The Silenced Rifle Did Not Fit Inside The Gun Cupboard

[Adam]

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?

Why would she do that. And then put the cloth away?

[guest7363]

Why would she do that. And then put the cloth away?

To frame Bamber 🙈

[guest29835]

Why would she do that. And then put the cloth away?

[Paraphrasing]: "Ordinary canons of logic do not apply to schizophrenics" - Dr. J. Bradley, defence psychiatrist at the 1986 trial

[guest29835]

To frame Bamber 🙈

That's a new theory.  Thanks Fake Justice.

[guest7363]

That's a new theory.  Thanks Fake Justice.

Yes, it’s a bit like your theory that Sheila wiped the rifle before shooting herself Professor Plum 😂😂😂

[guest7363]

Yes, it’s a bit like your theory that Sheila wiped the rifle before shooting herself Professor Plum 😂😂😂

Now, let me find a cloth to clean this rifle before I shoot myself, I bet she washed the cloth after, just  to destroy that evidence as well.

[guest29835]

Yes, it’s a bit like your theory that Sheila wiped the rifle before shooting herself Professor Plume 😂😂😂

It's not my theory.

Let me explain...

What you and Adam have done is not understood the context of the post you're quoting from.  This is especially typical of you and something you do every single time you come on the Forum.

If you look back through the relevant posts on the thread, you'll see that I'm trying to explain how Sheila didn't get more than one of her clear fingerprints on the gun.  I end up with an explanation that I don't find completely satisfactory.

This means that, if anything, my posts on the thread in regard to the fingerprint issue have been in the prosecution's favour. 

Instead of trying to understand where I am coming from and engaging with me constructively, you and Adam latch on to a single sentence that you take out of context in an effort to try and make me look silly (you think).

In fact, the opposite has happened: you've made yourself look silly, as you always do, with your misunderstandings and your childish emoticons.

[guest7363]

It's not my theory.

Let me explain...

What you and Adam have done is not understood the context of the post you're quoting from.  This is especially typical of you and something you do every single time you come on the Forum.

If you look back through the relevant posts on the thread, you'll see that I'm trying to explain how Sheila didn't get more than one of her clear fingerprints on the gun.  I end up with an explanation that I don't find completely satisfactory.

This means that, if anything, my posts on the thread in regard to the fingerprint issue have been in the prosecution's favour. 

Instead of trying to understand where I am coming from and engaging with me constructively, you and Adam latch on to a single sentence that you take out of context in an effort to try and make me look silly (you think).

In fact, the opposite has happened: you've made yourself look silly, as you always do, with your misunderstandings and your childish emoticons.

If you believe Sheila wipes the rifle go for it Plummy, don’t back track.

[guest29835]

If you believe Sheila wipes the rifle go for it Plummy, don’t back track.

I'm not backtracking.  You're just ignoring what's said in the thread - which is the usual thing for you.

Let's go through it. 

Somebody mentioned fingerprints.

I said that if she was the killer, I would expect more of her fingerprints to be on the rifle (for reasons I mention in a post above).

I then tried to come up with an explanation as to why they're not, and I can't. 

The bit about her wiping the rifle clean is just a way of giving the defence some extra benefit of the doubt.  I've no idea if she would have done that or not.  If she did, she could have left the cloth anywhere, but I'm not saying that happened.

The point is that even if we assume that did happen, I'm still not happy with the lack of prints on the rifle.

You've misrepresented this as me advancing some theory that she did wipe the rifle clean.  Well she may or may not have done, but it's not my theory.  And why couldn't she wipe the rifle clean anyway?  It's not ridiculous.  And why shouldn't people consider these possibilities?

This is something you do every time you come on here and comment on a post of mine. 

You do it because basically you're arrogant and disrespectful towards me and other posters, you think you know it all, and don't take the time and trouble to read what has been discussed in the thread.

Sometimes you add a comment as if to tell me something I already know, often something I've said in the post you're responding to.

The number of eggs I've sucked reading your rubbish.  You're a rival for Jane.

I recall on my thread about Geoffrey Rivlin, you added a typical sort of comment for you saying that we can't know for sure how something Jeremy said went down at trial because we weren't there, as if I can't guess that myself or you were disclosing something profound that I hadn't thought of.  I'd even made the equivalent comment in the post you were replying to.

[Adam]

I'm not backtracking.  You're just ignoring what's said in the thread - which is the usual thing for you.

