June Bamber, did not attend bible class evening before she was killed...

[Caroline]

Probably not? Just like Ralph wasn't afraid of his life when he allegedly called Jeremy that night.

The operative word being 'allegedly' - Of course if there was no call, he would indeed have been afraid for his life - but not because of Sheila! 

[Mr. Gee]

The operative word being 'allegedly' - Of course if there was no call, he would indeed have been afraid for his life - but not because of Sheila! 

No you got it wrong. If there was such a phonecall he would have been in fear and not from Jeremy.

[scipio_usmc]

Which of course you have just added to Of course you are very familiar with red herrings aren't you, since you hang on to so many of them including the silencer evidence so called and Mugford's testimony

The moderator evidence is not a red herring nor is Mugford's testimony.  Both are extremely significant.  Either you don't know what red herring means or you are so biased and delusional you don't even want to face the significance of the evidence.  My money is on the latter because you have demonstrated time and again you are biased beyond all reason even as you ridiculously assert you are neutral.

[David1819]

The moderator evidence is not a red herring nor is Mugford's testimony.  Both are extremely significant.  Either you don't know what red herring means or you are so biased and delusional you don't even want to face the significance of the evidence.  My money is on the latter because you have demonstrated time and again you are biased beyond all reason even as you ridiculously assert you are neutral.

The moderator was not on the gun when Shelia died. The Autopsy report along with the photos confirm that the 1st shot was a partial contact wound and the 2nd shot was a contact wound. Abrasion rings on both wounds being 3/16 of an inch wide the other 1/4 of an inch wide is consistent with the end the rifle with the moderator removed. If the moderator was used the abrasion rings would be considerably larger. This was confirmed in a report by Dr Fowler and Dr Dragovich chief medical examiner in Michigan USA and peer reviewed by Dr Fierro chief medical examiner of Virginia now retired.

The 2012 CCRC statement acknowledged this however it fails to prove him innocent. One could easily argue that Bamber committed the act without the silencer or even more likely while planning the crime in advance JB realised it would make the gun too long so removed the silencer before killing Sheila last. But using the silencer before hand while murdering the other family members. if that makes sense

[Jan]

The moderator evidence is not a red herring nor is Mugford's testimony.  Both are extremely significant.  Either you don't know what red herring means or you are so biased and delusional you don't even want to face the significance of the evidence.  My money is on the latter because you have demonstrated time and again you are biased beyond all reason even as you ridiculously assert you are neutral.

Oh dear - I thought you may have gone away and improved your manners. But no such luck .

can you not Just argue your points without adding your personal digs?

If you do have that level of self control.

[Caroline]

The moderator was not on the gun when Shelia died. The Autopsy report along with the photos confirm that the 1st shot was a partial contact wound and the 2nd shot was a contact wound. Abrasion rings on both wounds being 3/16 of an inch wide the other 1/4 of an inch wide is consistent with the end the rifle with the moderator removed. If the moderator was used the abrasion rings would be considerably larger. This was confirmed in a report by Dr Fowler and Dr Dragovich chief medical examiner in Michigan USA and peer reviewed by Dr Fierro chief medical examiner of Virginia now retired.

The 2012 CCRC statement acknowledged this however it fails to prove him innocent. One could easily argue that Bamber committed the act without the silencer or even more likely while planning the crime in advance JB realised it would make the gun too long so removed the silencer before killing Sheila last. But using the silencer before hand while murdering the other family members. if that makes sense

Would you like to post where you have taken the above information from?

[David1819]

Would you like to post where you have taken the above information from?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3777.0.html

I have also read the Autopsy reports and reffered to a book "Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensics By Vincent J.M. DiMaio, M.D" to make my own mind up about it

[scipio_usmc]

The moderator was not on the gun when Shelia died. The Autopsy report along with the photos confirm that the 1st shot was a partial contact wound and the 2nd shot was a contact wound. Abrasion rings on both wounds being 3/16 of an inch wide the other 1/4 of an inch wide is consistent with the end the rifle with the moderator removed. If the moderator was used the abrasion rings would be considerably larger. This was confirmed in a report by Dr Fowler and Dr Dragovich chief medical examiner in Michigan USA and peer reviewed by Dr Fierro chief medical examiner of Virginia now retired.

The 2012 CCRC statement acknowledged this however it fails to prove him innocent. One could easily argue that Bamber committed the act without the silencer or even more likely while planning the crime in advance JB realised it would make the gun too long so removed the silencer before killing Sheila last. But using the silencer before hand while murdering the other family members. if that makes sense

1) you are erroneously suggesting that when a shot is fired with the moderator attached it will definitely leave a ring around the wound, this is not true.  It CAN happen but doesn't have to happen.  It doesn't always happen. 

