How much is a lot?

[maggie]

High velocity impact spatter is atomized particles of blood. 

When a gun is fired more than 1mm from the skin most if not all of this backspatter will go outside the weapon though several particles could perhaps enter the hole in the barrel but they will not travel much more than 5mm deep.

When a gun is fired 1mm or less from the skin most if not all of the backspatter will go inside the weapon.   There is disagreement over whether there is a vacuum effect that actually sucks it in.  Not only will the quantity of blood inside be much greater it can travel several inches.

So the rule of thumb is if you observe only a few tiny particles of blood and they are 5mm or less deep then it was just ordinary backspatter.

If it is deeper and in much more substantial volume then it is drawback and that means the wound was a contact wound.

There are loose contact wounds (the gun extremely close to the flesh but not pressed against it flush) and hard contact wounds (the gun pressed against the flesh).

This is all you really need to know there are other many finer details but this is the general overview.

Cheers scipio, I knew about it but not in so much technical detail.

[scipio_usmc]

Errrr, the whole I cut my chin and plugged it with the base of my hand was codswallop - you're not honest at all, something that has become VERY apparent these last few weeks!! YOU are the most biased person here but biased in favour of YOUR own opinions

Every person who calls me biased is just projecting and that includes you. Man of your posts are just irrational biased drivel.  The same attitude that made you believe Jeremy was innocent is the same attitude which makes you believe the evidence so not trustworthy.  Instead of changing your mind because of the evidence in the case you did so simply because of some sort of intuitive suspicions about what Jeremy was telling you. You operate not based on objective reasoning but gut impressions and that is what drives you.

I operate on logic and evidence.  That is why I accept the evidence in this case as does the courts.  You try to pretend my opinions differ from the official case but that is nonsense my positions are all from the official case.

Vanzis could not remember whether she had blood on her hands or not because 29 years passed.  He didn't say he could remember that she didn't have blood on her hands he speculated maybe she didn't and maybe he was talking in his report about her being blood free after he washed her.  Anyone who tries to pretend he was going based on memory is out and out lying and that is what you are doing.  The one who demonstrates lately that her honesty is not up to snuff is in your mirror.

As we speak Mike is lying his ass off in a thread he closed where he misrepresents that the first reference to the moderator in logs was after the scope was found.  He is intentionally omitting that the moderator was logged in a different book prior to being logged in the master log.  So his claim it was never logged anywhere until after the scope is a big fat lie. Perhaps you should think about whether you want to travel on the same road as him.  I doubt he just woke up one day and decided to be the way he is it was a progression.  You can take a detour before it is too late.

[Jan]

Every person who calls me biased is just projecting and that includes you. Man of your posts are just irrational biased drivel.  The same attitude that made you believe Jeremy was innocent is the same attitude which makes you believe the evidence so not trustworthy.  Instead of changing your mind because of the evidence in the case you did so simply because of some sort of intuitive suspicions about what Jeremy was telling you. You operate not based on objective reasoning but gut impressions and that is what drives you.

I operate on logic and evidence.  That is why I accept the evidence in this case as does the courts.  You try to pretend my opinions differ from the official case but that is nonsense my positions are all from the official case.

Vanzis could not remember whether she had blood on her hands or not because 29 years passed.  He didn't say he could remember that she didn't have blood on her hands he speculated maybe she didn't and maybe he was talking in his report about her being blood free after he washed her.  Anyone who tries to pretend he was going based on memory is out and out lying and that is what you are doing.  The one who demonstrates lately that her honesty is not up to snuff is in your mirror.

As we speak Mike is lying his ass off in a thread he closed where he misrepresents that the first reference to the moderator in logs was after the scope was found.  He is intentionally omitting that the moderator was logged in a different book prior to being logged in the master log.  So his claim it was never logged anywhere until after the scope is a big fat lie. Perhaps you should think about whether you want to travel on the same road as him.  I doubt he just woke up one day and decided to be the way he is it was a progression.  You can take a detour before it is too late.

what a load of cobblers .

Plus  you have totally ignored evidence that the british police did on occasions in the 80s fake evidence , buy statements and generally act in an underhand way to get their man.

And even if this did not happen in this case you should not be so blinkered to believe that sort of thing did not happen .

I think your aim is to antagonise every single poster on the forum . End of . and there is a name for people like you.

[scipio_usmc]

Cheers scipio, I knew about it but not in so much technical detail.

I simplified things a great deal.  This oversimplification though is sufficient to really understand the whole debate about drawback in this case.

The defense lawyers proffered maybe the blood got inside during the beating or while shooting the victims from a distance. The prosecution experts though said the blood was so deep and in such volume that it either got inside via drawback or was planted.  The prosecution experts ruled out anything else.  Why is because it would not be able to get that deep inside from a beating or non-contact shot and not in that quantity.

