How much is a lot?

[David1819]

I was reading Webster's 1993 report when he interviewed the home office scientist My Hayward.



We now know that there was 'a lot of blood'  'several flakes' and the flake tested was 'a big one'

This is rather sloppy and unprofessional, I find it hard to believe that home office never bothered to weigh the flakes and take photographs of the baffle plates before testing and take photos throughout their investigation of the sound moderator. Are we sure they didn't?

The information above really does not help at all. 

[Caroline]

I was reading Webster's 1993 report when he interviewed the home office scientist My Hayward.



We now know that there was 'a lot of blood'  'several flakes' and the flake tested was 'a big one'

This is rather sloppy and unprofessional, I find it hard to believe that home office never bothered to weigh the flakes and take photographs of the baffle plates before testing and take photos throughout their investigation of the sound moderator. Are we sure they didn't?

The information above really does not help at all. 

So no 'fine mist' then?  I agree, it doesn't make convincing reading at all.

[lookout]

Nothing surprises me any more. The fact that from the onset,nobody gave an appx time of death was enough for me. This would have been the deciding factor of who the murderer had been. Everything else after that was cobbled together and I don't care what anyone thinks or says.   

[Adam]

Nothing surprises me any more. The fact that from the onset,nobody gave an appx time of death was enough for me. This would have been the deciding factor of who the murderer had been. Everything else after that was cobbled together and I don't care what anyone thinks or says.   

The pathologist at trial said it was impossible to determine the time of death. For anyone.

That's medical science for you. There is no point moaning about it.

[lookout]

The pathologist at trial said it was impossible to determine the time of death. For anyone.

That's medical science for you. There is no point moaning about it.

There were two people who could/should have estimated times of death. No excuse.

Unless Sheila stood shouting at the raid team," I have pms,and a gun.Any questions  ? ". Then someone would have known the time.

[Caroline]

There were two people who could/should have estimated times of death. No excuse.

Unless Sheila stood shouting at the raid team," I have pms,and a gun.Any questions  ? ". Then someone would have known the time.

Why would she have pms given that the 'p' stand for 'pre'?

[Jane]

Why would she have pms given that the 'p' stand for 'pre'?

Could it have been a question of "Five minutes to onset and counting down"?

[David1819]

So no 'fine mist' then?  I agree, it doesn't make convincing reading at all.

Its rather worrying in general that their work makes guilt or innocence hang in the balance.

there was a lot of blood and the flake was big. rather pathetic if you ask me. This is criminal forensics! FFS

[maggie]

Its rather worrying in general that their work makes guilt or innocence hang in the balance.

there was a lot of blood and the flake was big. rather pathetic if you ask me. This is criminal forensics! FFS

Not very professional is it.  It sounds as though he couldn't remember properly.

[scipio_usmc]

I was reading Webster's 1993 report when he interviewed the home office scientist My Hayward.



We now know that there was 'a lot of blood'  'several flakes' and the flake tested was 'a big one'

This is rather sloppy and unprofessional, I find it hard to believe that home office never bothered to weigh the flakes and take photographs of the baffle plates before testing and take photos throughout their investigation of the sound moderator. Are we sure they didn't?

The information above really does not help at all. 

Weigh what flakes?  They were all expended in testing.  Some was expended to make sure it was human. The flakes swabbed from the baffles were expended during group testing.  Nothing was saved for future testing.  Lincoln didn't save any of the blood for future testing either.

[scipio_usmc]

So no 'fine mist' then?  I agree, it doesn't make convincing reading at all.

It sprays in a mist and forms into flakes when pooled.  Either you are being a complete ass or you are much dumber than you wish to pretend.

You say I am the ass but she is in your mirror.  I see how you decided to believe Jeremy is innocent given the irrational posts you constantly make...

[Caroline]

It sprays in a mist and forms into flakes when pooled.  Either you are being a complete ass or you are much dumber than you wish to pretend.

You say I am the ass but she is in your mirror.  I see how you decided to believe Jeremy is innocent given the irrational posts you constantly make...

