Drawback Analysis

[Patti]

It was also 'expert opinion' that suggested the blood was the result of draw back. Although I don't believe the silencer was used, to argue for or against you have to argue against expert opinion.

Well, if you don't believe the silencer was used then you must believe the blood was planted there.

Yes, it was argued in court about the drawback, but nothing was mentioned about the silencer having slowed down that process and makes it practically impossible to have happened not once but twice and the blood landing on the same spot form two of the victims is rare.  The court excepted what was said because none of them were aware that had a silencer been fitted the outcome would be different.

I am not expert enough to argue the point. From what I have read it appears that it was very unlikely that blood got into the silencer through drawback...

[Patti]

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.


 

How can Holly twist the words of an expert when it is there in black and white for all see.

[Alias]

Holly isn´t here and hasn´t said anything to skippedidooda, still he chooses to be incredibly rude to her.
Doesn´t he constantly claim that he only gives as good as he gets? Guess what, he´s lying.

[scipio_usmc]

Scip you ignore expert opinions in order to project your own agenda. Now, you question scientists at the highest level.

Having a silencer on a rifle does have an effect on whether drawback occurs, it makes it very unlikely to have occurred, especially as the shot to Sheila was not a direct contact head shot.  The head bleeds profusely, compared to other parts of the body...

This is further proof that you live in bizarro World.  If you don't understand the reference:

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

It means you are declaring things to be the complete opposite of reality.

What expert opinions were presented?  You presented opinions sourced to Holly- someone you or a different mod banned from this board.

It was not an opinion of an expert that drawback would be unlikely to occur if the murder weapon had the moderator attached but rather an opinion source to non-expert Holly.

She tried to support her claim by posting:

1) Pretending that only gases cause drawback though she already knew that was not the case because I proved she was wrong

2) asserting that the reduction in gas pressure would prevent those gases from being able to cause drawback though she had no source asserting such claim other than a source that sais moderators can impact it without going into how.

There were no opinions from any experts asserting drawback would be unlikely to occur just claims from Holly.

You are the one ignoring the experts.

The experts in this case actually looked at the wound in question and all relevant facts to whether the wound would result in drawback.  The experts said it would have resulted in drawback.  The defense found no experts to refute this nor did Holly.

I am being objective and following the evidence.  You ate the one who is biased and thus choosing to ignore the expert testimony though you have nothing to challenge it beyond Holly's opinion which you have ridiculously elevated to expert status.

[David1819]

Well, if you don't believe the silencer was used then you must believe the blood was planted there.

Yes, it was argued in court about the drawback, but nothing was mentioned about the silencer having slowed down that process and makes it practically impossible to have happened not once but twice and the blood landing on the same spot form two of the victims is rare.  The court excepted what was said because none of them were aware that had a silencer been fitted the outcome would be different.

I am not expert enough to argue the point. From what I have read it appears that it was very unlikely that blood got into the silencer through drawback...

Caroline believes it was not used but Jeremy done it without the silencer - a possibility

The calibre of the bullet and the length of the barrel also has an effect. The lower the calibre the less likelihood or depth of drawback and the shorter the barrel the more drawback.

The weapon in question is a low calibre and a long rifle so combined with a silencer it will release very little gas. But only an experiment could prove anything

[scipio_usmc]

Well, if you don't believe the silencer was used then you must believe the blood was planted there.

Yes, it was argued in court about the drawback, but nothing was mentioned about the silencer having slowed down that process and makes it practically impossible to have happened not once but twice and the blood landing on the same spot form two of the victims is rare.  The court excepted what was said because none of them were aware that had a silencer been fitted the outcome would be different.

I am not expert enough to argue the point. From what I have read it appears that it was very unlikely that blood got into the silencer through drawback...

That's because Holly made the claim up that the moderator would have prevented drawback from occurring.  Her own sources don't say that they just say moderators can as in may have an impact.  You have to look at all the facts and circumstances to find out if there would be an impact and what that impact is.  Holly failed to come up with any evidence that said a moderator will prevent drawback from occurring though it was what she did google searches for and ended up just asserting it anyway because of her bias.

[Caroline]

Well, if you don't believe the silencer was used then you must believe the blood was planted there.

