UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: adam on May 28, 2016, 07:42:17 AM
-
There was a silencer available inside WHF which fitted the rifle.
Bamber said he knew how to use the rifle. Which would include putting a silencer on and taking it off.
The silencer on this rifle is to assist in shooting vermin/rabbits. Bamber said he went out to shoot rabbits that night. So is likely to use it with the silencer.
People said they saw the rifle with the silencer attached before the massacre.
If the silencer was not attached to the rifle when Bamber went for supper, Bamber had the opportunity to put the silencer on while at supper.
Bamber also had the opportunity to put the silencer on when returning to WHF. Neville did not wake until shots had been fired.
There was no need to take off the silencer. The rifle fitted in the gun cupboard with the silencer attached.
A silencer makes the gun shot noise almost silent. Video available. This is a big advantage in a silent execution attempt.
Only Neville woke while he was laying next to June. Partly due to the low noise level of 26 gun shots.
Several of the victims received contact shots. However there was no blood back splatter on the rifle nozzle.
There was human blood inside the silencer. The rifle was quite new and had not been used by anyone outside of the family.
A blood expert said the human blood was Sheila's with a remote possibility of it being a mixture of June's and Neville's. They all received close range/contact shots.
There was paint from the aga inside the silencer. Which the judge said shows it was on during the kitchen fight.
The kitchen fight was certainly after June and Neville had been shot and possibly after the twins had been shot. There was no point in taking it off to shoot Sheila.
The rifle with the silencer on was too long for Sheila to shoot herself. Which explains why it had been put away.
The Arizona tests show that Neville's rifle burn marks were done with a rifle minus a silencer. Which explains why the paint, hair and blood evidence inside the silencer was not destroyed.
It is not possible for the relatives to expertly put incriminating blood and paint into the silencer.
There is no forensic evidence that the police and lab team fabricated the silencer evidence.
-
It seems everyone on the Blue forum is in agreement that the silencer was used during the massacre. Which is good progress.
Supporters have been busy suggesting when Sheila put the silencer onto the rifle and why. Assumming she knew how to. Sheila's illness being blamed for this erratic decision (again).
But isn't it much more likely that someone planning a silent execution would ensure a silencer was attached to the rifle. If it was not already attached ? Bamber had the opportunity to do this a few hours beforehand at supper.
-
Yes Adam....If Sheila had gone 'berserk' as claimed by JB after supposed phone call from NB...then there is no way she would have calmly attached a silencer to the rifle before shooting her family. In a psychotic episode she wouldn't have cared if there was any noise or not...she was about to kill herself! Sheila would not have been thinking rationally anyway.
-
With 18 pieces of forensic evidence showing the silencer was used for the massacre, everyone has to accept Bamber is guilty.
There is no way Sheila would have the desire, know how or opportunity to do put the silencer on.
Bamber had all three, together with several motives to put the silencer away afterwards.
-
There was a silencer available inside WHF which fitted the rifle.
Bamber said he knew how to use the rifle. Which would include putting a silencer on and taking it off.
The silencer on this rifle is to assist in shooting vermin/rabbits. Bamber said he went out to shoot rabbits that night. So is likely to use it with the silencer.
People said they saw the rifle with the silencer attached before the massacre.
If the silencer was not attached to the rifle when Bamber went for supper, Bamber had the opportunity to put the silencer on while at supper.
Bamber also had the opportunity to put the silencer on when returning to WHF. Neville did not wake until shots had been fired.
There was no need to take off the silencer. The rifle fitted in the gun cupboard with the silencer attached.
A silencer makes the gun shot noise almost silent. Video available. This is a big advantage in a silent execution attempt.
Only Neville woke while he was laying next to June. Partly due to the low noise level of 26 gun shots.
Several of the victims received contact shots. However there was no blood back splatter on the rifle nozzle.
There was human blood inside the silencer. The rifle was quite new and had not been used by anyone outside of the family.
A blood expert said the human blood was Sheila's with a remote possibility of it being a mixture of June's and Neville's. They all received close range/contact shots.
There was paint from the aga inside the silencer. Which the judge said shows it was on during the kitchen fight.
The kitchen fight was certainly after June and Neville had been shot and possibly after the twins had been shot. There was no point in taking it off to shoot Sheila.
The rifle with the silencer on was too long for Sheila to shoot herself. Which explains why it had been put away.
The Arizona tests show that Neville's rifle burn marks were done with a rifle minus a silencer. Which explains why the paint, hair and blood evidence inside the silencer was not destroyed.
It is not possible for the relatives to expertly put incriminating blood and paint into the silencer.
There is no forensic evidence that the police and lab team fabricated the silencer evidence.
That awkward moment when the burn mark fit's the muzzle sans sound moderator
(http://s33.postimg.org/xar2zayjz/muzzleburn.jpg)
-
That awkward moment when the burn mark fit's the muzzle sans sound moderator
(http://s33.postimg.org/xar2zayjz/muzzleburn.jpg)
There is no muzzle burn mark on her neck. You are trying to pretend that isolated blood marks are burned skin outside the the entrance wound.
In any event, the ring you circle is consistent with the moderator not the muzzle of the rifle. Note how the moderator burn features the entrance wound, black area then a sizable area largely undamaged and finally an outer ring. In contrast the muzzle wound is solid. You circled an outer ring that has a sizable undamaged field of skin inside of it. You completely ignore that such is consistent with the moderator not the muzzle of the rifle.
As for your claim that the diameter of the outer ring matches up with the out edge of the muzzle of the rifle such is made up. All you did was to post a photo of the gun muzzle superimposed over a photo of Sheila's neck though there is no way to do such to scale. The scaling of sorts resorted to was to scale it so that it would appear the diameter of the muzzle matches the ring though appearances are meaningless and the entire effort an exercise in futility and even if a photo had been taken by police of such nature it owuld have been worthless since objects can appear distorted in photos.
(http://s33.postimg.org/g8j0ojzzj/parkerjotters.jpg)
The outer pens are a little less than 2 inches apart. Though all are the same size in reality they appear to be different sizes. One who is unaware of this might mistake the pen on the left as a compact jotter. The compact jotter is 4.5 inches long while the ordinary jotter is 5 1/8 inches long. The compact jotter also has a reduced diameter which appears to be the case. If there were only 2 pens shows spaced as far apart as the outer pens one can easily be fooled. Only because there are 3 pens in between and you can see a different size from each pen can you figure out it is just an optical illusion. For this reason people selling pens in lots will get barraged with questions from people asking the length of the pens.
Even if you actually took a picture of the tip of the gun several inches from the wound there would be such optical illusions given the distance one needs to measure the marks on the neck with precision to try to come to any conclusions. But the photo just superimposed a photo of the gun over Sheila's photo. That's even worse.
Vanezis didn't measure the diameter of the ring you circled. He only measured the diameter of the entrance wounds. Only if he had measured with precision the diameter of the ring you circled could we be aware of the actual size. Trying to figure out he size by just superimposing other photos fails it would be as invalid as superimposing a photo of a ruler and saying ok now we can measure the size.
So you make two different speculations. 1) you speculate the ring you circled is a muzzle burn though Vanezis didn't assess it to be such and 2) you speculate that the size matches the outer diameter of the rifle muzzle though you have no valid basis to establish such. In the meantime you ignore that it looks more like the burn made by the moderator than the rifle barrel.
There is an additional consideration. Not only does pig hide react different than living human flesh, the pig hide was simply hanging like a blanket with nothing behind it while the human flesh had something behind it to keep it from just freely moving backwards. This also effects things.
One could try to get a general idea of the difference in size though by measuring several burns from the barrel and averaging them and then doing the same for the moderator to get a general idea of the difference between them.
That data would be of no value though unless someone actually measured the ring on Sheila's neck and assessed such ring to be a muzzle burn. Only if she had a muzzle wound and it was measured would there be data to compare the testing data to.
Your nonscientific superimposition fails.
-
There is no muzzle burn mark on her neck. You are trying to pretend that isolated blood marks are burned skin outside the the entrance wound.
In any event, the ring you circle is consistent with the moderator not the muzzle of the rifle. Note how the moderator burn features the entrance wound, black area then a sizable area largely undamaged and finally an outer ring. In contrast the muzzle wound is solid. You circled an outer ring that has a sizable undamaged field of skin inside of it. You completely ignore that such is consistent with the moderator not the muzzle of the rifle.
As for your claim that the diameter of the outer ring matches up with the out edge of the muzzle of the rifle such is made up. All you did was to post a photo of the gun muzzle superimposed over a photo of Sheila's neck though there is no way to do such to scale. The scaling of sorts resorted to was to scale it so that it would appear the diameter of the muzzle matches the ring though appearances are meaningless and the entire effort an exercise in futility and even if a photo had been taken by police of such nature it owuld have been worthless since objects can appear distorted in photos.
(http://s33.postimg.org/g8j0ojzzj/parkerjotters.jpg)
The outer pens are a little less than 2 inches apart. Though all are the same size in reality they appear to be different sizes. One who is unaware of this might mistake the pen on the left as a compact jotter. The compact jotter is 4.5 inches long while the ordinary jotter is 5 1/8 inches long. The compact jotter also has a reduced diameter which appears to be the case. If there were only 2 pens shows spaced as far apart as the outer pens one can easily be fooled. Only because there are 3 pens in between and you can see a different size from each pen can you figure out it is just an optical illusion. For this reason people selling pens in lots will get barraged with questions from people asking the length of the pens.
Even if you actually took a picture of the tip of the gun several inches from the wound there would be such optical illusions given the distance one needs to measure the marks on the neck with precision to try to come to any conclusions. But the photo just superimposed a photo of the gun over Sheila's photo. That's even worse.
Vanezis didn't measure the diameter of the ring you circled. He only measured the diameter of the entrance wounds. Only if he had measured with precision the diameter of the ring you circled could we be aware of the actual size. Trying to figure out he size by just superimposing other photos fails it would be as invalid as superimposing a photo of a ruler and saying ok now we can measure the size.
So you make two different speculations. 1) you speculate the ring you circled is a muzzle burn though Vanezis didn't assess it to be such and 2) you speculate that the size matches the outer diameter of the rifle muzzle though you have no valid basis to establish such. In the meantime you ignore that it looks more like the burn made by the moderator than the rifle barrel.
There is an additional consideration. Not only does pig hide react different than living human flesh, the pig hide was simply hanging like a blanket with nothing behind it while the human flesh had something behind it to keep it from just freely moving backwards. This also effects things.
One could try to get a general idea of the difference in size though by measuring several burns from the barrel and averaging them and then doing the same for the moderator to get a general idea of the difference between them.
That data would be of no value though unless someone actually measured the ring on Sheila's neck and assessed such ring to be a muzzle burn. Only if she had a muzzle wound and it was measured would there be data to compare the testing data to.
Your nonscientific superimposition fails.
First of all the muzzle by the wound is the exact same muzzle from the same photo, i cut it out and moved it over another layer.
Secondly the CCRC never found an expert to challenge Fowlers conclusions so instead resorted to relying purely on the paint scratches.
-
Some measurements for people to consider:
1) Outer diameter measurement of rifle tip- .4724"
2) Diameter of rifle barrel opening- .236"
3) Outer diameter measurement of moderator- .8661"
4) Diameter of moderator opening- .291"
David is showing a blow up of a photo of the lower non-fatal wound. The entrance wound was .25" in diameter so the entrance wound was larger than the opening in the rifle barrel. It was larger because the bullet hit at an angle. It was a near contact shot which is incapable of leaving a muzzle burn.
Nothing done took into account the angling of the shots and simply were flat hard contact shots to pig skin.
Here is the photo blown up to a lesser extent and not altered by snipping the rifle barrel and superimposing it to the right of the wound:
(http://s33.postimg.org/5pj9f0zu7/sheilawounds.jpg)
Mind you that is still blown up the original photo invluded a wider area the above is a snip of this which in turn is a snip of another photo:
(http://s33.postimg.org/to9rog0kv/sheilawounds2.jpg)
In this photo we can't tell exactly where the entrance wound is. It is inside the black area but some of that black area is a dirt ring that runs around the outside of the entrance wound thus the entrance wound itself is obscured.
