Sheila not fighting back. Why ?

[Caroline]

Visible blood on at least the first 6 baffles and at minimum microscopic blood on the first 8 was found by the defense.  How can it get on multiple baffles? If the moderator is held vertically and blood is poured in or dripped in using a dropper the blood will simply travel down the middle till it hits the end of the baffle or veers to a side and hitting a baffle.  One baffle blocks the baffles behind it.  How can blood get on 8 baffles  in a row?  The only way is via a spray of blood.  As this source explains blood will spray from a wound in a cone pattern because the resistance of the air straight ahead. With a spray you have small atomized particles of blood hitting the various initial baffles. That is exactly how it is distributed in a baffled moderator when drawback occurs.

Who would be in a position to know this beyond the lab?  Who would be in a position to know about drawback period beyond the lab?  Who would be in a position to know Sheila's fatal wound was a contact wound?

The police doing the investigation were unarmed police so didn't know much about guns and this is not common knowledge to gun owners anyway it deals with medical issues.  There is no evidence the police handling the investigation had prior cases that introduced them to drawback, the police thought the only value of the moderator would be if fingerprints were on it.  When they failed to come up with anything that was when they finally gave it back to the lab for detailed testing.  The lab personnel came up with the evidence of drawback and tied it in to Vanezis' September report of the fatal wound being a contact wound.

If the blood had been planted it would have likely been poured deeper into the moderator than drawback goes, giving away it had been planted.  Moreover, planting it would have hit 1-2 baffles not result in blood on 8 consecutive baffles that can only be accomplished by a spray.

Note that the defense was never able to find any experts to contradict the lab and say that the blood distribution in the moderator was not consistent with drawback.  The reason why is because the distribution was consistent with how drawback is deposited in a baffled moderator. If it were not consistent that would be evidence the blood got there by a different method including possibly being planted the so would be extremely potent evidence for the defense.

So yeah, yesterday you said that EP and the relatives wouldn't be familiar with blow-back (or back spatter) however, a scenes of crime office (or SOCO) certainly would and EP had their own department.

[scipio_usmc]

So yeah, yesterday you said that EP and the relatives wouldn't be familiar with blow-back (or back spatter) however, a scenes of crime office (or SOCO) certainly would and EP had their own department.

That depends on whether the crime scene officer was trained in the field or had a prior case that involved it which resulted in the crime scene officer learning about it.  Even today not all police are trained about drawback.

In the meantime the police didn't know about Sheila's fatal wound being a contact wound until Vanezis' report came out in September.  If they knew all about drawback they would know it only happens with contact wounds. If they knew drawback would occur they would know the blood was in the rifle and would have to have found a way to remove it not only to plant blood in the moderator.

If they had done so they would have had the lab do the more specific blood testing right away instead of wasting so much time on fingerprints which is the most significant evidence they thought the moderator would hold.   

[Jan]

1) How does removing evidence so that police can't use warrant the ignoring of evidence that isn't removed?  That would be like me picking up a gun used in a murder with my bare hands and then saying that because I touched it with my bare hands I might have left a print so police can't consider all the prints found on the gun. Unless my touching of the gun can result in depositing the prints of the other people on the gun the argument doesn't work. 

Scraping away blood doesn't deposit result in depositing the other blood present, it removes blood.  There is no basis to argue that removing the blood in any way affected the blood tested by police which was relied upon to convict him.

2) If the family deposited the blood they would not have scraped some of it away.

3) In order to plant the blood the family would have: 1) needed a source of Sheila's wet blood or to have to KNOWN her blood type including unique enzymes and to have found a source of the blood possessing the same exact attributes; 2) have needed to know she suffered a contact wound thus know her blood would have gotten inside the weapon; 3) to know all about the principles of drawback including how to replicate drawback. A typical dropper would not result in the distribution of blood found and would provide clues the blood had been planted; 4) they would have needed to conspire with someone who was in a position to remove the blood from the rifle because they had no access to the rifle.  If Sheila was shot with the gun sans moderator her blood would have been in the rifle so they would have needed someone to remove such blood.  There is no way the family alone could have planted the blood and no way the family would have known she suffered a contact wound and drawback would have resulted.  Those things were all revealed well after the moderator was found.

