Fletcher's testimony

[David1819]

I doubt you paid for the book.  At any rate even if it makes that claim it is wrong.  What is the source of the evidence they use to support it because neither of the authors have any medical expertise or gun expertise.

You need evidence from experts and the experts say 22 caliber weapons can cause both drawback and backspatter.

No I did not buy the book I downloaded it in PDF. I have uploaded a screen shot if you don't believe me as you have accused me of making up sources in the past.   I have underlined the points in red using mspaint




This was published by the Criminal Justice Department University of Wisconsin-Platteville, So feel free to tell them how wrong they are 

[scipio_usmc]

According to the following book on forensics. Drawback only occurs with contact wounds with high calibre weapons. The gun in this case is a low calibre weapon

http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9781449602154

By (author) Henk Becker, By (author) Chaminade University Ronald F Becker, By (author) M. Criminal Justice Department University of Wisconsin-Platteville Aric W Dutelle


I have included the authors names above, so if you can please direct your upcoming rude novel criticising their work to them rather than me it would be much appreciated.

Your history of misrepresenting continues.  I found the most recent volume of the work in question.

Aside from the fact that it is written by academics (not experts in guns or medicine) for criminal justice college students it doesn't say that .22 caliber weapons can't cause drawback.

The body of the work has just a single sentence on drawback:

"In the case of contact wound, the barrel of the weapon may contain flesh, bone, and blood residue from barrel blowback (or drawback). Barrel blowback also may cause backspatter on hands and clothing."

The glossary section states:

"barrel blowback (drawback): The blood residue found in a gun barrel as a result of a large-caliber contact wound; it is backspatter contained in/on a gun barrel"

This doesn't explicitly discuss 22 caliber weapons let alone offers any evidence to establish a 22 caliber can't result in drawback or backspatter. In the meantime it makes the erroneous claim that drawback can result in blood on the hands.  By definition drawback results in backspatter going into the barrel instead of on the weapon and shooter.  So they have no idea what they are talking about.

[David1819]

Your history of misrepresenting continues.  I found the most recent volume of the work in question.

Aside from the fact that it is written by academics (not experts in guns or medicine) for criminal justice college students it doesn't say that .22 caliber weapons can't cause drawback.

The body of the work has just a single sentence on drawback:

"In the case of contact wound, the barrel of the weapon may contain flesh, bone, and blood residue from barrel blowback (or drawback). Barrel blowback also may cause backspatter on hands and clothing."

The glossary section states:

"barrel blowback (drawback): The blood residue found in a gun barrel as a result of a large-caliber contact wound; it is backspatter contained in/on a gun barrel"

This doesn't explicitly discuss 22 caliber weapons let alone offers any evidence to establish a 22 caliber can't result in drawback or backspatter. In the meantime it makes the erroneous claim that drawback can result in blood on the hands.  By definition drawback results in backspatter going into the barrel instead of on the weapon and shooter.  So they have no idea what they are talking about.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. Strange you find so many excuses when expert sources don't go your way  but when it does its 200% correct strange that 

[scipio_usmc]

No I did not buy the book I downloaded it in PDF. I have uploaded a screen shot if you don't believe me as you have accused me of making up sources in the past.   I have underlined the points in red using mspaint




This was published by the Criminal Justice Department University of Wisconsin-Platteville, So feel free to tell them how wrong they are 

You found that on googlebooks and it isn't even the edition you posted the original link to.  In the meantime you posted from the glossary.  I quoted from both the body as well as glossary. 

It doesn't discuss 22 caliber weapons explicity let alone claims they can't cause drawback.  It offers no evidence to support any of their contentions and makes the huge error of claiming blood gets on the hands of the shooter from drawback.  That is why you don't quote academics who write books for college students and instead look to scientists who work in the forensic field for such information...

[Mr. Gee]

Your former post misunderstood my former post; which I made clear in my former post 

[Mr. Gee]

Jeremy MAY have done but to do that would likely have made it LOOK as if Jeremy had, which wasn't the plan.

haha you make him sound like an omniscient being who had thought of every angle.

