Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: David1819 on August 22, 2015, 12:42:PM
-
I was reading Webster's 1993 report when he interviewed the home office scientist My Hayward.
(http://s12.postimg.org/xsa2sz8ul/webrep.jpg)
We now know that there was 'a lot of blood' 'several flakes' and the flake tested was 'a big one'
This is rather sloppy and unprofessional, I find it hard to believe that home office never bothered to weigh the flakes and take photographs of the baffle plates before testing and take photos throughout their investigation of the sound moderator. Are we sure they didn't?
The information above really does not help at all. :(
-
I was reading Webster's 1993 report when he interviewed the home office scientist My Hayward.
(http://s12.postimg.org/xsa2sz8ul/webrep.jpg)
We now know that there was 'a lot of blood' 'several flakes' and the flake tested was 'a big one'
This is rather sloppy and unprofessional, I find it hard to believe that home office never bothered to weigh the flakes and take photographs of the baffle plates before testing and take photos throughout their investigation of the sound moderator. Are we sure they didn't?
The information above really does not help at all. :(
So no 'fine mist' then? ;D I agree, it doesn't make convincing reading at all.
-
Nothing surprises me any more. The fact that from the onset,nobody gave an appx time of death was enough for me. This would have been the deciding factor of who the murderer had been. Everything else after that was cobbled together and I don't care what anyone thinks or says.
-
Nothing surprises me any more. The fact that from the onset,nobody gave an appx time of death was enough for me. This would have been the deciding factor of who the murderer had been. Everything else after that was cobbled together and I don't care what anyone thinks or says.
The pathologist at trial said it was impossible to determine the time of death. For anyone.
That's medical science for you. There is no point moaning about it.
-
The pathologist at trial said it was impossible to determine the time of death. For anyone.
That's medical science for you. There is no point moaning about it.
There were two people who could/should have estimated times of death. No excuse.
Unless Sheila stood shouting at the raid team," I have pms,and a gun.Any questions ? ". Then someone would have known the time.
-
There were two people who could/should have estimated times of death. No excuse.
Unless Sheila stood shouting at the raid team," I have pms,and a gun.Any questions ? ". Then someone would have known the time.
Why would she have pms given that the 'p' stand for 'pre'?
-
Why would she have pms given that the 'p' stand for 'pre'?
Could it have been a question of "Five minutes to onset and counting down"?
-
So no 'fine mist' then? ;D I agree, it doesn't make convincing reading at all.
Its rather worrying in general that their work makes guilt or innocence hang in the balance.
there was a lot of blood and the flake was big. rather pathetic if you ask me. This is criminal forensics! FFS
-
Its rather worrying in general that their work makes guilt or innocence hang in the balance.
there was a lot of blood and the flake was big. rather pathetic if you ask me. This is criminal forensics! FFS
Not very professional is it. It sounds as though he couldn't remember properly.
-
I was reading Webster's 1993 report when he interviewed the home office scientist My Hayward.
(http://s12.postimg.org/xsa2sz8ul/webrep.jpg)
We now know that there was 'a lot of blood' 'several flakes' and the flake tested was 'a big one'
This is rather sloppy and unprofessional, I find it hard to believe that home office never bothered to weigh the flakes and take photographs of the baffle plates before testing and take photos throughout their investigation of the sound moderator. Are we sure they didn't?
The information above really does not help at all. :(
Weigh what flakes? They were all expended in testing. Some was expended to make sure it was human. The flakes swabbed from the baffles were expended during group testing. Nothing was saved for future testing. Lincoln didn't save any of the blood for future testing either.
-
So no 'fine mist' then? ;D I agree, it doesn't make convincing reading at all.
It sprays in a mist and forms into flakes when pooled. Either you are being a complete ass or you are much dumber than you wish to pretend.
You say I am the ass but she is in your mirror. I see how you decided to believe Jeremy is innocent given the irrational posts you constantly make...
-
It sprays in a mist and forms into flakes when pooled. Either you are being a complete ass or you are much dumber than you wish to pretend.
You say I am the ass but she is in your mirror. I see how you decided to believe Jeremy is innocent given the irrational posts you constantly make...
