Forensic evidence showing the silencer was used for the massacre:

[david1819]

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

[scipio_usmc]

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.   

[david1819]

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.

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.

[david1819]

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

[Myster]

See... you're biased again!!  Manufacturers not customers!

[Myster]

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

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

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

[scipio_usmc]

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.

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.

[scipio_usmc]

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.

 

[scipio_usmc]

This is where you got the review from...

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

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

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.

 

[david1819]

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


The muzzle marks show that what is being played out bellow cannot have taken place

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.

 

[scipio_usmc]

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


The muzzle marks show that what is being played out bellow cannot have taken place



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.

[scipio_usmc]

David's picture of the wound with suppressor muzzle print:



Pig tests:


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.

[david1819]

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.

[scipio_usmc]

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.

[david1819]

David's picture of the wound with suppressor muzzle print:

Pig tests:


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!