Drawback Analysis

[scipio_usmc]

Fletcher was wrong to say there was no other way the blood could have got into the silencer through innocent contamination. I have already proposed a scenario for that to happen.

Where did you post this scenario?  I guarantee I will be able to prove it to be wrong.  There is no way for blood to have accidentally have gotten on the first 8 baffles by innocent contamination with the volume decreasing as the baffles were further from the opening with just microscopic blood on the furthest.  The blood could only have gotten in such position by being sprayed inside and there is no way to accidentally spray blood in a moderator.

[Patti]

 

When I state someone is biased, distorting etc it is not getting personal it is stating something matter of factly and I never have a problem justifying why I state such things.  I demonstrated quite clearly how Holly took claims and then twisted them to suit her agenda. She did google searches to try to find proof 22 calibers can't cause drawback, to try to prove drawback can't occur in neck shots and can't occur with moderators attached.  Her searches came up empty so she distorted and tried to pretend these things are true anyway.

In real world environments, victims usually have clothes on their body and the clothing often inhibits spatter as does long hair.  This is why spatter is more often seen in head shots it is not because the body is unlikely to result in spatter.  The location on the body is important for a variety of reasons including clothing.  Sheila's neck was exposed not covered by clothing. She suffered from a previous shot nearby which cause hemorrhaging inside her neck so there was a cavity full of blood covered by elastic skin. This is the optimal condition for backspatter to occur.

 

Some gas escapes with the bullet other gas that the baffled managed to slow down will be cool down and contract inside the moderator and by the time it escapes it will be cooler than otherwise without the moderator. The contracting of gasses is what creates the partial vacuum that sucks things inside a gun so that partial vacuum will still be present in a moderator.  When used with semi-automatic weapons soot and lead particles normally sent out the muzzle of the weapon are sent back out the ejection port and vents.  So it enhances the particles that would have been on Sheila had she been doing the firing.   

 

The experts could not tell if any of the shots to the boys were contact shots they said they were close and could have been contact shots.  22 caliber shots to the head though rarely result in spatter, most spatter observed from 22 calibers has been with body shots. 

The blood was determined to have been Sheila's.  The defense argued maybe the blood failed to intimately mix (though they could not come up with a way for the blood to have not intimately mixed) and maybe the lab messed up and failed to detect the blood was a mixture.  So the defense argued the moderator was used to shoot June and Nevill, that their blood got inside, their blood failed to intimately mix and the lab messed up and failed to detect it was a mixture and that the moderator was not used to shoot Sheila she put it away in the closet before shooting herself and despite her fatal shot being a contact wound her blood didn't get inside the rifle.

 
That leaves no doubt it was drawback.  His response was very clear.  the question was to try find out if innocent contamination were possible.  he answered there is no chance the blood got there through innocent contamination it either was drawback or it had to have been planted.

There was no evidence presented to even attempt to establish it was planted all the evidence presented established it was drawback.  The defense effectively conceded it was drawback and argued the moderator was used to shoot June and Nevill, that their blood got inside, their blood failed to intimately mix and the lab messed up and failed to detect it was a mixture and that the moderator was not used to shoot Sheila she put it away in the closet before shooting herself and despite her fatal shot being a contact wound her blood didn't get inside the rifle.   


1) If something is likely then it is the complete opposite of unlikely.  You have degrees of likelihood which vary from 51-99%, degrees of unlikelihood which vary from 1-49%.  The only other things are 0 percent, 100% and even money (50%). Sometimes percentages are used but more often degrees of likelihood or unlikelihood.

2) You are making a giant leap that the experts were wrong in assessing drawback was likely to occur with the moderator attached.  The simple fact a moderator slows down the gases doesn't mean drawback was unlikely to occur. There are still gases coming out that act upon the wound and the gases contract inside the moderator which creates a partial vacuum effect. It is the duty of the defense to raise evidence to the jury if there were evidence that it were unlikely for drawback to be able to get in the moderator.  The defense found no evidence to support such contention.  Nor have you pointed to any the simple fact the moderator reduced the gas pressure doesn't make it unlikely for blood to be able to get inside the moderator in question.  The defense never made the argument because this is not an accurate claim and thus they found no expert willing to assert such in court.