I have never said you are an 'ass' I said you are an ARSE and indeed you are! Just like your 'fine mist' that no one mentioned - other than you! An ass is a donkey and arse is something you can't distinguish from your elbow - just to clarify ;) ;D ;D
You love to use the word irrational because you think it will make people question the way they come over. I suggest you start with yourself - because you are the most irrational person here. The way you try to beat people down and belittle them speaks volumes.
-
I have never said you are an 'ass' I said you are an ARSE and indeed you are! Just like your 'fine mist' that no one mentioned - other than you! An ass is a donkey and arse is something you can't distinguish from your elbow - just to clarify ;) ;D ;D
You love to use the word irrational because you think it will make people question the way they come over. I suggest you start with yourself - because you are the most irrational person here. The way you try to beat people down and belittle them speaks volumes.
Journals and books on backspatter use the term fine mist and atomized blood. I posted numerous sources proving it.
It is not my fault that so many people here are irrational and post so many irrational things. When people do such I call the out and since you do such and get called out you don't like it. You like attacking others but can't take it much like Alias.
Backspatter is a fine spray whether you like to face it or not. Refusing to face it just makes it all the more clear you are approaching the moderator in the same biased fashion you approach the blood you want to pretend was on Sheila's fingers.
Backspatter sprays and drawback is a spray of blood inside a weapon. There is no way for blood to land on multiple baffles except via a spray because they block one another. A spray can go around them baffles and through the hole in the baffles and since the projection is at different angles it will do so.
Pouring blood or using a dropper results it it hitting a general area simply it won't be on multiple successive baffles.
There is good reason the defense lawyers haven't tries making the nonsense claims you do. Much like many of Mike's irrational claims are not suited for any legal use neither are yours.
I care about things that actually matter which means evidence that is credible and thus can actually be used in a legal capacity.
-
Journals and books on backspatter use the term fine mist and atomized blood. I posted numerous sources proving it.
It is not my fault that so many people here are irrational and post so many irrational things. When people do such I call the out and since you do such and get called out you don't like it. You like attacking others but can't take it much like Alias.
Backspatter is a fine spray whether you like to face it or not. Refusing to face it just makes it all the more clear you are approaching the moderator in the same biased fashion you approach the blood you want to pretend was on Sheila's fingers.
Backspatter sprays and drawback is a spray of blood inside a weapon. There is no way for blood to land on multiple baffles except via a spray because they block one another. A spray can go around them baffles and through the hole in the baffles and since the projection is at different angles it will do so.
Pouring blood or using a dropper results it it hitting a general area simply it won't be on multiple successive baffles.
There is good reason the defense lawyers haven't tries making the nonsense claims you do. Much like many of Mike's irrational claims are not suited for any legal use neither are yours.
I care about things that actually matter which means evidence that is credible and thus can actually be used in a legal capacity.
No. Rather like the soldier who was training to enter the Great War. It was with enormous pride that he wrote home telling how, when they drilled, he was the only one who was in step? Might he have been a relative of yours?
-
Journals and books on backspatter use the term fine mist and atomized blood. I posted numerous sources proving it.
It is not my fault that so many people here are irrational and post so many irrational things. When people do such I call the out and since you do such and get called out you don't like it. You like attacking others but can't take it much like Alias.
Backspatter is a fine spray whether you like to face it or not. Refusing to face it just makes it all the more clear you are approaching the moderator in the same biased fashion you approach the blood you want to pretend was on Sheila's fingers.
Backspatter sprays and drawback is a spray of blood inside a weapon. There is no way for blood to land on multiple baffles except via a spray because they block one another. A spray can go around them baffles and through the hole in the baffles and since the projection is at different angles it will do so.
Pouring blood or using a dropper results it it hitting a general area simply it won't be on multiple successive baffles.
There is good reason the defense lawyers haven't tries making the nonsense claims you do. Much like many of Mike's irrational claims are not suited for any legal use neither are yours.
I care about things that actually matter which means evidence that is credible and thus can actually be used in a legal capacity.
I know that back spatter is a fine mist - however, it was never described as such in this case and was only one of the possible suggestions of how blood could have been found inside; the other was by a deliberate act.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? ???
