How much is a lot?

[Caroline]

The ballistics lab techs use guns and learn all about guns in order to become experts in their field. I'm sure they do, but being involved in SOC allows you to pick up on things such as blow back. I'd heard of it before being interested in this case and I'm not involved in SOC.

In contrast SOCO officers learned about most concepts on the job. How much they learn depended upon what prior cases taught them which invovled not only the subject of those cases but how involved they were.  Davidson didn't learn about drawback until the trial or later. It is unclear whether he ever learned in full about drawback. I didn't mention Davidson

Today science is so significant to their job that they go through extensive training.  They didn't go through such extensive training back in the day they didn't learn about DNA, blood spatter or other things that are extremely significant they learned about such things on the job. That is why it used to be so important to ask them about their experiences and to find out their expertise. Now moreso such is done by asking about their training courses because they go through much more but still don't learn everything. They will not know as much as a scientist they just need to know enough to know what to look out for in collection. The detectives likewise learned on the job from the experts.  That still is true to an extent they receive training courses but still will not know everything.  There will always be things they learn on the job from experience. I agree but that doesn't mean senior staff wouldn't have heard about, or know what blow back was/is. SOC staff have been trained at Harpley Hall - which is literally on my doorstep

The same is true of lawyers which is why you want a lawyer who is experienced in cases just like the your matter because they will know from past experience how to handle it and what is significant to look for. 

There is no evidence that any of the police handled prior cases that would have made them aware of drawback. There is no evidence that they didn't and being involved in such a career makes it more likely that they would have heard of it. Nor is there any evidence to suggest any of hem considered anything about drawback until the lab told them. Why would there be? Even today drawback is not taught about in any depth to police. It is just one of many broad issues police are made generally aware of in criminal justice classes while discussing blood spatter. This doesn't mean they will even remember it though. Like I said, I'd heard of it and my background is in IT.


   

 

[scipio_usmc]

Like I said, I'd heard of it and my background is in IT.

You only heard about it because of this case.

You are much more involved in the case than most of the SOCO officers were involved in their cases.  At that time in that location most of the SOCO officers simply collected evidence and others dealt with the examination of the evidence and others still dealt with the significance of the results of the examination.

The only SOCO somewhat involved with examination of the evidence was Cook and mainly he was involved in the fingerprinting. He was the only crime scene officer aware they found blood in the moderator and who along with detectives was told by the lab of the significance of that. If he had known the potential significance he would not have wasted so much time in sending it to the lab to get it tested.  Had it been tested sooner there is a better chance that the AK/1 would have been detected in more of the samples.

How would the others learn about drawback if they always had limited involvement in the cases? 

The burden is on you to demonstrate Cook was aware of drawback before this case but given the evidence you can't even establish he was aware until after the lab told him.  If he planted blood he would have taken it to them to test right away not have wasted so much time on fingerprinting and then wasting more time before finally taking it there to let them handle the testing.  He had no idea the evidence they found would be so significant.  He is one of the people who agreed with Taff Jones.  It wasn't until later his mind was changed that the police's initial theory was wrong.

 

[maggie]

You only heard about it because of this case.

You are much more involved in the case than most of the SOCO officers were involved in their cases.  At that time in that location most of the SOCO officers simply collected evidence and others dealt with the examination of the evidence and others still dealt with the significance of the results of the examination.

The only SOCO somewhat involved with examination of the evidence was Cook and mainly he was involved in the fingerprinting. He was the only crime scene officer aware they found blood in the moderator and who along with detectives was told by the lab of the significance of that. If he had known the potential significance he would not have wasted so much time in sending it to the lab to get it tested.  Had it been tested sooner there is a better chance that the AK/1 would have been detected in more of the samples.

How would the others learn about drawback if they always had limited involvement in the cases? 

The burden is on you to demonstrate Cook was aware of drawback before this case but given the evidence you can't even establish he was aware until after the lab told him.  If he planted blood he would have taken it to them to test right away not have wasted so much time on fingerprinting and then wasting more time before finally taking it there to let them handle the testing.  He had no idea the evidence they found would be so significant.  He is one of the people who agreed with Taff Jones.  It wasn't until later his mind was changed that the police's initial theory was wrong.

I thought most people knew about drawback, possibly not in every detail but it's obvious enough why it would happen.   I knew about it although I have never been around guns or spent anytime thinking about guns before getting involved in this case.

[Caroline]

You only heard about it because of this case. I'd heard about it BEFORE!

You are much more involved in the case than most of the SOCO officers were involved in their cases.  At that time in that location most of the SOCO officers simply collected evidence and others dealt with the examination of the evidence and others still dealt with the significance of the results of the examination. You saying something just doesn't make it fact or even plausible that individuals working in SOC wouldn't know about blow back, especially senior officers!

