Human blood in the silencer:

[susan]

Alias well said thought David would appreciate a bit of humour got that wrong I guess

[scipio_usmc]

Oh gosh, those green underpants, I will never forget them!

The only green underwear I have ever seen were Incredible Hulk Underoos. I didn't have any underoos but some friends who were well off did. One used to always wear his Batman ones. Underoos were a t-shirt and colored briefs modeled after a super hero outfit. Only in the 80s would such a stupid concept of running around in underwear catch on. As I recall though most of us made fun of boys who wore them. They had them for girls too but I don't recall any girls wearing them around us.   

[Alias]

Love them!

[scipio_usmc]

Love them!

Ok I forgot they were only green trimmed. Looking at the package they should have been purple like his pants.  They had them for all the major super heroes but most the entire underwear were colored. Kids not only wore them around the house but outside including when we played basketball.  The line was much more successful than one would expect based on who you saw wearing them. My guess is a lot of kids used them as pajamas but didn't tell the rest of us because they enjoyed making fun of others with us and didn't want to be made fun of.   

[scipio_usmc]

I had no idea they were still making underoos till 2013. I thought they died in the 90s.  I think this is even funnier though:

"In April 2013, the decision was made by Fruit of the Loom to exit the licensed childrenswear property business and immediately cease the design and production of its formerly lucrative Underoos products....
However, as of 3rd quarter, 2014, Fruit Of The Loom has licensed out the Underoos brand name to a manufacturer who is currently making Underoos in adult sizes, available at Hot Topic retail store chains in limited release."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underoos

[Alias]

I had no idea they were still making underoos till 2013. I thought they died in the 90s.  I think this is even funnier though:

"In April 2013, the decision was made by Fruit of the Loom to exit the licensed childrenswear property business and immediately cease the design and production of its formerly lucrative Underoos products....
However, as of 3rd quarter, 2014, Fruit Of The Loom has licensed out the Underoos brand name to a manufacturer who is currently making Underoos in adult sizes, available at Hot Topic retail store chains in limited release."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underoos

OK, so now we know what to give you for Christmas!

[scipio_usmc]

OK, so now we know what to give you for Christmas!

I have not been in Hot Topic in years but based on my past experiences I bet it is sexy wear for women. If it is for men too that is creepy.  Speaking of which so is the guy in the background of this pic:

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/444026844484424387/

[scipio_usmc]

For those interested I have found out where the 5mm figure I cited came from.  The seminal work on drawback was published in 1977 by MacDonnell and Brooks. Their research determined that in large caliber weapons blood was found up to 5mm deep when the gun was fired at non-contact range at distances up to 5 inches from the target.  (With the gun fired 5 inches or less from the target some blood was able to get up to 5mm inside the barrel).  For .22 rimfire weapons blood could get up to 5mm deep when fired up to 1.5 inches from the target.  At contact ranges the blood was able to go much deeper than 5mm but still only would travel several inches.

What this means for this case is that the blood that was more than 5mm deep could only have gotten there from a contact shot.   

[scipio_usmc]

[Mr. Gee]

For those interested I have found out where the 5mm figure I cited came from.  The seminal work on drawback was published in 1977 by MacDonnell and Brooks. Their research determined that in large caliber weapons blood was found up to 5mm deep when the gun was fired at non-contact range at distances up to 5 inches from the target.  (With the gun fired 5 inches or less from the target some blood was able to get up to 5mm inside the barrel).  For .22 rimfire weapons blood could get up to 5mm deep when fired up to 1.5 inches from the target.  At contact ranges the blood was able to go much deeper than 5mm but still only would travel several inches.

What this means for this case is that the blood that was more than 5mm deep could only have gotten there from a contact shot.

It doesn't appear to say that in the page you published below this post? He says it is best not to generalise too much. But I have also read that a .22 contact shot the drawback went only a few mm into the barrel?

I must admit however that if drawback did occur in this case then the absence of blood in the barrel of the gun is a problem for my theory. However it is said that the blood in the silencer allegedly found by the relatives travelled down a long way into the silencer. Now to my mind there is such a thing as "overkill". What I mean by this is that it would probably only travel that far into the silencer if it have been put there deliberately.

[lookout]

Surely,if it had been fired in the frenzied manner in which it was,then there would be drawback,and plenty of it all the way down the barrel.? 25 shots non-stop. ?

[Mr. Gee]

Surely,if it had been fired in the frenzied manner in which it was,then there would be drawback,and plenty of it all the way down the barrel.? 25 shots non-stop. ?

Not necessarily lookout. Apparently drawback only happened with close or contact shots. But what I have read about .22 firearms is that drawback may not necessarily occur? But if it did occur then the blood would only travel a short distance into the weapon or silencer, around 5mm or slightly more. But as I have said before there is such a thing as over egging the pudding. hat I mean is that if the silencer evidence was manufactured by dropping blood into it then that blood travelled too far into the silencer for it to have occurred naturally.

[lookout]

Not necessarily lookout. Apparently drawback only happened with close or contact shots. But what I have read about .22 firearms is that drawback may not necessarily occur? But if it did occur then the blood would only travel a short distance into the weapon or silencer, around 5mm or slightly more. But as I have said before there is such a thing as over egging the pudding. hat I mean is that if the silencer evidence was manufactured by dropping blood into it then that blood travelled too far into the silencer for it to have occurred naturally.

Yes,I understand. It could quite easily have " travelled " down the barrel when there was a demonstration taking place as to how the rifle would have been in position. Meaning,that if it had been close enough to Sheila's neck when she was bleeding profusely,then it's not impossible.

[lookout]

We all know that liquid finds its own level and what may have began on the tip of the rifle would naturally have run down the barrel.

[Mr. Gee]

We all know that liquid finds its own level and what may have began on the tip of the rifle would naturally have run down the barrel.

I would still like it proved by testing that this .22 rifle will "always" produce drawback with a contact shot. I don't think it will? All we have here are the opinions of so called "experts". What experts? People who have studied these things yes, but also fallible people. We heard nothing from these men which told us the reality of the situation, that drawback does not always happen and in the case of a .22 rifle hardly ever happens. If they were experts then they should have revealed that information to the jury.