Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Patti on March 04, 2015, 08:28:PM
-
A central plank of the prosecution's case is that blood found its way inside the silencer by the phenomenon known as draw-back. This is caused when a gunshot wound is inflicted with the barrel of a gun (or silencer?) in contact with the skin. Or close contact ie 1mm - 2mm away from the surface of the skin. When the trigger of a gun is pulled it releases a propellant. The propellant generates propulsion and moves the bullet, obviously at tremendous speed. When the propellant is ignited by the release of the trigger it generates hot gases which travel along with the bullet and once outside the end of the guns barrel or silencer will dissipate in the atmosphere. However when the guns barrel (or silencer?) are in contact with the skin or close contact (1mm - 2mm) the hot gas will be unable to dissipate in the atmosphere so it can be sucked into the wound and then propel backwards into the guns barrel (or silencer?) taking with it blood and often other biological material eg skin tissue, bone fragments from the wound. As the blood sample found in silencer matched SC's blood type/group the prosecution claim JB shot SC using the silencer and then returned it to the gun cupboard.
There's a plethora of info on the internet and youtube vids explaining the above. Google how a gun works, how a bullet works, how a silencer works etc.
At JB's 2002 CoA hearing the firearms expert employed by the Home Office, Malcolm Fletcher, told the jury the following:
457. Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, gave evidence to explain how blood got into the moderator if it was attached, or into the barrel if there was no moderator attached. He said that the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated. However, the expanding gas when the bullet left the muzzle was under normal circumstances distributed into the atmosphere. However with a contact shot there was no opportunity for this escape and the gas would follow the bullet into the wound as it expanded. Back pressure would then build up forcing the gas back out of the wound taking with it blood and tissue which would in effect be blasted back into the barrel if there was no moderator or into the moderator if one was attached. He said that even without direct contact, the same effect might occur but only if the gap between the end of the barrel, or the moderator if attached, and the skin was less than one millimetre. He said that the likelihood of such an occurrence was to an extent dependent on the part of the body to which the shot was delivered and the amount of blood present at that point.
458. If the shot to Shelia Caffell, which was a contact shot to the throat, had been fired without the moderator in place, he would have expected to find blood in the barrel of the gun. If the moderator was attached it was "virtually certain" that Sheila Caffell's blood would get into the moderator. There was, he said "a very slight possibility of it not happening, but very slight".
"Since the blood from inside the sound moderator belonged to the same group as Sheila Caffell, and since there was no blood inside the barrel of the rifle, I was led to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell had been shot whilst the sound moderator was fitted to the rifle."
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
At JB's trial the judge, Justice Drake, asked Malcolm Fletcher if there were any other possibilities to account for the blood being in the silencer. He replied "The only other possibility is that it was put there deliberately".
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19861015&id=E4JDAAAAIBAJ&sjid=q6UMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4879,3440832
However what Malcolm Fletcher overlooked, either out of incompetence or being persuaded to be economical with the truth, is that a silencer reduces the gases ejected with the bullet quite considerably thus reducing the pounds per square inch (psi) from around 3000 psi to 60 psi. With a silencer fitted to the guns barrel the bullet enters first an expansion chamber and then a number of baffles before it exits. The expansion chamber and baffles allow the hot gases to expand and slow their release. Meaning they dissipate in the silencer and the reduced amount that leaves the silencer does so slowly.
The following animated second image depicts this beautifully
http://www.industrytap.com/silencer-suppressor-inside-look-one-gun-enthusiasts-coolest-gadgets/26953
Dr Jon Nordby on page 6 states the following
"The draw-back effect can be observed in contact gunshot wounds but the effect(s) of compensators, suppressors and silencing devices as well as any other intervening items may alter the outcome."
http://www.finalanalysisforensics.com/media/pdfs/BasicBloodstainPatternAnalysisTEXT.pdf
This obviously puts a whole different complexion on the draw-back theory in JB's case and the central plank of the prosecution's case.
I think I am right in saying that Ann Eaton's husband, Peter Eaton, was a registered gun dealer. I wonder if he was familiar with draw-back? He was the person who handed the silencer to DS Jones having sat up drinking whisky with him
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3580
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3582
The victims' samples were handed to EP (see top of page):
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=204.msg2228#msg2228
Please note that this post has been copied and pasted from the red forum with the posters permission.
-
This images shows a 98% reduction in hot gases with a silencer fitted. Thus means that the possibility of drawback with a silencer fitted is rare and very unlikely.
-
I am annoyed because I found an article which also said the Lab had made assumptions and there were certain "comparison" tests that had not been carried out. But I am not sure where I read it . I will have a search.
-
This images shows a 98% reduction in hot gases with a silencer fitted. Thus means that the possibility of drawback with a silencer fitted is rare and very unlikely.
Think this is very interesting, Patti. Have never trusted the silencer evidence and this certainly reinforces those doubts 100%.
-
Very interesting Patti. Worth front page news I'd have said. Well at least some sort of circulation.
-
Ah today's post on red from Holly. That post came after a long debate that she lost on these very issues except in her own mind of course. Proving Holly wrong it easy, it is convicting her to admit you have done so that is a challenge.
Holly took a simplistic generalized claim that attachments and items such as clothing can impact backspatter and drawback and she decided she was going to interpret such as meaning backspatter can't happen and drawback won't occur when a moderator is used.