Let's go through it. 

Somebody mentioned fingerprints.

I said that if she was the killer, I would expect more of her fingerprints to be on the rifle (for reasons I mention in a post above).

I then tried to come up with an explanation as to why they're not, and I can't. 

The bit about her wiping the rifle clean is just a way of giving the defence some extra benefit of the doubt.  I've no idea if she would have done that or not.  If she did, she could have left the cloth anywhere, but I'm not saying that happened.

The point is that even if we assume that did happen, I'm still not happy with the lack of prints on the rifle.

You've misrepresented this as me advancing some theory that she did wipe the rifle clean.  Well she may or may not have done, but it's not my theory.  And why couldn't she wipe the rifle clean anyway?  It's not ridiculous.  And why shouldn't people consider these possibilities?

This is something you do every time you come on here and comment on a post of mine. 

You do it because basically you're arrogant and disrespectful towards me and other posters, you think you know it all, and don't take the time and trouble to read what has been discussed in the thread.

Sometimes you add a comment as if to tell me something I already know, often something I've said in the post you're responding to.

The number of eggs I've sucked reading your rubbish.  You're a rival for Jane.

I recall on my thread about Geoffrey Rivlin, you added a typical sort of comment for you saying that we can't know for sure how something Jeremy said went down at trial because we weren't there, as if I can't guess that myself or you were disclosing something profound that I hadn't thought of.  I'd even made the equivalent comment in the post you were replying to.

Why would she do that and then put the cloth away?

[David1819]

I'm not backtracking.  You're just ignoring what's said in the thread - which is the usual thing for you.

Let's go through it. 

Somebody mentioned fingerprints.

I said that if she was the killer, I would expect more of her fingerprints to be on the rifle (for reasons I mention in a post above).

I then tried to come up with an explanation as to why they're not, and I can't. 

The bit about her wiping the rifle clean is just a way of giving the defence some extra benefit of the doubt.  I've no idea if she would have done that or not.  If she did, she could have left the cloth anywhere, but I'm not saying that happened.

The point is that even if we assume that did happen, I'm still not happy with the lack of prints on the rifle.

You've misrepresented this as me advancing some theory that she did wipe the rifle clean.  Well she may or may not have done, but it's not my theory.  And why couldn't she wipe the rifle clean anyway?  It's not ridiculous.  And why shouldn't people consider these possibilities?

This is something you do every time you come on here and comment on a post of mine. 

You do it because basically you're arrogant and disrespectful towards me and other posters, you think you know it all, and don't take the time and trouble to read what has been discussed in the thread.

Sometimes you add a comment as if to tell me something I already know, often something I've said in the post you're responding to.

The number of eggs I've sucked reading your rubbish.  You're a rival for Jane.

I recall on my thread about Geoffrey Rivlin, you added a typical sort of comment for you saying that we can't know for sure how something Jeremy said went down at trial because we weren't there, as if I can't guess that myself or you were disclosing something profound that I hadn't thought of.  I'd even made the equivalent comment in the post you were replying to.

There were five prints on the rifle. One was Jeremy's One was Sheila's and the other three were too smudged to establish who they were from.

[guest29835]

Why would she do that and then put the cloth away?

Why would she kill her family?

Why would she wash herself?

Why would she do her nails that day?

Why would she beat her father with the butt of the rifle?

You're asking me a question I can't know the answer to, and anyway, there needn't be a 'why'.  She's a schizophrenic.

Maybe she cleaned the rifle because it had blood on it and it was part of 'cleansing' herself?

I'm just giving the defence some benefit of the doubt.  To test the case, we have to consider whether there are reasonable explanations for why there aren't more of Sheila's clear prints on the rifle. 

The problem, of course, is that even if she did clean it, she then handles it again to kill herself.  Where are her fingerprints?  I don't know.  Maybe the prints were there but not lifted, or maybe she handled the rifle in a way that would not have left prints?

[guest29835]

There were five prints on the rifle. One was Jeremy's One was Sheila's and the other three were too smudged to establish who they were from.

Do we have any documentation showing where the smudged prints were on the rifle, please?

[David1819]

Do we have any documentation showing where the smudged prints were on the rifle, please?

Yes its on here. Mike has uploaded it all onto this forum.

[ngb1066]

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

I think you are right.  I was told long ago but have forgotten the exact reasoning.