While we know the size of the entrance wound, since it is obscured we can't try to extrapolate the size of the dirt ring let alone try to extrapolate the size of the circle David made.
What is readily apparent from this photo is that once you get outside of the dirt ring there is no burn ring but rather simply specks of blood. On the left especially you can see that there are just remnants of blood. These specks of blood are being misrepresented as a muzzle burn ring. The right side features not merely blood but some black soot. This is not a muzzle burn but rather powder burning. Because the shot was fired at an angle the soot had more room to travel on the right side.
Vanezis didn't observe any muzzle burns for either wound and nothing in this photo or others taken suggests let alone establishes that Sheila had a muzzle burn outside of either wound that Vanezis failed to detect.
The autopsy photos would be the best photos of these wounds to try to use to assess their nature. But that would still be inferior to actual physical examination.
-
First of all the muzzle by the wound is the exact same muzzle from the same photo, i cut it out and moved it over another layer.
Secondly the CCRC never found an expert to challenge Fowlers conclusions so instead resorted to relying purely on the paint scratches.
1) Fowler's views were indeed challenged and rejected. They were challenged and rejected as pure speculation on his part.
Once again you are demonstrating you fail to comprehend "poker".
Vanezis saw the bodies. He described the wound as having an entrance wound surrounded by a bullet abrasion and dirt ring. He did not provide any measurements for the dirt ring or abrasion only the diameter of the entrance wound.
Fowler SPECULATED that the dirt ring and bullet abrasion was actually a muzzle burn. He additionally speculated that the outside diameter of the entire "complex" matched that of the rifle muzzle.
Both claims are unsupported speculation. He did not observe the body and thus was not in a position to say Vanezis was wrong and had mistaken a muzzle imprint for a bullet abrasion. None of the photos reveal there was a muzzle imprint burned into her skin. All you and others of your ilk are doing is speculating that what Vanezis found to be blood as looking to you like a burn ring. That it looks like that to you and other supporters means nothing it is speculation on your part nothing more.
Offering speculation is not proof. There is no way to prove your claims because her flesh is gone by this point so exhuming her would accomplish nothing. Your speculation is unable to trump the assessment of the person who performed her autopsy.
I have seen muzzle burns and the photo in question doesn't reveal any.
This ends the matter right there. There is no need to even get into Fowler's speculation about the size. First it is necessary to establish there was a muzzle burn before one can assess what weapon the size and nature matches. It would be like failing to prove that something is a footprint and yet trying to say what size footprint it was.
Vanezis provided no measurements for anything other than the entrance wounds themselves. He failed to measure the size of the dirt rings and abrasions that surrounded these entrance wounds. That being the case there is no way to know the outside diameter of these characteristics. Since there is no way to know their size guessing amounts to pure speculation. If there were photos that clearly showed the entrance wounds and the size of the dirt ring/abrasions in relation to the entrance wounds than one could extrapolate to a close degree but there are none.
The rifle in the police photo is no where near the wound let alone up against it so we can see the size difference between the barrel and ring you circled. Taking the rifle from a different location and superimposing it is not scientific at all. I just proved beyond question that a pen taken 1/4 inch away from another pen of the same exact size will appear to be different sizes. You failed to take this problem into account prior and even after being alerted to the problem you still ignore it. You are the one who made the poker simile. What you are doing is the the equivalent of holding a hand consisting of a 2 of hearts, 3 of hearts, 4 of hearts, 6 of diamonds and 7 of diamonds and insisting you have a flush because they are all red. A flush is all the same suit not color. While you think your position is scientifically sound it is flawed.
You are jumping the gun anyway though. The area you circled is not even circular in the photo it is elliptical. There is an elliptical area surrounded by specks of blood. The elliptical area is not at all like the testing done to the pig skin. The size of the circle you made is meaningless That circle is meaningless in part because it is simply specks of blood not a muzzle burn. You need to prove it is a muzzle burn before the measurement would become significant. You possess no way to prove it is a muzzle burn so the size of it matters not one bit even though you can't prove the size either.
Since you can't grasp even these simple concepts why would you expect me or anyone else to believe that your supposed scientific breakthrough is accurate? I have no doubt at all that your supposed breakthrough would not hold up to 5 minutes of scrutiny from someone objective and knowledgeable.
-
Note how there is not simply an elliptical ring around the wound but rather the same exact specs that form the outside of the ellipse are outside of that ellipse:
(http://s33.postimg.org/gvhw9004v/sheilawounds3.jpg)
It is quite obvious these specs are simply blood not burn marks. If these marks were burns for a round barrel they would not be elliptical but rather round and there would not be the same kind of burns outside of the circle unless there were a sight at the end of the weapon.
Ignoring all marks of the same kind and cherry picking those you can make a circle out of is simply a waste of time it establishes nothing except one's bias.
-
1) Fowler's views were indeed challenged and rejected. They were challenged and rejected as pure speculation on his part.
Once again you are demonstrating you fail to comprehend "poker".
Vanezis saw the bodies. He described the wound as having an entrance wound surrounded by a bullet abrasion and dirt ring. He did not provide any measurements for the dirt ring or abrasion only the diameter of the entrance wound.
Fowler SPECULATED that the dirt ring and bullet abrasion was actually a muzzle burn. He additionally speculated that the outside diameter of the entire "complex" matched that of the rifle muzzle.
Both claims are unsupported speculation. He did not observe the body and thus was not in a position to say Vanezis was wrong and had mistaken a muzzle imprint for a bullet abrasion. None of the photos reveal there was a muzzle imprint burned into her skin. All you and others of your ilk are doing is speculating that what Vanezis found to be blood as looking to you like a burn ring. That it looks like that to you and other supporters means nothing it is speculation on your part nothing more.
Offering speculation is not proof. There is no way to prove your claims because her flesh is gone by this point so exhuming her would accomplish nothing. Your speculation is unable to trump the assessment of the person who performed her autopsy.
I have seen muzzle burns and the photo in question doesn't reveal any.
This ends the matter right there. There is no need to even get into Fowler's speculation about the size. First it is necessary to establish there was a muzzle burn before one can assess what weapon the size and nature matches. It would be like failing to prove that something is a footprint and yet trying to say what size footprint it was.
Vanezis provided no measurements for anything other than the entrance wounds themselves. He failed to measure the size of the dirt rings and abrasions that surrounded these entrance wounds. That being the case there is no way to know the outside diameter of these characteristics. Since there is no way to know their size guessing amounts to pure speculation. If there were photos that clearly showed the entrance wounds and the size of the dirt ring/abrasions in relation to the entrance wounds than one could extrapolate to a close degree but there are none.
The rifle in the police photo is no where near the wound let alone up against it so we can see the size difference between the barrel and ring you circled. Taking the rifle from a different location and superimposing it is not scientific at all. I just proved beyond question that a pen taken 1/4 inch away from another pen of the same exact size will appear to be different sizes. You failed to take this problem into account prior and even after being alerted to the problem you still ignore it. You are the one who made the poker simile. What you are doing is the the equivalent of holding a hand consisting of a 2 of hearts, 3 of hearts, 4 of hearts, 6 of diamonds and 7 of diamonds and insisting you have a flush because they are all red. A flush is all the same suit not color. While you think your position is scientifically sound it is flawed.
You are jumping the gun anyway though. The area you circled is not even circular in the photo it is elliptical. There is an elliptical area surrounded by specks of blood. The elliptical area is not at all like the testing done to the pig skin. The size of the circle you made is meaningless That circle is meaningless in part because it is simply specks of blood not a muzzle burn. You need to prove it is a muzzle burn before the measurement would become significant. You possess no way to prove it is a muzzle burn so the size of it matters not one bit even though you can't prove the size either.
Since you can't grasp even these simple concepts why would you expect me or anyone else to believe that your supposed scientific breakthrough is accurate? I have no doubt at all that your supposed breakthrough would not hold up to 5 minutes of scrutiny from someone objective and knowledgeable.
It was not just Fowler it was Boyce also and both made their judgments by studying the autopsy photographs. Autopsy photos you have not seen, so what puts you in a position to make a better judgement?
Vanezis has stated several times that knew little about guns so how would he know what to look for? autopsy photographs show a muzzle print and so does the photo I uploaded, its not blood as you claim, I can distinguish between red and black and so should you.
The evidence of Dr Fowler is set out in a more substantial report. That report has been peer‑reviewed by Dr Dragovich, who is Chief Medical Examiner in Oakland County, Michigan and Dr Marcella Fierro, who is the retired Chief Medical Examiner to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Both have qualifications as forensic pathologists. In his careful report, Dr Fowler makes clear that he has reviewed the evidence, which was available in relation to the wounds. He concluded that the abrasions found were consistent with those of a rifle without a silencer, that there were no distinctive marks on the body which showed that a silencer had been attached, and the residue was consistent with contact wounds. He refers to further work that needs doing, a matter to which I will return in a moment.
The Commission's judgment on this matter, which is set out carefully in its decision, is at paragraphs 360 to 362. First of all, it is said that Dr Fowler did not deal with the fact that there was no residue found in the rifle, but there was the blood flake found in the silencer. Although there is really no answer to the first half of that observation, as regards the second there is the point, on which I was prepared to make an assumption, namely that there may be a problem with the blood flake. I have made that assumption because it seems to me that it is possible to do so by reference to the other reasons given by the Commission.
So the CCRC finds two excuses first excuse was no blood being found in the rifle.
I can answer that here
Blood is more often detected on the outside of the muzzle than inside the barrel. In a
study of 653 revolvers, 242 pistols, 181 shotguns, and 124 rifles used in suicides, blood was
detected on the barrel 74% of the time for revolvers, 76% for pistols, 85% for shotguns, and
81% for rifles.4 In contrast, blood was detected inside the barrel in 53% of the revolvers, 57%
of pistols, 72% of shotguns, and 58% of rifles. The presence of blood inside the barrel of a
gun indicates that the weapon was within a few inches of the body at the time of discharge.
Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound.
Page 362 of Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques by Vincent J.M. DiMaio
Second excuse was Fowler does not deal with the blood flake. Well if the contact wounds show the silencer was not attached and that studies show "Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound" the only possible answer is the blood flake was planted there deliberately. Since we can now establish the blood was planted deliberately you cannot know for sure the paint has not been planted deliberately also.
-
It was not just Fowler it was Boyce also and both made their judgments by studying the autopsy photographs. Autopsy photos you have not seen, so what puts you in a position to make a better judgement?
Why did Boyce use a carbine version of the Anschutz instead of a longer one like the original murder weapon if he was meant to be comparing like with like? Surely more burnt powder would be ejected from the barrel's end in the shortened version, resulting in more being deposited on the pigskin as it had less distance to travel through the bore, thereby giving inaccurate results?
-
It was not just Fowler it was Boyce also and both made their judgments by studying the autopsy photographs. Autopsy photos you have not seen, so what puts you in a position to make a better judgement?
Vanezis has stated several times that knew little about guns so how would he know what to look for? autopsy photographs show a muzzle print and so does the photo I uploaded, its not blood as you claim, I can distinguish between red and black and so should you.
The evidence of Dr Fowler is set out in a more substantial report. That report has been peer‑reviewed by Dr Dragovich, who is Chief Medical Examiner in Oakland County, Michigan and Dr Marcella Fierro, who is the retired Chief Medical Examiner to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Both have qualifications as forensic pathologists. In his careful report, Dr Fowler makes clear that he has reviewed the evidence, which was available in relation to the wounds. He concluded that the abrasions found were consistent with those of a rifle without a silencer, that there were no distinctive marks on the body which showed that a silencer had been attached, and the residue was consistent with contact wounds. He refers to further work that needs doing, a matter to which I will return in a moment.
The Commission's judgment on this matter, which is set out carefully in its decision, is at paragraphs 360 to 362. First of all, it is said that Dr Fowler did not deal with the fact that there was no residue found in the rifle, but there was the blood flake found in the silencer. Although there is really no answer to the first half of that observation, as regards the second there is the point, on which I was prepared to make an assumption, namely that there may be a problem with the blood flake. I have made that assumption because it seems to me that it is possible to do so by reference to the other reasons given by the Commission.
