A Disturbing Allegation!

[nugnug]

theres no way to say it is but theres no way to say it isnt ethere.

[lookout]

They must have been contact wounds to have had DNA inside ?

[David1819]

At least one of the twins DNA was found in the moderator.  The major DNA contributor in 2 of the 10 test batches belonged to one or both of the twins.  There was no way to say such DNA was blood based as opposed to the result of contamination (liek the rest of the DNA)

22LR rounds to the head infrequently result in drawback.  It is possible and happens on occasion but doesn't happen regularly. There were differences of opinion on whether any of the wounds to the boys were contact wounds. The prosecution experts didn't think they were contact wounds.

No they just found Junes and an unknown males DNA. had they not been contact wounds then the twins DNA would never get inside.

"According to Bob Woffinden, a second firearms expert testified that the .22 Anschütz was unlikely to produce backspatter, especially when fitted with a silencer"   If Vanezis autopsy is correct and Twins did get contact wounds I am 100% sure its because you will not get drawback from that part of the body specially from a .22 it would have to be from fleshy places with allot of blood flow. Places like the neck, wrists or the chest if the bullet misses the rib bones.

[scipio_usmc]

No they just found Junes and an unknown males DNA. had they not been contact wounds then the twins DNA would never get inside.

"According to Bob Woffinden, a second firearms expert testified that the .22 Anschütz was unlikely to produce backspatter, especially when fitted with a silencer"   If Vanezis autopsy is correct and Twins did get contact wounds I am 100% sure its because you will not get drawback from that part of the body specially from a .22 it would have to be from fleshy places with allot of blood flow. Places like the neck, wrists or the chest if the bullet misses the rib bones.

1) June, Sheila and one or both of the twin's DNA was found in the moderator.  Each of the ten tests featured a minor contributor who could have been the same person or all of them could have been different people.  Someone for the defense felt that in 2 samples the minor contributor was male. Normally it is not possible to tell the gender from a sample so incomplete it is unclear whether that assessment was well supported or not.

2) Vanezis didn't assess that the twins suffered contact wounds

3) Woffinden was wrong about there being a second firearms expert who testified at the trial for the crown that is why he could not name the alleged witness.

4) Location is key in whether backspatter is likely to occur from a 22LR bullet or any bullet for that matter.  Just because it is not likely to occur in a particular location doesn't mean it can't and won't.  You find out whether it did or didn't by looking at whether blood is found in the weapon.

The location of Sheila's fatal wound was assessed to be virtually certain to result in drawback because her neck was full of blood- her initial wound caused internal hemorrhaging in her neck. The nature of her skin and blood in that location meant it would occur so long as it was a contact wound if not a contact wound then ordinary backspatter would have resulted.  It would not have gone inside the weapon if not a contact wound.  The defense could not find anyone who disagreed with this assessment and to this day hasn't found anyone who disagrees with it. That means the only hope the defense has of refuting that the blood in the moderator was drawback from Sheila would be to find evidence that she didn't suffer a contact wound.

Despite the fact that 22LR shots to the head don't usually result in backspatter and contact shots to the head don't usually result in drawback it can and does happen SOMETIMES.  Someone here brought up a case in New Zealand where a 22LR contact shot to the head with a moderator ended up resulting in drawback in the moderator.

The defense thus has a quandary.  That quandary is that even with a moderator attached the fatal wound is virtually certain to result in drawback.  The defense wants to maintain the moderator wasn't used which means the odds of drawback would be even greater.  Drawback would be certain if the weapon didn't have the moderator attached.  Yet no blood was in the muzzle of the rifle.

So this goes back to what I stated earlier the only hope the defense has would be to find a way to refute that Sheila's fatal wound was a contact wound.  If they could find a way to establish neither of her wounds were contact wounds that would negate that her blood could have gotten inside as a result of drawback and would help support either it was blood of other victims not her or was planted.  Obviously by now the defense would have found an expert to refute the fatal wound was a contact wound if there were evidence to contradict Vanezis' assessment.  The defense trial experts would have refuted such if any evidence had been available to use to argue against it.