Her source stated no such thing though, it is a fact that blood has been found in moderators and thus that drawback occurs in moderators. Holly said she didn't care and was choosing to interpret it her way.
Gases still escape from a moderator simply the pressure is lesser. Some moderators have vents so the gases escape from the sides others like the one in this case do not. All the gases at some point excape through the front. There thus are still gases acting upon the wound.
I pointed out to Holly that backspatter is not only caused by the gases. That is one distinct cause of backspatter and it happens only when the gun is close enough for the escaping gases to go in the wound (which doesn't just happen with contact wounds the gases still can act upon the wound in non-contact wounds). I posted 2 other things that cause backspatter and that is even if the gun is far away. The reason distance matters is because if close enough the spatter will get on/in the weapon. Drawback is a function of all these things during contact wounds. I also noted how wounds are much more likely to produce spatter or more significant quantities when there was a previous wound nearby like in the case here where the first wound to Sheila caused hemorraging.
I repeatedly stressed the most significant thing in whether drawback will occur is looking at the location of the wound and assessing all the relevant issues regarding that location.
Holly didn't care refused to address any of this and decided she is going to pretend her source proves that shots from moderators can't result in drawback. The bottom line is that Holly's suggestion that blood would not have been able to get in the moderator is wrong as would be any suggestion that it would be unlikely because she didn't look at the relevant factors of location and all the causes of spatter that interact to cause drawback.
Furthermore she chooses to ignore that they assessed there would have been drawback in the rifle if the moderator was not used. None of her claims undermine that assertion. No blood was found in the rifle though as would have to be the case had the rifle been used without the moderator.
-
There is this as well.
-
Think this is very interesting, Patti. Have never trusted the silencer evidence and this certainly reinforces those doubts 100%.
Except that the claim the reduction makes drawback unlikely is not true. The source doesn't claim that it is simply something Holly (the source of all this) decided on her own.
There are still gases exiting thus acting upon the wound and more than just the gases cause drawback.
(http://s22.postimg.org/qpzoo6xdt/backspattercasues.jpg)
Holly was ******** everywhere she could trying to find a source that claims drawback can't occur or is unlikely to occur when a moderator is used but could not find one the best she could come up with was the statement they can "impact" things which failed to discuss how or the degree.
-
if you are so convinced 100% and so confident why are you so rude about it?
Me thinks you doth protest too much,
-
Kudos to Holly! ;) ;D
-
if you are so convinced 100% and so confident why are you so rude about it?
Me thinks you doth protest too much,
It's because he didn't post it. ;D ;D ;D
-
Scip you ignore expert opinions in order to project your own agenda. Now, you question scientists at the highest level.
Having a silencer on a rifle does have an effect on whether drawback occurs, it makes it very unlikely to have occurred, especially as the shot to Sheila was not a direct contact head shot. The head bleeds profusely, compared to other parts of the body... :-\
-
Scip you ignore expert opinions in order to project your own agenda. Now, you question scientists at the highest level.
Having a silencer on a rifle does have an effect on whether drawback occurs, it makes it very unlikely to have occurred, especially as the shot to Sheila was not a direct contact head shot. The head bleeds profusely, compared to other parts of the body... :-\
Just out of interest, what agenda could he possibly have? ???
-
Scip you ignore expert opinions in order to project your own agenda. Now, you question scientists at the highest level.
Having a silencer on a rifle does have an effect on whether drawback occurs, it makes it very unlikely to have occurred, especially as the shot to Sheila was not a direct contact head shot. The head bleeds profusely, compared to other parts of the body... :-\
It was also 'expert opinion' that suggested the blood was the result of draw back. Although I don't believe the silencer was used, to argue for or against you have to argue against expert opinion.
-
if you are so convinced 100% and so confident why are you so rude about it?
Me thinks you doth protest too much,
Rude to whom? Holly?
Holly is much like Mike. She has an agenda she wants to push for her own purposes and in order to be able to advance that agenda she seeks out things that she feels she can twist and distort to support her position. Her agenda is to push her own mental analysis of Sheila's problems which caused her to commit the murders. She never met Sheila and there is very little about Sheila publicly available for anyone to be able to try evaluating her mental problems on their own but Holly has decided she knows better than the doctor who treated her and advances her own medical claims.
She can't advance these theories unless Sheila did it so the evidence Sheila didn't do it is an obstacle. She distorts in order to overcome that obstacle. The distortions including pretending the only thing that causes drawback are the gases and that the reduction in the pressure of the gases means drawback is won't be deposited in a moderator. Her sources don't state it is unlikely or impossible she is the one making the claim.
In the meantime unless she finds a source that says it is impossible the argument is a waste of time. The only way to establish through use of general scientific evidence that the blood can't be drawback and had to be planted is if it is impossible for blood to be deposited in a moderator.
It is rare for drawback to result from 22 caliber wounds to the head. This is one of the things assassins like because it means they are unlikely to get spatter on them which in turn helps catch them. Does this mean that if spatter is found that the spatter was planted and can't have actually happened? No spatter being found is evidence this is one of those rare instances where it happened.
So what she is engaging in is a complete waste of time and has no ability to disprove the blood was drawback.