So the CCRC finds two excuses first excuse was no blood being found in the rifle.
I can answer that here
Blood is more often detected on the outside of the muzzle than inside the barrel. In a
study of 653 revolvers, 242 pistols, 181 shotguns, and 124 rifles used in suicides, blood was
detected on the barrel 74% of the time for revolvers, 76% for pistols, 85% for shotguns, and
81% for rifles.4 In contrast, blood was detected inside the barrel in 53% of the revolvers, 57%
of pistols, 72% of shotguns, and 58% of rifles. The presence of blood inside the barrel of a
gun indicates that the weapon was within a few inches of the body at the time of discharge.
Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound.
Page 362 of Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques by Vincent J.M. DiMaio
Second excuse was Fowler does not deal with the blood flake. Well if the contact wounds show the silencer was not attached and that studies show "Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound" the only possible answer is the blood flake was planted there deliberately. Since we can now establish the blood was planted deliberately you cannot know for sure the paint has not been planted deliberately also.
You are wrong on every single aspect. You lack the facts and also lack the legal understanding of the issues.
1) Vanezis didn't need to know how to fire a gun and everything about their loading and operation to know the difference between blood, soot and a burn. Trying to pretend others who didn't see the body were in a superior position to assess whether something is a burn is absurd.
2) Fowler did not claim that the ring you drew was proof positive there was a muzzle burn. You drew that ring not him. He did not use photos as basis of his argument that a burn was present. He took the description Vanezis provided and stated that in his opinion the description provided by Vanezis sounded like a muzzle imprint.
He took this UNSUPPORTED SPECULATION that it was a muzzle imprint and looked at the photos and said the size was too small to be made by the moderator and said it must have been made by the rifle muzzle even though for all he knows the rifle muzzle was smaller or larger. He had no way to know since he had no idea of the actual size only the size of the entrance wound.
The government argued this was all just unsupported speculation and the CCRC agreed with such.
The CCRC noted that this UNSUPPORTED SPECULATION was refuted by the blood evidence found in the moderator. Legally in order to defeat the blood evidence the defense needs to account for how the blood got there if it wasn't used during the murders. The CCRC noted that the defense failed to come up with anything to account for such. That blood evidence was used at trial and that blood evidence must be overcome in order for there to be a new trial. The defense failed to come up with anythign to refute such evidence. The CCRC held that this speculation failed to refute it.
Your claim that the specs of blood in the photos is definitely burned skin is patently false. I already pointed to how such specs are outside of the ring that you drew and claimed is the outside of the muzzle. There is nothing else on the muzzle that could make the marks outside of it so that alone refutes your claim that these marks were made by the muzzle of the rifle.
I have spoon fed you no less that 2 dozen times but you never want to learn about law, science or other facts. Your claims will be false no matter how many times you ignore reality and make them. You don't even understand what the experts you glorify argued or basis of their arguments.
-
Some measurements for people to consider:
1) Outer diameter measurement of rifle tip- .4724"
2) Diameter of rifle barrel opening- .236"
3) Outer diameter measurement of moderator- .8661"
4) Diameter of moderator opening- .291"
Off the top of my head I would have said the silencer opening was smaller than the rifle opening. And I wouldn't have thought the difference between the outer diameter of the rifle tip and the diameter of the rifle barrel opening were as great as above but I'm sure you're right. Where did you get the figs from?
-
You are wrong on every single aspect. You lack the facts and also lack the legal understanding of the issues.
1) Vanezis didn't need to know how to fire a gun and everything about their loading and operation to know the difference between blood, soot and a burn. Trying to pretend others who didn't see the body were in a superior position to assess whether something is a burn is absurd.
2) Fowler did not claim that the ring you drew was proof positive there was a muzzle burn. You drew that ring not him. He did not use photos as basis of his argument that a burn was present. He took the description Vanezis provided and stated that in his opinion the description provided by Vanezis sounded like a muzzle imprint.
He took this UNSUPPORTED SPECULATION that it was a muzzle imprint and looked at the photos and said the size was too small to be made by the moderator and said it must have been made by the rifle muzzle even though for all he knows the rifle muzzle was smaller or larger. He had no way to know since he had no idea of the actual size only the size of the entrance wound.
The government argued this was all just unsupported speculation and the CCRC agreed with such.
The CCRC noted that this UNSUPPORTED SPECULATION was refuted by the blood evidence found in the moderator. Legally in order to defeat the blood evidence the defense needs to account for how the blood got there if it wasn't used during the murders. The CCRC noted that the defense failed to come up with anything to account for such. That blood evidence was used at trial and that blood evidence must be overcome in order for there to be a new trial. The defense failed to come up with anythign to refute such evidence. The CCRC held that this speculation failed to refute it.
Your claim that the specs of blood in the photos is definitely burned skin is patently false. I already pointed to how such specs are outside of the ring that you drew and claimed is the outside of the muzzle. There is nothing else on the muzzle that could make the marks outside of it so that alone refutes your claim that these marks were made by the muzzle of the rifle.
I have spoon fed you no less that 2 dozen times but you never want to learn about law, science or other facts. Your claims will be false no matter how many times you ignore reality and make them. You don't even understand what the experts you glorify argued or basis of their arguments.
I am just copying and pasting this information 1st part is from the CCRC and the 2nd part is from a Forensic Science book. Its me spoon feeding you
The evidence of Dr Fowler is set out in a more substantial report. That report has been peer‑reviewed by Dr Dragovich, who is Chief Medical Examiner in Oakland County, Michigan and Dr Marcella Fierro, who is the retired Chief Medical Examiner to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Both have qualifications as forensic pathologists. In his careful report, Dr Fowler makes clear that he has reviewed the evidence, which was available in relation to the wounds. He concluded that the abrasions found were consistent with those of a rifle without a silencer, that there were no distinctive marks on the body which showed that a silencer had been attached, and the residue was consistent with contact wounds.
Blood is more often detected on the outside of the muzzle than inside the barrel. In a
study of 653 revolvers, 242 pistols, 181 shotguns, and 124 rifles used in suicides, blood was
detected on the barrel 74% of the time for revolvers, 76% for pistols, 85% for shotguns, and
81% for rifles.4 In contrast, blood was detected inside the barrel in 53% of the revolvers, 57%
of pistols, 72% of shotguns, and 58% of rifles. The presence of blood inside the barrel of a
gun indicates that the weapon was within a few inches of the body at the time of discharge.
Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound.
Page 362 of Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques by Vincent J.M. DiMaio
Out of 124 suicides involving rifles and only 58% of rifles had blood in the barrel. You always have claimed that there would be blood inside rifle barrel if the moderator was not attached giving you a FullHouse But this now gives me four of a kind but not only that. Dr Fowlers evidence has also proved the rifle was not powerful enough to create drawback in the first place since the moderator was not attached and no blood was in the barrel. Giving me a StraightFlush ♣9 ♣10 ♣J ♣Q ♣K now my forensic breakthrough is the coming ♣A on the river giving me the royal flush! (hopefully lol)
-
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):
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/jssDfaCDlD8/hqdefault.jpg)
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:
(http://www.bevfitchett.us/gunshot-wounds/images/3072_63_103-near-contact-gunshot-wounds.jpg)
(http://www.leelofland.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/New-Picture-310.jpg)
(http://www.leelofland.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/New-Picture-414.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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♣)
(http://s33.postimg.org/7jq0amktr/1stshot.png)
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♣)
(http://s33.postimg.org/iuwkjo9nz/2nd_shot.png)
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.
-
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:
(http://s7.postimg.org/nph8nsmsb/sheilahemmorage.jpg)
The significance of that for backspatter:
(http://s13.postimg.org/lcczkwynb/temporarycavity.jpg)
(http://s12.postimg.org/9rki2lz4t/multipleshots1.jpg)
(http://s24.postimg.org/xzdv30uzp/multipleshots2.jpg)
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.
-
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 (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
-
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 (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.
(http://s33.postimg.org/lprfankdb/contactwoundattributes.jpg)
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.
(http://s33.postimg.org/scjdamyu7/sheila1.jpg)
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.
-
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.
(http://s33.postimg.org/lprfankdb/contactwoundattributes.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
(http://s33.postimg.org/h7fcalfan/nearcontactwound.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Not at all, the sound moderator is designed to be unscrewed by hand hence the end cap has a Knurling design. it allows hands and fingers to get a better grip
-
Not at all, the sound moderator is designed to be unscrewed by hand hence the end cap has a Knurling design. it allows hands and fingers to get a better grip
Lug nuts are designed to be removed by a tire iron. Everyone knows that when a vehicle comes from the factor the lug nuts will be tighter and harder to remove than after they are removed and put back on.
The same is true of any factory threaded item including the end of a moderator. Not only did Boutflour find it too difficult to open easily so to did Howard. Since it was too difficult to open without extreme force she decided to wait and open it after it was fingerprinted out of fear that fingerprints would be destroyed if she put in the effort required to open it.
Instead of opening it she just used a tool to scrape blood from the inside opening and the complete inside would be tested subsequent to fingerprinting which is what happened.
The whole reason why it was stressed at trial that Boutflour and Howard found the end so tight was in order to suggest it was still factory tight and had never been opened previously.
As usual because of your bias you missed the point.
-
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.
I don't just use the fact they discovered it and you know this. you are trying to make out I am because otherwise your argument falls apart.
1. Moderator found by relatives and not the police
2. Fowlers peer reviewed evidence remains unchallenged
3. The sound moderator makes no difference to the noise level of the gun to the human ear
The reconstruction was held on an Army range after the court took a 28-mile drive in a police escorted convoy so that firearms expert Malcolm Fletcher could demonstrate the gun. The Chelmsford Crown Court jury of seven men and five women had asked to hear the sound of shots fired from the semi-automatic weapon. Mr Fletcher fired the un-silenced rifle five times into a huge block of soap which absorbed the impact of the bullets. Then he fired four times with the silencer in place. There appeared to be very little difference.
Jeremy would already know this so why would he bother using it?
4. The sound moderator was found where it was usually kept along with the ammo scope and in the packaging in the gun cupboard because it was not used at all.
5. Why would DB claim he tried to open it but he could not when the sound moderator is designed to be unscrewed by hand? The Knurl is designed to grip the fingers. Why did he claim he tried to open it and say he could not have done it in the first place? it makes no sense.
6. The sound moderator has a false chain of custody. You have signed and dated chain of custody tags with reference numbers that did not exist at the time it was signed and handed over. the original chain of custody has been erased and replaced with a false one.
(http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article174503.ece/BINARY/bamber-note-751668785.jpg)
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.
I don't like reality? That's ironic coming from you. I Went to a very strict Christian school were prayer and bible study was compulsory. When I got to around 19 years of age I had no option but to reject the faith as I was finding too many excuses for its flaws and it was not something I found easy. So much for someone not liking reality were in actual fact its you that remains firm in theistic dogma your the one that finds a sanctuary by ignoring reality.
Proving you wrong is extremely easy, getting you to face others have done so is what is a challenge.
If proving me wrong is easy why are you failing miserably? having to resort to ignoring modern forensic doctrine and falsifiying information?
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.
Your getting me mixed up with yourself again
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.
Your repeated attempts to provoke me into releasing it only shows how anxious you are to get hold of it.
-
Lug nuts are designed to be removed by a tire iron. Everyone knows that when a vehicle comes from the factor the lug nuts will be tighter and harder to remove than after they are removed and put back on.
The same is true of any factory threaded item including the end of a moderator. Not only did Boutflour find it too difficult to open easily so to did Howard. Since it was too difficult to open without extreme force she decided to wait and open it after it was fingerprinted out of fear that fingerprints would be destroyed if she put in the effort required to open it.
Instead of opening it she just used a tool to scrape blood from the inside opening and the complete inside would be tested subsequent to fingerprinting which is what happened.
The whole reason why it was stressed at trial that Boutflour and Howard found the end so tight was in order to suggest it was still factory tight and had never been opened previously.
As usual because of your bias you missed the point.
You don't use a bolt for circular knurled object its not even a nut.