3)Worse you are ignoring that blood was in fact found in the moderator.  Whether something is likely or not when you have evidence it happened it makes no difference if it was likely or not. Suppose I had to represent an electric company in a case where someone sued because they stepped on a NYC sidewalk grate and were electrocuted.  Saying this happens infrequently and is not likely to happen doesn't in any way help to refute that it did happen in the case at hand.  Unless I have evidence the person got electrocuted elsewhere and ran to the grate to blame it on the grate or proof that they intentionally had someone electrocute them to blame it on the grate the fact it is not common is useless. Short of evidence that they electrocuted themselves on purpose the only defense that could work is if it could be established it were impossible for them to have been electrocuted by the grate because it is scientifically impossible and thus they had to have been injured in some other manner.

Muzzle impressions are rarely left in soft contact and near contact shots.  If a muzzle impression is observed and the wound is determined to be a soft contact or near contact shot does that mean the muzzle impression was likely intentionally placed there in an act of evidence tampering?  The evidence is that it occurred it makes no difference if it was likely or unlikely to occur- it was established it did occur- that is all that matters.  Unless it was impossible to have occurred you are up the creek.  If you have evidence of tampering then in that case the defense simultaneously brings up that it is unlikely for muzzle impressions to be left and you used that to bolster your case it was planted.  You can't just make a case of it being planted by saying it happens only occasionally so must have been planted.

 
4) In the instant case there is another assessment you keep ignoring.  The assessment was if the moderator wasn't used then drawback definitely would have been found inside the rifle but her blood wasn't found in the rifle.  No Jeremy supporters has even attempted to take on this argument not even Jeremy's appellate lawyers- a point the Court of Appeals highlighted, "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."

Skip you nor I can win this point because it requires a more in-depth study from experts.  I'm afraid your arguments are lost and mine are quite valid in the respect that more experiments are needed in order to make the correct analysis of whether drawback is possible.  What is required is  the same caliber weapon, same silencer and same bullets.  Only when we have the results can anyone be 100% certain and clear in their minds if this is possibility.  Each weapon is unique, given its specifics. What works in one case does not mean it works in all cases.

Searching on the internet for answers is not always possible.  I find draw-back is not covered in depth on the internet, but well covered in Herb's book.  No one wins this point not even you. 

[ngb1066]

Where did you post this scenario?  I guarantee I will be able to prove it to be wrong.  There is no way for blood to have accidentally have gotten on the first 8 baffles by innocent contamination with the volume decreasing as the baffles were further from the opening with just microscopic blood on the furthest.  The blood could only have gotten in such position by being sprayed inside and there is no way to accidentally spray blood in a moderator.

I agree Patti.  Some time ago I posted that the defence failed to investigate this issue before and during the trial.  Their only expert witness was Major Meade and he lacked the expertise to deal with this.  Tests are needed to provide definitive answers.  Coupled with the tests and analysis conducted in the USA in 2012, with follow up tests to those, I believe it is likely that it can be established that the silencer was not fitted to the rifle at any stage during the shootings at WHF.  Of course that would not prove that Jeremy Bamber is innocent, but it  would undermine one of the two central planks of the prosecution case (the other being the evidence of Julie Mugford, where there are also new grounds for challenge).

 

[Caroline]

Where did you post this scenario?  I guarantee I will be able to prove it to be wrong.  There is no way for blood to have accidentally have gotten on the first 8 baffles by innocent contamination with the volume decreasing as the baffles were further from the opening with just microscopic blood on the furthest.  The blood could only have gotten in such position by being sprayed inside and there is no way to accidentally spray blood in a moderator.

You don't want to hear this scenario - trust me!

[scipio_usmc]

Skip you nor I can win this point because it requires a more in-depth study from experts.  I'm afraid your arguments are lost and mine are quite valid in the respect that more experiments are needed in order to make the correct analysis of whether drawback is possible.  What is required is  the same caliber weapon, same silencer and same bullets.  Only when we have the results can anyone be 100% certain and clear in their minds if this is possibility.  Each weapon is unique, given its specifics. What works in one case does not mean it works in all cases.