The only inquiry of any value to a defense attorney (and any other Jeremy supporter) would be:
1) to have an expert look for evidence the shot was fired from a distance too far away for backspatter to have gotten so deep inside
2) have an expert look for evidence that even if a contact wound the wound in question would not result in backspatter even if the gun had no moderator
The prosecution argument was two-fold
I. The wound would definitely have resulted in drawback into the weapon had the weapon been fired
without the moderator but none was found therefore a moderator must have been used
II. The moderator had Sheila's blood so was used definitely used
Making the argument that it is unlikely for drawback to get in the moderator doesn't help deal with either plank.
Let's pretend no blood was found in the rifle or the moderator. The argument that it is unlikely for blood to get in the moderator would be very bad for the defense. Here is what the prosecution would argue in that instance:
The wound would definitely have resulted in drawback into the weapon had the weapon been fired
without the moderator but none was found therefore a moderator must have been used. Even though no blood was found int he moderator it is unlikely to get there while it would have to have gotten in the rifle had the rifle been used without it. So the absence of blood int he rifle proves a moderator was used.
The principal argument which has to be dealt with is the argument the blood would definitely have been in the rifle had it been used without the moderator.
The defense needs to either prove it would not have been likely for blood to get in the rifle had it been used without the moderator or prove blood was found in the rifle by the lab but they lied and claimed they didn't find any.
These are the only ways to get around that particular plank of the prosecution's case. Even though I pointed it out to Holly many times and to people here it is constantly ignored.
It wasn't ignored by the Court of Appeal they mentioned it again and again in their decision including:
"As to the moderator, there was the remarkable proposition raised by the defence case that Sheila Caffell having killed her family found that she could not shoot herself with the moderator on and instead of simply taking the moderator off and putting it down, went downstairs to an office, put the moderator in its proper place in the gun cupboard and then returned to her parents' bedroom where she sat or lay down on the floor and shot herself. 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."
So Jeremy is never going to win an appeal arguing June and Nevill's blood mixed in the moderator then after killing them Sheila put it away in the closet. Nor is he going to win an appeal by questioning the moderator evidence.
The only way he is winning an appeal is if he establishes one of the following 1)Sheila's blood was found in the rifle but this was concealed or 2) drawback would not be likely to occur from her wound and the blood was planted in the moderator.
That's the only way to prove him to be a victim of a MOJ.
-
It was also 'expert opinion' that suggested the blood was the result of draw back. Although I don't believe the silencer was used, to argue for or against you have to argue against expert opinion.
Well, if you don't believe the silencer was used then you must believe the blood was planted there.
Yes, it was argued in court about the drawback, but nothing was mentioned about the silencer having slowed down that process and makes it practically impossible to have happened not once but twice and the blood landing on the same spot form two of the victims is rare. The court excepted what was said because none of them were aware that had a silencer been fitted the outcome would be different.
I am not expert enough to argue the point. From what I have read it appears that it was very unlikely that blood got into the silencer through drawback... :-\
-
Rude to whom? Holly?
Holly is much like Mike. She has an agenda she wants to push for her own purposes and in order to be able to advance that agenda she seeks out things that she feels she can twist and distort to support her position. Her agenda is to push her own mental analysis of Sheila's problems which caused her to commit the murders. She never met Sheila and there is very little about Sheila publicly available for anyone to be able to try evaluating her mental problems on their own but Holly has decided she knows better than the doctor who treated her and advances her own medical claims.
She can't advance these theories unless Sheila did it so the evidence Sheila didn't do it is an obstacle. She distorts in order to overcome that obstacle. The distortions including pretending the only thing that causes drawback are the gases and that the reduction in the pressure of the gases means drawback is won't be deposited in a moderator. Her sources don't state it is unlikely or impossible she is the one making the claim.
In the meantime unless she finds a source that says it is impossible the argument is a waste of time. The only way to establish through use of general scientific evidence that the blood can't be drawback and had to be planted is if it is impossible for blood to be deposited in a moderator.
It is rare for drawback to result from 22 caliber wounds to the head. This is one of the things assassins like because it means they are unlikely to get spatter on them which in turn helps catch them. Does this mean that if spatter is found that the spatter was planted and can't have actually happened? No spatter being found is evidence this is one of those rare instances where it happened.
So what she is engaging in is a complete waste of time and has no ability to disprove the blood was drawback.
The only inquiry of any value to a defense attorney (and any other Jeremy supporter) would be:
1) to have an expert look for evidence the shot was fired from a distance too far away for backspatter to have gotten so deep inside
2) have an expert look for evidence that even if a contact wound the wound in question would not result in backspatter even if the gun had no moderator
The prosecution argument was two-fold
I. The wound would definitely have resulted in drawback into the weapon had the weapon been fired
without the moderator but none was found therefore a moderator must have been used
II. The moderator had Sheila's blood so was used definitely used
Making the argument that it is unlikely for drawback to get in the moderator doesn't help deal with either plank.
Let's pretend no blood was found in the rifle or the moderator. The argument that it is unlikely for blood to get in the moderator would be very bad for the defense. Here is what the prosecution would argue in that instance:
The wound would definitely have resulted in drawback into the weapon had the weapon been fired
without the moderator but none was found therefore a moderator must have been used. Even though no blood was found int he moderator it is unlikely to get there while it would have to have gotten in the rifle had the rifle been used without it. So the absence of blood int he rifle proves a moderator was used.
The principal argument which has to be dealt with is the argument the blood would definitely have been in the rifle had it been used without the moderator.