Lets see what the customers say
- Solid steel construction
- Knurled end-cap making for an easy to open moderator (suitable for cleaning in the field)
- metal baffles in the inside make this moderator suitable for both rim-fire /center-fire and air rifles
-
See... you're biased again!! Manufacturers not customers!
-
See... you're biased again!! Manufacturers not customers!
This is where you got the review from...
http://www.airriflereviews.co.uk/accessories/suppressors/parker-hale-mm1-moderator (http://www.airriflereviews.co.uk/accessories/suppressors/parker-hale-mm1-moderator)
One review btw, not several and he's stating the bleeding obvious, typical of what the manufacturer would say in their sales blurb - solid steel construction, internal metal baffles, easily taken apart for cleaning, etc.
http://www.sportsden.ie/parker-hale-22-calibre-sound-moderator.html (http://www.sportsden.ie/parker-hale-22-calibre-sound-moderator.html)
But after being used for a while the end cap can seize up, which is why this user recommends lubricating the thread with a copper-based grease, something which the Bambers might never have applied...
https://youtu.be/aGrGCnStmrk?t=3m11s (https://youtu.be/aGrGCnStmrk?t=3m11s)
-
I don't just use the fact they discovered it and you know this. you are trying to make out I am because otherwise your argument falls apart.
Only in your biased alternate reality does the nonsense you post establish that the moderator was not used.
1. Moderator found by relatives and not the police
Police didn't look for it because Jeremy made up a lie about leaving the gun out sans moderator and sans telescopic sights. They were not even told a moderator and scope existed until later. That they failed to search for it and find it doesn't undermine it in any way. At most this creates the opportunity for the family to do something to it but opportunity alone is insufficient to establish it is reasonably likely that they did anything to it. You have zero evidence to establish the family knew anything at all about drawback, had a source of Sheila's blood to plant, knew how to plant blood so as to mimic drawback, knew her fatal wound was a contact wound that would result in drawback and would be able to remove blood from the rifle itself. Because of your agenda you decided to ignore the proper inquiry and simply to decide that the fact they had the moderator in their possession alone is sufficient to discount the evidence.
2. Fowlers peer reviewed evidence remains unchallenged
A) This is a perfect example of your bias in action. You tell us that we must accept that the blood was planted because Fowler's unsupported theory that the non-fatal wound had a muzzle wound sans moderator and that this means the fatal wound also must have been delivered sans moderator. You totally ignore that the CCRC rejected his theory as unsupported speculation and held that his unsupported theory would not be able to be relied upon by a reasonable jury to discredit the moderator evidence. You want us to hold the complete opposite of the CCRC though you fail to provide any rational reason for doing so.
Fowler's unsupported theory was rejected by the CCRC for the SAME EXACT reason that the COA rejected Webster's suggestion that Hayward found and examined a flake of soot with some blood mixed in as opposed to a flake of blood and his suggestion that a mixture of blood would not necessarily intimately mix inside the moderator.
The COA rejected his suggestions as mere speculation. They noted he did no testing to prove his claims and simply gave his unsupported opinions thus rendering it mere speculation upon which a rational jury would not be able to rely.
The CCRC found the same exact thing with respect to Fowler's claims they were rejected as mere speculation which would be unable to convince a rational jury of Jeremy's innocence.
You decided from the outset to take the position that Jeremy is innocent and was framed. This is your agenda, you are not reviewing things as an objective rational person- you are an advocate. As such you are looking for anything you can spin to advance your agenda and use as justification of your position.
Since you have no valid evidence to undermine the moderator you resort to desperate spinning. You totally ignore that Fowler's claims are nothing more than mere speculation that fails to prove a thing. You mischaracterize his speculation as proof though the CCRC rejected this out of hand and the COA upheld such rejection.
I could end things here the simple fact it is unsupported speculation that was rejected by the CCRC is sufficient to discount this claim. But I will do what I did in the past and go further by again fully refuting his nonsense. Note that each time I fully dismantle his nonsense you refuse to respond because you have no way to do so. You just ignore it, ignore that the CCRC discounted this as speculation and continue mischaracterizing his speculation as established fact.
B) Since it was mere speculation there is no basis to rely on it and no need for the government to produce witnesses against it. Just the fact it was speculation was sufficient to discount it. You don't merely ignore it was rejected by the COA as mere speculation you mischaracterizing his speculation as fact. You then make the bogus claim his unsupported theory is unchallenged and therefore must be accepted as proof even though the CCRC said it was not to be accepted. Your claim his theory went unchallenged earns a big fat Pinocchio.
His theory is in direct conflict with Vanezis' assessment. Fowler said that Vanezis' description of the non-fatal wound "sounds" to him like it was a hard contact wound that had a muzzle imprint. Vanezis though assessed it was either a soft-contact wound or near contact wound lacking a muzzle imprint. Fletcher and Hayward agreed with Vanezis. Here in a place called reality this means the prosecution witnesses challenged Fowler's theory. It makes no difference that they challenge d it prior to Fowler making it. That they challenged it is all that matters and if one wants to be accurate Fowler challenged their assessment. Fowler challenging their assessment amounts to his claims being challenged here in the real world.
C) Fowler's theory had 2 parts. First he speculated that the nonfatal wound was a hard contact wound with a muzzle imprint. What evidence did he offer to establish this? None he simply said that in his opinion description by Vanezis sounds to him like he observed a muzzle imprint. Vanezis described the nonfatal entrance wound as having slight bruising at the edges, gunshot residue marks at the edges and a slight bruising outside the entrance wound which he assessed to be a bullet abrasion. Hard contact wounds, soft contact wounds and near contact wounds all feature gunshot residue at the edges of the entrance wound so this doesn't help tell which of these 3 it was. Fowler claiming that because of the residue it must be a hard contact wound is scientifically invalid. It is mere speculation as to which three it is all one can say is that this particular piece of evidence establishes it is one of these 3.
With a hard contact wound often there is no residue at the edges it will all be propelled inside the wound. The gasses will all be propelled inside the wound as well. This results in the inside injury being different than other injuries. Vanezis observed nothing inside the wound that would indicate it was a hard contact wound.
A hard contact wound will have searing outside the entrance wound. Vanezis failed to describe finding any searing of the skin and the photos don't show any searing. Nonethless Fowler decided that Vanezis was wrong about the slight bruising he observed being a bullet abrasion and speculated it was in fact a searing and a muzzle imprint. His speculation that Vanezis was wrong and that it was searing and a muzzle imprint is not fact it is just unsupported speculation. Not only do the marks he identifies not look like a muzzle imprint, he had no idea if the marks he called attention to were blood specs, burns or were particles embedded in the skin nor did he know if they were easily wiped away. Being able to be easily wiped a way is a surefire sign his claims were bogus.
After speculating it was a muzzle imprint he then speculated that it was the imprint of the rifle sans moderator saying it looked too small to have been made by the moderator.
He did no testing to see what a muzzle imprint from the rifle would look like. Nor did he have any measurements of the area he was calling a muzzle imprint and thus had no scientifically accepted way to assess whether the pattern and size corresponded to what the rifle would leave behind.
Fowler said that even though he did no testing others had previously done pig skin testing that showed the size of the imprint left by the moderator is larger than the imprint made by the barrel alone. He used the general conclusions of such testing to justify he assessment. A hard-contact shot to a human body will result in gas getting between the skin and forcing the skin to surround the barrel. This will not happen to a hide that is simply hanging like a blanket. The pig testing would thus not provide the exact mark let alone size of an imprint in a human. In a human there would be multiple round circles left by the barrel threads. There were no such circles o Sheila. So the supposed pattern was absent. In any event he had no measurements of the area he called a muzzle imprint so even if accurate testing had been done to get measurements it would not help because there would be nothing to compare such to. Muzzle imprints normally range from 133%-200% the size of the barrel that made the impression they will be larger than the barrel. The area alleged to be a muzzle imprint looks to be smaller than the muzzle which would make it impossible to be a muzzle imprint.
So not only is Fowler's claims simply unsupported speculation there is a lot against it.
But again you are too biased to approach this issue in an objective and accurate fashion.
You would rather distort and make the bogus claim that his unsupported opinion has to be accepted as evidence though the CCRC said it was unsupported speculation that cannot be trusted. This is hardly out of character for you, you have also relied on claims rejected by the COA in 2002. You don't care whether something is legitimate or not you will cite anything that you can to advance your agenda.
3. The sound moderator makes no difference to the noise level of the gun to the human ear
The reconstruction was held on an Army range after the court took a 28-mile drive in a police escorted convoy so that firearms expert Malcolm Fletcher could demonstrate the gun. The Chelmsford Crown Court jury of seven men and five women had asked to hear the sound of shots fired from the semi-automatic weapon. Mr Fletcher fired the un-silenced rifle five times into a huge block of soap which absorbed the impact of the bullets. Then he fired four times with the silencer in place. There appeared to be very little difference.
Jeremy would already know this so why would he bother using it?
If it made no difference then no one would buy them, no one would use them and they would no longer be manufactured. It does make a difference. It makes a much larger difference than you think. Without a moderator it can harm someone's hearing but the moderator reduced the report enough that firing the weapon will not harm one's hearing. That's a significant difference regardless of what someone chooses to think.
If the moderator made no difference then Jeremy and Nevill never would have used it. Yet it was always used with the moderator attached including the only time anyone saw Jeremy carrying it- when AP saw him walking to the field holding it. If it made no difference then he would not have bothered having it attached when he walked to the field.
If you don't want people to wake up while shooting others then you would want any reduction in report that you can get even a slight one is better than none.
Saying he would definitely not want to use it, is nonsense. He would want to get any reduction he could and used it in the past so why wouldn't he use it during the murders?
This fails to in anyway establish that he would choose to use it without the moderator installed. The scope is a different matter. The scope would not work at the close quarter ranges of the murders. It would thus inhibit accurate shooting. Thus even though the scope was normally attached he removed it to carry out the murders.
4. The sound moderator was found where it was usually kept along with the ammo scope and in the packaging in the gun cupboard because it was not used at all.
Buzz! False! The sound moderator and scope were ordinarily stored installed on the weapon. They were not typically removed period let alone removed and then put away in boxes. The fact they were hidden in boxes is supportive of them being hidden to conceal their relevance to the murders. The moderator hidden to conceal it was used and the scope hidden to concela it had been removed in anticipation of the murders. This is no way supports your claism it cuts in the opposite direction.
Furthermore, Jeremy was caught lying about this very issue. He initially lied telling police that the gun didn't fit int he closet with the moderator and scope installed. His lie was aimed to hide the fact that if he had gotten the gun out to shoot at rabbits that the moderator and scope would have been attached. After it was proven untrue that the gun didn't fit in the closet with the moderator installed he changed his story and claimed he meant it didn't fit in its case with the scope and moderator installed. This is a lie because Nevill purchased no rifle case. His claim it was sometimes taken apart to store in a case is thus totally false.
If you were objective you would face that these lies are very problematic for Jeremy. The only potential reason to tell these lies was in order to pretend that when he got the gun out that it lacked the moderator and scope. The only reason to want to make such up is to conceal that they were attached when he got the weapon out. He wants to conceal the moderator was attached so one will not know it was used and wants to conceal that he removed the scope in anticipation of committing the murders.
5. Why would DB claim he tried to open it but he could not when the sound moderator is designed to be unscrewed by hand? The Knurl is designed to grip the fingers. Why did he claim he tried to open it and say he could not have done it in the first place? it makes no sense.
If he had opened it and doctored it then it makes no sense at all to mention trying to open it. He would say they carefully collected it and made sure not to do anything to compromise it. It is human nature to try to open it so that he attempted it is not surprising. The reason why he would mention trying is because he was being honest.
Trying to claim that this proves he opened it and doctored it is ludicrous it establishes no such thing. The reason why the police wanted it mentioned is because in corroborated Howard's testimony that it was still factory closed thus unable to be opened easily.
6. The sound moderator has a false chain of custody. You have signed and dated chain of custody tags with reference numbers that did not exist at the time it was signed and handed over. the original chain of custody has been erased and replaced with a false one.
(http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article174503.ece/BINARY/bamber-note-751668785.jpg)
Your supposed evidence fails to support your claim. All you have produced is a tag that was marked DB/1 because at the time it was filled out it was known as DB/1 and after it was changed to DRB/1 they crossed out the DB and hand wrote DRB.
