The Silenced Rifle Did Not Fit Inside The Gun Cupboard

[guest29835]

So your saying farmers go out and fire at rabbits not wanting to hit them? So a farmer goes out of his way to buy shotguns, rifles, bullets just to scare vermin away and with no intention of hitting them. Yeah right pull the other one.

I didn't say that, did I.  I didn't say that a farmer "goes out of his way to buy shotguns, rifles, bullets [sic] just to scare vermin away and with no intention of hitting them".

But they might shoot at vermin to scare them away, especially if they have difficulty hitting them.

You do become so emotional, rude and dismissive when people come up with new ideas that don't suit your biases about the case.  Like a little child who's just lost at Cluedo and has gone into a sulk as a result.

[JackieD]

So your saying farmers go out and fire at rabbits not wanting to hit them?   So a farmer goes out of his way to buy shotguns, rifles, bullets just to scare vermin away and with no intention of hitting them.  Yeah right pull the other one.

Fake Justice always acts in desperation by sending pm messages to try and persuade people to join Anne’s camp.
It was hilarious

[guest7363]

 

I didn't say that, did I.  I didn't say that a farmer "goes out of his way to buy shotguns, rifles, bullets [sic] just to scare vermin away and with no intention of hitting them".

But they might shoot at vermin to scare them away, especially if they have difficulty hitting them.

You do become so emotional, rude and dismissive when people come up with new ideas that don't suit your biases about the case.  Like a little child who's just lost at Cluedo and has gone into a sulk as a result.

Ha Ha well stop making such ridiculous statements then 😂😂😂

[guest7363]

Fake Justice always acts in desperation by sending pm messages to try and persuade people to join Anne’s camp.
It was hilarious

Ann sends her love PREECIE 😂😂😂

[JackieD]

Ann sends her love PREECIE 😂😂😂

For Ann and Fake Justice

As I had to remind both of you yesterday but both of you fail to grasp. Things are not over (you have failed to provide proof the case is closed)

From J F Kennedy

Life is never easy. There is work to be done and obligations to be met – obligations to truth, to justice, and to liberty.”


So true

[guest29835]

???Ha Ha well stop making such ridiculous statements then 😂😂😂

I am not making ridiculous statements.

I have seen it.

People going out and shooting at rabbits several times to scare them off.

It's also done with rats.

I am not sure how effective this is as a method of vermin control - I suspect not very in the long run - but they are intelligent animals and learn and adapt and eventually don't return to the same place.  I'm not saying I know that's what Jeremy did, but it is possible.  In my experience, rabbits are easily scared.

If you set out to actually shoot rabbits, then you need to go for a clean kill, which can be hard, whereas if you shoot into the ground near them, they may be scared off and 'learn' not to return to that spot.

[Steve_uk]

Can anybody here please answer these two questions:

1. Where exactly on the rifle were the smudged prints?  I can't see anything in the documents about it.

2. Where is Julie Mugford's claim that a glove came off during the struggle between Nevill and Matthew Macdonald (as she claims Jeremy told her)?  Again, I can't see mention of it in Julie's statements or her diary, but may have missed it.

It's on Sheet 24 here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1932.msg59875.html#msg59875

[guest29835]

It's on Sheet 24 here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1932.msg59875.html#msg59875

It could be that I am missing the point, but what she says makes no sense to me.  I agree that wearing gloves may obscure fingerprints, but there's an easy solution to that: A dead person still has fingerprints.  When 'Matthew' - i.e. Jeremy - was carrying out this killing, at the least all he needed to do was put Sheila's prints on the rifle when placing the rifle on her body.  Why should it make any difference what happens in the struggle with Nevill?  And why would Sheila's prints be of relevance at that point, if this whole thing was staged?

For me, the real issue is the absence of more of Jeremy's prints.  I find that suspicious because Jeremy was a manual worker on a farm during all weathers, including hot weather, and used the rifle regularly.  If Jeremy is innocent, his prints should be there, along with Sheila's, with perhaps lots of smudged prints.  On the other hand, if Jeremy is guilty, then his prints would not be there, because he wiped the rifle, either intentionally before placing the rifle on Sheila's body, or inadvertently by using gloves (as, I think, Julie is describing).  The problem there, though, is that if Jeremy wipes the rifle intentionally, he must then leave Sheila's prints on the mechanism, action and barrel, yet we find only one clear print, which is on the stock.  Equally, if Jeremy simply relies on gloves and there are no blood prints, then Jeremy's thinking as described by Julie still make no sense, as explained above.  In either scenario, surely he goes to some effort to place Sheila's prints on the rifle?

Incidentally, going back to Julie, I am assuming that no glove was found?  I recall no mention of one.  If so, then 'Matthew' (Jeremy) must be assumed to have recovered it and replaced it on his hand, which means that this detail is only Julie's assertion.

[lookout]

The wearing of gloves can still be detected by a fingerprint expert. If there were any experts around 

[Steve_uk]

It could be that I am missing the point, but what she says makes no sense to me.  I agree that wearing gloves may obscure fingerprints, but there's an easy solution to that: A dead person still has fingerprints.  When 'Matthew' - i.e. Jeremy - was carrying out this killing, at the least all he needed to do was put Sheila's prints on the rifle when placing the rifle on her body.  Why should it make any difference what happens in the struggle with Nevill?  And why would Sheila's prints be of relevance at that point, if this whole thing was staged?