The defense needs to either prove it would not have been likely for blood to get in the rifle had it been used without the moderator or prove blood was found in the rifle by the lab but they lied and claimed they didn't find any.
These are the only ways to get around that particular plank of the prosecution's case. Even though I pointed it out to Holly many times and to people here it is constantly ignored.
It wasn't ignored by the Court of Appeal they mentioned it again and again in their decision including:
"As to the moderator, there was the remarkable proposition raised by the defence case that Sheila Caffell having killed her family found that she could not shoot herself with the moderator on and instead of simply taking the moderator off and putting it down, went downstairs to an office, put the moderator in its proper place in the gun cupboard and then returned to her parents' bedroom where she sat or lay down on the floor and shot herself. 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."
So Jeremy is never going to win an appeal arguing June and Nevill's blood mixed in the moderator then after killing them Sheila put it away in the closet. Nor is he going to win an appeal by questioning the moderator evidence.
The only way he is winning an appeal is if he establishes one of the following 1)Sheila's blood was found in the rifle but this was concealed or 2) drawback would not be likely to occur from her wound and the blood was planted in the moderator.
That's the only way to prove him to be a victim of a MOJ.
How can Holly twist the words of an expert when it is there in black and white for all see.
-
Holly isn´t here and hasn´t said anything to skippedidooda, still he chooses to be incredibly rude to her.
Doesn´t he constantly claim that he only gives as good as he gets? Guess what, he´s lying.
-
Scip you ignore expert opinions in order to project your own agenda. Now, you question scientists at the highest level.
Having a silencer on a rifle does have an effect on whether drawback occurs, it makes it very unlikely to have occurred, especially as the shot to Sheila was not a direct contact head shot. The head bleeds profusely, compared to other parts of the body... :-\
This is further proof that you live in bizarro World. If you don't understand the reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World
It means you are declaring things to be the complete opposite of reality.
What expert opinions were presented? You presented opinions sourced to Holly- someone you or a different mod banned from this board.
It was not an opinion of an expert that drawback would be unlikely to occur if the murder weapon had the moderator attached but rather an opinion source to non-expert Holly.
She tried to support her claim by posting:
1) Pretending that only gases cause drawback though she already knew that was not the case because I proved she was wrong
2) asserting that the reduction in gas pressure would prevent those gases from being able to cause drawback though she had no source asserting such claim other than a source that sais moderators can impact it without going into how.
There were no opinions from any experts asserting drawback would be unlikely to occur just claims from Holly.
You are the one ignoring the experts.
The experts in this case actually looked at the wound in question and all relevant facts to whether the wound would result in drawback. The experts said it would have resulted in drawback. The defense found no experts to refute this nor did Holly.
I am being objective and following the evidence. You ate the one who is biased and thus choosing to ignore the expert testimony though you have nothing to challenge it beyond Holly's opinion which you have ridiculously elevated to expert status.
-
Well, if you don't believe the silencer was used then you must believe the blood was planted there.
Yes, it was argued in court about the drawback, but nothing was mentioned about the silencer having slowed down that process and makes it practically impossible to have happened not once but twice and the blood landing on the same spot form two of the victims is rare. The court excepted what was said because none of them were aware that had a silencer been fitted the outcome would be different.
I am not expert enough to argue the point. From what I have read it appears that it was very unlikely that blood got into the silencer through drawback... :-\
Caroline believes it was not used but Jeremy done it without the silencer - a possibility
The calibre of the bullet and the length of the barrel also has an effect. The lower the calibre the less likelihood or depth of drawback and the shorter the barrel the more drawback.
The weapon in question is a low calibre and a long rifle so combined with a silencer it will release very little gas. But only an experiment could prove anything
-
Well, if you don't believe the silencer was used then you must believe the blood was planted there.
Yes, it was argued in court about the drawback, but nothing was mentioned about the silencer having slowed down that process and makes it practically impossible to have happened not once but twice and the blood landing on the same spot form two of the victims is rare. The court excepted what was said because none of them were aware that had a silencer been fitted the outcome would be different.
I am not expert enough to argue the point. From what I have read it appears that it was very unlikely that blood got into the silencer through drawback... :-\
That's because Holly made the claim up that the moderator would have prevented drawback from occurring. Her own sources don't say that they just say moderators can as in may have an impact. You have to look at all the facts and circumstances to find out if there would be an impact and what that impact is. Holly failed to come up with any evidence that said a moderator will prevent drawback from occurring though it was what she did google searches for and ended up just asserting it anyway because of her bias.
-
Well, if you don't believe the silencer was used then you must believe the blood was planted there.
Yes, it was argued in court about the drawback, but nothing was mentioned about the silencer having slowed down that process and makes it practically impossible to have happened not once but twice and the blood landing on the same spot form two of the victims is rare. The court excepted what was said because none of them were aware that had a silencer been fitted the outcome would be different.
I am not expert enough to argue the point. From what I have read it appears that it was very unlikely that blood got into the silencer through drawback... :-\
I have argued this point many times of course I think it was planted!
-
How can Holly twist the words of an expert when it is there in black and white for all see.
All one expert said is that moderators can impact the process nothing more. To assert that stands for the proposition that any and all moderators will inhibit drawback is a gross distortion.
Holly took the words of someone else providing a very limited and general discussion of drawback and misrepresented the only thing that causes drawback is gases and then made up on her own that since moderators reduce the pressure of gases this means it is unlikely for drawback to be able to occur when using them.