You took this bogus argument from Mike along with his other bogus nonsense about the moderator numbers.
Uncontroverted evidence proves as follows:
1) The moderator was originally labeled SBJ/1 because police were unaware of who found it
2) The scope was labeled AE/1
3) The ABU carrier and .22LR ammunition was labeled AE/2
4) The shotgun ammunition was labeled HGO/1
5) After police found out that all the above items were found by David Boutflour in the closet they decided to reclassify the above exhibits as DB/1-4
6) After realizing that DB prefix was already in use by David Bird and he had over a hundred exhibits they decided it was easier to change the DB exhibits and changed them to DRB/1-4
7) They originally reclassified them by crossing out the original markings. Subsequently some of the documents were retyped
Your games just undermine your credibility and demonstrate you are not looking at this case objectively but rather are biased and just making up things to advance your agenda. Every single original document had the older classifications. There were no documents or tags or anything else found to contain a reference not yet in use. Your classifications were on documents before they were supposedly changed is patently false.
I don't like reality? That's ironic coming from you. I Went to a very strict Christian school were prayer and bible study was compulsory. When I got to around 19 years of age I had no option but to reject the faith as I was finding too many excuses for its flaws and it was not something I found easy. So much for someone not liking reality were in actual fact its you that remains firm in theistic dogma your the one that finds a sanctuary by ignoring reality.
If proving me wrong is easy why are you failing miserably? having to resort to ignoring modern forensic doctrine and falsifiying information?
Your getting me mixed up with yourself again
Your repeated attempts to provoke me into releasing it only shows how anxious you are to get hold of it.
You rebelled against religion big deal. Just like you rebelled against religion you rebel against logic and evidence. Refusing to face that the CCRC rejected Fowler's unsupported speculation and asserting it as proven fact just demonstrates how far gone you are down the rabbit hole.
I just refuted everything you put forth. You have identified ZILCH that undermines the moderator except in your own imagination. You can't rebut my points so won't instead you will just ignore them and keep maintaining the same nonsense you always do. It accomplishes nothing except to cement that you are too biased to face reality.
-
You don't use a bolt for circular knurled object its not even a nut.
Lets see what the customers say
- Solid steel construction
- Knurled end-cap making for an easy to open moderator (suitable for cleaning in the field)
- metal baffles in the inside make this moderator suitable for both rim-fire /center-fire and air rifles
Knurling gives pliers something to grip. It doesn't mean that when it comes from the factory it won't be very tight. This simply illustrates how desperate you are to advance your agenda which shows which of us is the emotionally invested one.
It is well known that anything from the factory will be tighter. Ignoring this simple reality to try to smear the family just harms your own credibility. You have nothing valid to establish the family doctored the moderator so resort to desperate nonsense.
You ultimately suggest that it would not be tight from the factor so Boutflour and Howard must have lied when they said the cap was very tight and they both must have lied in order to conceal they doctored the moderator. This is simply desperate, pathetic nonsense.
You whine though that people don't accept this nonsense as proven fact. Really this is the best you can come up with to establish the moderator was doctored?
This is a Mike argument. You adopt a number of arguments from Mike including his bogus nonsense about multiple moderators being merged into 1. You defend endorsing these arguments by saying you reject the outlandish ones of police shooting the victims. Just because that is more outlandish it doesn't make his other arguments valid. They are simply outlandish to a lesser degree.
-
This is where you got the review from...
http://www.airriflereviews.co.uk/accessories/suppressors/parker-hale-mm1-moderator (http://www.airriflereviews.co.uk/accessories/suppressors/parker-hale-mm1-moderator)
One review btw, not several and he's stating the bleeding obvious, typical of what the manufacturer would say in their sales blurb - solid steel construction, internal metal baffles, easily taken apart for cleaning, etc.
http://www.sportsden.ie/parker-hale-22-calibre-sound-moderator.html (http://www.sportsden.ie/parker-hale-22-calibre-sound-moderator.html)
But after being used for a while the end cap can seize up, which is why this user recommends lubricating the thread with a copper-based grease, something which the Bambers might never have applied...
https://youtu.be/aGrGCnStmrk?t=3m11s (https://youtu.be/aGrGCnStmrk?t=3m11s)
The amount of soot inside was consistent with it never having been cleaned.
There were 7 full boxes of ammunition in the closet. In addition there were 30 rounds in the kitchen. That means 380 rounds. There were 25 rounds used for the murders. So only 95 rounds were used prior to the murders. The notion they bothered to open it up to clean it is extremely unlikely. The notion they used the weapon daily to go after vermin is obviously nonsense as well. A majority of the 95 rounds obviously were used for target shooting. They probably never cleaned the rifle either given the small number of rounds put through it.
-
Only in your biased alternate reality does the nonsense you post establish that the moderator was not used.
Police didn't look for it because Jeremy made up a lie about leaving the gun out sans moderator and sans telescopic sights. They were not even told a moderator and scope existed until later. That they failed to search for it and find it doesn't undermine it in any way. At most this creates the opportunity for the family to do something to it but opportunity alone is insufficient to establish it is reasonably likely that they did anything to it. You have zero evidence to establish the family knew anything at all about drawback, had a source of Sheila's blood to plant, knew how to plant blood so as to mimic drawback, knew her fatal wound was a contact wound that would result in drawback and would be able to remove blood from the rifle itself. Because of your agenda you decided to ignore the proper inquiry and simply to decide that the fact they had the moderator in their possession alone is sufficient to discount the evidence.
A) This is a perfect example of your bias in action. You tell us that we must accept that the blood was planted because Fowler's unsupported theory that the non-fatal wound had a muzzle wound sans moderator and that this means the fatal wound also must have been delivered sans moderator. You totally ignore that the CCRC rejected his theory as unsupported speculation and held that his unsupported theory would not be able to be relied upon by a reasonable jury to discredit the moderator evidence. You want us to hold the complete opposite of the CCRC though you fail to provide any rational reason for doing so.
Fowler's unsupported theory was rejected by the CCRC for the SAME EXACT reason that the COA rejected Webster's suggestion that Hayward found and examined a flake of soot with some blood mixed in as opposed to a flake of blood and his suggestion that a mixture of blood would not necessarily intimately mix inside the moderator.
The COA rejected his suggestions as mere speculation. They noted he did no testing to prove his claims and simply gave his unsupported opinions thus rendering it mere speculation upon which a rational jury would not be able to rely.
The CCRC found the same exact thing with respect to Fowler's claims they were rejected as mere speculation which would be unable to convince a rational jury of Jeremy's innocence.
You decided from the outset to take the position that Jeremy is innocent and was framed. This is your agenda, you are not reviewing things as an objective rational person- you are an advocate. As such you are looking for anything you can spin to advance your agenda and use as justification of your position.
Since you have no valid evidence to undermine the moderator you resort to desperate spinning. You totally ignore that Fowler's claims are nothing more than mere speculation that fails to prove a thing. You mischaracterize his speculation as proof though the CCRC rejected this out of hand and the COA upheld such rejection.
I could end things here the simple fact it is unsupported speculation that was rejected by the CCRC is sufficient to discount this claim. But I will do what I did in the past and go further by again fully refuting his nonsense. Note that each time I fully dismantle his nonsense you refuse to respond because you have no way to do so. You just ignore it, ignore that the CCRC discounted this as speculation and continue mischaracterizing his speculation as established fact.
B) Since it was mere speculation there is no basis to rely on it and no need for the government to produce witnesses against it. Just the fact it was speculation was sufficient to discount it. You don't merely ignore it was rejected by the COA as mere speculation you mischaracterizing his speculation as fact. You then make the bogus claim his unsupported theory is unchallenged and therefore must be accepted as proof even though the CCRC said it was not to be accepted. Your claim his theory went unchallenged earns a big fat Pinocchio.
His theory is in direct conflict with Vanezis' assessment. Fowler said that Vanezis' description of the non-fatal wound "sounds" to him like it was a hard contact wound that had a muzzle imprint. Vanezis though assessed it was either a soft-contact wound or near contact wound lacking a muzzle imprint. Fletcher and Hayward agreed with Vanezis. Here in a place called reality this means the prosecution witnesses challenged Fowler's theory. It makes no difference that they challenge d it prior to Fowler making it. That they challenged it is all that matters and if one wants to be accurate Fowler challenged their assessment. Fowler challenging their assessment amounts to his claims being challenged here in the real world.
C) Fowler's theory had 2 parts. First he speculated that the nonfatal wound was a hard contact wound with a muzzle imprint. What evidence did he offer to establish this? None he simply said that in his opinion description by Vanezis sounds to him like he observed a muzzle imprint. Vanezis described the nonfatal entrance wound as having slight bruising at the edges, gunshot residue marks at the edges and a slight bruising outside the entrance wound which he assessed to be a bullet abrasion. Hard contact wounds, soft contact wounds and near contact wounds all feature gunshot residue at the edges of the entrance wound so this doesn't help tell which of these 3 it was. Fowler claiming that because of the residue it must be a hard contact wound is scientifically invalid. It is mere speculation as to which three it is all one can say is that this particular piece of evidence establishes it is one of these 3.
With a hard contact wound often there is no residue at the edges it will all be propelled inside the wound. The gasses will all be propelled inside the wound as well. This results in the inside injury being different than other injuries. Vanezis observed nothing inside the wound that would indicate it was a hard contact wound.
A hard contact wound will have searing outside the entrance wound. Vanezis failed to describe finding any searing of the skin and the photos don't show any searing. Nonethless Fowler decided that Vanezis was wrong about the slight bruising he observed being a bullet abrasion and speculated it was in fact a searing and a muzzle imprint. His speculation that Vanezis was wrong and that it was searing and a muzzle imprint is not fact it is just unsupported speculation. Not only do the marks he identifies not look like a muzzle imprint, he had no idea if the marks he called attention to were blood specs, burns or were particles embedded in the skin nor did he know if they were easily wiped away. Being able to be easily wiped a way is a surefire sign his claims were bogus.
After speculating it was a muzzle imprint he then speculated that it was the imprint of the rifle sans moderator saying it looked too small to have been made by the moderator.
He did no testing to see what a muzzle imprint from the rifle would look like. Nor did he have any measurements of the area he was calling a muzzle imprint and thus had no scientifically accepted way to assess whether the pattern and size corresponded to what the rifle would leave behind.
Fowler said that even though he did no testing others had previously done pig skin testing that showed the size of the imprint left by the moderator is larger than the imprint made by the barrel alone. He used the general conclusions of such testing to justify he assessment. A hard-contact shot to a human body will result in gas getting between the skin and forcing the skin to surround the barrel. This will not happen to a hide that is simply hanging like a blanket. The pig testing would thus not provide the exact mark let alone size of an imprint in a human. In a human there would be multiple round circles left by the barrel threads. There were no such circles o Sheila. So the supposed pattern was absent. In any event he had no measurements of the area he called a muzzle imprint so even if accurate testing had been done to get measurements it would not help because there would be nothing to compare such to. Muzzle imprints normally range from 133%-200% the size of the barrel that made the impression they will be larger than the barrel. The area alleged to be a muzzle imprint looks to be smaller than the muzzle which would make it impossible to be a muzzle imprint.
So not only is Fowler's claims simply unsupported speculation there is a lot against it.
But again you are too biased to approach this issue in an objective and accurate fashion.
You would rather distort and make the bogus claim that his unsupported opinion has to be accepted as evidence though the CCRC said it was unsupported speculation that cannot be trusted. This is hardly out of character for you, you have also relied on claims rejected by the COA in 2002. You don't care whether something is legitimate or not you will cite anything that you can to advance your agenda.
If it made no difference then no one would buy them, no one would use them and they would no longer be manufactured. It does make a difference. It makes a much larger difference than you think. Without a moderator it can harm someone's hearing but the moderator reduced the report enough that firing the weapon will not harm one's hearing. That's a significant difference regardless of what someone chooses to think.
If the moderator made no difference then Jeremy and Nevill never would have used it. Yet it was always used with the moderator attached including the only time anyone saw Jeremy carrying it- when AP saw him walking to the field holding it. If it made no difference then he would not have bothered having it attached when he walked to the field.
