How much is a lot?

[scipio_usmc]

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?

How could I be the only one "in step" when I am simply repeating the officially accepted account?  People keep reversing things forgetting that they are the ones facing the uphill battle.  I don't have to prove the official account it was already done that is how it is the official account.

Pretending there was blood for the Home Office to test in the 1990s doesn't accomplish a thing.  There are only a few ways to try to go after the blood evidence but the defense experts found nothing to use to challenge the prosecution.  On appeal they found some experts who made some wild speculations but found nothing concrete and such speculations were rejected as simply unsupported speculation.

Entrance wounds from distant shots and contact shots are very similar. That is one thing heavily looked at during second opinions by defense experts. Since a distant shot would also prove murder it would be of little use to the defense to establish it instead was a distant shot.

They need to establish it was not a contact shot but still close enough for her to have been able to shoot herself. That would undermine the blood evidence. They can't do so though because there is no evidence that establishes Vanezis was wrong and that it wasn't a contact shot.  Vanezis found no stippling outside the entrance wound so as would indicate it was not a contact wound nor is any visible in photos so that is out.  No one else examined the wounds to try to assess the range so can't second guess him on the basis of them physically observing something he didn't they are stuck simply going over his assessment.  In modern times defense lawyers like to have others actually look at the victim for an independent analysis.

Lincoln did independent analysis for them, found traces of group A blood on the first 8 baffles and looked over the results of the prosecution's tests and agreed with the results.  The defense in such circumstances is in quite a pickle.  There is little for them to try to pursue. By extension anyone else who wants to refute the evidence will have the same problem.

 

 

[scipio_usmc]

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.

The reason why it would have to be a deliberate act is because there is no way to accidentally spray blood inside. The only way to get blood on 8 successive baffles apart from spraying blood inside is to take it apart, remove the baffles and drop blood on the first 8 baffles but drop a tiny tiny amount on each one taking great care to drop a little bit less on each until getting to the 7th and 8th and dropping barely none.

Only someone who knows a great deal about drawback would know to spray the blood inside and figure out how to do so or would take it apart and know that it would get all the way to the 8th baffle but only a microscopic amount that far in and to thus plant less as you go along. Then to put it back together and plant some more near the opening. Only the lab would have the expertise to even know about drawback period let alone know how to mimic it.

Someone who did know about drawback would know the rifle had blood in it and would know they needed to remove the blood from the rifle in order to plant it.  That rules out the family right there who had no access to the rifle even if they had known about drawback which clearly they did not.

The lab alone would have the expertise to plant the blood.   

[Jane]

How could I be the only one "in step" when I am simply repeating the officially accepted account?  People keep reversing things forgetting that they are the ones facing the uphill battle.  I don't have to prove the official account it was already done that is how it is the official account.

Pretending there was blood for the Home Office to test in the 1990s doesn't accomplish a thing.  There are only a few ways to try to go after the blood evidence but the defense experts found nothing to use to challenge the prosecution.  On appeal they found some experts who made some wild speculations but found nothing concrete and such speculations were rejected as simply unsupported speculation.

Entrance wounds from distant shots and contact shots are very similar. That is one thing heavily looked at during second opinions by defense experts. Since a distant shot would also prove murder it would be of little use to the defense to establish it instead was a distant shot.

They need to establish it was not a contact shot but still close enough for her to have been able to shoot herself. That would undermine the blood evidence. They can't do so though because there is no evidence that establishes Vanezis was wrong and that it wasn't a contact shot.  Vanezis found no stippling outside the entrance wound so as would indicate it was not a contact wound nor is any visible in photos so that is out.  No one else examined the wounds to try to assess the range so can't second guess him on the basis of them physically observing something he didn't they are stuck simply going over his assessment.  In modern times defense lawyers like to have others actually look at the victim for an independent analysis.

Lincoln did independent analysis for them, found traces of group A blood on the first 8 baffles and looked over the results of the prosecution's tests and agreed with the results.  The defense in such circumstances is in quite a pickle.  There is little for them to try to pursue. By extension anyone else who wants to refute the evidence will have the same problem.

 

 

Sorry Scipio if I misread you but more and more it appears that you distort the official view until it fits your own beliefs.

[Caroline]

The reason why it would have to be a deliberate act is because there is no way to accidentally spray blood inside. The only way to get blood on 8 successive baffles apart from spraying blood inside is to take it apart, remove the baffles and drop blood on the first 8 baffles but drop a tiny tiny amount on each one taking great care to drop a little bit less on each until getting to the 7th and 8th and dropping barely none.

Only someone who knows a great deal about drawback would know to spray the blood inside and figure out how to do so or would take it apart and know that it would get all the way to the 8th baffle but only a microscopic amount that far in and to thus plant less as you go along. Then to put it back together and plant some more near the opening. Only the lab would have the expertise to even know about drawback period let alone know how to mimic it.

Someone who did know about drawback would know the rifle had blood in it and would know they needed to remove the blood from the rifle in order to plant it.  That rules out the family right there who had no access to the rifle even if they had known about drawback which clearly they did not.

The lab alone would have the expertise to plant the blood.

No one described it as 'sprayed' and I never said it was the family. Scenes of crime would also have the know how.

[scipio_usmc]

No one described it as 'sprayed' and I never said it was the family. Scenes of crime would also have the know how.

The SOCO officers didn't use guns or know much about them.  My post is quuite clear about the only ways for blood to get on 8 baffles.  You choose to ignore it because you don't want to accept the evidence evne though you have no valid reason to doubt it.  You are just spitting at the wind.