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
The ballistics lab techs use guns and learn all about guns in order to become experts in their field. I'm sure they do, but being involved in SOC allows you to pick up on things such as blow back. I'd heard of it before being interested in this case and I'm not involved in SOC.
In contrast SOCO officers learned about most concepts on the job. How much they learn depended upon what prior cases taught them which invovled not only the subject of those cases but how involved they were. Davidson didn't learn about drawback until the trial or later. It is unclear whether he ever learned in full about drawback. I didn't mention Davidson
Today science is so significant to their job that they go through extensive training. They didn't go through such extensive training back in the day they didn't learn about DNA, blood spatter or other things that are extremely significant they learned about such things on the job. That is why it used to be so important to ask them about their experiences and to find out their expertise. Now moreso such is done by asking about their training courses because they go through much more but still don't learn everything. They will not know as much as a scientist they just need to know enough to know what to look out for in collection. The detectives likewise learned on the job from the experts. That still is true to an extent they receive training courses but still will not know everything. There will always be things they learn on the job from experience. I agree but that doesn't mean senior staff wouldn't have heard about, or know what blow back was/is. SOC staff have been trained at Harpley Hall - which is literally on my doorstep
The same is true of lawyers which is why you want a lawyer who is experienced in cases just like the your matter because they will know from past experience how to handle it and what is significant to look for.
There is no evidence that any of the police handled prior cases that would have made them aware of drawback. There is no evidence that they didn't and being involved in such a career makes it more likely that they would have heard of it. Nor is there any evidence to suggest any of hem considered anything about drawback until the lab told them. Why would there be? Even today drawback is not taught about in any depth to police. It is just one of many broad issues police are made generally aware of in criminal justice classes while discussing blood spatter. This doesn't mean they will even remember it though. Like I said, I'd heard of it and my background is in IT.
-
Like I said, I'd heard of it and my background is in IT.
You only heard about it because of this case.
You are much more involved in the case than most of the SOCO officers were involved in their cases. At that time in that location most of the SOCO officers simply collected evidence and others dealt with the examination of the evidence and others still dealt with the significance of the results of the examination.
The only SOCO somewhat involved with examination of the evidence was Cook and mainly he was involved in the fingerprinting. He was the only crime scene officer aware they found blood in the moderator and who along with detectives was told by the lab of the significance of that. If he had known the potential significance he would not have wasted so much time in sending it to the lab to get it tested. Had it been tested sooner there is a better chance that the AK/1 would have been detected in more of the samples.
How would the others learn about drawback if they always had limited involvement in the cases?
The burden is on you to demonstrate Cook was aware of drawback before this case but given the evidence you can't even establish he was aware until after the lab told him. If he planted blood he would have taken it to them to test right away not have wasted so much time on fingerprinting and then wasting more time before finally taking it there to let them handle the testing. He had no idea the evidence they found would be so significant. He is one of the people who agreed with Taff Jones. It wasn't until later his mind was changed that the police's initial theory was wrong.
-
You only heard about it because of this case.
You are much more involved in the case than most of the SOCO officers were involved in their cases. At that time in that location most of the SOCO officers simply collected evidence and others dealt with the examination of the evidence and others still dealt with the significance of the results of the examination.
The only SOCO somewhat involved with examination of the evidence was Cook and mainly he was involved in the fingerprinting. He was the only crime scene officer aware they found blood in the moderator and who along with detectives was told by the lab of the significance of that. If he had known the potential significance he would not have wasted so much time in sending it to the lab to get it tested. Had it been tested sooner there is a better chance that the AK/1 would have been detected in more of the samples.
How would the others learn about drawback if they always had limited involvement in the cases?
The burden is on you to demonstrate Cook was aware of drawback before this case but given the evidence you can't even establish he was aware until after the lab told him. If he planted blood he would have taken it to them to test right away not have wasted so much time on fingerprinting and then wasting more time before finally taking it there to let them handle the testing. He had no idea the evidence they found would be so significant. He is one of the people who agreed with Taff Jones. It wasn't until later his mind was changed that the police's initial theory was wrong.
I thought most people knew about drawback, possibly not in every detail but it's obvious enough why it would happen. I knew about it although I have never been around guns or spent anytime thinking about guns before getting involved in this case.
