Author Topic: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!  (Read 3897 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6758
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #105 on: February 06, 2019, 12:39:AM »
If anyone is wondering where I got that uncut page of DBs trial testimony. Mike has uploaded here.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,632.msg14357.html#msg14357



"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23671
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #106 on: February 06, 2019, 03:15:AM »

What are you talking about? All I have that I wont share are a few witness statements made in 2010/11 and some photos. And I wont share them because I promised those who gave them to me not to. Good enough reason?

You gave the impression that you had seen other versions of AE;s statement? If you haven't then fair enough but if not, your speculation is OTT.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6758
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #107 on: February 06, 2019, 03:36:AM »
You gave the impression that you had seen other versions of AE;s statement? If you haven't then fair enough but if not, your speculation is OTT.


I have seen (in parts) bits of non cut out testimony since Mike has posted them up.

I can see from the scans that the paper is different, one copy is yellow the other copy is white. Hence thats how I know multiple copies exist!





"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6758
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #108 on: February 06, 2019, 09:08:PM »



"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6758
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #109 on: February 14, 2019, 10:37:AM »
Here is part of AEs September statement.

"I hoovered the kitchen floor and the remainder of the ground floor rooms. I then washed the kitchen floor. Whilst standing at the sink unit which is in front of the kitchen window I saw smudge marks on the inside of the glass and the window frame itself.

On the inside window sill I saw diluted blood marks which I assumed were what had been left after the kitchen had been cleaned. I cleaned these marks up. There were also three buckets in the kitchen containing washing in soak. One contained two pairs of bloodstained ladies knickers. I then locked up and returned to my home. About 3 p.m. that same day."



Here she never mentions washing the knickers out. In her handwritten notes she writes about washing the floor but nothing about washing the knickers either. Only that she brought them home with her.

Come Jeremy's trial she had apparently washed them out then left them at the WHF.

Come 1991 when the police go over her notes, she had to admit talking them home but does so indirectly. That being she mentions throwing them in the bin. Then a few pages off topic later before saying she took the bin home.

It seems AE does not want people to know she brought them home. But instead wants people to think she washed them out and left them at WHF.  Why might that be? Had Jean Boutell not been in the kitchen with her. I would bet AE would deny the existence of them!
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23671
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #110 on: February 14, 2019, 11:49:AM »
Here is part of AEs September statement.

"I hoovered the kitchen floor and the remainder of the ground floor rooms. I then washed the kitchen floor. Whilst standing at the sink unit which is in front of the kitchen window I saw smudge marks on the inside of the glass and the window frame itself.

On the inside window sill I saw diluted blood marks which I assumed were what had been left after the kitchen had been cleaned. I cleaned these marks up. There were also three buckets in the kitchen containing washing in soak. One contained two pairs of bloodstained ladies knickers. I then locked up and returned to my home. About 3 p.m. that same day."



Here she never mentions washing the knickers out. In her handwritten notes she writes about washing the floor but nothing about washing the knickers either. Only that she brought them home with her.

Come Jeremy's trial she had apparently washed them out then left them at the WHF.

Come 1991 when the police go over her notes, she had to admit talking them home but does so indirectly. That being she mentions throwing them in the bin. Then a few pages off topic later before saying she took the bin home.

It seems AE does not want people to know she brought them home. But instead wants people to think she washed them out and left them at WHF.  Why might that be? Had Jean Boutell not been in the kitchen with her. I would bet AE would deny the existence of them!

Who'd have thought that Sheila's washing would be the key to solving the case  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27477
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #111 on: February 14, 2019, 12:04:PM »
Here is part of AEs September statement.

"I hoovered the kitchen floor and the remainder of the ground floor rooms. I then washed the kitchen floor. Whilst standing at the sink unit which is in front of the kitchen window I saw smudge marks on the inside of the glass and the window frame itself.

On the inside window sill I saw diluted blood marks which I assumed were what had been left after the kitchen had been cleaned. I cleaned these marks up. There were also three buckets in the kitchen containing washing in soak. One contained two pairs of bloodstained ladies knickers. I then locked up and returned to my home. About 3 p.m. that same day."



Here she never mentions washing the knickers out. In her handwritten notes she writes about washing the floor but nothing about washing the knickers either. Only that she brought them home with her.

Come Jeremy's trial she had apparently washed them out then left them at the WHF.

Come 1991 when the police go over her notes, she had to admit talking them home but does so indirectly. That being she mentions throwing them in the bin. Then a few pages off topic later before saying she took the bin home.