Searching on the internet for answers is not always possible.  I find draw-back is not covered in depth on the internet, but well covered in Herb's book.  No one wins this point not even you. 

The experts have already spoken on this issue.  They testified in the case.  They testified that drawback would occur with a contact shot to her neck which was full of blood at the time from hemorrhaging from the first shot.  I don't have to look for anything form experts the experts already testified.

You have an agenda which is to disprove the prosecution experts because you support Jeremy.  You are the one who has to try finding a way to prove that drawback would not be able to occur.  The fact is that you can't do so.

It is not necessary to test whether drawback can occur with a moderator attached it is KNOWN to occur with moderators attached to weapons.  There is no way to say it is impossible since it has already been proven to have occurred in the past.  Testing is required when you are not sure whether something can occur. 

There already have been COUNTLESS tests demonstrating that backspatter results from a liquid filled cavity (like her blood filled neck) being hit by a bullet.  When the bullets are fired at contact range drawback results, when fired at very close range some blood will get inside but not as much and not as deep.  Further than that it just gets on the weapon.

These are already established things no testing is needed.  The prosecution witnesses were using principles already demonstrated by past testing so had no need to do their own.

Since they are established principles there is no way for the defense to find an expert who will testify it is not possible for drawback to have gotten inside the moderator.  Nor can they find an expert that will testify a wound to the neck with blood inside is unlikely to result in drawback because it isn't unlikely.  Lab testing of cavities filled with blood resulted in back spatter without fail.

Experts know the conditions under which drawback will occur but are unsure of the precise cause. Some theorize the blood is being sucked in the gun because of a partial vacuum effect while others say it is just ordinary back spatter thrusting the blood inside. It coul dbe a mix of both.  There is no way to know which is the case but it makes no difference which is the case all that matters is that it happens.

I have already spoon fed you on what the defense or any Jeremy supporter would need to establish to refute the prosecution evidence.

The blood evidence had 2 planks.

A major plank of the case was that no blood was found in the rifle itself.  There are only 2 possible ways to attack that plank:

1) to establish her blood was found in the rifle but was concealed or
2) to establish shooting her with the rifle directly would not be that likely to result in drawback so her blood would not be that likely to be found inside it so the absence of her blood inside doesn't make it more likely that the moderator was used

The other plank of the blood evidence was the blood found in the moderator.  Trying to establish that drawback only happens occasionally with moderators is a waste of time because even if true that would not have any use at refuting the evidence in the case.  Only if it were impossible for drawback to get in moderators would that be able to be used to establish the blood had to have gotten there by being planted. So the only way to attack the blood that was found in the moderator is to prove it was planted by proving who planted it, when how etc.  There is no way to argue it is impossible for blood to naturally get inside moderators through drawback and thus must have been planted.

So Jeremy supporters need:

1) To establish either:
A) that the wound location and specific conditions related to it (such as the blood being inside the neck) would not be likely to result in drawback; or
B) Sheila's blood was found inside the rifle but the lab illegally concealed such finding
and

2) to establish the blood was planted in the moderator

There is nothing short of this that could result in Jeremy's conviction being vacated with the possible exception of Julie recanting her testimony that could be enough to perhaps get them to grant a new trial.   

[scipio_usmc]

You don't want to hear this scenario - trust me!

That just makes me more curious. But you said that to me in the past once and it wound up relating to the notion she mistook the moderator for a tampon, but I thought Mike came up with that if not I owe him an apology for attributing it to him.

 

[Patti]

The experts have already spoken on this issue.  They testified in the case.  They testified that drawback would occur with a contact shot to her neck which was full of blood at the time from hemorrhaging from the first shot.  I don't have to look for anything form experts the experts already testified.

You have an agenda which is to disprove the prosecution experts because you support Jeremy.  You are the one who has to try finding a way to prove that drawback would not be able to occur.  The fact is that you can't do so.

It is not necessary to test whether drawback can occur with a moderator attached it is KNOWN to occur with moderators attached to weapons.  There is no way to say it is impossible since it has already been proven to have occurred in the past.  Testing is required when you are not sure whether something can occur. 