If you don't want people to wake up while shooting others then you would want any reduction in report that you can get even a slight one is better than none.
Saying he would definitely not want to use it, is nonsense. He would want to get any reduction he could and used it in the past so why wouldn't he use it during the murders?
This fails to in anyway establish that he would choose to use it without the moderator installed. The scope is a different matter. The scope would not work at the close quarter ranges of the murders. It would thus inhibit accurate shooting. Thus even though the scope was normally attached he removed it to carry out the murders.
Buzz! False! The sound moderator and scope were ordinarily stored installed on the weapon. They were not typically removed period let alone removed and then put away in boxes. The fact they were hidden in boxes is supportive of them being hidden to conceal their relevance to the murders. The moderator hidden to conceal it was used and the scope hidden to concela it had been removed in anticipation of the murders. This is no way supports your claism it cuts in the opposite direction.
Furthermore, Jeremy was caught lying about this very issue. He initially lied telling police that the gun didn't fit int he closet with the moderator and scope installed. His lie was aimed to hide the fact that if he had gotten the gun out to shoot at rabbits that the moderator and scope would have been attached. After it was proven untrue that the gun didn't fit in the closet with the moderator installed he changed his story and claimed he meant it didn't fit in its case with the scope and moderator installed. This is a lie because Nevill purchased no rifle case. His claim it was sometimes taken apart to store in a case is thus totally false.
If you were objective you would face that these lies are very problematic for Jeremy. The only potential reason to tell these lies was in order to pretend that when he got the gun out that it lacked the moderator and scope. The only reason to want to make such up is to conceal that they were attached when he got the weapon out. He wants to conceal the moderator was attached so one will not know it was used and wants to conceal that he removed the scope in anticipation of committing the murders.
Again you posting assumptions you cannot support. The last time you referenced a study it actually disproved the point you were trying to make.
splashes of such blood that
have been propelled into a firearm’s barrel by force of
projectile impact take a comparably long period of time to
dry. If this time is not conceded before sample collection,
the still liquid droplets of blood may be blasted out of the
barrel by force of subsequent shots
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.
Then you still ignore this from Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques 3rd edition by making things up or typing loads of irrelevant things to avoid it
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.
You say the moderator would make a difference in sound in your opinion yes however my claim is supported by experimentation that is on record. You can even watch the pig skin experiment video when Boyce fires the gun with and without moderator and hear for yourself.
The reconstruction was held on an Army range after the court took a 28-mile drive in a police escorted convoy so that firearms expert Malcolm Fletcher could demonstrate the gun. The Chelmsford Crown Court jury of seven men and five women had asked to hear the sound of shots fired from the semi-automatic weapon. Mr Fletcher fired the un-silenced rifle five times into a huge block of soap which absorbed the impact of the bullets. Then he fired four times with the silencer in place. There appeared to be very little difference.
Then you ignore the muzzle marks by the same method you ignore everything else above.
The only person claiming fowlers work is nonsense is YOU and you alone.
Below is a suicide under the chin with a surpressor (only one I could find) the blood has been cleared but you can see the marks it has left
(http://s33.postimg.org/v983d303z/sm1.jpg)
The muzzle marks show that what is being played out bellow cannot have taken place
(http://s33.postimg.org/v5rn67ubz/sm2.jpg)
(http://s33.postimg.org/4h19u9qof/sm3.jpg)
If he had opened it and doctored it then it makes no sense at all to mention trying to open it. He would say they carefully collected it and made sure not to do anything to compromise it. It is human nature to try to open it so that he attempted it is not surprising. The reason why he would mention trying is because he was being honest.
By all means speculate. However he could have been trying to make out it was not possible for him to open it to avoid allegations but it backfired.
Your supposed evidence fails to support your claim. All you have produced is a tag that was marked DB/1 because at the time it was filled out it was known as DB/1 and after it was changed to DRB/1 they crossed out the DB and hand wrote DRB.
It has nothing to do with DB/1 and DRB/1 its the case number on the tags. All those case numbers did not exist until September however they are being presented as the chain of custody for August thus it is false.
You rebelled against religion big deal. Just like you rebelled against religion you rebel against logic and evidence. Refusing to face that the CCRC rejected Fowler's unsupported speculation and asserting it as proven fact just demonstrates how far gone you are down the rabbit hole.
I just refuted everything you put forth. You have identified ZILCH that undermines the moderator except in your own imagination. You can't rebut my points so won't instead you will just ignore them and keep maintaining the same nonsense you always do. It accomplishes nothing except to cement that you are too biased to face reality.
I didn't rebel against religion I rejected it because of Logic.
The more you write in attempt to discredit me you are only discrediting yourself (Ironically) you refuted everything I put forth? How? No supported claims No factual citations and your baseless opinions are meaningless. And next time you do decide to cherry pick a scientific study make sure it don't contain things that prove you wrong in the first place.
@)(++(*
-
Again you posting assumptions you cannot support. The last time you referenced a study it actually disproved the point you were trying to make.
splashes of such blood that
have been propelled into a firearm’s barrel by force of
projectile impact take a comparably long period of time to
dry. If this time is not conceded before sample collection,
the still liquid droplets of blood may be blasted out of the
barrel by force of subsequent shots
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.
Then you still ignore this from Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques 3rd edition by making things up or typing loads of irrelevant things to avoid it
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.
This is a perfect example of how you intentionally distort. You constantly spin and demonstrate you possess no integrity or credibility whatsoever.
I didn't post my sources to support any affirmative argument I made, rather I posted them to refute bogus arguments that you made. You want to try revising what was being debated in a dishonest effort to deflect from the fact I proved your claims false.
You posted the following 2 bogus claims:
1) that it would be impossible for blood to get inside the moderator or gun from the fatal shot
and
2) that if it would be IMPOSSIBLE for blood that got inside the barrel during the non-fatal shot to remain in the moderator or rifle because the fatal shot would be sure to remove it.
I presented sources that proved blood would get inside from the fatal shot and also I posted multiple sources not just 1 that established it is untrue that blood would have to be removed by a subsequent shot. One such source discussed a case where a P-38 was used to shoot 3 different victims in succession at contact range and blood of all 3 victims was found inside thus the subsequent shots PLURAL failed to remove all blood from the prior victims.
You are turning things completely on their head and pretending that I argued blood can never be removed by a subsequent shot and that my sources prove me wrong on this. It is just another example of you creating a strawman to change the debate to try to conceal that you were proven wrong. You want to try to hide what the original debate was and deflect from it.
This is intentional deceit on your part nothing more. Maybe the stupid people you are used to dealing with will allow you to engage in such nonsense but I'm not one of them. I don't allow people to get away with deflecting I will always bring the debate back to where it was and not allow opponents to squirm their way out.
You made the bogus claim that drawback could only occur from the non-fatal wound not the fatal wound and then the bogus claim that the fatal shot would be sure to remove any blood that got inside from the nonfatal shot.
All that was needed to prove your second bogus claim false is posting materials which indicated that blood can and has remained inside after subsequent shots. My sources do this.
You are the one who made up the bogus rule that blood would for sure be removed by a subsequent shot. I didn't take a page from you and make up a rule that all blood would have to remain in a barrel of a rifle always. I simply noted that it frequently does remain after a subsequent shot. Moreover, I DISTINGUISHED between blood in a rifle barrel where the bullet would touch all areas where was was deposited from a moderator where the blood would not be able to be removed from baffles of other areas away from where the bullet travels. Thus your notions that the flake found and blood in the baffles would not be able to be there is particularly unsupported.
You know you lost this debate but rather than be a man and admit it you will distort to the bitter end trying to revise history and come up with any strawmen you can manufacture.
I have no problem admitting I am wrong when I actually am but your fragile ego and agenda cause you to never admit your legion of errors and instead you spin to the bitter end trying to pretend you weren't wrong. Then you resort to the defense mechanism of projection and falsely attribute these flaws of yours to your opponents.
You are accomplishing nothing other than further ruining your own credibility in the process.
You say the moderator would make a difference in sound in your opinion yes however my claim is supported by experimentation that is on record. You can even watch the pig skin experiment video when Boyce fires the gun with and without moderator and hear for yourself.
The reconstruction was held on an Army range after the court took a 28-mile drive in a police escorted convoy so that firearms expert Malcolm Fletcher could demonstrate the gun. The Chelmsford Crown Court jury of seven men and five women had asked to hear the sound of shots fired from the semi-automatic weapon. Mr Fletcher fired the un-silenced rifle five times into a huge block of soap which absorbed the impact of the bullets. Then he fired four times with the silencer in place. There appeared to be very little difference.
1) A video doesn't help one has to listen in person to the difference
2) One has to check the decibel level with and without to see the precise difference and that precise difference it turns out makes the difference between one being able to damage their hearing or not
3) It is an objective fact that the manufacturer of the rifle found enough people who considered the moderator valuable that it was manufactured from the factory with threading to accept it
4) It is an objective fact that the manufacturer of the moderator had enough of a market to manufacture this model for decades
5) It is an objective fact that Nevill decided to purchase a model that can accept a moderator and also decided ot purchase a moderator.
6) Evidence establishes that the weapon was routinely stored and used with the moderator and scope installed
7) Evidence establishes that the only time Jeremy was seen carrying the rifle in the field that it had the moderator and scope installed
8) Evidence establishes that IF Jeremy had gone to the closet to get the weapon to shoot rabbits as he claimed he did then he would have found it with the scope and moderator attached.
You ignore all of this and subjectively make up that since the moderator doesn't lower the sound to a degree you personally consider important that this means Jeremy would not want to use the weapon with the moderator. He would go out of his way to take it off and not use it because of what? What harm would it cause in using the moderator? Any reduction at all would be better than no reduction when you don't want victims to wake up.
You simply made up that Jeremy would not want to use the moderator and thus that he can't have done so. This is not an argument worth anything except in your biased mind. To a rational, objective person your argument holds no sway at all it fails miserably in establishing the moderator was not used.
The moderator would be expected to be on the gun always and to always be used. So too would the scope be expected to be on it and used. The only reason to remove the scope was for close quarter combat which means the murders so it's absence actually is harmful. It's absence supports that Jeremy removed it in anticipation of the murders.
To try to conceal that the gun was always stored in such manner Jeremy lied and made up that the gun didn't fit in the closet with such accessories and after that was proven false he made up the lie that Nevill bough a hard case for it and that it didn't fit in this case with them attached.
You take an issue highly detrimental to Jeremy and spin it by ignoring his lies and simply making up that there is no way he would use the gun with the moderator attached to commit the murders though he was known to use it attached when using it for target practice and in the field. Your argument has no merit at all and makes no sense.
You present the argument that it should never have been manufactured, purchased or used because it is worthless yet it was manufactured, purchased and used. There is no reason why he would use it int he field but not to commit the murders.
Then you ignore the muzzle marks by the same method you ignore everything else above.
The only person claiming fowlers work is nonsense is YOU and you alone.
Below is a suicide under the chin with a surpressor (only one I could find) the blood has been cleared but you can see the marks it has left
(http://s33.postimg.org/v983d303z/sm1.jpg)
The muzzle marks show that what is being played out bellow cannot have taken place
(http://s33.postimg.org/v5rn67ubz/sm2.jpg)
(http://s33.postimg.org/4h19u9qof/sm3.jpg)
By all means speculate. However he could have been trying to make out it was not possible for him to open it to avoid allegations but it backfired.
The muzzle marks made by the moderator much more closely resemble what was on Sheila's neck than the imprint made by the rifle muzzle. But there is no evidence that there is a muzzle mark. Muzzle marks are only made during hard contact shots- though not all hard contact shots feature a muzzle imprint. The nonfatal wound was not determined to be a hard contact wound though.
Making up that it had to have a muzzle mark and that the muzzle mark matches the rifle fails miserably.
The CCRC and COA dismissed Fowler's claims and nothing more than unsupported speculation. There is no requirement for the prosecution or me to refute his speculation the fact is is only speculation makes it worthless.
You are the only one who keeps saying his speculation must be relied upon and is accurate.
