keep testimony a secret until the last possible moment.  In hopes that the other side won't have enough time to find a witness who can impeach the testimony.  They don't care if they win by using testimony that winds up being false so long as they win though that can fail because new evidence can be used on appeal to refute witnesses if one reasonably could not have known about it at the time.  Which can also snag your claims because even if relied upon to get  anew trial they could be refuted during the new trial.

But let's be honest, the government will have enough time to refute any arguments made the CCRC is just the first step the next step is the COA itself so even if time limitations prevented the government from winning before the CCRC by the time of the COA decision they will have had plenty of time.

The entire notion is a waste of time. Your games are because your ego can't handle us busting your theory in 5 minutes.  I have little doubt your breakthrough is as fallacious as your claim that a shot would have to clear out any and all blood previously in a weapon.

 

[david1819]

I understand the law of your country quite well, the law of my country is based upon it.

You don't know anything about law or care.  You totally disregard burdens of proof and what beyond a reasonable doubt means.

The testimony you cite mentions nothing about doctoring the moderator.  It mentions taking it from WHF to Oak Farm and it remaining there until police picked it up.  Who doctored it while it was at WHF and when?  Did anyone see it being doctored?

The aforementioned provides no basis to claim it was doctored let alone helps establish it is reasonably likely anyone doctored it.

You take your unsupported opinions and the unsupported opinions of others and elevate them to facts. That is in no way part of the legal system of your country.

I believe he is guilty because the evidence of his guilt is overwhelming.  You choose to ignore that evidence though ignoring it in no way refutes it.

I look at this case in an objective manner logically evaluating the evidence while you are exclusively evaluate based on your biases and feelings.  I go by the law while you do not.


No I posted sources that thoroughly and completely refuted your argument.

You claimed if the non-fatal shot to Sheila resulted in blood in a weapon that the subsequent shot would got sure have removed all blood from the moderator and it would be impossible for blood to have gotten inside from the fatal shot.

My sources refuted your claim that blood would not be able to get inside from the fatal shot and refuted your claim that the fatal shot would have to have removed any blood previously inside.

To prove you wrong all I needed to provide is a single instance where a second shot did not remove all blood.  That alone is sufficient to prove your claim wrong that the fatal shot would have to have removed all blood in it prior.

What actual tests show is not only that it is possible for blood to remain inside when a single shot is fired but that is it RARE that all blood is removed by a single subsequent shot.  Your claim that Sheila's fatal shot would have to have removed all blood inside prior was completely baseless.

These observations relate to weapon barrels not moderators.  These observations are even more true about moderators because moderators will get blood in areas where a bullet has no ability whatsoever to touch and thus has no ability to remove. The blood on the baffles and at the bottom of the baffle could not be removed by a bullet period.


1) You needed them to find no blood period ever in order for your claim to hold up that blood would always be completely ejected by a subsequent shot.

2) Blood was still found in each case.  That they could not successfully DNA test the blood in every instance doesn't change the fact it was there and discovered and that swabbing it turned it up. If the Anschutz had been used sans moderator then they would have found blood inside of it (they found none) even if they could not successfully type it though they would have been able to successfully type it since they were able to type it in the moderator.  The irrefuted assessment was that the fatal wound would result in drawback.  The defense never refuted this at trial nor did so on appeal. Nor have you done so except in your imagination.

I don't misunderstand you at all. If you believe your theory is unassailable then you should have no fear in allowing anyone and everyone to crack it and even daring people to do so.  More importantly you should want to make sure your theory is tested rather than have a bogus theory be used to improperly fee someone with the hope that he will be free before the theory is disproved.

The only reason to keep it hidden so that the government and others have less time to refute it is if you believe it will be refuted and want them to do so after it is too late.

It is the same dishonest reason that lawyers will want to keep testimony a secret until the last possible moment.  In hopes that the other side won't have enough time to find a witness who can impeach the testimony.  They don't care if they win by using testimony that winds up being false so long as they win though that can fail because new evidence can be used on appeal to refute witnesses if one reasonably could not have known about it at the time.  Which can also snag your claims because even if relied upon to get  anew trial they could be refuted during the new trial.

But let's be honest, the government will have enough time to refute any arguments made the CCRC is just the first step the next step is the COA itself so even if time limitations prevented the government from winning before the CCRC by the time of the COA decision they will have had plenty of time.

The entire notion is a waste of time. Your games are because your ego can't handle us busting your theory in 5 minutes.  I have little doubt your breakthrough is as fallacious as your claim that a shot would have to clear out any and all blood previously in a weapon.

And the pattern repeats itself. You increasingly fail to counter the facts of the case I present, that is why your replies end up consisting of large paragraphs of opinions and distortions that usually end up changing the subject to another area of the case, And you write so much in the hope I will not bother to reply.

You believe he is guilty because you are at a point of no return you are too invested and you have a reputation at stake so you remain on the sinking ship hoping it wont sink. But sooner or later you will have to jump as there will be no ship.

You say my notions are a waste of time and my "games" are a waste of time. Then it begs the question why you spend so much time trying to debate me. If you are a fraction as rational as you claim to be then you would realise the most logical and practical thing to do is to agree to disagree. But then again you seem to enjoy going round in circles arguing.

[scipio_usmc]

And the pattern repeats itself. You increasingly fail to counter the facts of the case I present, that is why your replies end up consisting of large paragraphs of opinions and distortions that usually end up changing the subject to another area of the case, And you write so much in the hope I will not bother to reply.