-
You only heard about it because of this case. I'd heard about it BEFORE!
You are much more involved in the case than most of the SOCO officers were involved in their cases. At that time in that location most of the SOCO officers simply collected evidence and others dealt with the examination of the evidence and others still dealt with the significance of the results of the examination. You saying something just doesn't make it fact or even plausible that individuals working in SOC wouldn't know about blow back, especially senior officers!
The only SOCO somewhat involved with examination of the evidence was Cook and mainly he was involved in the fingerprinting. He (for one) would certainly would have known about blow back He was the only crime scene officer aware they found blood in the moderator and who along with detectives was told by the lab of the significance of that. If he had known the potential significance he would not have wasted so much time in sending it to the lab to get it tested. Had it been tested sooner there is a better chance that the AK/1 would have been detected in more of the samples.
How would the others learn about drawback if they always had limited involvement in the cases?
The burden is on you to demonstrate Cook was aware of drawback before this case but given the evidence you can't even establish he was aware until after the lab told him. There is no burden on me at all to do anything. However, when people provide updated info you claim that the person in question must now be senile. You're not happy with any suggestion that disputes anything you say. If he planted blood he would have taken it to them to test right away not have wasted so much time on fingerprinting and then wasting more time before finally taking it there to let them handle the testing. He had no idea the evidence they found would be so significant. He is one of the people who agreed with Taff Jones. It wasn't until later his mind was changed that the police's initial theory was wrong. I believe the silencer was tampered with and such was one of the suggestions of her blood could have found it's way inside.
-
I thought most people knew about drawback, possibly not in every detail but it's obvious enough why it would happen. I knew about it although I have never been around guns or spent anytime thinking about guns before getting involved in this case.
Maggie
I don't know about drawback what exactly is it ;D
-
I'd heard about it BEFORE!
I don't believe you one bit. This I believe is as big a lie as any Mike has told.
Drawback is quite obscure and apart from NGB I don't believe anyone else here heard of it prior to this case.
There is no burden on me at all to do anything. However, when people provide updated info you claim that the person in question must now be senile. You're not happy with any suggestion that disputes anything you say.
Vanezis saying he doesn't remember anything and offering wild speculation amounts to him providing updated information? All I can say is that you are not nearly as bright as you think you are, clearly not as honest as you want people to believe and you are too biased to evaluate things accurately and rationally in full.
When you make allegations like you do about the evidence being dodgy the burden is indeed on you to establish it but you can't anymore than the defense can to the COA. You base your opinion on nonsense not anything concrete.
You saying something just doesn't make it fact or even plausible that individuals working in SOC wouldn't know about blow back, especially senior officers!
Drawback is obscure even today, there is little about it except in very specialized publications. It rarely comes up and even more rarely is central to an investigation.
This is one of those rare cases that not only involves drawback but that it is highly significant. It is the case where those involved at the senior levels would first hear of drawback this is the kind of case that would actually teach them it existed.
-
Maggie
I don't know about drawback what exactly is it ;D
Sorry Susie, I don't understand your question ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Sorry Susie, I don't understand your question ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
its different to blowback ;D
-
[quote au ;D ;Dthor=maggie link=topic=6917.msg323079#msg323079 date=1440360535]
Sorry Susie, I don't understand your question ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
[/quote]
Hahaha don't worry Maggie I don't either ;D ;D ;D must admit that is a great cop out answer from you best I have heard so far. Well done hahaha ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hahaha don't worry Maggie I don't either ;D ;D ;D must admit that is a great cop out answer from you best I have heard so far. Well done hahaha ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thank your Susie, I value your opinion ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
its different to blowback ;D
Jan you are trying to confuse me methinks ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Maggie
I don't know about drawback what exactly is it ;D
High velocity impact spatter is atomized particles of blood.
When a gun is fired more than 1mm from the skin most if not all of this backspatter will go outside the weapon though several particles could perhaps enter the hole in the barrel but they will not travel much more than 5mm deep.
When a gun is fired 1mm or less from the skin most if not all of the backspatter will go inside the weapon. There is disagreement over whether there is a vacuum effect that actually sucks it in. Not only will the quantity of blood inside be much greater it can travel several inches.