Because the defense was unable to attack the evidence on such obvious grounds is why they have resorted to desperate stuff on appeal.  This is why I laugh when people say just wait till the next submission.  They used their best arguments already, whatever crap they come up with in the future if they can actually manage to put a submission together will simply be even weaker than the last.  If a former cop actually came forward with allegation like mike asserts that could rock the boat but there is no such person it is just fantasy.   

[lookout]

Even QC's aren't immune from the odd bout of "domestic abuse",as Michael Mansfield was arrested recently by Cheshire police.

[Jan]

1) June, Sheila and one or both of the twin's DNA was found in the moderator.  Each of the ten tests featured a minor contributor who could have been the same person or all of them could have been different people.  Someone for the defense felt that in 2 samples the minor contributor was male. Normally it is not possible to tell the gender from a sample so incomplete it is unclear whether that assessment was well supported or not.

2) Vanezis didn't assess that the twins suffered contact wounds

3) Woffinden was wrong about there being a second firearms expert who testified at the trial for the crown that is why he could not name the alleged witness.

4) Location is key in whether backspatter is likely to occur from a 22LR bullet or any bullet for that matter.  Just because it is not likely to occur in a particular location doesn't mean it can't and won't.  You find out whether it did or didn't by looking at whether blood is found in the weapon.

The location of Sheila's fatal wound was assessed to be virtually certain to result in drawback because her neck was full of blood- her initial wound caused internal hemorrhaging in her neck. The nature of her skin and blood in that location meant it would occur so long as it was a contact wound if not a contact wound then ordinary backspatter would have resulted.  It would not have gone inside the weapon if not a contact wound.  The defense could not find anyone who disagreed with this assessment and to this day hasn't found anyone who disagrees with it. That means the only hope the defense has of refuting that the blood in the moderator was drawback from Sheila would be to find evidence that she didn't suffer a contact wound.

Despite the fact that 22LR shots to the head don't usually result in backspatter and contact shots to the head don't usually result in drawback it can and does happen SOMETIMES.  Someone here brought up a case in New Zealand where a 22LR contact shot to the head with a moderator ended up resulting in drawback in the moderator.

The defense thus has a quandary.  That quandary is that even with a moderator attached the fatal wound is virtually certain to result in drawback.  The defense wants to maintain the moderator wasn't used which means the odds of drawback would be even greater.  Drawback would be certain if the weapon didn't have the moderator attached.  Yet no blood was in the muzzle of the rifle.

So this goes back to what I stated earlier the only hope the defense has would be to find a way to refute that Sheila's fatal wound was a contact wound.  If they could find a way to establish neither of her wounds were contact wounds that would negate that her blood could have gotten inside as a result of drawback and would help support either it was blood of other victims not her or was planted.  Obviously by now the defense would have found an expert to refute the fatal wound was a contact wound if there were evidence to contradict Vanezis' assessment.  The defense trial experts would have refuted such if any evidence had been available to use to argue against it.

Because the defense was unable to attack the evidence on such obvious grounds is why they have resorted to desperate stuff on appeal.  This is why I laugh when people say just wait till the next submission.  They used their best arguments already, whatever crap they come up with in the future if they can actually manage to put a submission together will simply be even weaker than the last.  If a former cop actually came forward with allegation like mike asserts that could rock the boat but there is no such person it is just fantasy.

But If Jeremy did not commit the murders - he does not know what happened does he? So in theory he is always grasping at straws.For example a purely hypothetical scenario - the silencer was used at some time and had rolled under the bed after being removed. The family found it there but were asked to cover that up by the other story which they were quite willing to go along with.

But Jeremy would know none of this - so how could he use that as an argument?

Don't bother to answer the scenario because as I explained I am not saying that happened - it is to show that Jeremy  if innocent would not have control over his arguments to use if he does not know what happened.

[scipio_usmc]

They must have been contact wounds to have had DNA inside ?

No.  It is possible for DNA to get inside via innocent contamination and also a gunshot wound that is near contact.  It is also possible during a beating or the like for blood or DNA from another source to get inside though it will not go deep and the quantity would be small.