She made up her own conclusion to support what she set out to prove. She didn't find anyone who opined the conclusion she came to. She could not find any expert who opined it would be unlikely for drawback to occur anytime a moderator is used. She just made up the claim herself then tried to justify it with distortions.
-
Just out of interest, what agenda could he possibly have? ???
Well considering we have no idea about anyones true identity/relation to the case / reasons for posting , personally I don't think that question could be answered.
-
Well considering we have no idea about anyones true identity/relation to the case / reasons for posting , personally I don't think that question could be answered.
Maybe it's also wrong to suggest he has one then? ???
-
Caroline believes it was not used but Jeremy done it without the silencer - a possibility
The calibre of the bullet and the length of the barrel also has an effect. The lower the calibre the less likelihood or depth of drawback and the shorter the barrel the more drawback.
The weapon in question is a low calibre and a long rifle so combined with a silencer it will release very little gas. But only an experiment could prove anything
What matters most for backspatter:
1) location of the wound and variables of the surrounding area are the most important consideration.
2) Then comes caliber though caliber plays a bigger role in the depth and volume than it does in whether it will occur at all. The exception this is headshots where caliber is more important because the larger the caliber the better the chance of spatter being possible at all. But this goes back to rule number 1.
Only people who are unbiased seem to care that the primary and most significant consideration is location of the wound. People with an agenda want to ignore this and are actively trying to establish drawback would not have gotten in the moderator.
The same biased people ignore the various processes that come together to cause drawback and thus why you need an expert to assess the likelihood of drawback happening based on a VERY detailed look at the location and other circumstances.
-
Maybe it's also wrong to suggest he has one then? ???
Although that's a two way thing I guess. :-\
-
Maybe it's also wrong to suggest he has one then? ???
No , he could have one - but he will never ever admit it :) :) :)
-
This is further proof that you live in bizarro World. If you don't understand the reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World
It means you are declaring things to be the complete opposite of reality.
What expert opinions were presented? You presented opinions sourced to Holly- someone you or a different mod banned from this board.
It was not an opinion of an expert that drawback would be unlikely to occur if the murder weapon had the moderator attached but rather an opinion source to non-expert Holly.
She tried to support her claim by posting:
1) Pretending that only gases cause drawback though she already knew that was not the case because I proved she was wrong
2) asserting that the reduction in gas pressure would prevent those gases from being able to cause drawback though she had no source asserting such claim other than a source that sais moderators can impact it without going into how.
There were no opinions from any experts asserting drawback would be unlikely to occur just claims from Holly.
You are the one ignoring the experts.
The experts in this case actually looked at the wound in question and all relevant facts to whether the wound would result in drawback. The experts said it would have resulted in drawback. The defense found no experts to refute this nor did Holly.
I am being objective and following the evidence. You ate the one who is biased and thus choosing to ignore the expert testimony though you have nothing to challenge it beyond Holly's opinion which you have ridiculously elevated to expert status.
Scip how many times have a read about you disagreeing with and dismissing experts? You then call the experts you ignore Laurel and Hardy
Talk about hypocrisy
-
No , he could have one - but he will never ever admit it :) :) :)
Admit what? ;D
-
Admit what? ;D
his agenda. are we talking in riddles tonight?
-
his agenda. are we talking in riddles tonight?
Just a different sense of humour it seems. :-\
-
No , he could have one - but he will never ever admit it :) :) :)
If I have an agenda I admit it. I have no need to hide it. I make my living by being an advocate which means I get paid to be biased in favor of a client and to select the most favorable arguments for those paying me in those matters/cases. The fact I am getting paid is known up front and doesn't in any way inhibit my arguments.
My only agenda here is the truth. I have neither bias for/against the UK government nor for/against Jeremy. I follow the evidence where it leads. My interest is the same in all criminal cases I research- just wanting to know the truth.
When pro-guilt people like Adam make claims that are wrong I point it out just as I do when pro-Jeremy people make the same kinds of errors.
Many people involved in defending Jeremy are not objective. They have decided they want to believe Jeremy is innocent and search out whatever they can try to use to support their claims in the process ignoring things that prove them wrong and if necessary twisting to pretend their claims are true.
This is one of those instances. Holly kept whining that she could not find more information on drawback. I told her that she either would have to hire an expert or pay for more specialized books. She did neither she just decided to give up in her search and made up what suited her agenda since she couldn't find anyone who asserted it.
-
If I have an agenda I admit it. I have no need to hide it. I make my living by being an advocate which means I get paid to be biased in favor of a client and to select the most favorable arguments for those paying me in those matters/cases. The fact I am getting paid is known up front and doesn't in any way inhibit my arguments.
My only agenda here is the truth. I have neither bias for/against the UK government nor for/against Jeremy. I follow the evidence where it leads. My interest is the same in all criminal cases I research- just wanting to know the truth.
When pro-guilt people like Adam make claims that are wrong I point it out just as I do when pro-Jeremy people make the same kinds of errors.
Many people involved in defending Jeremy are not objective. They have decided they want to believe Jeremy is innocent and search out whatever they can try to use to support their claims in the process ignoring things that prove them wrong and if necessary twisting to pretend their claims are true.