The only SOCO somewhat involved with examination of the evidence was Cook and mainly he was involved in the fingerprinting. He (for one) would certainly would have known about blow back He was the only crime scene officer aware they found blood in the moderator and who along with detectives was told by the lab of the significance of that. If he had known the potential significance he would not have wasted so much time in sending it to the lab to get it tested.  Had it been tested sooner there is a better chance that the AK/1 would have been detected in more of the samples.

How would the others learn about drawback if they always had limited involvement in the cases? 

The burden is on you to demonstrate Cook was aware of drawback before this case but given the evidence you can't even establish he was aware until after the lab told him. There is no burden on me at all to do anything. However, when people provide updated info you claim that the person in question must now be senile. You're not happy with any suggestion that disputes anything you say. If he planted blood he would have taken it to them to test right away not have wasted so much time on fingerprinting and then wasting more time before finally taking it there to let them handle the testing.  He had no idea the evidence they found would be so significant.  He is one of the people who agreed with Taff Jones.  It wasn't until later his mind was changed that the police's initial theory was wrong. I believe the silencer was tampered with and such was one of the suggestions of her blood could have found it's way inside.

[susan]

I thought most people knew about drawback, possibly not in every detail but it's obvious enough why it would happen.   I knew about it although I have never been around guns or spent anytime thinking about guns before getting involved in this case.

Maggie
I don't know about drawback what exactly is it

[scipio_usmc]

I'd heard about it BEFORE!

I don't believe you one bit.  This I believe is as big a lie as any Mike has told.

Drawback is quite obscure and apart from NGB I don't believe anyone else here heard of it prior to this case.

There is no burden on me at all to do anything. However, when people provide updated info you claim that the person in question must now be senile. You're not happy with any suggestion that disputes anything you say.

Vanezis saying he doesn't remember anything and offering wild speculation amounts to him providing updated information?  All I can say is that you are not nearly as bright as you think you are, clearly not as honest as you want people to believe and you are too biased to evaluate things accurately and rationally in full.

When you make allegations like you do about the evidence being dodgy the burden is indeed on you to establish it but you can't anymore than the defense can to the COA.  You base your opinion on nonsense not anything concrete.

You saying something just doesn't make it fact or even plausible that individuals working in SOC wouldn't know about blow back, especially senior officers!

Drawback is obscure even today, there is little about it except in very specialized publications.  It rarely comes up and even more rarely is central to an investigation.

This is one of those rare cases that not only involves drawback but that it is highly significant.  It is the case where those involved at the senior levels would first hear of drawback this is the kind of case that would actually teach them it existed.

[maggie]

Maggie
I don't know about drawback what exactly is it

Sorry Susie, I don't understand your question 

[Jan]

Sorry Susie, I don't understand your question 

its different to blowback

[susan]

[quote au ;Dthor=maggie link=topic=6917.msg323079#msg323079 date=1440360535]
Sorry Susie, I don't understand your question 
[/quote]

Hahaha don't worry Maggie I don't either must admit that is a great cop out answer from you best I have heard so far.  Well done hahaha

[maggie]

Hahaha don't worry Maggie I don't either must admit that is a great cop out answer from you best I have heard so far.  Well done hahaha

Thank your Susie, I value your opinion 

[susan]

its different to blowback

Jan you are trying to confuse me methinks

[scipio_usmc]

Maggie
I don't know about drawback what exactly is it

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. 

[Caroline]

I don't believe you one bit.  Who gives a FOOK what YOU think? Are you the only one who is allowed to have heard of such things? Egomaniac!! This I believe is as big a lie as any Mike has told. Like I said, who cares what you like = ye big baby!!

Drawback is quite obscure and apart from NGB I don't believe anyone else here heard of it prior to this case. Only you? How old are you? 

Vanezis saying he doesn't remember anything He didn't say he didn't remember anything - making it up again?? and offering wild speculation amounts to him providing updated information? YOU said it was wild speculation  All I can say is that you are not nearly as bright as you think you are, pots and kettles clearly not as honest as you want people to believe and you are too biased to evaluate things accurately and rationally in full. 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

When you make allegations like you do about the evidence being dodgy the burden is indeed on you to establish it but you can't anymore than the defense can to the COA.  You base your opinion on nonsense not anything concrete.

Drawback is obscure even today, there is little about it except in very specialized publications.  It rarely comes up and even more rarely is central to an investigation. Bollocks! Only someone as fantastic as you would have heard about it - I saw it on a TV programme a number of years ago so BITE ME!!

This is one of those rare cases that not only involves drawback but that it is highly significant.  It is the case where those involved at the senior levels would first hear of drawback this is the kind of case that would actually teach them it existed. yeah, yeah yeah!!

[susan]

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.

Scipio

thanks very much for that explanation I knew I could rely on you to explain.  Thanks.

[Caroline]

Maggie
I don't know about drawback what exactly is it

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