It is possible for a tiny amount of blood to get inside a barrel at a close contact shot but such blood will generally not travel no more than 5mm inside.

You need a contact wound to get drawback.  Drawback results in a much more significant quantity of blood than can result from a non-contact wound and it can travel several inches deep so much deeper than in the case of a non-contact wound. 

The only way to get blood deep inside and in significant quantity is through a contact shot. In a non-contact shot most of the spatter will go on the outside only a small amount inside and it cannot travel very deep.

[scipio_usmc]

But If Jeremy did not commit the murders - he does not know what happened does he? So in theory he is always grasping at straws.For example a purely hypothetical scenario - the silencer was used at some time and had rolled under the bed after being removed. The family found it there but were asked to cover that up by the other story which they were quite willing to go along with.

But Jeremy would know none of this - so how could he use that as an argument?

Don't bother to answer the scenario because as I explained I am not saying that happened - it is to show that Jeremy  if innocent would not have control over his arguments to use if he does not know what happened.

Grasping at straws means there is no evidence and yet someone makes an allegation anyway.

Finding the moderator under the bed would still sink Jeremy anyway. Removing the moderator from the gun after she dead is what sinks Jeremy not where the moderator was ultimately found.  It is just as impossible for her to have removed it and left it by her side after she was dead.  The defense needs to establish the moderator wasn't used to kill her in order for it to have been possible for her to kill herself.

That is why anytime people talk about what he should have done in hindsight I say he needed to remove the moderator before shooting her. Shooting her with it attached and then removing it and setting it down next to her would not have helped him at all. 

[guest154]

But If Jeremy did not commit the murders - he does not know what happened does he? So in theory he is always grasping at straws.For example a purely hypothetical scenario - the silencer was used at some time and had rolled under the bed after being removed. The family found it there but were asked to cover that up by the other story which they were quite willing to go along with.

But Jeremy would know none of this - so how could he use that as an argument?

Don't bother to answer the scenario because as I explained I am not saying that happened - it is to show that Jeremy  if innocent would not have control over his arguments to use if he does not know what happened.

I think they screw on (silencers) - and must be able to withstand strong force to have a bullet pass through them. So can't see how it could have come off.

If Jeremy is not involved, you're right he doesn't know what happened. But what he should know is his side of the story - and that too seems to change.

[Jan]

I think they screw on (silencers) - and must be able to withstand strong force to have a bullet pass through them. So can't see how it could have come off.

If Jeremy is not involved, you're right he doesn't know what happened. But what he should know is his side of the story - and that too seems to change.

I was not saying that what happened - and I did not say it fell off.

But if you were innocent then you would try and grasp on to anything within any document to try and clear yourself ( and perhaps this is the case if you were guilty as well )

I was just making the point about why his claims may seem outlandish - but if he does not know anything about what happened then they would be.

And the only thing I have see him possibly change is some timings - as did the police - who had a clock in front of them .

[Jan]

Grasping at straws means there is no evidence and yet someone makes an allegation anyway.

Finding the moderator under the bed would still sink Jeremy anyway. Removing the moderator from the gun after she dead is what sinks Jeremy not where the moderator was ultimately found.  It is just as impossible for her to have removed it and left it by her side after she was dead.  The defense needs to establish the moderator wasn't used to kill her in order for it to have been possible for her to kill herself.

That is why anytime people talk about what he should have done in hindsight I say he needed to remove the moderator before shooting her. Shooting her with it attached and then removing it and setting it down next to her would not have helped him at all.

you did just what I said not to do. try reading the post.

[Caroline]

I was not saying that what happened - and I did not say it fell off.

But if you were innocent then you would try and grasp on to anything within any document to try and clear yourself ( and perhaps this is the case if you were guilty as well )

I was just making the point about why his claims may seem outlandish - but if he does not know anything about what happened then they would be.

And the only thing I have see him possibly change is some timings - as did the police - who had a clock in front of them .

Jeremy changed the timings years later to fit in a call from Nevill. He argued quite strongly that he did not call the police as late as 03:36 - but now, he's arguing the other way. The CCRC would kick any such claim into touch because of what he'd said in the past.