This is one of those instances. Holly kept whining that she could not find more information on drawback. I told her that she either would have to hire an expert or pay for more specialized books. She did neither she just decided to give up in her search and made up what suited her agenda since she couldn't find anyone who asserted it.
Maybe people are weirded out that you aren't being paid, there is no client.
Plus you keep getting things wrong. ;D
-
Maybe people are weirded out that you aren't being paid, there is no client.
Plus you keep getting things wrong. ;D
It is simply a matter of projection. They would rather try to pretend they are being objective and that those opposing their arguments are biased and irrational rather than facing the reality.
-
If I have an agenda I admit it. I have no need to hide it. I make my living by being an advocate which means I get paid to be biased in favor of a client and to select the most favorable arguments for those paying me in those matters/cases. The fact I am getting paid is known up front and doesn't in any way inhibit my arguments.
My only agenda here is the truth. I have neither bias for/against the UK government nor for/against Jeremy. I follow the evidence where it leads. My interest is the same in all criminal cases I research- just wanting to know the truth.
When pro-guilt people like Adam make claims that are wrong I point it out just as I do when pro-Jeremy people make the same kinds of errors.
Many people involved in defending Jeremy are not objective. They have decided they want to believe Jeremy is innocent and search out whatever they can try to use to support their claims in the process ignoring things that prove them wrong and if necessary twisting to pretend their claims are true.
This is one of those instances. Holly kept whining that she could not find more information on drawback. I told her that she either would have to hire an expert or pay for more specialized books. She did neither she just decided to give up in her search and made up what suited her agenda since she couldn't find anyone who asserted it.
I think that's a tad unfair to be honest Skip. It appears when you are challenged you start to get personal for some reason and start name calling.
Drawback mainly occurs from a contact shot to the head. I am sure you can meet me half and agree on that. A yes or no will fine.
You have said yourself that if a silencer is fitted it slows down the gases, well the gases are less hot with a silencer on. Is this right or not?
The shot to one of the twins was a contact shot yet no blood was found in the silencer that belonged to one of them.
We then have two samples of blood one being that of Sheila and the other a possible mixture of June and Nevill's. This being in 1986.
The judge himself asked Fletcher if there was any other way that blood could have got in the silencer other than drawback....Fletcher's reply was it would have had to have been put there. There must have been some doubt at trial whether or not blood could have gotten into the silencer via drawback.
If the possibility is only likely then surely its can also mean its unlikely and this alone makes it unsafe for the answers to most of my questions are it might have or it may have; which is not good enough...Either it is possible or its not possible....Had the jury been aware that the gases slowed down that process they would have doubted the evidence presented to them. They were not aware, because no experiments were done therefore no outcome resulted in a correct conclusion that blood got into the silencer due to drawback.
-
Maybe people are weirded out that you aren't being paid, there is no client.
Plus you keep getting things wrong. ;D
Troll's and Windup merchants don't get paid 8)
-
It is simply a matter of projection. They would rather try to pretend they are being objective and that those opposing their arguments are biased and irrational rather than facing the reality.
Who cares? You're on the forum day and night without fail, that's a lot of effort and a lot of time. Maybe it's a distraction from something, I don't know, but if I may be so bold to say so, you do seem to have an unhealthy interest in the case, based on the amount of time you've spent on it.
I guess that's why people are now suggesting that you have an agenda?
-
Who cares? You're on the forum day and night without fail, that's a lot of effort and a lot of time. Maybe it's a distraction from something, I don't know, but if I may be so bold to say so, you do seem to have an unhealthy interest in the case, based on the amount of time you've spent on it.
I guess that's why people are now suggesting that you have an agenda?
Having said that, I do agree with much of what you post, just not all of it.
-
I think that's a tad unfair to be honest Skip. It appears when you are challenged you start to get personal for some reason and start name calling.
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.
Drawback mainly occurs from a contact shot to the head. I am sure you can meet me half and agree on that. A yes or no will fine.
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.
You have said yourself that if a silencer is fitted it slows down the gases, well the gases are less hot with a silencer on. Is this right or not?
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 shot to one of the twins was a contact shot yet no blood was found in the silencer that belonged to one of them.
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.
We then have two samples of blood one being that of Sheila and the other a possible mixture of June and Nevill's. This being in 1986.
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.
The judge himself asked Fletcher if there was any other way that blood could have got in the silencer other than drawback....Fletcher's reply was it would have had to have been put there. There must have been some doubt at trial whether or not blood could have gotten into the silencer via drawback.
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.
If the possibility is only likely then surely its can also mean its unlikely and this alone makes it unsafe for the answers to most of my questions are it might have or it may have; which is not good enough...Either it is possible or its not possible....Had the jury been aware that the gases slowed down that process they would have doubted the evidence presented to them. They were not aware, because no experiments were done therefore no outcome resulted in a correct conclusion that blood got into the silencer due to drawback.
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."
-
Who cares? You're on the forum day and night without fail, that's a lot of effort and a lot of time. Maybe it's a distraction from something, I don't know, but if I may be so bold to say so, you do seem to have an unhealthy interest in the case, based on the amount of time you've spent on it.
I guess that's why people are now suggesting that you have an agenda?
I like to argue and this board is ripe because there are so many bogus claims being bandied constantly.
If the facts of the case were all faced then I would have no reason to post anymore because there would be nothing to argue over.