It  is POSSIBLE for a contact wound to burn an impression of the barrel of the weapon (moderator if a moderator is attached) into the skin but it doesn't always happen and didn't happen in this case.  If it had happened in this case they would have tried matching up the impression to the rifle barrel itself and the moderator and evaluated which it matched.  There was nothing to match because it didn't happen. 

The defense argument is effectively that it wasn't actually a contact wound because no impression was burned into her skin.  But since it doesn't always happen with contact wounds this argument will not go anywhere legally.   

2) the blood would have been in the rifle if the moderator had not been attached. The blood was in the moderator not the rifle and was distributed exactly as it would be from drawback.  This is proof it was attached when she was shot.

[Jan]

http://jereybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3777.0.html

I have also read the Autopsy reports and reffered to a book "Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensics By Vincent J.M. DiMaio, M.D" to make my own mind up about it

 
Looking forward to some "interesting " discussions with our self professed expert Scipio.

I have my money on you

[scipio_usmc]

Just to be clear here is what is being referred to this is a muzzle imprint:



This muzzle imprint burned not only the barrel but the entire face of the pistol into the skin.

Unless a wound is a contact wound there will be no muzzle imprint. So a muzzle imprint existing is evidence a wound was a contact wound.  All wounds resulting in a muzzle imprint will be a contact wound.  HOWEVER; not all contact wounds result in muzzle imprints.

There are 4 possiblities with a contact wound:

1) leaves no muzzle imprint

2) leaves a partial muzzle imprint but too small to be of any use

3) leaves an imprint of just the barrel

4) leaves an imprint of more than just the barrel.

The above obviously fits number 4.

 

[scipio_usmc]

 
Looking forward to some "interesting " discussions with our self professed expert Scipio.

I have my money on you

I hope you didn't bet too much because you will lose.

[Jan]

I hope you didn't bet too much because you will lose.

we will see .

[scipio_usmc]

we will see .

It's already over.  His alleged source doesn't list anything he asserted.  The claims int he meantime are false. Vanezis merely detailed the size of the entrance wounds he didn't say anything about there being abrasion rings (muzzle imprints) on the wounds thus didn't have any muzzle imprints to detail the size of.  There were no muzzle imprints observed that is why we have to look at other things to try to assess whether the wounds were contact wounds or not.


 

[David1819]

1) you are erroneously suggesting that when a shot is fired with the moderator attached it will definitely leave a ring around the wound, this is not true.  It CAN happen but doesn't have to happen.  It doesn't always happen. 

It  is POSSIBLE for a contact wound to burn an impression of the barrel of the weapon (moderator if a moderator is attached) into the skin but it doesn't always happen and didn't happen in this case.  If it had happened in this case they would have tried matching up the impression to the rifle barrel itself and the moderator and evaluated which it matched.  There was nothing to match because it didn't happen. 

The defense argument is effectively that it wasn't actually a contact wound because no impression was burned into her skin.  But since it doesn't always happen with contact wounds this argument will not go anywhere legally.   

2) the blood would have been in the rifle if the moderator had not been attached. The blood was in the moderator not the rifle and was distributed exactly as it would be from drawback.  This is proof it was attached when she was shot.

1. Abrasions rings are left when the barrel is in contact or very close contact to the skin hence why I mentioned the autopsy report.

2. The DNA found in silencer was more likely to be Junes this was confirmed by Webster and got Bamber his appeal hearing in 2002.

3. The alleged blood flake belonging to Shelia was found in 5th baffle plate no where else. The Bourtflours took the silencer apart with their bare hands, the same day they collected blood stained  clothing and a pair of sheilas blood stained underwear from WHF.

4. The Drawback effect does not always happen. Macdonell and Brooks done original research in blood splatter drawback and found it was more likely to occur with a shorter barrel and a higher calibre weapon. The shorter the barrel the more drawback the higher the calibre the more draw back. Being a .22 long rifle the odds are minimal.

Further reading
" Principles of Bloodstain Pattern Analysis: Theory and Practice
 By Stuart H. James, Paul E. Kish, T. Paulette Sutton"

5. This is the baffle plate in question


Mark Webster a forensic scientist in his own words
"No blood was visible on or in the moderator. Limited chemical testing (KM testing) did not reveal the presence of any blood. The red stains on one of the baffles removed from the moderator shown below were not blood. They were probably rust. The flake on the rim of the baffle appeared to be "soot". Several such flakes were present inside the moderator."

[Patti]

Excellent post David. I can also add that the silencer was originally tested using the ABO method and re-tested in 2001 for the 2002 appeal using LCN DNA.

Contamination:

The results clearly showed there was an unidentified male DNA surely this adds weight to possible contamination within the silencer. Possibly??

The tests would only have shown a possibility of 3 people June, Sheila or Neville.

The COA excepted that Sheila's DNA may not have been in the silencer but because June's DNA was found the appeal was lost.  However, June's DNA could be argued because her relatives examined the silencer.

I'm thinking out loud here, I'm sure Skip will shoot me down....but could it be possible?