All you are doing is projecting.  I present facts and evidence which you hide from in favor of posting red herrings and bogus claims.  I address and refute every single nonsense point you make.  My posts are so long precisely because I take on each and every point. In contrast you do not even address let alone refute my points.   

You possess no ability to refute my points but don't want to admit it that is why you don't respond to them and instead present red herrings trying to deflect.   

For instance earlier today you posted the nonsense claim that the moderator must have been doctored by the family simply because they had access to it and therefore it can't be relied upon. I went through the actual legally required assessment of the issue. You and other Jeremy supporters bear the burden of proving that it is reasonably likely the moderator was doctored. Just saying the family had access fails miserably at establishing such is reasonably likely to have occurred. In your biased world that might be the case but not in a place called reality. That's no better than saying the defendant had no alibi at the time of the crime so must be guilty.

You don't like reality, you have created an alternate reality where everything is the inverse of actual reality.  In this alternate reality you say I refuse to address your points though it is you who never addresses my points or more importantly never addresses the evidence used to convict.  You pretend you do so but pretense is cheap.     

In your alternate reality you say you refuse to address my arguments because they are red herring.  My points are the key arguments that convicted Jeremy.  You hide from them because you have no way to refute them. Because you can't refute them you have zero ability to establish Jeremy is innocent.

Taking a page from Mike and the Campaign team you simply ignore reality and insist that you proved things you objectively failed to prove. 

Proving you wrong is extremely easy, getting you to face others have done so is what is a challenge. Refusing to admit and face you have been proven wrong doesn't in any way prevent you from having been proven wrong though it just demonstrates your dishonesty or alternatively tenuous grasp on reality.

I'll provide another example.  I fully explained the argument that was made at trial.  You were spoonfed.  That argument was that:
A) The first wound caused Sheila's neck to fill with blood
B) That the fatal wound was sure to result in backspatter because the nature of the skin in combination with  her neck
C) That the fatal wound was a contact wound and because of the prior points drawback would have occurred
D) That no blood was found in the rifle but was found in the moderator
E) That the blood in the moderator was consistent with drawback
F) In conclusion the moderator was used during the murders and was used during the firing of the fatal wound.

Your attempt to address this consisted of your bogus claim that the fatal wound would be unable to result in drawback because in general the chin area lacks enough blood.  You failed to deal with the actual argument that was made at trial which I highlighted.  You spoke to general conditions instead of the actual conditions that existed in this case. Your claim I failed to respond to what you wrote is blatantly false. I responded by posting autopsy evidence proving her neck filled with blood and text from several forensic texts discussing how drawback would occur in such situations.  These text specifically discussed how and why backspatter will occur when a shot is delivered to an area near a previous shot.

You are the one who ran away from the debate and you did so because you have no ability to respond intelligently.  You lost the debate of the issue but don't want to admit it so hide.  Then you lie and make up that you are refusing to respond because I am raising a red herring.  This isn't a red herring it is a major leg of the case and discusses an issue that you must refute if you want to establish Jeremy's innocence.

Ignoring that Sheila's neck was full of blood and thus that the fatal wound would result in backspatter/drawback accomplishes zilch.  Making up that drawback wound not be able to occur accomplishes nothing.  You must use science to address the specific issue of her neck full of blood and demonstrate why a shot given those conditions would not result in drawback.  You possess no ability to do so thus simply ignore the issue.

You hide from debate not me.  Every single attack you lob against your opponents amounts to you projecting your own flaws onto others. 

You believe he is guilty because you are at a point of no return you are too invested and you have a reputation at stake so you remain on the sinking ship hoping it wont sink. But sooner or later you will have to jump as there will be no ship.

This is just further evidence of you projecting.  You are the one emotionally invested in this case and you are invested in Jeremy's innocence.  You are so emotionally invested you made up a ridiculous nonsense so you could meet with Jeremy's lawyers but know your babble is so pathetic that you won't reveal it to use because your ego can't handle seeing us shred it in 5 minutes.

My only interest in this case is in regard to the evidence and facts.  You are the one who has adopted so many of Mike's habits and arguments one of which is an emotional investment.

You are the one so emotionally invested that you distorted and made up that Fowler's evidence was found by the Court of Appeals to be admissible and that Fowler's evidence must be relied upon o prove Jeremy's innocence.  Just like the COA in 2002 dismissed the DNA evidence as meaningless so too did the CCRC and COA hold Fowler's evidence to be meaningless.  One has to be extraordinarily desperate and invested to rely upon an argument that was already rejected as meaningless speculation.

You are so far gone that on blue you adopted Mike's moderator arguments and you thus insisted that SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1 all were 3 different moderators and that the family and police doctored multiple moderators before setting on 1 and then merged them all together. One has to be extremely invested emotionally in order to adopt that absurd horse crap.

You say my notions are a waste of time and my "games" are a waste of time. Then it begs the question why you spend so much time trying to debate me. If you are a fraction as rational as you claim to be then you would realise the most logical and practical thing to do is to agree to disagree. But then again you seem to enjoy going round in circles arguing.

My agenda is the truth and accuracy while your agenda is to support Jeremy by any means necessary.  When I see nonsense I like to refute it and you provide plenty of fodder because your support of Jeremy consists mainly of inaccurate propaganda.