The same is true with other cases I debate including Amanda Knox. The guilty camp there acts much like the pro-Jeremy camp here. So many distortions are posted that it is amazing. One guy who posted the other day reminds me of Mike. He posted a long list of BS evidence including that the bloody knife impression on the sheets matched a knife found at Sollecito's cottage. Every claim he made was the complete opposite of reality. That shows that he knows the evidence is insufficient because otherwise he would list the real evidence instead of making up his own.
If someone is not busy distorting there is little to talk about. All the significant issues in the case have already been laid out and the faults with the latest conviction laid out. I don't give a rat's ass about her personal life so there is nothing else to discuss really until the Court of Cassation renders a verdict at that point it can be debated and critiqued.
-
Scip how many times have a read about you disagreeing with and dismissing experts? You then call the experts you ignore Laurel and Hardy
Talk about hypocrisy
I disagree with experts when I have evidence they are wrong. Holly found no evidence to suggest the experts were wrong. She twisted to try to pretend they were.
She took a generalize claims that gun attachments "may" impact back spatter and she said she chose to interpret this as meaning drawback is not possible in moderators though the evidence is that drawback has been found in moderators.
There are 3 known things that cause drawback. Holly ignored the latter 2 pretending only gases causes drawback. Next she decided all on her own the gases that escape from the moderator into the wound can't cause drawback though she found no source for the claim she just made it up.
Why did Holly do this? Because she is biased. She was actively searching for evidence to use to argue 22 calibers won't cause drawback tha twas one of her initial claims. Next she tried saying drawback is only likely with head shots. Her goal is to find a way to prove that drawback didn't occur nto a genuine search to see whether it did.
Caroline has decided she doesn't want to believe the moderator was used because she refuses to believe Jeremy would have asked for a DNA test if he used it and thus will accept any argument that appears to support what she desires to believe.
Most of the pro-Jeremy crowd will accept anything supportive of Jeremy now matter how ridiculous or lacking in support because of their bias.
I only accept evidence that is credible and that means I reject unreliable evidence whether it hurts Jeremy or helps Jeremy. I don't make my decision of whether evidence is reliable based on the yardstick of whether it is beneficial or detrimental to Jeremy I do it based on objective criteria of reliability.
Holly was whining about a dearth of information related to drawback and since she could not find sources that refuted drawback in moderators like she was hoping she decided to just make it up on her own.
-
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.
-
ive got an agenda but ive forgotten what it is.
-
I just see a heap of uncertainty in the results which Patti has explained about,and obviously because the WEIGHT was on the side of the prosecution ( as per always, more often than not ) do,or die,there HAD to be a conviction,so erring on the side of caution didn't come into it,and the UNFAIR result went ahead.
-
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.
-
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. :o ;)
-
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).
-
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!
-
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. :o ;)
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.
-
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.
-
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. :-\
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Well time will tell . :)
-
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:
(http://murderpedia.org/male.B/images/bamber_jeremy/evidence.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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:
(http://murderpedia.org/male.B/images/bamber_jeremy/evidence.jpg)
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.
It might be MORE believable if the blood from the top wound didn't look superimposed.
-
That other black mark beneath is a bit suspect.All in all there's something not right about that photo.
-
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:
(http://murderpedia.org/male.B/images/bamber_jeremy/evidence.jpg)
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.
That photo was embellished during the Italian advocates era. If you look at the other photos of Sheila, you can see that this is just a blow up which has been colourised to make the reds more pronounced.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/B7C5f.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/q8BSH.jpg)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/B7C5f.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/q8BSH.jpg)
They both look colour manipulated IMO.
That said, I can see on other photos that Sheila´s blood had coagulated and cracked, so she hadn´t died recently and the blood was not running from her wounds when the photos were taken.
-
They both look colour manipulated IMO.
That said, I can see on other photos that Sheila´s blood had coagulated and cracked, so she hadn´t died recently and the blood was not running from her wounds when the photos were taken.
This is clearer.
-
This is clearer.
I was just about to post that, beat me to it. :D
-
As you can see, it's a blow up of this photograph.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4315;image)
-
I was just about to post that, beat me to it. :D
;)
-
There's still light bouncing off the shiny part of blood on her neck. It wouldn't if it was dried. It would be matt. Also,considering there's the same amount of blood collected across her mouth,which is brown,compared to that on her neck which is still red.
-
" Trick of the light ",perhaps ? ;D ;D ;D
-
It might be MORE believable if the blood from the top wound didn't look superimposed.
A muzzle impression is a physical observation. You either have to inspect the body in person or via photos. Those who physically inspected the body found no muzzle imprint. So in trying to find a muzzle imprint the defense is limited to looking at the photos- which don't show anything that could be definitively established to be a muzzle imprint let alone an imprint that can be matched to the rifle.
To convince the court that there is a muzzle imprint tied to the rifle sans suppressor that would require showing a photo where you can demonstrate there are distinctive marks in the photos which can only have been made by the rifle muzzle touching that skin area and it being clear enough for the court to reject prosecution expert claims to the contrary and convince them Vanezis and the other trial experts messed up in not noticing the imprint. I see it as an impossible task given the photos available.
-
The neck blood was still oxygenated,whereas from the mouth there wasn't a pumping mechanism,so I'd have said that she hadn't been dead that long before the photos were taken,whichever pic you choose.
-
There's still light bouncing off the shiny part of blood on her neck. It wouldn't if it was dried. It would be matt. Also,considering there's the same amount of blood collected across her mouth,which is brown,compared to that on her neck which is still red.
