if you are so convinced 100% and so confident why are you so rude about it?
Me thinks you doth protest too much,
Rude to whom? Holly?
Holly is much like Mike. She has an agenda she wants to push for her own purposes and in order to be able to advance that agenda she seeks out things that she feels she can twist and distort to support her position. Her agenda is to push her own mental analysis of Sheila's problems which caused her to commit the murders. She never met Sheila and there is very little about Sheila publicly available for anyone to be able to try evaluating her mental problems on their own but Holly has decided she knows better than the doctor who treated her and advances her own medical claims.
She can't advance these theories unless Sheila did it so the evidence Sheila didn't do it is an obstacle. She distorts in order to overcome that obstacle. The distortions including pretending the only thing that causes drawback are the gases and that the reduction in the pressure of the gases means drawback is won't be deposited in a moderator. Her sources don't state it is unlikely or impossible she is the one making the claim.
In the meantime unless she finds a source that says it is impossible the argument is a waste of time. The only way to establish through use of general scientific evidence that the blood can't be drawback and had to be planted is if it is impossible for blood to be deposited in a moderator.
It is rare for drawback to result from 22 caliber wounds to the head. This is one of the things assassins like because it means they are unlikely to get spatter on them which in turn helps catch them. Does this mean that if spatter is found that the spatter was planted and can't have actually happened? No spatter being found is evidence this is one of those rare instances where it happened.
So what she is engaging in is a complete waste of time and has no ability to disprove the blood was drawback.
The only inquiry of any value to a defense attorney (and any other Jeremy supporter) would be:
1) to have an expert look for evidence the shot was fired from a distance too far away for backspatter to have gotten so deep inside
2) have an expert look for evidence that even if a contact wound the wound in question would not result in backspatter even if the gun had no moderator
The prosecution argument was two-fold
I. The wound would definitely have resulted in drawback into the weapon had the weapon been fired
without the moderator but none was found therefore a moderator must have been used
II. The moderator had Sheila's blood so was used definitely used
Making the argument that it is unlikely for drawback to get in the moderator doesn't help deal with either plank.
Let's pretend no blood was found in the rifle or the moderator. The argument that it is unlikely for blood to get in the moderator would be very bad for the defense. Here is what the prosecution would argue in that instance:
The wound would definitely have resulted in drawback into the weapon had the weapon been fired
without the moderator but none was found therefore a moderator must have been used. Even though no blood was found int he moderator it is unlikely to get there while it would have to have gotten in the rifle had the rifle been used without it. So the absence of blood int he rifle proves a moderator was used.
The principal argument which has to be dealt with is the argument the blood would definitely have been in the rifle had it been used without the moderator.
The defense needs to either prove it would not have been likely for blood to get in the rifle had it been used without the moderator or prove blood was found in the rifle by the lab but they lied and claimed they didn't find any.
These are the only ways to get around that particular plank of the prosecution's case. Even though I pointed it out to Holly many times and to people here it is constantly ignored.
It wasn't ignored by the Court of Appeal they mentioned it again and again in their decision including:
"As to the moderator, there was the remarkable proposition raised by the defence case that Sheila Caffell having killed her family found that she could not shoot herself with the moderator on and instead of simply taking the moderator off and putting it down, went downstairs to an office, put the moderator in its proper place in the gun cupboard and then returned to her parents' bedroom where she sat or lay down on the floor and shot herself. There was in addition not merely the presence of the blood flake in the moderator but the absence of any blood in the barrel of the gun, the end of which would have been in contact with her neck when the shot was fired."
So Jeremy is never going to win an appeal arguing June and Nevill's blood mixed in the moderator then after killing them Sheila put it away in the closet. Nor is he going to win an appeal by questioning the moderator evidence.
The only way he is winning an appeal is if he establishes one of the following 1)Sheila's blood was found in the rifle but this was concealed or 2) drawback would not be likely to occur from her wound
and the blood was planted in the moderator.
That's the only way to prove him to be a victim of a MOJ.