So the rule of thumb is if you observe only a few tiny particles of blood and they are 5mm or less deep then it was just ordinary backspatter.
If it is deeper and in much more substantial volume then it is drawback and that means the wound was a contact wound.
There are loose contact wounds (the gun extremely close to the flesh but not pressed against it flush) and hard contact wounds (the gun pressed against the flesh).
This is all you really need to know there are other many finer details but this is the general overview.
-
I don't believe you one bit. Who gives a FOOK what YOU think? Are you the only one who is allowed to have heard of such things? Egomaniac!! This I believe is as big a lie as any Mike has told. Like I said, who cares what you like = ye big baby!!
Drawback is quite obscure and apart from NGB I don't believe anyone else here heard of it prior to this case. Only you? How old are you? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Vanezis saying he doesn't remember anything He didn't say he didn't remember anything - making it up again?? and offering wild speculation amounts to him providing updated information? YOU said it was wild speculation ;D ;D ;D All I can say is that you are not nearly as bright as you think you are, pots and kettles clearly not as honest as you want people to believe and you are too biased to evaluate things accurately and rationally in full. Errrr, the whole I cut my chin and plugged it with the base of my hand was codswallop - you're not honest at all, something that has become VERY apparent these last few weeks!! YOU are the most biased person here but biased in favour of YOUR own opinions
When you make allegations like you do about the evidence being dodgy the burden is indeed on you to establish it but you can't anymore than the defense can to the COA. You base your opinion on nonsense not anything concrete.
Drawback is obscure even today, there is little about it except in very specialized publications. It rarely comes up and even more rarely is central to an investigation. Bollocks! Only someone as fantastic as you would have heard about it - I saw it on a TV programme a number of years ago so BITE ME!!
This is one of those rare cases that not only involves drawback but that it is highly significant. It is the case where those involved at the senior levels would first hear of drawback this is the kind of case that would actually teach them it existed. yeah, yeah yeah!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
High velocity impact spatter is atomized particles of blood.
When a gun is fired more than 1mm from the skin most if not all of this backspatter will go outside the weapon though several particles could perhaps enter the hole in the barrel but they will not travel much more than 5mm deep.
When a gun is fired 1mm or less from the skin most if not all of the backspatter will go inside the weapon. There is disagreement over whether there is a vacuum effect that actually sucks it in. Not only will the quantity of blood inside be much greater it can travel several inches.
So the rule of thumb is if you observe only a few tiny particles of blood and they are 5mm or less deep then it was just ordinary backspatter.
If it is deeper and in much more substantial volume then it is drawback and that means the wound was a contact wound.
There are loose contact wounds (the gun extremely close to the flesh but not pressed against it flush) and hard contact wounds (the gun pressed against the flesh).
This is all you really need to know there are other many finer details but this is the general overview.
Scipio
thanks very much for that explanation I knew I could rely on you to explain. Thanks.
-
Maggie
I don't know about drawback what exactly is it ;D
It's highly specialised Susan, so specialised that a quick search on the internet brings a wealth of articles!!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Here's one
https://www.azflse.org/download.cfm?filename=BLOODSPATTERVOCABULARY&type=pdf&loc=csiarizona
-
High velocity impact spatter is atomized particles of blood.
When a gun is fired more than 1mm from the skin most if not all of this backspatter will go outside the weapon though several particles could perhaps enter the hole in the barrel but they will not travel much more than 5mm deep.
When a gun is fired 1mm or less from the skin most if not all of the backspatter will go inside the weapon. There is disagreement over whether there is a vacuum effect that actually sucks it in. Not only will the quantity of blood inside be much greater it can travel several inches.
So the rule of thumb is if you observe only a few tiny particles of blood and they are 5mm or less deep then it was just ordinary backspatter.
If it is deeper and in much more substantial volume then it is drawback and that means the wound was a contact wound.
There are loose contact wounds (the gun extremely close to the flesh but not pressed against it flush) and hard contact wounds (the gun pressed against the flesh).
This is all you really need to know there are other many finer details but this is the general overview.
Cheers scipio, I knew about it but not in so much technical detail.