He speculated about 2 different things:
1) Speculated the non-fatal wound was a hard contact wound that resulted in a muzzle imprint
2) Speculated that the item he felt was a muzzle imprint matched the muzzle of the rifle sans moderator
Vanezis and others DISAGREED that there was a muzzle imprint so that is problem 1.
Problem 2 is that he failed to do any testing of what a muzzle imprint would look like and had no measurrments of what such would be like nor did he have any measurements of the marks he was claiming was a muzzle imprint.
Time after time you IGNORE that the pig skin testing will not be able to mimic skin tightly wrapped over a human body with human organs, bone etc behind it. Gasses will have a much different impact then they will on pig hide that is simply hanging there.
In any event the nonfatal wound looks NOTHING like the pig skin test wounds. Nor did he have any measurements of such wounds to compare with the marks around Sheila's nonfatal wound that he claimed was a muzzle imprint.
His speculation was thus rejected as wholly worthless. Your claim it was not rejected by the CCRC is nothing short of a big fat lie. It was rejected as speculation that proves nothing. Yet you hold this out as proving the moderator was not used. You are the one living in an alternate reality not me.
It has nothing to do with DB/1 and DRB/1 its the case number on the tags. All those case numbers did not exist until September however they are being presented as the chain of custody for August thus it is false.
I didn't rebel against religion I rejected it because of Logic.
The prefix was changed from SBJ to DB in later September well after the new case number existed. The new case number was created when Ainsley took over which actually was officially Septmeber 7. September 7 is when SC/786/85 became the case number. The change to DB/1 is SUBSEQUENT to this new number being issued. Since the case number at the time of the change to DB/1 was SC/786/85 is it fully proper and not the least bit suspicious that the tag has such case number.
The DB prefix was changed to DRB in November so months after.
Thus as usual have no idea what you are talking about. You claim evidence proves something it objectively doesn't.
The more you write in attempt to discredit me you are only discrediting yourself (Ironically) you refuted everything I put forth? How? No supported claims No factual citations and your baseless opinions are meaningless. And next time you do decide to cherry pick a scientific study make sure it don't contain things that prove you wrong in the first place.
You live in fantasyland. Sources establishing that Sheila's neck would be full of blood from the initial shot and thus the fatal show would result in drawback proves your unsupported claim that drawback would not occur from the fatal shot to be untrue. You never responded let alone refuted my point and evidence you just ignored it and maintained your bogus claim there would be no blood available to get inside the weapon.
I similarly took apart your other nonsense claims. As I said proving you wrong is very easy it is getting you to admit you were proven wrong that is difficult. But your admission is not required. Your refusal to face it just undermines your own credibility.
You are such a baby that anytime a new person on blue shows you up and proves you wrong that you accuse such person of being me and demand the person be suspended.
You are so invested in your agenda that you don't care about the facts or logic at all.
-
David's picture of the wound with suppressor muzzle print:
(http://s33.postimg.org/8igt2c8rz/suppressorchinburn.jpg)
Pig tests:
(http://s33.postimg.org/a976pt9bj/pigtests1.jpg)
The left is the wound sans moderator and right with moderator. Sheila's non-fatal wound is in the middle it looks like neither but is closer to the right than left. Note how the muzzle sans moderator has a band composed of searing and thick soot then an outer band with more thick soot. The imprint sans moderator lacks the thick band of searing and simply has soot then a ring with very little soot and finally a round seared ring to form the outer edge.
The wounds to the left look nothing like Sheila's.
Sheila's wound has very sparse sooting and looks much more like the sparse soot band associated with the moderator photos.
The reason why Sheila's looks like none of the above is because her wound was not a hard contact wound and had no muzzle imprint period.
-
This is a perfect example of how you intentionally distort. You constantly spin and demonstrate you possess no integrity or credibility whatsoever.
I didn't post my sources to support any affirmative argument I made, rather I posted them to refute bogus arguments that you made. You want to try revising what was being debated in a dishonest effort to deflect from the fact I proved your claims false.
You posted the following 2 bogus claims:
1) that it would be impossible for blood to get inside the moderator or gun from the fatal shot
and
2) that if it would be IMPOSSIBLE for blood that got inside the barrel during the non-fatal shot to remain in the moderator or rifle because the fatal shot would be sure to remove it.
I presented sources that proved blood would get inside from the fatal shot and also I posted multiple sources not just 1 that established it is untrue that blood would have to be removed by a subsequent shot. One such source discussed a case where a P-38 was used to shoot 3 different victims in succession at contact range and blood of all 3 victims was found inside thus the subsequent shots PLURAL failed to remove all blood from the prior victims.
You are turning things completely on their head and pretending that I argued blood can never be removed by a subsequent shot and that my sources prove me wrong on this. It is just another example of you creating a strawman to change the debate to try to conceal that you were proven wrong. You want to try to hide what the original debate was and deflect from it.
This is intentional deceit on your part nothing more. Maybe the stupid people you are used to dealing with will allow you to engage in such nonsense but I'm not one of them. I don't allow people to get away with deflecting I will always bring the debate back to where it was and not allow opponents to squirm their way out.
You made the bogus claim that drawback could only occur from the non-fatal wound not the fatal wound and then the bogus claim that the fatal shot would be sure to remove any blood that got inside from the nonfatal shot.
All that was needed to prove your second bogus claim false is posting materials which indicated that blood can and has remained inside after subsequent shots. My sources do this.
You are the one who made up the bogus rule that blood would for sure be removed by a subsequent shot. I didn't take a page from you and make up a rule that all blood would have to remain in a barrel of a rifle always. I simply noted that it frequently does remain after a subsequent shot. Moreover, I DISTINGUISHED between blood in a rifle barrel where the bullet would touch all areas where was was deposited from a moderator where the blood would not be able to be removed from baffles of other areas away from where the bullet travels. Thus your notions that the flake found and blood in the baffles would not be able to be there is particularly unsupported.
You know you lost this debate but rather than be a man and admit it you will distort to the bitter end trying to revise history and come up with any strawmen you can manufacture.
I have no problem admitting I am wrong when I actually am but your fragile ego and agenda cause you to never admit your legion of errors and instead you spin to the bitter end trying to pretend you weren't wrong. Then you resort to the defense mechanism of projection and falsely attribute these flaws of yours to your opponents.
You are accomplishing nothing other than further ruining your own credibility in the process.
1) A video doesn't help one has to listen in person to the difference
2) One has to check the decibel level with and without to see the precise difference and that precise difference it turns out makes the difference between one being able to damage their hearing or not
3) It is an objective fact that the manufacturer of the rifle found enough people who considered the moderator valuable that it was manufactured from the factory with threading to accept it
4) It is an objective fact that the manufacturer of the moderator had enough of a market to manufacture this model for decades
5) It is an objective fact that Nevill decided to purchase a model that can accept a moderator and also decided ot purchase a moderator.
6) Evidence establishes that the weapon was routinely stored and used with the moderator and scope installed
7) Evidence establishes that the only time Jeremy was seen carrying the rifle in the field that it had the moderator and scope installed
8) Evidence establishes that IF Jeremy had gone to the closet to get the weapon to shoot rabbits as he claimed he did then he would have found it with the scope and moderator attached.
You ignore all of this and subjectively make up that since the moderator doesn't lower the sound to a degree you personally consider important that this means Jeremy would not want to use the weapon with the moderator. He would go out of his way to take it off and not use it because of what? What harm would it cause in using the moderator? Any reduction at all would be better than no reduction when you don't want victims to wake up.
You simply made up that Jeremy would not want to use the moderator and thus that he can't have done so. This is not an argument worth anything except in your biased mind. To a rational, objective person your argument holds no sway at all it fails miserably in establishing the moderator was not used.
The moderator would be expected to be on the gun always and to always be used. So too would the scope be expected to be on it and used. The only reason to remove the scope was for close quarter combat which means the murders so it's absence actually is harmful. It's absence supports that Jeremy removed it in anticipation of the murders.
To try to conceal that the gun was always stored in such manner Jeremy lied and made up that the gun didn't fit in the closet with such accessories and after that was proven false he made up the lie that Nevill bough a hard case for it and that it didn't fit in this case with them attached.
You take an issue highly detrimental to Jeremy and spin it by ignoring his lies and simply making up that there is no way he would use the gun with the moderator attached to commit the murders though he was known to use it attached when using it for target practice and in the field. Your argument has no merit at all and makes no sense.
You present the argument that it should never have been manufactured, purchased or used because it is worthless yet it was manufactured, purchased and used. There is no reason why he would use it int he field but not to commit the murders.
The muzzle marks made by the moderator much more closely resemble what was on Sheila's neck than the imprint made by the rifle muzzle. But there is no evidence that there is a muzzle mark. Muzzle marks are only made during hard contact shots- though not all hard contact shots feature a muzzle imprint. The nonfatal wound was not determined to be a hard contact wound though.
Making up that it had to have a muzzle mark and that the muzzle mark matches the rifle fails miserably.
The CCRC and COA dismissed Fowler's claims and nothing more than unsupported speculation. There is no requirement for the prosecution or me to refute his speculation the fact is is only speculation makes it worthless.
You are the only one who keeps saying his speculation must be relied upon and is accurate.
He speculated about 2 different things:
1) Speculated the non-fatal wound was a hard contact wound that resulted in a muzzle imprint
2) Speculated that the item he felt was a muzzle imprint matched the muzzle of the rifle sans moderator
Vanezis and others DISAGREED that there was a muzzle imprint so that is problem 1.
Problem 2 is that he failed to do any testing of what a muzzle imprint would look like and had no measurrments of what such would be like nor did he have any measurements of the marks he was claiming was a muzzle imprint.
Time after time you IGNORE that the pig skin testing will not be able to mimic skin tightly wrapped over a human body with human organs, bone etc behind it. Gasses will have a much different impact then they will on pig hide that is simply hanging there.
In any event the nonfatal wound looks NOTHING like the pig skin test wounds. Nor did he have any measurements of such wounds to compare with the marks around Sheila's nonfatal wound that he claimed was a muzzle imprint.
His speculation was thus rejected as wholly worthless. Your claim it was not rejected by the CCRC is nothing short of a big fat lie. It was rejected as speculation that proves nothing. Yet you hold this out as proving the moderator was not used. You are the one living in an alternate reality not me.
The prefix was changed from SBJ to DB in later September well after the new case number existed. The new case number was created when Ainsley took over which actually was officially Septmeber 7. September 7 is when SC/786/85 became the case number. The change to DB/1 is SUBSEQUENT to this new number being issued. Since the case number at the time of the change to DB/1 was SC/786/85 is it fully proper and not the least bit suspicious that the tag has such case number.
The DB prefix was changed to DRB in November so months after.
Thus as usual have no idea what you are talking about. You claim evidence proves something it objectively doesn't.
You live in fantasyland. Sources establishing that Sheila's neck would be full of blood from the initial shot and thus the fatal show would result in drawback proves your unsupported claim that drawback would not occur from the fatal shot to be untrue. You never responded let alone refuted my point and evidence you just ignored it and maintained your bogus claim there would be no blood available to get inside the weapon.
I similarly took apart your other nonsense claims. As I said proving you wrong is very easy it is getting you to admit you were proven wrong that is difficult. But your admission is not required. Your refusal to face it just undermines your own credibility.
You are such a baby that anytime a new person on blue shows you up and proves you wrong that you accuse such person of being me and demand the person be suspended.
You are so invested in your agenda that you don't care about the facts or logic at all.
You can make up as many unsupported claims as you like it will not change anything.
I claimed the sound moderator made no difference in sound levels I used the description of the testing at the army range shown to the Jury and the video of Philip Boyce shooting the weapon with moderator on and off. You think you refute this buy coming with half a dozen things you just make up off the top of your head
I showed the Sound Moderator was not attached during the fatal wounds using photographic evidence of cases in the same circumstances and make comparisons plus I use the evidence of DR Fowler and the Experiments from Philip Boyce. You think you refute this by making up its somehow wrong and denying the fact that Fowler and Boyce examined the autopsy photos of Sheila's wounds but instead you like to think Dr Fowler just read Vanezis written autopsy and made a guess? LMAO!