[scipio_usmc]

I'm not misrepresenting anything. Strange you find so many excuses when expert sources don't go your way  but when it does its 200% correct strange that 

What expert source?  It was written by college professors who claim to be experts in criminal law not scientists.  They lack the ability to testify in court as experts on the very subject you are relying on. In the meantime you misrepresented that they said 22 caliber weapons can't cause drawback. It doesn't say such. It doesn't contain any useful information about drawback it just makes students aware that gun can inside a barrel when there is a contact wound.  It doesn't discuss any of the relevant factors that come into play.  In the meantime they made a pathetic mistake claiming blood can get on the shooter from drawback though by definition it blood that goes into the muzzle. 

Try coming up with evidence from a scientific source where the claim is coming from someone who could actually be used to testify against the claims made by the prosecution witness.

[David1819]

You found that on googlebooks and it isn't even the edition you posted the original link to.  In the meantime you posted from the glossary.  I quoted from both the body as well as glossary. 

It doesn't discuss 22 caliber weapons explicity let alone claims they can't cause drawback.  It offers no evidence to support any of their contentions and makes the huge error of claiming blood gets on the hands of the shooter from drawback.  That is why you don't quote academics who write books for college students and instead look to scientists who work in the forensic field for such information...

yes but .22 calibre is very low not high. I found similar claims in other forensic books about relation to calibre, barrel length and backsplatter that you criticised me for just making up. They first done some experiments in 1977 on this but I cannot find more information it 

The link I provided is one on googlebooks. Googlebooks brings me up a limited PDF of the Book. does it really matter? what difference does it make

[scipio_usmc]

Sub sonic ammunition was also used and not the supersonic ammunition that was also present at the house. In fact thinking about it, if Bamber was the murderer it would have been logical for him to use supersonic ammunition as it would have killed more efficiently.

The main impact of of the extra velocity is more range and penetration not necessarily more deadly. But depending on the round that sacrifices accuracy especially accuracy at closer ranges. Moreover, standard and supersonic rounds produce a sonic boom upon leaving the muzzle or moderator while subsonic ammo produced no boom so is more silent.   

Subsonic ammunition was what Nevill bought.  Buying a different ammo right before the murders would be highly suspicious.  Especially since for the purposes the gun was used for they would want subsonic ammo.  Plus the whole reason he used the moderator was he didn't want to wake anyone up and using something other than subsonic would create additional noise.

[scipio_usmc]

yes but .22 calibre is very low not high. I found similar claims in other forensic books about relation to calibre, barrel length and backsplatter that you criticised me for just making up. They first done some experiments in 1977 on this but I cannot find more information it 

The link I provided is one on googlebooks. Googlebooks brings me up a limited PDF of the Book. does it really matter? what difference does it make

You intentionally posted a link to a different edition of the book than where you found it because there was no print available for the edition unless you wanted to pay for it which you figured no one would do.  You did so to try to hide the fact your source doesn't actually state a .22 caliber can't cause drawback.  You chose to interpret it as saying such because you are biased and desperate. The book was written by lawyers for criminal justice students and contains a blatant error claiming drawback can cause blood to deposit on the hands of the shooter though drawback by definition is blood drawn into the barrel.

You are not an objective party looking for the truth. You are a biased person who has decided to argue Jeremy is innocent the blood was planted in the moderator and are searching for anything you can twist to try to support your agenda.   

[David1819]

You intentionally posted a link to a different edition of the book than where you found it because there was no print available for the edition unless you wanted to pay for it which you figured no one would do.  You did so to try to hide the fact your source doesn't actually state a .22 caliber can't cause drawback.  You chose to interpret it as saying such because you are biased and desperate. The book was written by lawyers for criminal justice students and contains a blatant error claiming drawback can cause blood to deposit on the hands of the shooter though drawback by definition is blood drawn into the barrel.

You are not an objective party looking for the truth. You are a biased person who has decided to argue Jeremy is innocent the blood was planted in the moderator and are searching for anything you can twist to try to support your agenda.