-
Errrr, the whole I cut my chin and plugged it with the base of my hand was codswallop - you're not honest at all, something that has become VERY apparent these last few weeks!! YOU are the most biased person here but biased in favour of YOUR own opinions
Every person who calls me biased is just projecting and that includes you. Man of your posts are just irrational biased drivel. The same attitude that made you believe Jeremy was innocent is the same attitude which makes you believe the evidence so not trustworthy. Instead of changing your mind because of the evidence in the case you did so simply because of some sort of intuitive suspicions about what Jeremy was telling you. You operate not based on objective reasoning but gut impressions and that is what drives you.
I operate on logic and evidence. That is why I accept the evidence in this case as does the courts. You try to pretend my opinions differ from the official case but that is nonsense my positions are all from the official case.
Vanzis could not remember whether she had blood on her hands or not because 29 years passed. He didn't say he could remember that she didn't have blood on her hands he speculated maybe she didn't and maybe he was talking in his report about her being blood free after he washed her. Anyone who tries to pretend he was going based on memory is out and out lying and that is what you are doing. The one who demonstrates lately that her honesty is not up to snuff is in your mirror.
As we speak Mike is lying his ass off in a thread he closed where he misrepresents that the first reference to the moderator in logs was after the scope was found. He is intentionally omitting that the moderator was logged in a different book prior to being logged in the master log. So his claim it was never logged anywhere until after the scope is a big fat lie. Perhaps you should think about whether you want to travel on the same road as him. I doubt he just woke up one day and decided to be the way he is it was a progression. You can take a detour before it is too late.
-
Every person who calls me biased is just projecting and that includes you. Man of your posts are just irrational biased drivel. The same attitude that made you believe Jeremy was innocent is the same attitude which makes you believe the evidence so not trustworthy. Instead of changing your mind because of the evidence in the case you did so simply because of some sort of intuitive suspicions about what Jeremy was telling you. You operate not based on objective reasoning but gut impressions and that is what drives you.
I operate on logic and evidence. That is why I accept the evidence in this case as does the courts. You try to pretend my opinions differ from the official case but that is nonsense my positions are all from the official case.
Vanzis could not remember whether she had blood on her hands or not because 29 years passed. He didn't say he could remember that she didn't have blood on her hands he speculated maybe she didn't and maybe he was talking in his report about her being blood free after he washed her. Anyone who tries to pretend he was going based on memory is out and out lying and that is what you are doing. The one who demonstrates lately that her honesty is not up to snuff is in your mirror.
As we speak Mike is lying his ass off in a thread he closed where he misrepresents that the first reference to the moderator in logs was after the scope was found. He is intentionally omitting that the moderator was logged in a different book prior to being logged in the master log. So his claim it was never logged anywhere until after the scope is a big fat lie. Perhaps you should think about whether you want to travel on the same road as him. I doubt he just woke up one day and decided to be the way he is it was a progression. You can take a detour before it is too late.
what a load of cobblers .
Plus you have totally ignored evidence that the british police did on occasions in the 80s fake evidence , buy statements and generally act in an underhand way to get their man.
And even if this did not happen in this case you should not be so blinkered to believe that sort of thing did not happen .
I think your aim is to antagonise every single poster on the forum . End of . and there is a name for people like you.
-
Cheers scipio, I knew about it but not in so much technical detail.
I simplified things a great deal. This oversimplification though is sufficient to really understand the whole debate about drawback in this case.
The defense lawyers proffered maybe the blood got inside during the beating or while shooting the victims from a distance. The prosecution experts though said the blood was so deep and in such volume that it either got inside via drawback or was planted. The prosecution experts ruled out anything else. Why is because it would not be able to get that deep inside from a beating or non-contact shot and not in that quantity.
A related issue is that a gunshot in a location near a prior gunshot will increase the likelihood of drawback and increase the quantity. Backspatter would occur from the fatal wound because of the prior wound. This is why the expert said drawback would be virtually certain to occur.
The defense to this day has found no effective way to challenge that assessment. Nothing new scientifically has come about to challenge such. The reason why this is important is because it means that if the moderator was not used then Sheila's blood would be inside the rifle. So establishing wrongdoing by police would require proving they found blood in the rifle but concealed such finding and planted blood in the moderator. The notion this could somehow be proven by hidden case documents is simply a dream. The only way to prove such would be someone admitting they did such or saying they saw someone do it or the person admitted to doing it. So the reality is short of someone coming forward there isn't a snowball's chance in hell.