Lookout, the blood on her neck is dried, you can see the cracks towards the bottom of the trails.
-
Also, her body was found just before 8 am, and the photographs were taken between 10 and 11 am.
-
As you can see, it's a blow up of this photograph.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4315;image)
Yes, no surprise to me, thought that went without saying??
-
Lookout, the blood on her neck is dried, you can see the cracks towards the bottom of the trails.
The cracks are on the thinnest part of the blood trail which it would.It's the " centre " where it isn't,and where,if she's been dead for some time,would be brown and not red. In fact,like her mouth,the blood would have appeared to be black.
-
Yes, no surprise to me, thought that went without saying??
'
Yea - we´re not stupid! LOLOL Love it when people think others are stupid....
SORRY, couldn´t help myself, I am bad! I´ll go and stand in a corner and be ashamed!
-
'
Yea - we´re not stupid! LOLOL Love it when people think others are stupid....
SORRY, couldn´t help myself, I am bad! I´ll go and stand in a corner and be ashamed!
Ahem, everybody WAS stupid and didn't realise the origins of the photograph until Bridget and I posted to show that they were both the same image.
Short memories? ;D
-
Ahem, everybody WAS stupid and didn't realise the origins of the photograph until Bridget and I posted to show that they were both the same image.
Short memories? ;D
No, I´m just bad. 8)
-
No, I´m just bad. 8)
Evil lady! >:( ;D
-
always going off on tangents...
anyway a muzzle imprint from a rifle looks like this:
(http://o.quizlet.com/i/MSfHfTOwK17HGzvo-T3LvA_m.jpg)
The imprint is seared into the skin it can't be washed away unlike soot which will simply wash away. It is only possible with hard contact wounds which the fatal wound was not determined to be.
The diameter of the central hole will be very close to that of the barrel hole, which in this case is 6mm but the diameter of the hole of the fatal wound according to Vanezis was 4.75mm (3/16").
The outer ring would have an overall diameter of about 12mm. There isn't a defined outer ring at all let alone one that is around 12mm in diameter.
There isn't a defined outer ring 12mm in diameter for the nonfatal wound either.
Unlike the rifle that made the imprint I just posted the murder weapon has threading. Depending on just how hard the contact is and how long the gun is in place etc it is possible for there to be other rings outside of the 12mm ring. Note possible not mandatory. That is the kind of distinctive pattern showing the threading would indicate the rifle was used without the moderator. A 12mm ring seared in the skin with a roughly 6mm perforation in the center could still be identified if it were defined well enough but there is another problem.
Let's just pretend the photos did show a ring of sorts that might be a muzzle impression. From a photo you can't necessarily tell if it is searing or soot etc. so that is one problem. But worse, the moderator can leave marks nearly the same same as the rifle which makes it next to impossible to say which made the marks.
The only thing distinctive on the face of the moderator besides the hole is a round circle roughly 3mm around the hole. The diameter of the hole is 7mm so only 1mm more than the hole in the barrel of the rifle. The circle has a diameter of 13mm so only 1mm more than the edge of the rifle muzzle. If an impression was left by just these 2 features it would be virtually the same size as the feature made by the rifle. Only if the outer circle of the overall face of the moderator were left as well would it be distinguishable because the diameter of the entire face is 22mm which should be enough to be able to calculate the size difference one would think.
So even if there were a mark like the one above the prosecution would argue it could have been made the the moderator and there is no way the 1mm difference in size could be used to try to say it is more likely from 1 or the other.
So this whole line of inquiry is essentially hopeless.
-
Ahem, everybody WAS stupid and didn't realise the origins of the photograph until Bridget and I posted to show that they were both the same image.
Short memories? ;D
This was before my time but I remember arguing with Bridget that the picture with the (so called) fresh blood, looked real - after she showed me the version with the dried blood it's obvious that there is no way any blood was flowing from any of the wounds when this was taken. Her skin is also discoloured and it's obvious she has been dead for quite some time.
To clarify, Bridget was right and I was wrong!
-
I miss Bridget.
-
This is clearer.
Thanks for that, Caroline. It is clearer. So too, is the dawning fact that MANY pictures may have been "enhanced" in order that we follow a particular chain of thought. Not to mention what is hinted at of those which probably don't exist...................at least in the form we're TOLD.
-
Thanks for that, Caroline. It is clearer. So too, is the dawning fact that MANY pictures may have been "enhanced" in order that we follow a particular chain of thought. Not to mention what is hinted at of those which probably don't exist...................at least in the form we're TOLD.
Eye opening, isn't it?
-
Eye opening, isn't it?
Yes, Mat. Faked blood!!. Fake bodies!!! Single bullet wounds!!!!! WhatEVER next, I ask myself.............at the moment my SELF hasn't responded to this question, but watch this space ;D
-
Yes, Mat. Faked blood!!. Fake bodies!!! Single bullet wounds!!!!! WhatEVER next, I ask myself.............at the moment my SELF hasn't responded to this question, but watch this space ;D
Planted sound moderator ...... :D
-
Planted sound moderator ...... :D
Good gracious!!!!!!!! I thought my SELF was female ;D ;D ;D
-
Fletcher's testimony confirms many of the things I have stated regarding backspatter and drawback
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3322.msg130425.html#msg130425