It seems AE does not want people to know she brought them home. But instead wants people to think she washed them out and left them at WHF.  Why might that be? Had Jean Boutell not been in the kitchen with her. I would bet AE would deny the existence of them!


Perhaps she was asked to say what she did on a certain day. Perhaps she took them home/washed them through/left them there/or anything else she might have done, the following day. Just a thought, WHATEVER she did, and when, with the knickers, how does it have any bearing on Jeremy's guilt? The family was long dead before the knickers were found.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6758
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #112 on: August 02, 2019, 07:35:PM »
It has recently come to my attention that all the samples of Sheila's blood (PV 12,13 and 16) were all sent to Huntingdon lab by Vanezis on the 9th of August once he had completed his work. Those samples remained at the lab over the weekend and the following week for drug testing.

So despite the silencer being in DS Jones possession for a day. He had no opportunity to plant the blood.

So via a process of elimination the the soiled underwear could very well be the answer. The only alternative being Robert Boutflour.

I should add that idea of the police and lab manufacturing the silencer, planting it at WHF then telling the relatives to go and find it for them and pretend they found it a month prior because they (the police) just made up a paper trail of hundreds of lab records and witnesses showing they found it in August for no apparent reason. Is not an acceptable nor feasible alternative. Its a crackpot idea based purely on misinterpreting two lines of an excel spread sheet written by Ewen Smith in 2001.
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40151
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #113 on: August 02, 2019, 08:02:PM »
Blood from soiled underwear has no place when/if testing for DNA etc as it contains dead tissue and mucous and would give a different result to that of arterial or venous blood.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6758
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #114 on: August 02, 2019, 08:17:PM »
Blood from soiled underwear has no place when/if testing for DNA etc as it contains dead tissue and mucous and would give a different result to that of arterial or venous blood.

ABO testing cannot distinguish between vaginal blood or blood from the rest of the body. (I actually looked into this)

As for the DNA tests done in 2000. The cells were so small they could not establish what the DNA was based on. They only found a partial DNA profile for Sheila. This was done 15 years after John Hayward removed all the blood inside for testing.
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40151
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #115 on: August 02, 2019, 08:31:PM »
ABO testing cannot distinguish between vaginal blood or blood from the rest of the body. (I actually looked into this)

As for the DNA tests done in 2000. The cells were so small they could not establish what the DNA was based on. They only found a partial DNA profile for Sheila. This was done 15 years after John Hayward removed all the blood inside for testing.




If I remember rightly didn't RWB have similar blood results to Sheila ?

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10896
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #116 on: August 02, 2019, 09:03:PM »



If I remember rightly didn't RWB have similar blood results to Sheila ?
Yes they were both Blood Type A. At trial Geoffrey Rivlin QC suggested to him that he had cut his finger whilst handling the silencer. But as John Hayward stated years afterwards there was a lot of blood in the silencer, not just a few drops. It's strange because one would have thought the more blood visible the less likely Bamber would have been to replace it uncleaned in the gun cupboard.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2019, 09:04:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40151
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #117 on: August 02, 2019, 09:06:PM »
Yes they were both Blood Type A. At trial Geoffrey Rivlin QC suggested to him that he had cut his finger whilst handling the silencer. But as John Hayward stated years afterwards there was a lot of blood in the silencer, not just a few drops. It's strange because one would have thought the more blood visible the less likely Bamber would have been to replace it uncleaned in the gun cupboard.




Steve it was more the make-up of the blood I was after which included the AK1 gene. I'll see if I can find it.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6758
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #118 on: August 02, 2019, 09:11:PM »

If I remember rightly didn't RWB have similar blood results to Sheila ?


He didn't have similar blood. He had identical blood. They were both A, PGM 1+, EAP BA, AK-1, HP 2-1.

But regardless of that he is not my prime suspect. Allbeit he remains a possible one.

Its not plausible to me that he would know his blood would show up the same as Sheila's across five different areas of testing. But even then he does not have to, you could argue he was ignorant and took the risk. You can never really rule him out 100%  :-\
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40151
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #119 on: August 02, 2019, 09:54:PM »

He didn't have similar blood. He had identical blood. They were both A, PGM 1+, EAP BA, AK-1, HP 2-1.

But regardless of that he is not my prime suspect. Allbeit he remains a possible one.

Its not plausible to me that he would know his blood would show up the same as Sheila's across five different areas of testing. But even then he does not have to, you could argue he was ignorant and took the risk. You can never really rule him out 100%  :-\




Even identical twins don't have the same profiles in either bloods or DNA. Something's not right is it ?