I used the link I found on googlebooks I never intentionally lead you to another book. your paranoid now.

Whatever Skippy believe what you want about me I don't care your opinions do not define me   

[scipio_usmc]

I haven't just "glossed" over it as you suggest in an attempt to diminish my argument. (1) it was never tested that back spatter did actually occur. It was just assumed that it would have occurred. And (2) Back spatter does not always occur. I will also include a third point here (3) The fact that they also said there was no gun shot residue on Sheila was a deliberate lie as if she was shot at close range and that gun shot residue is emitted from the barrel of the gun then there must have been gunshot residue on her. So the fact that they did not say this but rather said that there was insufficient gun shot residue on her is an indication that they were also wrong on the other observations. If you bother to read up on it yourself and I should assume that you are intelligent enough and actually know this as being fact, that back spatter does not always occur even with a close or contact shot neither does drawback. Why you are not stating this I do not know?

The way you determine whether backspatter would occur in a particular body location is by looking at the attributes of the skin and blood vessels in the location of the wound.  That is exactly what the experts did in assessing Sheilas wound would result in backspatter. 

In fact the wound was assessed to be a contact wound so it was assessed the backspatter would be drawn into the weapon.

Blood was found in the moderator not the rifle establishing the moderator was attached when the shot was fired.

Atomized blood sprays inside the weapon during drawback.  Such occurring in a moderator made of baffles results in the blood being deposited on the initial baffles with the volume decreasing the further the baffles are from the opening.  That is exactly what was observed, blood decreasing in volume till no blood was seen.

There is no way that blood could have gotten there naturally except by drawback.  The only other way for blood to get there like that is someone to intentionally spray blood inside.

That blood was group A blood lacking an enzyme that should have been present had any of it been June's blood.  The flake had an enzyme that Sheila had though.  So this suggest the AK1 enzyme deteriorated already in the blood on the baffles but had not done so yet in the flake.

It was all put together in a very logical and scientific manner which is why the defense had no ability to dispute this and still doesn't.

No one who chooses to ignore this evidence has been able to articulate a logical reason to do so let alone has been able to refute the evidence.  The reasons are always absurd nonsense about how no human blood was found but rather animal blood was found inside and other rubbish.

[Jan]

Just to put you right on one thing I said animal blood was found on the outside - shown by notes and that was not revealed to the court.

And another "Expert" said he could not be sure 100% that the blood was not animal blood.

This is not us telling lies - misrepresenting . These are not our words.

[Jan]

just for interest -

[scipio_usmc]

Just to put you right on one thing I said animal blood was found on the outside - shown by notes and that was not revealed to the court.

And another "Expert" said he could not be sure 100% that the blood was not animal blood.

This is not us telling lies - misrepresenting . These are not our words.

David and Lookout asserted that no human blood was found inside just an enzyme that could have belonged to an animal.  Various others asserted animal blood was found inside.  In am not misrepresenting anything.

There was no reason for the expert to bother telling the court a little animal blood was found on the outside of the moderator is had no relevance at all to the blood found inside.   If the defense wanted to have an expert bring such up and try to tie it to the case somehow the defense was free to do so.

The scientist you are referring to noted that the AK1 enzyme of rabbits is close to the human enzyme but NOT identical and speculated maybe somehow it is possible that rabbit blood was inside mixed with June's blood, that the lab failed to detect the rabbit blood but the AK1 rabbit enzyme was detected and mistaken for the human enzyme.

This is absurd speculation and such absurd speculation is wholly worthless to the courts.  It is absurd that they would fail to detect the rabbit blood, absurd they would mistake the rabbit enzyme for  a human one since they are different and absurd that the enzyme in rabbit blood that predated the murders would still not have deteriorated whereas AK2-1 from June deposited after the rabbit blood would already have deteriorated. Human AK2-1 is more hardy than human AK1 which is more hardy than rabbit AK1. SO even if all shots had been the same time the Ak2-1 still is the one that would last longest but the claim is the rabbit blood predated June's.   

In the meantime there is no evidence any animal was shot with the moderator at contact range the only blood from animals was detected on the outside.