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.
As I already pointed out abrasion rings (aka muzzle imprints) CAN be left they are not always left when there is a contact wound. The autopsy report doesn't mention any abrasion rings it mentiones the size of the entrance wound. You simply made up the claim there were abrasion rings the size of the entrance wounds.
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
.
All the blood was removed from the moderator before it was tested for DNA. By definition that means that any DNA found inside was not blood based and was attributable to contamination. That alone means the DNA found in the moderator was wholly meaningless.
The moderator had both June and Sheila's DNA and a partial profile of someone else but there were only 4 markers from that profile so not enough to figure out anything. The defense expert was so biased she insisted it was a male to support the defense argument at trial that maybe it was Neville and June's blood not Sheila's. Her straining was a waste of time though because the DNA was through contamination and Sheila's was there anyway. She strained to try to say she could not determine for sure if it was Sheila's but from a scientific standpoint enough markers matched to say it was. The chances of it being someone else's were astronomical. It matters not though since such was attributable to contamination not blood.
The only DNA test that would matter would be a DNA test of the blood the defense and prosecution experts removed in 1985 and 1986 but no such blood was retained for future testing.
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.
Everytime you post you post another erroneous claim.
The lab removed all visible blood from the moderator. There was visible blood on a least the first 6 baffles. It is unclear if there was any visible blood on baffles 7 and 8 because the lab didn't note such. The defense expert found microscopic blood on baffles 1-8. The defense expert and lab BOTH determined this blood was Sheila's blood type. In addition the lab tested a visible flake of blood that was trapped between the first 2 baffles. Not only was it Sheila's blood type this blood had an enzyme which was different from June. AK1 as opposed to June's AK 2-1. AK 2-1 is more stable than AK1 so if it were a mix of June and Sheila's blood then the AK2-1 should have been present.
The defense came up with a theory maybe it was June and Neville's mixed and there was no blood of Sheila at all but had no expert to support their claim because their very own expert told them it wasn't possible. They got the prosecution expert to say there was a remote possibility but he didn't think it were the case and explained why. They needed to establish it was a reasonably likely possibility for it to have any legal significance but couldn't.
As for the family they looked at it they didn't take it apart and the men didn't even touch her panties only AE did not that it matters because there is no way to touch a dried blood stain on clothing and magically transfer blood from the panties to 8 baffles. The blood was wet and actually dried onto the baffles. Wet blood sprayed inside the baffle through drawback landing on the first 8 and dried there.
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"
Whether drawback will happen is first and foremost a factor of where the wound is. The most important factors relate to the thickness of the skin and how much blood is in the area in question. Head wounds often don't result in drawback because of both of these mentioned factors. When it does it virtually always is the result of a large caliber wound that hit the right area of the head.
The testimony at trial by the experts was that the fatal wound would be virtually certain to result in drawback because of the nature of the skin in that area as well as the blood vessels. Nothing you posted deals with these relevant facts you lack the expertise to debate the issue competently and are just making up your own crap.
That is especially the case with your silly claim that the odds are minimal of a 22 rifle being able to result in drawback. The most important factor is the location of the wound.
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."
Yeah and? All it says it that there was no blood before doing the DNA tests. That makes the DNA tests worthless for the reasons I already explained.
Here is what the 1986 defense expert said (quoting from the 2002 Appeal Court decision):
"No questions were asked at trial of Mr Hayward to establish what part of the blood he had tested. The position was, however, known to the defence through their own expert Dr Lincoln. Dr Lincoln had seen the evidential material upon which the group testing results were based and agreed with the conclusions. He recorded that evidence in the course of his report of 19 September 1986. He said that Mr Hayward had "found a flake of blood trapped under the first or second baffle plate" and that it was this flake that was tested and produced the groupings A, EAP BA, AK1, Hp2.1 upon which reliance was placed by the prosecution. Dr Lincoln further recorded:
'Mr Hayward states that he could detect visible staining on the "upper baffle plates" and that he swabbed these plates so that the blood was taken onto cotton material which could subsequently be used in grouping tests. On this material Mr Hayward successfully determined the ABO and EAP groups and showed the blood to be groups A, EAP BA.'
In dealing with this evidence, the defence were limited by the evidence available from their own expert. They called no such evidence at trial but the material that they had obtained pre-trial has been disclosed in the course of this appeal. The defence had instructed Dr Patrick Lincoln, whose expertise in such matters was well known. On 29 April 1986, he visited the forensic science laboratory and examined the relevant material. He carried out tests on all seventeen baffles. The first eight plates all gave weak or very weak positive reactions for blood. There was no blood clearly visible to the naked eye and Dr Lincoln concluded that "such findings could be consistent with an item having been previously swabbed by a forensic scientist to remove blood stains for testing". The other nine plates "did not produce any evidence for the presence of blood".
He agreed with Mr Hayward's conclusion that the combination of blood groups revealed in his testing of the inside of the moderator could have come solely from Sheila Caffell but did not come from any one of the other individuals. He said that it was not clear from Mr Hayward's statement that he had obtained the blood from which the different group testings had been done from the same area of the moderator. If they were not from the same area, then the results could have originated from more than one individual. On 8 September 1986, Dr Lincoln again went to the laboratory and this time met and discussed the matter with Mr Hayward. As a result of this meeting, Dr Lincoln appreciated that the blood tested all came from a single flake trapped under the first or second baffle. In a letter to the defence solicitors, Dr Lincoln said that Mr Hayward "used this single flake to produce a solution from which he was able to determine the groups".
He said that this meant that the possible explanation he had earlier suggested as to a combination of more than one persons blood no longer applied. "
Game, set, match.