Yes, it was argued in court about the drawback, but nothing was mentioned about the silencer having slowed down that process and makes it practically impossible to have happened not once but twice and the blood landing on the same spot form two of the victims is rare.  The court excepted what was said because none of them were aware that had a silencer been fitted the outcome would be different.

I am not expert enough to argue the point. From what I have read it appears that it was very unlikely that blood got into the silencer through drawback...

I have argued this point many times of course I think it was planted!

[scipio_usmc]

How can Holly twist the words of an expert when it is there in black and white for all see.

All one expert said is that moderators can impact the process nothing more.  To assert that stands for the proposition that any and all moderators will inhibit drawback is a gross distortion. 
 
Holly took the words of someone else providing a very limited and general discussion of drawback and misrepresented the only thing that causes drawback is gases and then made up on her own that since moderators reduce the pressure of gases this means it is unlikely for drawback to be able to occur when using them.

She made up her own conclusion to support what she set out to prove.  She didn't find anyone who opined the conclusion she came to.  She could not find any expert who opined it would be unlikely for drawback to occur anytime a moderator is used.  She just made up the claim herself then tried to justify it with distortions.

   

[Jan]

Just out of interest, what agenda could he possibly have? 

Well considering we have no idea about anyones true identity/relation to the case / reasons for posting , personally I don't think that question could be answered.

[guest2181]

Well considering we have no idea about anyones true identity/relation to the case / reasons for posting , personally I don't think that question could be answered.

Maybe it's also wrong to suggest he has one then? 

[scipio_usmc]

Caroline believes it was not used but Jeremy done it without the silencer - a possibility

The calibre of the bullet and the length of the barrel also has an effect. The lower the calibre the less likelihood or depth of drawback and the shorter the barrel the more drawback.

The weapon in question is a low calibre and a long rifle so combined with a silencer it will release very little gas. But only an experiment could prove anything

What matters most for backspatter:

1) location of the wound and variables of the surrounding area are the most important consideration. 

2) Then comes caliber though caliber plays a bigger role in the depth and volume than it does in whether it will occur at all. The exception this is headshots where caliber is more important because the larger the caliber the better the chance of spatter being possible at all. But this goes back to rule number 1.

Only people who are unbiased seem to care that the primary and most significant consideration is location of the wound.  People with an agenda want to ignore this and are actively trying to establish drawback would not have gotten in the moderator.

The same biased people ignore the various processes that come together to cause drawback and thus why you need an expert to assess the likelihood of drawback happening based on a VERY detailed look at the location and other circumstances.

[guest2181]

Maybe it's also wrong to suggest he has one then? 

Although that's a two way thing I guess. 

[Jan]

Maybe it's also wrong to suggest he has one then? 

No , he could have one - but he will never ever admit it

[David1819]

This is further proof that you live in bizarro World.  If you don't understand the reference:

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

It means you are declaring things to be the complete opposite of reality.

What expert opinions were presented?  You presented opinions sourced to Holly- someone you or a different mod banned from this board.

It was not an opinion of an expert that drawback would be unlikely to occur if the murder weapon had the moderator attached but rather an opinion source to non-expert Holly.

She tried to support her claim by posting:

1) Pretending that only gases cause drawback though she already knew that was not the case because I proved she was wrong

2) asserting that the reduction in gas pressure would prevent those gases from being able to cause drawback though she had no source asserting such claim other than a source that sais moderators can impact it without going into how.

There were no opinions from any experts asserting drawback would be unlikely to occur just claims from Holly.

You are the one ignoring the experts.

The experts in this case actually looked at the wound in question and all relevant facts to whether the wound would result in drawback.  The experts said it would have resulted in drawback.  The defense found no experts to refute this nor did Holly.

I am being objective and following the evidence.  You ate the one who is biased and thus choosing to ignore the expert testimony though you have nothing to challenge it beyond Holly's opinion which you have ridiculously elevated to expert status.

Scip how many times have a read about you disagreeing with and dismissing experts? You then call the experts you ignore Laurel and Hardy

Talk about hypocrisy

[guest2181]

No , he could have one - but he will never ever admit it

Admit what?