Shooter would have run out of bullets before finishing of both parents, clue...

[grahameb]

There was no blood at his side of the bed - isn´t that a little odd?
Further, I cannot quite make your scenario fit with the diagram. The two shots to his left mouth area, OK. PERHAPS the one to his lower left arm, which exited (where did that bullet end up?) ; but not the shot to his left shoulder. How would the shooter have stood near the door achieving that?? It is clearly fired with the rifle pointing downwards in a steep angle.

Also note the exit wound in the left arm. Clearly marked. Showing that the bullet passed through the fleshy part of his arm.

[grahameb]

The drawing makes it look steeper the same way it distorts the elbow shot.  It was not the top of the elbow that had the entrance would it was the side of the shoulder.  Going down the stairs the side of the shoulder would not be able to be targeted. Only the top could be or the back of the shoulder.  The left shoulder had to be facing the shooter and the shooter had to be at a higher positon than the victim.  The same is true for the jaw shot. He probably was seeted during both.

All 4 of these initial shots were with Nevill's left side facing the shooter. 

In contrast the killer was to the right of him when shooting him in the kitchen.

Shot 8 was the shot that grazed the elbow.  It is up too high in the drawing because the elbow is lower.  I don't know why he wrote exit next to it, it never entered or exited the elbow, it grazed it.  Underneath the exit sign is where the bullet entered his left torso.  It went into his abdoment but he was unable to dig it out.

So how do you know that the drawing is inaccurate? Do you have a better one?

[scipio_usmc]

So how do you know that the drawing is inaccurate? Do you have a better one?

I am a lousy artist but if someone drew me a sketch of  ahuman I coudl make the lines actually go to the body part they should.  I can draw a line to the elbow instead of to the arm like he did.

I also would not put the word exit right after the arm to indicate that is where it traveled next after the graze.  Moreover I would note the wounds to the side actually referenced in the report.

A bullet that was traveiling towards Nevill's side grazed the elbow, struck his side causing damage entered his body and lodged in his abdomen.  It broke into fragments inside of him and these fragments were not fished out.  That is what the rpoert indicates.  The best way to draw this in a diagram I don't know but showing his arm hit not his elbow certainly is not accurate.

[grahameb]

I am a lousy artist but if someone drew me a sketch of  ahuman I coudl make the lines actually go to the body part they should.  I can draw a line to the elbow instead of to the arm like he did.

I also would not put the word exit right after the arm to indicate that is where it traveled next after the graze.  Moreover I would note the wounds to the side actually referenced in the report.

A bullet that was traveiling towards Nevill's side grazed the elbow, struck his side causing damage entered his body and lodged in his abdomen.  It broke into fragments inside of him and these fragments were not fished out.  That is what the rpoert indicates.  The best way to draw this in a diagram I don't know but showing his arm hit not his elbow certainly is not accurate.

So you do contradict the experts drawing then? That's all I need to know. Thank you.

[scipio_usmc]

So you do contradict the experts drawing then? That's all I need to know. Thank you.

The drawing doesn't include the damage his report noted to the side left torso.  Moreover the report fails to describe the sound as an entrace wound though it had to be because the bullet that ended up on the other side of the wound (insid ehis abdoment) can't have gotten there through osmosis. WHich is why you always need to not only go by written reports but by testimony to get a complete picture of things. That is why witnesses must testify istead of having trials based simply on documents.   

[grahameb]

The drawing doesn't include the damage his report noted to the side left torso.  Moreover the report fails to describe the sound as an entrace wound though it had to be because the bullet that ended up on the other side of the wound (insid ehis abdoment) can't have gotten there through osmosis. WHich is why you always need to not only go by written reports but by testimony to get a complete picture of things. That is why witnesses must testify istead of having trials based simply on documents.   

Good post scipio. I hadn't really challenged the diagrams before as I considered them to be accurate.

[scipio_usmc]

Good post scipio. I hadn't really challenged the diagrams before as I considered them to be accurate.

I'm more curious about the fact the report noted the bullet inside his abdomen and that it was also mentioned at trial but that he failed to describe the side wound as an entrance wound in the report though it had to be.  In the grand scheme of things I suppose it doesn't matter but it is still odd to see him describe 8 bullet inside Nevill and only 7 entrance wounds.       

[Patti]

I'm more curious about the fact the report noted the bullet inside his abdomen and that it was also mentioned at trial but that he failed to describe the side wound as an entrance wound in the report though it had to be.  In the grand scheme of things I suppose it doesn't matter but it is still odd to see him describe 8 bullet inside Nevill and only 7 entrance wounds.     

I must say that Hartley had mentions that one of the bullets had fragmented into the chest cavity. but there is no clear evidence on this. 

[scipio_usmc]

I must say that Hartley had mentions that one of the bullets had fragmented into the chest cavity. but there is no clear evidence on this. 

The fragments "showed up on the radiological scope" but coudl not be removed.  That's not surprising. small bullets break into smaller pieces and are harder to find and remove.  That is actually why NATO standard NATO ammunition causes more deaths than AK-47 rounds.  The larger rounds are easier to remove.  The smaller ones harde ros more infections.

If you on one hand say the fragments are definitely there and that he had 8 bullets inside him then you logically have to admit there were 8 entrance wounds.  He admitted there 8 bullets but only 7 entrance wounds.  That's the part that disturbs me. It's more me being anal retentative I suppose. I wish I knew what the jury thought of that one.   

   

[grahameb]

The fragments "showed up on the radiological scope" but coudl not be removed.  That's not surprising. small bullets break into smaller pieces and are harder to find and remove.  That is actually why NATO standard NATO ammunition causes more deaths than AK-47 rounds.  The larger rounds are easier to remove.  The smaller ones harde ros more infections.

If you on one hand say the fragments are definitely there and that he had 8 bullets inside him then you logically have to admit there were 8 entrance wounds.  He admitted there 8 bullets but only 7 entrance wounds.  That's the part that disturbs me. It's more me being anal retentative I suppose. I wish I knew what the jury thought of that one.   

   

I don't suppose the jury ever considered it. I think they were carried along by the prosecution counsel into seeing things their way?
I suppose it is possible to have 8 bullets in a person with only 7 entry wounds. That is if two shots were taken at the same time and both entered by the same spot? I know it is a bit far fetched. But nevertheless could happen I suppose? Or not?

[lookout]

I don't suppose the jury ever considered it. I think they were carried along by the prosecution counsel into seeing things their way?
I suppose it is possible to have 8 bullets in a person with only 7 entry wounds. That is if two shots were taken at the same time and both entered by the same spot? I know it is a bit far fetched. But nevertheless could happen I suppose? Or not?

Yes,Grahame,,if a bullet enters and exits,it would still be counted as a wound.Is that what you mean ?
The abrasion rings would dictate that.

[scipio_usmc]

I don't suppose the jury ever considered it. I think they were carried along by the prosecution counsel into seeing things their way?
I suppose it is possible to have 8 bullets in a person with only 7 entry wounds. That is if two shots were taken at the same time and both entered by the same spot? I know it is a bit far fetched. But nevertheless could happen I suppose? Or not?

For someone who shoots like Robinhood maybe or if the wounds are so close they merge.

[grahameb]

For someone who shoots like Robinhood maybe or if the wounds are so close they merge.

Nah, couldn't have been Robin Hood. He used a bow and arrow. Anyway I did say I was probably wrong.