There already have been COUNTLESS tests demonstrating that backspatter results from a liquid filled cavity (like her blood filled neck) being hit by a bullet.  When the bullets are fired at contact range drawback results, when fired at very close range some blood will get inside but not as much and not as deep.  Further than that it just gets on the weapon.

These are already established things no testing is needed.  The prosecution witnesses were using principles already demonstrated by past testing so had no need to do their own.

Since they are established principles there is no way for the defense to find an expert who will testify it is not possible for drawback to have gotten inside the moderator.  Nor can they find an expert that will testify a wound to the neck with blood inside is unlikely to result in drawback because it isn't unlikely.  Lab testing of cavities filled with blood resulted in back spatter without fail.

Experts know the conditions under which drawback will occur but are unsure of the precise cause. Some theorize the blood is being sucked in the gun because of a partial vacuum effect while others say it is just ordinary back spatter thrusting the blood inside. It coul dbe a mix of both.  There is no way to know which is the case but it makes no difference which is the case all that matters is that it happens.

I have already spoon fed you on what the defense or any Jeremy supporter would need to establish to refute the prosecution evidence.

The blood evidence had 2 planks.

A major plank of the case was that no blood was found in the rifle itself.  There are only 2 possible ways to attack that plank:

1) to establish her blood was found in the rifle but was concealed or
2) to establish shooting her with the rifle directly would not be that likely to result in drawback so her blood would not be that likely to be found inside it so the absence of her blood inside doesn't make it more likely that the moderator was used

The other plank of the blood evidence was the blood found in the moderator.  Trying to establish that drawback only happens occasionally with moderators is a waste of time because even if true that would not have any use at refuting the evidence in the case.  Only if it were impossible for drawback to get in moderators would that be able to be used to establish the blood had to have gotten there by being planted. So the only way to attack the blood that was found in the moderator is to prove it was planted by proving who planted it, when how etc.  There is no way to argue it is impossible for blood to naturally get inside moderators through drawback and thus must have been planted.

So Jeremy supporters need:

1) To establish either:
A) that the wound location and specific conditions related to it (such as the blood being inside the neck) would not be likely to result in drawback; or
B) Sheila's blood was found inside the rifle but the lab illegally concealed such finding
and

2) to establish the blood was planted in the moderator

There is nothing short of this that could result in Jeremy's conviction being vacated with the possible exception of Julie recanting her testimony that could be enough to perhaps get them to grant a new trial.

Scip you have lost the argument except it graciously.  Modern day science will always win,  many years after a crime has been committed.

I am of the opinion that the silencer was never fitted to the rifle.  Experts have tested  this in the USA and it is of their opinion that the gunshots received to Sheila were without the silencer fitted.  Thus, meaning that her blood could not have gotten into the silencer. 

[Jane]

That just makes me more curious. But you said that to me in the past once and it wound up relating to the notion she mistook the moderator for a tampon, but I thought Mike came up with that if not I owe him an apology for attributing it to him.

If memory is correct he didn't refute the claim. It just became, along with other, IMO, unacceptable and distasteful claims, incorporated.

[Caroline]

That just makes me more curious. But you said that to me in the past once and it wound up relating to the notion she mistook the moderator for a tampon, but I thought Mike came up with that if not I owe him an apology for attributing it to him.

That was indeed the suggestion and it wasn't mentioned by Mike

[scipio_usmc]

That was indeed the suggestion and it wasn't mentioned by Mike

Oh well in that case sorry Mike for attributing you as the source of such ridiculous claim.

[scipio_usmc]

Scip you have lost the argument except it graciously.  Modern day science will always win,  many years after a crime has been committed.

I am of the opinion that the silencer was never fitted to the rifle.  Experts have tested  this in the USA and it is of their opinion that the gunshots received to Sheila were without the silencer fitted.  Thus, meaning that her blood could not have gotten into the silencer. 

I didn't lose so why would I admit I have?  You have not demonstrated anything I said to be wrong.  You have not posted any science that proves the evidence used at trial to be wrong.