 

   

firstly if you read my post correctly I was inferring that DB did not actually remove the blood. He said it could  not he did . And I think he meant they kept the silencer before reporting it to the police - not the blood

secondly that silencer was handled by the family and the police before going to forensics - contamination after the crime.

thirdly the family did know a lot about the crime and the shots . DB admits the police told them

fourthly - I never said the family planted the blood.

I was talking about opportunity and contamination.

[scipio_usmc]

So there you are. You're told,or given the evidence and STILL you don't believe it whether it's from doctors,psychiatrists,pathologists,judges,authors who've interviewed people involved,no matter who,you are right,they're all wrong. You're incorrigible.!!

What evidence did you provide?  You made an allegation that Lomax made a claim.  You failed to provide proof he made the claim.  Even if he made the claim that only proves he made a claim not that the claim it actually true.  You need to provide evidence to substantiate the claim but haven't.

Unsupported opinions are worthless regardless of who is making them.  Authors are especially worthless but even experts making an unsupported claim amounts to nothing.  Courts don't just accept unsupported claims from experts the experts must explain the basis of their claims and offered evidence to substantiate them.

You misquote people all the time. The other day you got embarrassed because you falsely asserted DB taught Sheila to shoot.  I posted the actual statements and they were nothing like what you claimed.  So I will not just accept your word Lomax claimed they took the moderator apart but even if he did make the claim that is not proof it happened. Produce evidence it happened and then I will believe it.

[lookout]

What evidence did you provide?  You made an allegation that Lomax made a claim.  You failed to provide proof he made the claim.  Even if he made the claim that only proves he made a claim not that the claim it actually true.  You need to provide evidence to substantiate the claim but haven't.

Unsupported opinions are worthless regardless of who is making them.  Authors are especially worthless but even experts making an unsupported claim amounts to nothing.  Courts don't just accept unsupported claims from experts the experts must explain the basis of their claims and offered evidence to substantiate them.

You misquote people all the time. The other day you got embarrassed because you falsely asserted DB taught Sheila to shoot.  I posted the actual statements and they were nothing like what you claimed.  So I will not just accept your word Lomax claimed they took the moderator apart but even if he did make the claim that is not proof it happened. Produce evidence it happened and then I will believe it.

I HAVEN'T made any false assertions. I'm NOT in the habit of rambling about any old tosh either,I'll leave that to you.

Doesn't it stand to reason that when Sheila was pointing the rifle at June,that June would grab the barrel,thus residue/soot would be on her hand/s.Unfortunately the swabbing debacle at the lab,being as abysmal as it was,didn't bother to swab either June or Neville,but it was evident that on June's hand,there was soot. ?
Because a shot entered June's left breast area at close range,it would have been a mormal reaction to have grabbed the rifle before it was fired ( unfortunately it was,at that stage )

[Jane]

I HAVEN'T made any false assertions. I'm NOT in the habit of rambling about any old tosh either,I'll leave that to you.

Doesn't it stand to reason that when Sheila was pointing the rifle at June,that June would grab the barrel,thus residue/soot would be on her hand/s.Unfortunately the swabbing debacle at the lab,being as abysmal as it was,didn't bother to swab either June or Neville,but it was evident that on June's hand,there was soot. ?
Because a shot entered June's left breast area at close range,it would have been a mormal reaction to have grabbed the rifle before it was fired ( unfortunately it was,at that stage )

It does, Lookout, were it not for the fact that the initial shots to June were in the area of her head whilst she was in bed. At a guess I'd have said that her getting up may have caused the killer -AND the rifle- to retreat, preventing her from touching it. Where have you seen it said that her hands were sooty?

[lookout]

It does, Lookout, were it not for the fact that the initial shots to June were in the area of her head whilst she was in bed. At a guess I'd have said that her getting up may have caused the killer -AND the rifle- to retreat, preventing her from touching it. Where have you seen it said that her hands were sooty?

In 2011,Mike had stated that there'd been soot on both the hands of June and Sheila.