A related issue is that a gunshot in a location near a prior gunshot will increase the likelihood of drawback and increase the quantity. Backspatter would occur from the fatal wound because of the prior wound.  This is why the expert said drawback would be virtually certain to occur.

The defense to this day has found no effective way to challenge that assessment.  Nothing new scientifically has come about to challenge such.  The reason why this is important is because it means that if the moderator was not used then Sheila's blood would be inside the rifle.  So establishing wrongdoing by police would require proving they found blood in the rifle but concealed such finding and planted blood in the moderator.  The notion this could somehow be proven by hidden case documents is simply  a dream.  The only way to prove such would be someone admitting they did such or saying they saw someone do it or the person admitted to doing it.  So the reality is short of someone coming forward there isn't a snowball's chance in hell.

This is why the defense lawyers have tried concentrating on other aspects instead.  The lawyers are being realists.

   

[Caroline]

Every person who calls me biased is just projecting and that includes you. Man of your posts are just irrational biased drivel.  The same attitude that made you believe Jeremy was innocent is the same attitude which makes you believe the evidence so not trustworthy.  Instead of changing your mind because of the evidence in the case you did so simply because of some sort of intuitive suspicions about what Jeremy was telling you. You operate not based on objective reasoning but gut impressions and that is what drives you.

I operate on logic and evidence.  That is why I accept the evidence in this case as does the courts.  You try to pretend my opinions differ from the official case but that is nonsense my positions are all from the official case.

Vanzis could not remember whether she had blood on her hands or not because 29 years passed.  He didn't say he could remember that she didn't have blood on her hands he speculated maybe she didn't and maybe he was talking in his report about her being blood free after he washed her.  Anyone who tries to pretend he was going based on memory is out and out lying and that is what you are doing.  The one who demonstrates lately that her honesty is not up to snuff is in your mirror.

As we speak Mike is lying his ass off in a thread he closed where he misrepresents that the first reference to the moderator in logs was after the scope was found.  He is intentionally omitting that the moderator was logged in a different book prior to being logged in the master log.  So his claim it was never logged anywhere until after the scope is a big fat lie. Perhaps you should think about whether you want to travel on the same road as him.  I doubt he just woke up one day and decided to be the way he is it was a progression.  You can take a detour before it is too late.

Oh shut up Scipo you silly little man! 

[susan]

It's highly specialised Susan, so specialised that a quick search on the internet brings a wealth of articles!!
 
Here's one

https://www.azflse.org/download.cfm?filename=BLOODSPATTERVOCABULARY&type=pdf&loc=csiarizona

Caroline

thanks for the link what I don't know about drawback now is anyone's business

[Jan]

I simplified things a great deal.  This oversimplification though is sufficient to really understand the whole debate about drawback in this case.

The defense lawyers proffered maybe the blood got inside during the beating or while shooting the victims from a distance. The prosecution experts though said the blood was so deep and in such volume that it either got inside via drawback or was planted.  The prosecution experts ruled out anything else.  Why is because it would not be able to get that deep inside from a beating or non-contact shot and not in that quantity.

A related issue is that a gunshot in a location near a prior gunshot will increase the likelihood of drawback and increase the quantity. Backspatter would occur from the fatal wound because of the prior wound.  This is why the expert said drawback would be virtually certain to occur.

The defense to this day has found no effective way to challenge that assessment.  Nothing new scientifically has come about to challenge such.  The reason why this is important is because it means that if the moderator was not used then Sheila's blood would be inside the rifle.  So establishing wrongdoing by police would require proving they found blood in the rifle but concealed such finding and planted blood in the moderator.  The notion this could somehow be proven by hidden case documents is simply  a dream.  The only way to prove such would be someone admitting they did such or saying they saw someone do it or the person admitted to doing it.  So the reality is short of someone coming forward there isn't a snowball's chance in hell.

This is why the defense lawyers have tried concentrating on other aspects instead.  The lawyers are being realists.

 

You are funny - you can give it but you cant take it can you?

I could sit here throwing worse insults at you all day - because there are a lot worse human traits  than being biased. And unfortunately you demonstrate most of them .


But to be honest I can not be bothered. For the moment.

You are not worth the effort .

[scipio_usmc]

You are funny - you can give it but you cant take it can you?

I could sit here throwing worse insults at you all day - because there are a lot worse human traits  than being biased. And unfortunately you demonstrate most of them .


But to be honest I can not be bothered. For the moment.

You are not worth the effort .

I can take as good as I give.  That doesn't mean I will not respond and reject claims that are not true.  It just means I am not going to act like a big baby and cry about being attacked.  if an attack is not valid I am going to challenge it.

[Caroline]

I can take as good as I give.  That doesn't mean I will not respond and reject claims that are not true.  It just means I am not going to act like a big baby and cry about being attacked.  if an attack is not valid I am going to challenge it.

Likewise!