I showed it was not necessary for blood to be in the Barrel of the gun from a contact by quoting from a forensic text book. You claim to refute such things by ignoring them then making things up(again)
As for the user that got banned on blue, It was lookout who first accused lemonhead of being you and not me but the fact you have to go off topic and bring things like this up just shows you have nothing to talk about because your claims have collapsed like a house of cards. You post drivel for impressionable people who believe Jeremy is guilty knowing they lack the forensic know how to realize its drivel or wont dig deeper to expose your junk claims for what they are.
-
You can make up as many unsupported claims as you like it will not change anything.
I claimed the sound moderator made no difference in sound levels I used the description of the testing at the army range shown to the Jury and the video of Philip Boyce shooting the weapon with moderator on and off. You think you refute this buy coming with half a dozen things you just make up off the top of your head
Buzz! Worng! You are incapable of accuracy it would seem.
You posted a source saying that the difference in the report with and without the moderator was not that significant. Your source didn't claim there was no difference whatsoever.
You then made the giant leap that there is no way Jeremy would use the weapon with the moderator because it did nothing even though there is evidence the gun moderator was stored on the weapon and used whenever the weapon was used.
Your giant leap evidences nothing more than your bias. You are so in the tank for Jeremy you will make up any nonsense you can. Your claim that Jeremy would not use the moderator is nonsense.
I showed the Sound Moderator was not attached during the fatal wounds using photographic evidence of cases in the same circumstances and make comparisons
You did no such thing. You posted a photo of a neck with a muzzle imprint from a moderator, and the pigskin imprint tests. Sheila's wounds did not resemble any of them which is hardly surprising since Sheila suffered no hard contact wounds and thus had no muzzle imprints.
Who said there were no muzzle imprints? Vanezis, Fletcher and Hayward.
Is there a muzzle imprint that can be detected in the photos? No.
Her wounds looked least like the pigskin muzzle imprint and actually more closely resembled the moderator imprint on the neck and the pig skin than did the muzzle imprint.
In your fantasy world you believe you established by photographic evidence that she had a muzzle imprint and that this muzzle imprint was made by the rifle sans moderator but in reality you failed miserably at demonstrating there was a muzzle imprint let alone that there was a muzzle imprint that matched the Anschutz barrel sans moderator.
plus I use the evidence of DR Fowler and the Experiments from Philip Boyce. You think you refute this by making up its somehow wrong and denying the fact that Fowler and Boyce examined the autopsy photos of Sheila's wounds but instead you like to think Dr Fowler just read Vanezis written autopsy and made a guess? LMAO!
In your fantasy world Fowler's claims are evidence. Here in the real World his claims are nothing more than unsupported speculation and that is why the CCRC dismissed it as unsupported speculation. You can ignore this till the day you die but ignoring it will not change this reality.
Fowler did not address the fatal wound. He only addressed the non-fatal wound. His report takes Vanezis' description from the autopsy and then claims that to him it sounds like a muzzle burn. He then assumes it is a muzzle burn and claims that the marks he assumes are a muzzle burn are too small to be made by the moderator and must be from the rifle barrel itself.
He made up that there was a muzzle burn and then made up that it matches the rifle. Just looking at a photo is nothing. You need the measurements of the supposed burn to compare with the measurements of a test muzzle burn. He didn't do that.
His speculation was not valid and thus simply worthless speculation as far as the CCRC was concerned. Because of your bias you elevate his worthless speculation to fact. Doing so accomplishes nothing at all. It's no better than a 9/11 conspiracy theorists relying on speculation that the WTC would not have been able to collapse without explosives.
Just like that speculation fails to prove explosives were used so does Fowler's speculation fail to prove that the moderator was not used.
I showed it was not necessary for blood to be in the Barrel of the gun from a contact by quoting from a forensic text book. You claim to refute such things by ignoring them then making things up(again)
You produced a source discussing conditions other than those faced in this case. Did you ever hear of the word relevant? You failed to come up with a source that assessed the conditions found in this case. The trial testimony was that the first wound caused her neck to fill with blood and thus the second wound would surely result in drawback. You didn't come up with ANY forensic source that discussed this. You totally ignored the argument that was made and came up with a strawman argument to try to refute.
Though I had no need to do so, I posted forensic sources that backed up the trial testimony and explain why the trial testimony was correct. You did not rebut that or rebut the trial testimony you just ignored the actual issues.
What matters is what would happen when shooting a neck that is full of blood as a result of internal bleeding. You failed to address this and thus what you posted was nonresponsive. It thus failed miserably at refuting the trial evidence. Your failure to face this just helps cement that whatever nonsense breakthrough theory you came up with will be nothing more than hogwash.
As for the user that got banned on blue, It was lookout who first accused lemonhead of being you and not me but the fact you have to go off topic and bring things like this up just shows you have nothing to talk about because your claims have collapsed like a house of cards. You post drivel for impressionable people who believe Jeremy is guilty knowing they lack the forensic know how to realize its drivel or wont dig deeper to expose your junk claims for what they are.
Far from getting off topic, I posted a great deal which you refused to quote and respond to because you got =you butt kicked and have no ability to refute my points. You seem to think that if you don't quote them and pretend I didn't post them that such makes them go away. You live in fantasyland.
Multiple users have been accused of being me. Who first accused them of being me doesn't matter. The fact is that after they refuted claims you made you then begging they be banned. You are incapable of debating anyone competently except in your dreams. Since you named lemonhead his sin was pointing out that Jeapes was looking in the box room window when you kept insisting she saw a gun in the master bedroom window.
But to get back to the topic at hand, while you claim you disproved the moderator was used only in your dreams did you do so.
-
David's picture of the wound with suppressor muzzle print:
Pig tests:
(http://s33.postimg.org/a976pt9bj/pigtests1.jpg)
The left is the wound sans moderator and right with moderator. Sheila's non-fatal wound is in the middle it looks like neither but is closer to the right than left. Note how the muzzle sans moderator has a band composed of searing and thick soot then an outer band with more thick soot. The imprint sans moderator lacks the thick band of searing and simply has soot then a ring with very little soot and finally a round seared ring to form the outer edge.
The wounds to the left look nothing like Sheila's.
Sheila's wound has very sparse sooting and looks much more like the sparse soot band associated with the moderator photos.
The reason why Sheila's looks like none of the above is because her wound was not a hard contact wound and had no muzzle imprint period.
Can I just remind you that it was only a few days ago you made up a dozen or so reasons for why the pig skin experiments were somehow useless. Now your using the very experiments you rubbished to try and convince people the moderator was attached?
LMAO!
(http://www.hifisentralen.no/forumet/attachments/mitt-anlegg-og-billedtra-der/151703d1346336508-janrs-anlegg-roflmao.gif)
-
Can I just remind you that it was only a few days ago you made up a dozen or so reasons for why the pig skin experiments were somehow useless. Now your using the very experiments you rubbished to try and convince people the moderator was attached?
LMAO!
(http://www.hifisentralen.no/forumet/attachments/mitt-anlegg-og-billedtra-der/151703d1346336508-janrs-anlegg-roflmao.gif)
This is just further evidence of how you either intentionally distort or honestly don't have the first damn clue what you are talking about.
David: Look at the muzzle imprint in these pig skin tests- Sheila's non-fatal wound looks just like the wound made by the rifle sans moderator
Scipio: Sheila's non-fatal wound looks like neither because her non-fatal wound was not a hard contact wound and did not result in a muzzle imprint but in any event visually it more closely resembles the moderator wound than the shot sans moderator. The rifle shot features 2 thick bands while the moderator features a thick band and then a very sparse almost blank band. The area you circled on her neck that you claim is the outer band of a muzzle imprint is very sparse band and thus more closely resembles the moderator mark.
----
What you wrote just now can be summarized as follows:
David: You are using the pig skin tests as proof it is a muzzle imprint from the moderator.
Here comes my response:
Scipio:
You are accusing me of arguing that Sheila's non-fatal wound had a muzzle imprint and that the muzzle imprint resembles the imprint left in the pig skin photos. DO you possess no reading comprehension skill whatsoever or are you just intentionally distorting?
What part of the following can possibly be construed as saying that Sheila had a muzzle imprint that matched the imprint left by the moderator on the pig skin:
"Sheila's non-fatal wound is in the middle it looks like neither but is closer to the right than left. ...The wounds to the left look nothing like Sheila's....Sheila's wound has very sparse sooting and looks much more like the sparse soot band associated with the moderator photos. The reason why Sheila's looks like none of the above is because her wound was not a hard contact wound and had no muzzle imprint period."
I CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY stated she had no muzzle imprint. I simply added that the marks around Sheila's non-fatal wound you claim resemble the impression made directly by the rifle muzzle in the pig skin do not in any way, shape or form resemble the marks left in the pig skin and in fact more closely resemble the marks made by the moderator on the pig skin and moderator on the human neck you posted. Though I accurately noted that the marks more closely resemble the marks made by the moderator I ALSO stated they did not match perfectly and that there is no muzzle imprint.
So your claim I argued there was a muzzle imprint made by the moderator is sheer nonsense. Whether you made up such with the intent to distort or are simply clueless the result is the same. You made bogus claim.
In the same way no doubt your supposed breakthrough is either a giant intentional distortion or put together in error. It is no more valid than your claim that at the time the moderator was classified DB/1 case number SC/786/85 was not in use. SC/786/85 was in use from September 7 forward while DB/1 was in use towards the end of September.
You are so biased you either intentionally spin things or are incapable of thinking clearly with your blinders on and make error after error.
-
I showed it was not necessary for blood to be in the Barrel of the gun from a contact by quoting from a forensic text book. You claim to refute such things by ignoring them then making things up(again)
1) Your claim you proved it would not be necessary for blood to be inside the barrel from the fatal shot is patently untrue.
2) Your claim I ignored what you wrote is also patently untrue. You are projecting as usual. You are ignored he argument I presented as to why blood would have to be inside the barrel and and more importantly ignored what the trial experts testified to as to why- which happens to be the same rationale I provided- how surprising- NOT!.
The Prosecution experts:
Sheila's nonfatal wound severed her external jugular vein causing hemorrhaging inside her neck near the skin. This created a blood filled cavity. The nature of the skin and this blood filled cavity is such that drawback would be sure to occur if a subsequent wound was delivered. If that subsequent wound was a contact shot then it would be sure to result in drawback.
I added the following materials to help explain/.support the prosecution position:
Vanezis noting the hemmoraging inside her neck from the first shot:
(http://s7.postimg.org/nph8nsmsb/sheilahemmorage.jpg)
The significance of that for backspatter:
(http://s13.postimg.org/lcczkwynb/temporarycavity.jpg)
(http://s12.postimg.org/9rki2lz4t/multipleshots1.jpg)
(http://s24.postimg.org/xzdv30uzp/multipleshots2.jpg)
This is your post that you claims refutes the prosecution position and the evidence I posted in support of it:
David:
"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♣)"
You didn't refute the argument of the trial experts you ignored it. You ignore that Sheila was shot in the neck not in the chin and the area where her fatal wound was delivered was an area that was filled with blood as a result of the first shot causing hemorrhaging. You ignore the reality and simply pretend that there was no bleeding so you can pretend that there would not be a source of blood that would definitely get inside the barrel.
Your claim I ignored your argument is sheer nonsense I effectively refuted your argument that there would not be blood available. I presented sources that explain how a wound will often cause a cavity to fill with blood and that when this happens it creates the ideal conditions for backspatter to occur when a second wound is delivered.
Your claim that this ignores the argument you made is nonsense it addresses and refutes your argument.
You never responded to this argument you ignore this argument and refuse to deal with it because you have no competent way to do so. That is fatal for your position because this argument was used at trial and you must refute it in order to prevail. You can't do so and didn't even try.
Was she shot in the chin? No the chin is formed by the apex of the jaw. Her fatal shot was in her neck, the same neck that was full of blood:
(http://i.imgur.com/r5SkwHH.jpg?1)
You failed to deal with the blood in her neck that would result in drawback from a contact wound and yet claim you proved drawback would not occur because there was no source of blood.
In your fantasyland all you have to do is claim something and it must be truth. That is not how things work in the real world.