[lookout]

 Instead of being transfixed on Jeremy,why did EP take it that the tragedy was a " domestic ",then reporters scurried to the press reporting that the " grandmother " had killed the family?
In both Wilkes book and Claire Powell's book,it states the same.

What indications were there to suggest a domestic ? Bit of a difference between that and a cold-blooded, motiveless murder,.

[Caroline]

That depends on whether the crime scene officer was trained in the field or had a prior case that involved it which resulted in the crime scene officer learning about it.  Even today not all police are trained about drawback.

In the meantime the police didn't know about Sheila's fatal wound being a contact wound until Vanezis' report came out in September.  If they knew all about drawback they would know it only happens with contact wounds. If they knew drawback would occur they would know the blood was in the rifle and would have to have found a way to remove it not only to plant blood in the moderator.

If they had done so they would have had the lab do the more specific blood testing right away instead of wasting so much time on fingerprints which is the most significant evidence they thought the moderator would hold.

YOu said no one investigating would have prior knowledge of draw-back but is not the case. The SOCO course is pretty extensive - I'm sure they were armed with more than a magnifying glass an a deerstalker hat!Fact is there were people there who could have engineered the silencer evidence. The 'flake' found inside the silencer suggests that more than a 'fine mist' entered it.

[Jan]

Also it is ridiculous to suggest that the family who were by their own admittance very experienced in guns and shooting would not know that blood gets in the barrel or silencer with close shots - the term is irrelevant .

they would know because you often have to finish of a kill with a close shot and they would clean their guns.

Again I am not saying the family did anything like that - but to suggest they would not know is just plain ridiculous .

And DB admitted that the police gave them lots of information about the way the family were shot on their first visit.


And as one recent expert stated he could not be 100% sure it was not animal blood and as mike has shown there was animal blood on the outside.

Actually I wonder where the animal blood came from if everyone is saying JB never shot anything before that night?

that's an interesting question?

[Adam]

Instead of being transfixed on Jeremy,why did EP take it that the tragedy was a " domestic ",then reporters scurried to the press reporting that the " grandmother " had killed the family?
In both Wilkes book and Claire Powell's book,it states the same.

What indications were there to suggest a domestic ? Bit of a difference between that and a cold-blooded, motiveless murder,.

I don't recall reading that in Wilkes's book.

Maybe the grandmother had popped over for a midnight cup of tea.

[Caroline]

That depends on whether the crime scene officer was trained in the field or had a prior case that involved it which resulted in the crime scene officer learning about it.  Even today not all police are trained about drawback.

In the meantime the police didn't know about Sheila's fatal wound being a contact wound until Vanezis' report came out in September.  If they knew all about drawback they would know it only happens with contact wounds. If they knew drawback would occur they would know the blood was in the rifle and would have to have found a way to remove it not only to plant blood in the moderator.

If they had done so they would have had the lab do the more specific blood testing right away instead of wasting so much time on fingerprints which is the most significant evidence they thought the moderator would hold.

There were police and SOCO people present at autopsy, so they must have known about the contact wound.

[Jan]

I don't recall reading that in Wilkes's book.

Maybe the grandmother had popped over for a midnight cup of tea.

 ::)June was a grandmother

[lookout]

 " The Anschutz,model 525 is 109 cm long,the Parker-Hale silencer model no. is lot listed but it appears to be approximately 10 to 15 cm long.

Using a .22 Anschutz semi-automatic rifle and firing a 2.6 gram bullet,the bullet will travel at 220 mtrs per second with muzzle energy of 68 ft pounds.
This will give you a blood spatter blowback of approximately .774mtrs."

"25 rounds fired,so the chances of backspatter increase".

[scipio_usmc]

In 2011,Mike had stated that there'd been soot on both the hands of June and Sheila.

Mike has reiterated his such claims numerous times.  Bu he makes things up constantly and offered no evidence to support his claims.

As was pointed out already one of June's initial shots was to the head and that shot would kill her in a very short period of time.  It is somewhat amazing she managed to get out of bed after receiving such shot but she didn't get far she got up then collapsed and when she was shot in between the eyes was either already dead or passed out so in no position to attempt to defend herself.