[scipio_usmc]

Sorry Scipio if I misread you but more and more it appears that you distort the official view until it fits your own beliefs.

On the contrary that is what you and others like Caroline are doing.  My beliefs come from the official facts and evidence.  I simply recount such those who don't like the official case in full are the ones trying to distort and it shows...

This site is devoted to revisionist.  I tests the claims of the revisionists to see whether they have any merit.  I have yet to find any that do.  I have no problem accepting revisionist claims that actually are proven with credible evidence but there are none.  People make up revisionist claims from nothing then seek out things to try to justify them.

I just watched one of my favorite movies, I have not seen it in a long time- Witness for the Prosecution. I am just as willing as Sir Wilfrid (Charels Laughton) to accept unpleasant facts when they are established to be true. But they have to be established to be true for me to believe them.  People here either are much less intelligent than they like to let on that they can't comprehend the science being discussed with respect to backspatter or they can't bring themselves to face it because they don't want to.

In the real world what one wants to believe is meaningless. What matters is what the evidence actually establishes.  If the moderator evidence were actually faulty then it would have been established by the lawyers.  They failed and the efforts of those here are much more amateurish than the failed efforts of the defense lawyers or simply parrot the failed efforts without even really understanding them.

Actually understanding the evidence in full is absolutely essential in order to attempt to refute it.  Few people here demonstrate the requisite understanding to even try to set about countering it. I am not tooting my own horn, it has nothing at all to do with me.  Whether someone makes the effort to fully understand it is entirely up to such person.  If they do not it doesn't impact me at all it just impacts their ability to make relevant, meritorious arguments that they can support.

[Caroline]

The SOCO officers didn't use guns or know much about them.  My post is quuite clear about the only ways for blood to get on 8 baffles.  You choose to ignore it because you don't want to accept the evidence evne though you have no valid reason to doubt it.  You are just spitting at the wind.

The lab techs didn't use guns either and the whole point of being a SOCO is that you learned about forensics.

[Jan]

I would like to ask Scipio something . Does he think it is right that the main piece of evidence was removed from the crime scene even though the finders found blood on it . Handled by those people . Kept in their house. Then collected by the police in a non forensic manner.

Those finders would have  been aware of how blood gets into silencers and guns ( they had been around guns all their lives. )

Some of those would have similar blood groups to the victims .


Now let me make this clear I am not accusing them of anything at all . All I am saying is that this IMO is appalling and lays the evidence open to all sorts of contamination .

And I have to disagree with you about getting blood into the baffles - I don't think the lab would have considered that - in your conclusions about how rare it would be to get blood into the silencer  - I don't think they would have considered whether it was a mist or a few flakes. It was blood in the silencer and perhaps quite rightly they just considered that fact and not whether to pattern of the blood indicated how it got there.

I think how ever much we discuss other aspects of the case - most of which are circumstancial we always come back to Julies testimony and the silencer.

[Caroline]

The SOCO officers didn't use guns or know much about them.  My post is quuite clear about the only ways for blood to get on 8 baffles.  You choose to ignore it because you don't want to accept the evidence evne though you have no valid reason to doubt it.  You are just spitting at the wind.

Neither did lab technicians! They had forensic training and blow back wasn't/isn't a secret. Obviously SOCO officers will have an interest in forensic techniques. I'm not interested in YOUR post/opinion on how the blood got inside the silencer because 'an intentional act' was also a suggestion put forward at the time.

[Jan]

Can I ask you Caroline  why you think the silencer is a red herring so to speak ?

some of my feelings are connected with the different and varying statements of description etc  when the family found it . The seem to disagree who reported it to the police and where it was kept.

[Caroline]

Can I ask you Caroline  why you think the silencer is a red herring so to speak ?

some of my feelings are connected with the different and varying statements of description etc  when the family found it . The seem to disagree who reported it to the police and where it was kept.

Similar reasons to you. Their statements vary in respect to finding it and it just all seems 'too' convenient (it had blood, it had paint and even a hair). Had the silencer been used, I think Jeremy would have noticed if it had blood on the outside and after 3 days, I'm sure the blood would have dried and flaked off anyway. David B described it as 'sticky' - after 4 days? 

 

[scipio_usmc]

The lab techs didn't use guns either and the whole point of being a SOCO is that you learned about forensics.

The ballistics lab techs use guns and learn all about guns in order to become experts in their field. 

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.

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.

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.  Nor is there any evidence to suggest any of hem considered anything about drawback until the lab told them. 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.


   

 

[Jan]

The ballistics lab techs use guns and learn all about guns in order to become experts in their field. 

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.

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.

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.  Nor is there any evidence to suggest any of hem considered anything about drawback until the lab told them. 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.


   

 

Are you 100% certain that applies to the UK in 1985 ?  Really?

[maggie]

Similar reasons to you. Their statements vary in respect to finding it and it just all seems 'too' convenient (it had blood, it had paint and even a hair). Had the silencer been used, I think Jeremy would have noticed if it had blood on the outside and after 3 days, I'm sure the blood would have dried and flaked off anyway. David B described it as 'sticky' - after 4 days? 

No way that blood could have still been sticky, I'm with both of you and agree with your posts, too slick, too convenient and the statements don't support each other.

[scipio_usmc]

Are you 100% certain that applies to the UK in 1985 ?  Really?

We are not talking about experts who encounter bullets and guns occasionally, their set job is to examine firearms and projectiles. They are only involved in cases where firearms are involved. 

How do you think one becomes a ballistic expert?  They are taught to use guns and they end up testing guns, bullets and other firearms related materials.