This is why the defense lawyers have tried concentrating on other aspects instead. The lawyers are being realists.
-
Every person who calls me biased is just projecting and that includes you. Man of your posts are just irrational biased drivel. The same attitude that made you believe Jeremy was innocent is the same attitude which makes you believe the evidence so not trustworthy. Instead of changing your mind because of the evidence in the case you did so simply because of some sort of intuitive suspicions about what Jeremy was telling you. You operate not based on objective reasoning but gut impressions and that is what drives you.
I operate on logic and evidence. That is why I accept the evidence in this case as does the courts. You try to pretend my opinions differ from the official case but that is nonsense my positions are all from the official case.
Vanzis could not remember whether she had blood on her hands or not because 29 years passed. He didn't say he could remember that she didn't have blood on her hands he speculated maybe she didn't and maybe he was talking in his report about her being blood free after he washed her. Anyone who tries to pretend he was going based on memory is out and out lying and that is what you are doing. The one who demonstrates lately that her honesty is not up to snuff is in your mirror.
As we speak Mike is lying his ass off in a thread he closed where he misrepresents that the first reference to the moderator in logs was after the scope was found. He is intentionally omitting that the moderator was logged in a different book prior to being logged in the master log. So his claim it was never logged anywhere until after the scope is a big fat lie. Perhaps you should think about whether you want to travel on the same road as him. I doubt he just woke up one day and decided to be the way he is it was a progression. You can take a detour before it is too late.
Oh shut up Scipo you silly little man! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It's highly specialised Susan, so specialised that a quick search on the internet brings a wealth of articles!!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Here's one
https://www.azflse.org/download.cfm?filename=BLOODSPATTERVOCABULARY&type=pdf&loc=csiarizona
Caroline
thanks for the link what I don't know about drawback now is anyone's business ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I simplified things a great deal. This oversimplification though is sufficient to really understand the whole debate about drawback in this case.
The defense lawyers proffered maybe the blood got inside during the beating or while shooting the victims from a distance. The prosecution experts though said the blood was so deep and in such volume that it either got inside via drawback or was planted. The prosecution experts ruled out anything else. Why is because it would not be able to get that deep inside from a beating or non-contact shot and not in that quantity.
A related issue is that a gunshot in a location near a prior gunshot will increase the likelihood of drawback and increase the quantity. Backspatter would occur from the fatal wound because of the prior wound. This is why the expert said drawback would be virtually certain to occur.
The defense to this day has found no effective way to challenge that assessment. Nothing new scientifically has come about to challenge such. The reason why this is important is because it means that if the moderator was not used then Sheila's blood would be inside the rifle. So establishing wrongdoing by police would require proving they found blood in the rifle but concealed such finding and planted blood in the moderator. The notion this could somehow be proven by hidden case documents is simply a dream. The only way to prove such would be someone admitting they did such or saying they saw someone do it or the person admitted to doing it. So the reality is short of someone coming forward there isn't a snowball's chance in hell.
This is why the defense lawyers have tried concentrating on other aspects instead. The lawyers are being realists.
You are funny - you can give it but you cant take it can you?
I could sit here throwing worse insults at you all day - because there are a lot worse human traits than being biased. And unfortunately you demonstrate most of them .
But to be honest I can not be bothered. For the moment.
You are not worth the effort .
-
You are funny - you can give it but you cant take it can you?
I could sit here throwing worse insults at you all day - because there are a lot worse human traits than being biased. And unfortunately you demonstrate most of them .
But to be honest I can not be bothered. For the moment.
You are not worth the effort .
I can take as good as I give. That doesn't mean I will not respond and reject claims that are not true. It just means I am not going to act like a big baby and cry about being attacked. if an attack is not valid I am going to challenge it.
-
I can take as good as I give. That doesn't mean I will not respond and reject claims that are not true. It just means I am not going to act like a big baby and cry about being attacked. if an attack is not valid I am going to challenge it.
Likewise!