How does back spatter explain how blood was detected on the threaded (hidden) part of the silencer?
Here are some of my thoughts from earlier posts.
I do not believe it would be impossible for any wet blood to go as far as the 8th baffle. In the Sion Jenkins case a mere expulsion of the dead Billy J’s breath managed to spray the whole of the front of his fleece and his shoe with miniscule droplets. If there was a small amount of wet blood in or around the muzzle area the gasses forced through the barrel would be sufficient to cause a similar spray/mist effect over a distance of say 6 inches.
author=Bubo bubo link=topic=10740.msg505360#msg505360 date=1639504190]
Can I suggest we discuss the case and move well away from the immature behaviour that has recently been on display? IMO no one comes out of these spats without reputational damage. I am not a moderator but feel the forum has descended into a pit of vipers. Let’s keep it civil.
BLOOD WORKS
[/size]
I think this subject might be right up CC’s street.
I thought it might be useful to set out more clearly how I believe the SM came to have blood inside. I will set them out individually. I have already outlined my thinking on DB1 being found by DB on the day. It should be noted that this exhibit was on DB’s list, which was later headed N/R as outlined in the COLP DB interview. The COLP suggested this meant Not Required or Not Relevant. DB offered no explanation. I argue he was collecting items that were used or produced in the cover up otherwise they would have been assigned to other SOCO officers. Taff wanted them kept apart and I have set out the reasons for this before. The most important may have been a suspicion he held that it could have been contaminated by the TFG which might bring JB into the frame.
1 Sheila contaminated it by her actions.This could have been caused by a nose bleed when adding or removing the SM blood drips on the SM or muzzle. Another possibility is that she had blood on her hand which transferred to the muzzle during handling. It is also possible some blood dripped onto the SM around the exit. It is also possible that SC ‘prodded dead victims putting blood on the muzzle.2 The TFG unwittingly contaminated it.If there was blood on the muzzle and maybe a small incursion into the barrel and they then fitted the SM to make at least one shot (say the first or second shot as outlined in evidence). The action would possibly cause minute particles/mist size droplets to be distributed on the baffle plates and inside the main SM’s barrel/bore as far as that noted in the evidence.
3 A deliberate action at the labThey, MDF in particular, could have created a flake or they obtained it from the receptacle containing PV20 and blood. As noted by Taylor on his GER. (QC I believe this is another document dated 12/09/85). Since there is a distinct possibility that he swapped PV20 to help create the one-gun crime, the creation of a flake or a flake from the PV20 receptacle would hold no fear.4 A mistake by MDF who test fired the rifle.Though he says he did a pull through and found no blood he might have come to the conclusion that he had caused it when small quantities were found by testing for bloods. He may have test fired before the blood tests. A mistake by a ‘novice’? Any earlier contamination would be blasted into the SM. If he visually inspected, it before both the test fire and/or the pull through. It is unlikely he could see the blood because JH and PJL asserted that the blood was not visible to the naked eye.
This suggestion comes into play if 2 above is excluded.I would suggest that you read this to engage with my thinking.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action\attach;topic=4779.0;attach=34386;imageIt seems to me that in the initial stages the mixed group theory was a possibility. JH did not do the tests himself someone, initials ALB did the tests. JH presented on behalf of the FSS at trial.
Try reading this.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34390;imageand this
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34392;imageIt could be argued that PJL’s first report was sent to the FSS. (It would have been seen as a matter of curtesy and professional behaviour) as well as presenting findings to the defence. JH said he needed two matching sources to confirm SC’s blood. Low and behold PJL’ s reasoning is undermined by the finding of a flake. This caused him to adjust his advice.
I have severe reservations about this as previously outlined. See this
SILENCER SAGA reply 2 Was there a flake of blood.
I have seen the McKenzie report which says the same. It is a pity I had not read this when first posting this suggestion.
The flake provided additional evidence to support an otherwise highly contestable finding from the SM bore and baffle plates. This is similar to JM’s testimony bolstering the SM evidence.
There many who say that these nuanced issues were used to mislead the Jury about the veracity of the blood evidence. The flake result was not easy to contest and could not be verified by a subsequent test because the all the flake was consumed in the original test. The testing method was called into question later.
The flake was not discovered by RC when he dismantled it and it is clear he was not seeking quick tests because he did not send it to the lab for another nine days. MF did not find the flake when according to some he dismantled it on 13/08/85, (some claim this is a lie and is connected to a forged HOLAB 5 form), was it him who found the flake? Did he dismantle it before passing it to JH and his team? In any case it would seem that neither RC or MF saw blood as would be the case, if it was invisible to the naked eye.I do not know which if any of the four scenarios I favour but I feel it could be an amalgam of any 2 or 3 from the total. All these scenarios place blood on the muzzle and a strong likelihood that this fact resulted in stronger blood findings which were found on the female screw head. A condition that cannot occur in normal operating conditions.
They (SM’s) are designed and built so as not to leak in this area.I strongly agree with David1819’s take on the back spatter issue. For me the amount of material (blood) was very small indeed, some might say minute and there was no other material like bone or tissue which are characteristic elements of the phenomenon. The quantities were so small I cannot see how any deliberate attempt to introduce blood into the silencer could be achieved. It would be extremely difficult because the actor would have to apply such a small amount as that found in the testing. The flake is different in that making one would be more easily achieved.
While arguments such as this maybe wrong or right, there seems little possibility that this aspect will lead to a CCRC referral. The blood evidence is a dead end I am afraid.
I believe the CT should proceed with this case on the basis that it is a ‘frame up’ following a cover-up. A case could be constructed explaining the framing of JB as part of a whole new narrative, citing the lack of disclosure as a deliberate attempt to hide pertinent evidence and the mistakes that were made. The outcome of this behaviour eventually leading to the diabolical framing of an innocent man.
[/quote]