I have never said you are an 'ass' I said you are an ARSE and indeed you are! Just like your 'fine mist' that no one mentioned - other than you! An ass is a donkey and arse is something you can't distinguish from your elbow - just to clarify 

You love to use the word irrational because you think it will make people question the way they come over. I suggest you start with yourself - because you are the most irrational person here. The way you try to beat people down and belittle them speaks volumes.

[scipio_usmc]

I have never said you are an 'ass' I said you are an ARSE and indeed you are! Just like your 'fine mist' that no one mentioned - other than you! An ass is a donkey and arse is something you can't distinguish from your elbow - just to clarify 

You love to use the word irrational because you think it will make people question the way they come over. I suggest you start with yourself - because you are the most irrational person here. The way you try to beat people down and belittle them speaks volumes.

Journals and books on backspatter use the term fine mist and atomized blood.  I posted numerous sources proving it.

It is not my fault that so many people here are irrational and post so many irrational things.  When people do such I call the out and since you do such and get called out you don't like it.  You like attacking others but can't take it much like Alias.

Backspatter is a fine spray whether you like to face it or not.  Refusing to face it just makes it all the more clear you are approaching the moderator in the same biased fashion you approach the blood you want to pretend was on Sheila's fingers.

Backspatter sprays and drawback is a spray of blood inside a weapon.  There is no way for blood to land on multiple baffles except via a spray because they block one another.  A spray can go around them baffles and through the hole in the baffles and since the projection is at different angles it will do so.

Pouring blood or using a dropper results it it hitting a general area simply it won't be on multiple successive baffles. 

There is good reason the defense lawyers haven't tries making the nonsense claims you do.  Much like many of Mike's irrational claims are not suited for any legal use neither are yours.

I care about things that actually matter which means evidence that is credible and thus can actually be used in a legal capacity.

 

[Jane]

Journals and books on backspatter use the term fine mist and atomized blood.  I posted numerous sources proving it.

It is not my fault that so many people here are irrational and post so many irrational things.  When people do such I call the out and since you do such and get called out you don't like it.  You like attacking others but can't take it much like Alias.

Backspatter is a fine spray whether you like to face it or not.  Refusing to face it just makes it all the more clear you are approaching the moderator in the same biased fashion you approach the blood you want to pretend was on Sheila's fingers.

Backspatter sprays and drawback is a spray of blood inside a weapon.  There is no way for blood to land on multiple baffles except via a spray because they block one another.  A spray can go around them baffles and through the hole in the baffles and since the projection is at different angles it will do so.

Pouring blood or using a dropper results it it hitting a general area simply it won't be on multiple successive baffles. 

There is good reason the defense lawyers haven't tries making the nonsense claims you do.  Much like many of Mike's irrational claims are not suited for any legal use neither are yours.

I care about things that actually matter which means evidence that is credible and thus can actually be used in a legal capacity.

 

No. Rather like the soldier who was training to enter the Great War. It was with enormous pride that he wrote home telling how, when they drilled, he was the only one who was in step? Might he have been a relative of yours?

[Caroline]

Journals and books on backspatter use the term fine mist and atomized blood.  I posted numerous sources proving it.

It is not my fault that so many people here are irrational and post so many irrational things.  When people do such I call the out and since you do such and get called out you don't like it.  You like attacking others but can't take it much like Alias.

Backspatter is a fine spray whether you like to face it or not.  Refusing to face it just makes it all the more clear you are approaching the moderator in the same biased fashion you approach the blood you want to pretend was on Sheila's fingers.

Backspatter sprays and drawback is a spray of blood inside a weapon.  There is no way for blood to land on multiple baffles except via a spray because they block one another.  A spray can go around them baffles and through the hole in the baffles and since the projection is at different angles it will do so.

Pouring blood or using a dropper results it it hitting a general area simply it won't be on multiple successive baffles. 

There is good reason the defense lawyers haven't tries making the nonsense claims you do.  Much like many of Mike's irrational claims are not suited for any legal use neither are yours.

I care about things that actually matter which means evidence that is credible and thus can actually be used in a legal capacity.

 

I know that back spatter is a fine mist - however, it was never described as such in this case and was only one of the possible suggestions of how blood could have been found inside; the other was by a deliberate act.