The Silenced Rifle Did Not Fit Inside The Gun Cupboard

[ngb1066]

Were we told how many were smudged? DI Cook told us there was one print lifted from Jeremy Bamber's right forefinger on the butt and one from Sheila's right-hand ring finger. (Blood Relations Chapter 27)

When fingerprints are smudged it simply means no reliable match can be found.  It was not surprising here, whatever your view on the case.  It does not help either prosecution or defence.

[Steve_uk]

When fingerprints are smudged it simply means no reliable match can be found.  It was not surprising here, whatever your view on the case.  It does not help either prosecution or defence.

But the quantity of smudged fingerprints might be an indication of how the gun was wielded. For instance if Sheila had held the gun in a frenzied, psychotic episode one might have expected many smudged fingerprints, whereas if Jeremy wiped the gun mistakenly or intentionally as Julie recounted this might explain why only one fingerprint of his was found along with the one he expected Police to find when he placed the gun into Sheila's hand.

[Robittybob1]

If the gun cupboard was not lockable, Bamber did not need to leave the rifle anywhere. He could just collect it from the gun cupboard.

Although he would have wanted to make sure it was loaded with the silencer attached. Once through the bathroom window, he would not have wanted to hang about.

I can see a small lock on the gun cabinet door.   Why do you think it was "not lockable"?

I think Jeremy left the gun so that Sheila could use it.   Therefore to make it as easy as possible it was left out basically in view of her from the table.

[ngb1066]

But the quantity of smudged fingerprints might be an indication of how the gun was wielded. For instance if Sheila had held the gun in a frenzied, psychotic episode one might have expected many smudged fingerprints, whereas if Jeremy wiped the gun mistakenly or intentionally as Julie recounted this might explain why only one fingerprint of his was found along with the one he expected Police to find when he placed the gun into Sheila's hand.

You may be right but I am not convinced the fingerprint evidence takes the case forward in either direction.

 

[guest29835]

You may be right but I am not convinced the fingerprint evidence takes the case forward in either direction.

Isn't the problem that if Sheila was the killer, then when killing herself she must have got quite a tight grip of the rifle?  This is especially the case when you consider her slight frame and the angles at which she supposedly shot herself, twice.  That being the case, shouldn't there be more than one single fingerprint on the gun from Sheila, if she did it? 

I am willing to accept that Sheila herself could have wiped/cleaned the rifle before killing herself, and this may explain the smudging.  Let's allow that, and let's also remember that Ron Cook handled the rifle without gloves.  Even so, wouldn't she have still left more recordable prints?

On the other hand, if Jeremy is the killer, then we may only see one single print from Sheila because Sheila has not put any manual pressure on the rifle, rather Jeremy has positioned the rifle in her hands, probably after shooting her at least once, and he has perhaps deliberately attempted to make prints from her fingers, and succeeding in establishing one.  Gloves may also have caused the smudging of prints resultant from normal handling of the rifle prior to the incident.

Do we have a diagrammatic representation, or even photographs, of where the smudged prints are and the pattern formed?

[lookout]

Sheila's prints were also found on the shotgun.

[Adam]

If the rifle could easily pick up fingerprints, there would be lots of prints all over it.

Bamber checked out the rifle a few days before the massacre & said he handled the rifle a few hours beforehand.  So his prints will be all over it even if he used gloves during the massacre.

[Steve_uk]

Isn't the problem that if Sheila was the killer, then when killing herself she must have got quite a tight grip of the rifle?  This is especially the case when you consider her slight frame and the angles at which she supposedly shot herself, twice.  That being the case, shouldn't there be more than one single fingerprint on the gun from Sheila, if she did it? 

I am willing to accept that Sheila herself could have wiped/cleaned the rifle before killing herself, and this may explain the smudging.  Let's allow that, and let's also remember that Ron Cook handled the rifle without gloves.  Even so, wouldn't she have still left more recordable prints?

On the other hand, if Jeremy is the killer, then we may only see one single print from Sheila because Sheila has not put any manual pressure on the rifle, rather Jeremy has positioned the rifle in her hands, probably after shooting her at least once, and he has perhaps deliberately attempted to make prints from her fingers, and succeeding in establishing one.  Gloves may also have caused the smudging of prints resultant from normal handling of the rifle prior to the incident.

Do we have a diagrammatic representation, or even photographs, of where the smudged prints are and the pattern formed?

May I refer you to the American podcast you posted, where the term "doing a Bamber" was used?

[guest29835]

May I refer you to the American podcast you posted, where the term "doing a Bamber" was used?

May I refer you to the case files?  There are fingerprint diagrams in there and photographs, but I am wondering if the smudged prints and their extent are shown anywhere.  I'd prefer an answer from somebody who knows.

[Steve_uk]

I'd heard that podcast before anyway.

[guest7363]

You may be right but I am not convinced the fingerprint evidence takes the case forward in either direction.

NGB, am I right in thinking, if you fit the silencer you have to zero the sights, so if you take the silencer off and leave the sights on you would have to zero them again to shoot without a silencer?  If your used to shooting with a heavier silencer and sights attached, to go out shooting without  attached takes some adjusting would it not?  I am aware that both the silencer and sights were removed, but it’s the zeroing of the sights frequency.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4358;image

[ngb1066]

NGB, am I right in thinking, if you fit the silencer you have to zero the sights, so if you take the silencer off and leave the sights on you would have to zero them again to shoot without a silencer?  If your used to shooting with a heavier silencer and sights attached, to go out shooting without  attached takes some adjusting would it not?  I am aware that both the silencer and sights were removed, but it’s the zeroing of the sights frequency.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4358;image

Ideally if you remove the silencer and plan to use the rifle without the silencer but with the telescopic sights fitted it is a good idea to zero the sights again.  However in practice you would be unlikely to do this as it is quite a fiddle and the sights would remain reasonably accurate.  The reason for removing the silencer is normally when the rifle is put away and this is common practice.  It is less common to remove the scope as when it is put back on it is essential to zero it again. 

   

[guest7363]

Ideally if you remove the silencer and plan to use the rifle without the silencer but with the telescopic sights fitted it is a good idea to zero the sights again.  However in practice you would be unlikely to do this as it is quite a fiddle and the sights would remain reasonably accurate.  The reason for removing the silencer is normally when the rifle is put away and this is common practice.  It is less common to remove the scope as when it is put back on it is essential to zero it again. 

   

Thanks NGB, I’ve also read that the best way to store rifles is horizontally or muzzle down? Or the muzzle down might just mean for shotguns a Neil?

[ngb1066]

Thanks NGB, I’ve also read that the best way to store rifles is horizontally or muzzle down? Or the muzzle down might just mean for shotguns a Neil?

The normal practice is shotguns muzzle down, rifles muzzle up.  Storing horizontally would work but obviously not if a gun cabinet is used (as it no has to be).

[guest7363]

The normal practice is shotguns muzzle down, rifles muzzle up.  Storing horizontally would work but obviously not if a gun cabinet is used (as it no has to be).

Yes got that NGB, thought it was shotguns, something to do with oil in the barrell.