Ooops almost forgot the second question!
As I've pointed out on numerous occasions my interpretation of the pathology report is that NB was so badly injured upstairs he was incapable of putting up any sort of defence. I think he collapsed in the kitchen chair from the four gunshot wounds he sustained upstairs and when blows from the rifle rained down he was sadly defenceless. Meaning his assailant would not necessarily have sustained any injuries.
As the rifle and ammo used were low calibre/velocity I don't think the gunshot wounds would necessarily have resulted in spatter. I am unsure about NB's other injuries? All I can say, as I've said on many occasions, is that if it was all so obvious why did highly trained and experienced individuals who had the benefit of seeing all the victims in-situ overlook it? Why years later when Michael Turner QC, who represented JB at his CoA hearing, was asked if he thought JB innocent did he reply "Passionately"?
But that's not what the forensics show Holly, why do you ignore the evidence?
There was a struggle over the kitchen table, a struggle with the rifle as evidenced by the scattered china, the broken lampshade, the marks on the mantelpiece, the piece broken off from the rifle stock etc...
The spatter I was referring to resulted from being beaten by a blunt object, the rifle itself.
Are you so naive as to believe lawyers don't lie?