You took a failed argument Holly made and you advanced it that is all you did.

American experts have not proven a thing about the moderator.  The testing Americans did were to see if the rifle sans moderator could have caused the burns on Nevill's back.  They determined the rifle would not get hot enough from firing to do that and that the only way to get the barrel hot enough would be to heat it over a fire.  Even then the burn marks didn't match perfectly with the marks on Nevill's back.  A wide variety of objects heated over a fire could have been employed to make the burn marks.

Even if the killer was busy heating the rifle after the murders to stick into Nevill's back that in no way refutes the moderator was attached at the time of the shootings.  So this entire exercise was little more than a complete waste of time that never had any reasonable prospects of refuting the moderator evidence.

ALLEGEDLY, they are now doing testing to see what a muzzle marks from the rifle and from the moderator look like in hard contact shots. They will then try to look at the photos of the wounds and try to see if they can find evidence of a muzzle wound from the weapon directly.

They are not going to find anything though. There were no hard contact wounds and thus no muzzle impressions left.   

You are counting your chickens before they are hatched and telling me that because there is supposedly testing being done in the US this means Jeremy is proven innocent.

This is further proof of your bias that you have no idea if anything will come of it and yet have already declared the moderator evidence to be proven false.

I will issue the same challenge to you I used to Holly.

Post an expert opinion that assesses that drawback can't occur when moderators are used and the basis for his reasoning of why it can't happen.

Post an expert opinion that assesses drawback would not be extremely likely to occur in the area where Sheila received her fatal wound if the rifle were fired without the moderator.

Unless you can post an expert opinion that says at least 1 of these 2 things then you have nothing to challenge the evidence used to convict Jeremy and you still need more than just 1 of these things but at least it is a start.

[scipio_usmc]

I agree Patti.  Some time ago I posted that the defence failed to investigate this issue before and during the trial.  Their only expert witness was Major Meade and he lacked the expertise to deal with this.  Tests are needed to provide definitive answers.  Coupled with the tests and analysis conducted in the USA in 2012, with follow up tests to those, I believe it is likely that it can be established that the silencer was not fitted to the rifle at any stage during the shootings at WHF.  Of course that would not prove that Jeremy Bamber is innocent, but it  would undermine one of the two central planks of the prosecution case (the other being the evidence of Julie Mugford, where there are also new grounds for challenge).

The only way testing could prove the moderator wasn't attached during the shootings is if there had been a hard contact wound which left a distinct muzzle impression of the barrel of the Anschutz and it were established that it definitely was the Anschutz not just speculation that might might be a muzzle imprint.

Speculation it might be a muzzle imprint is something that could be used at trial.  At this stage speculation is useless it takes very strong evidence to get an Appeal Court to vacate a conviction.

With the exception of the threaded barrel the front of the Anschutz lacks distinctive features to be impressed into the skin, the iron sights are set back too far. In a hard contact situation it is possible for the threaded barrel to produce a series of rings very close together. The experts don't assess any of the wounds to be hard contact wounds though and worse Vanezis didn't find a series of rings. Based on the photos I have seen there is no hope of establishing any of the marks were definitely a muzzle impression from the rifle.

Fowler took Vanezis description of Sheila's wounds which he described as featuring a dirt ring and bullet abrasion and decided in his opinion what Vanezis observed was a muzzle impression.  The CCRC already rejected such speculation.  I don't see any way for the defense to establish the rifle was fired sans moderator.  There is simply no way or the defense to be able to actually prove that based on the available evidence.

Unless someone comes forward to say they planted evidence or saw someone plant evidence or Julie were to recant there is little hope for Jeremy to get his conviction vacated.

[Jan]

Well time will tell . 

[scipio_usmc]

Well time will tell . 

Granted there is blood around so not the clearest picture but there isn't anything on her neck or chin around either wound that even remotely looks like a muzzle imprint:



The lower one has less blood in the way and is the one Fowler claims sounded like a muzzle imprint to him but none is visible.

[lookout]

No camera would have had the light bouncing off wet-looking blood if it had been cracked and dried. The blood is as shiny as her necklace. Old,hours old blood wouldn't have looked like that.