For me, the real issue is the absence of more of Jeremy's prints.  I find that suspicious because Jeremy was a manual worker on a farm during all weathers, including hot weather, and used the rifle regularly.  If Jeremy is innocent, his prints should be there, along with Sheila's, with perhaps lots of smudged prints.  On the other hand, if Jeremy is guilty, then his prints would not be there, because he wiped the rifle, either intentionally before placing the rifle on Sheila's body, or inadvertently by using gloves (as, I think, Julie is describing).  The problem there, though, is that if Jeremy wipes the rifle intentionally, he must then leave Sheila's prints on the mechanism, action and barrel, yet we find only one clear print, which is on the stock.  Equally, if Jeremy simply relies on gloves and there are no blood prints, then Jeremy's thinking as described by Julie still make no sense, as explained above.  In either scenario, surely he goes to some effort to place Sheila's prints on the rifle?

Incidentally, going back to Julie, I am assuming that no glove was found?  I recall no mention of one.  If so, then 'Matthew' (Jeremy) must be assumed to have recovered it and replaced it on his hand, which means that this detail is only Julie's assertion.

The point was that Jeremy had become agitated or overexcited at that point, and had lost control of his actions, given that in my opinion he was high on a cocktail of drugs, after the comedown being able to dissociate from the crime. The unexpected was the tussle with Nevill, along with having to shoot Sheila twice, and he would be glad to return to Goldhanger to compose himself, hence the missing twenty minutes in his story. I don't see much can be gleaned from the prints: NGB has already said smudged prints are commonplace, Jeremy was in a dilemma anyway because were his rabbit-shooting story to be true for a moment his prints would be found on the rifle along with Sheila's, and in any case far more of hers would be expected had she slaughtered four.

As far as the gloves were concerned he was asked about them and admitted to owning a pair of mitts and some work gloves. Were these ever examined? I don't know.

[guest29835]

The point was that Jeremy had become agitated or overexcited at that point, and had lost control of his actions, given that in my opinion he was high on a cocktail of drugs, after the comedown being able to dissociate from the crime. The unexpected was the tussle with Nevill, along with having to shoot Sheila twice, and he would be glad to return to Goldhanger to compose himself, hence the missing twenty minutes in his story. I don't see much can be gleaned from the prints: NGB has already said smudged prints are commonplace, Jeremy was in a dilemma anyway because were his rabbit-shooting story to be true for a moment his prints would be found on the rifle along with Sheila's, and in any case far more of hers would be expected had she slaughtered four.

As far as the gloves were concerned he was asked about them and admitted to owning a pair of mitts and some work gloves. Were these ever examined? I don't know.

I appreciate the explanation, but I'm afraid I will have to disagree.  What Julie says doesn't make any sense, and I think the absence of Jeremy's prints is highly significant.  You yourself hint at the problem: where are Jeremy's prints?  Did Ron Cook obliterate them due to his clumsy handling of the rifle, or even deliberately wipe the rifle?  Come to mention it, where are Ron Cook's prints?  The more I consider it, the less happy I am.

[Steve_uk]

I appreciate the explanation, but I'm afraid I will have to disagree.  What Julie says doesn't make any sense, and I think the absence of Jeremy's prints is highly significant.  You yourself hint at the problem: where are Jeremy's prints?  Did Ron Cook obliterate them due to his clumsy handling of the rifle, or even deliberately wipe the rifle? Come to mention it, where are Ron Cook's prints?  The more I consider it, the less happy I am.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If Jeremy wiped the gun as Julie stated then that's the explanation for the lack of prints. Why would Ron Cook wipe the rifle? He lifted the Anschütz using "the sling fittings on the butt and under the barrel." (CAL Chapter 22)

[guest29835]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If Jeremy wiped the gun as Julie stated then that's the explanation for the lack of prints. Why would Ron Cook wipe the rifle? He lifted the Anschütz using "the sling fittings on the butt and under the barrel." (CAL Chapter 22)

It doesn't say at Sheet 24 that Jeremy wiped the rifle.  Maybe you mean the gloves had that effect or it says it somewhere else.  Assuming he did, why would he wipe it and then not simply leave Sheila's prints on it?  The whole thing I am not understanding is how wearing the gloves hinders him from leaving Sheila's prints on the rifle, when he would have done that last.  Why is it that there is only one of Sheila's prints on the rifle, and it's on the stock?  That just strikes me as odd.

[David1819]

I appreciate the explanation, but I'm afraid I will have to disagree.  What Julie says doesn't make any sense, and I think the absence of Jeremy's prints is highly significant.  You yourself hint at the problem: where are Jeremy's prints?  Did Ron Cook obliterate them due to his clumsy handling of the rifle, or even deliberately wipe the rifle?  Come to mention it, where are Ron Cook's prints?  The more I consider it, the less happy I am.

One of Jeremy's prints was found on the rifle.

[guest29835]

One of Jeremy's prints was found on the rifle.

I know, but that's partly the point: why only one print of his?