The Silenced Rifle Did Not Fit Inside The Gun Cupboard

[lookout]

If he'd wiped the rifle down there wouldn't have been any of his prints, let alone one.?

[guest29835]

If he'd wiped the rifle down there wouldn't have been any of his prints, let alone one.?

I think there could (and probably would) still be some of his prints.  For me, the issue is more that, once he has wiped the rifle down, why do we not find more of Sheila's prints there?  After all, if he is the killer, he is supposed to be staging this to make it look like Sheila has handled the rifle. 

In other words, imagining Jeremy as the killer:

1. He wears gloves but notices his blooded gloved prints on the rifle.
2. A glove also comes off, which means he may have touched the rifle.
3. Notwithstanding he has been using the rifle lawfully anyway, due to 1 and 2 above he decides to wipe the rifle.
4. He then attempts to put Sheila's prints on the rifle after killing her.

In these circumstances, how come he only manages to leave one print of Sheila's, on the stock?  If you follow the chronology above, it doesn't make sense to me, even allowing for possible difficulties with leaving prints.

On the other hand, if we say Sheila is the killer, then she may have wiped the rifle as part of her ritual washing, and with her hands and fingers are clean and dry, she may not leave any further discernible prints, even if handling the rifle in order to kill herself.

[guest7363]

I think there could (and probably would) still be some of his prints.  For me, the issue is more that, once he has wiped the rifle down, why do we not find more of Sheila's prints there?  After all, if he is the killer, he is supposed to be staging this to make it look like Sheila has handled the rifle. 

In other words, imagining Jeremy as the killer:

1. He wears gloves but notices his blooded gloved prints on the rifle.
2. A glove also comes off, which means he may have touched the rifle.
3. Notwithstanding he has been using the rifle lawfully anyway, due to 1 and 2 above he decides to wipe the rifle.
4. He then attempts to put Sheila's prints on the rifle after killing her.

In these circumstances, how come he only manages to leave one print of Sheila's, on the stock?  If you follow the chronology above, it doesn't make sense to me, even allowing for possible difficulties with leaving prints.

On the other hand, if we say Sheila is the killer, then she may have wiped the rifle as part of her ritual washing, and with her hands and fingers are clean and dry, she may not leave any further discernible prints, even if handling the rifle in order to kill herself.

. Here we go again the old ritual washing Chestnut, I wonder if the magician  did a pull through on the barrel just in case any muck/ blood got on the bullets before killing herself or after?  Does washing your hands stop fingerprints? I would say having clean hands stops the prints from being more visible to the naked eye rather than having dirty hands it doesn’t eliminate them. 

[guest7363]

If he'd wiped the rifle down there wouldn't have been any of his prints, let alone one.?

Maybe the killer thought he  didn’t need to wipe the weapon down?

[mike tesko]

. Here we go again the old ritual washing Chestnut, I wonder if the magician  did a pull through on the barrel just in case any muck/ blood got on the bullets before killing herself or after? 

Funny that you should mention 'the pull-through trick', since did you know that the ballistic expert (Malcom Fletcher), is suspected of being such 'a magician', involving (just/precisely) that?

Well, 'the cloth pull through'  ('NOW' exhibit reference 'MDF/1'), introduced by him during the 1986 trial, could not have had 'that particular exhibit reference' originally associated with/to it, because of the existence (these items are still held in storage at Huntingdon Lab') of 'a total of 14 spent bullet cartridge cases' belonging to and connected with, 'another weapon' and 'not' the '.22 semi-automatic 'Anshuzt' rifle', but which now bears the exhibit reference of 'MDF/100'...

Exhibit 'MDF/100' (14 spent .22 bullet cartridge casings) was 'originally' associated with 'the/that'
unique exhibit reference 'MDF/1', but this was altered to enable 'Fletcher', and 'rogue cops', to introduce the 'powerful evidence' of magical, out of nowhere 'cloth pull-through', which supposedly had been dragged through the barrel of the 'Anshuzt' rifle at an early stage and found to have 'no blood' or 'human tissue' upon it, suggesting that 'a silencer must have been fitted onto the end of the guns/rifles barrel end' at 'the time shots totalling 25/27 ('?') or as many as, 27/28 or 29 shots ('?') had been fired through its 'mechanism' and 'specification', such as the 'rifles barrel'..

Those (secret) '14 spent .22 bullet cartridge cases', were '14' of the 'original crime scene batch of ammunition', which 'had been fired from a second weapon that used in the shootings/murders'...

[guest7363]

Funny that you should mention 'the pull-through trick', since did you know that the ballistic expert (Malcom Fletcher), is suspected of being such a magician, involving just that?

Well, 'the cloth pull through'  (exhibit reference 'MDF/1') evidence introduced by him during the 1986 trial, could not have had that particular exhibit reference associated with/to it, because of the existence (these items are still held in storage at Huntingdon Lab') of a total of 14 spent bullet cartridge cases belonging to and connected with, the .22 semi-automatic 'Anshuzt' rifle, now bearing the exhibit reference of 'MDF/100'...

Exhibit 'MDF/100' (14 spent .22 bullet cartridge casings) was originally associated with the exhibit reference 'MDF/1', but this was altered to enable 'Fletcher', and rogue cops, to introduce the powerful evidence of 'a cloth pull-through', which supposedly had been dragged through the barrel of the 'Anshuzt' rifle at an early stage..

Those 14 spent .22 bullet cartridge cases, were 14 of the original crime scene batch of ammunition, which 'had been fired from a second weapon used in the shootings/murders...

Oh Sheila just carried out the ritual cleansing of her hands then and it was Fletcher who cleaned the rifle barrel.  Ok got you

[lookout]

Maybe the killer thought he  didn’t need to wipe the weapon down?

Slightly unusual for a killer to leave prints/ presence ? None on the sills ? Why would you commit mass murder knowing that you'd be found out ? Did JB want / wish to spend the rest of his life in prison ?

[guest7363]

Slightly unusual for a killer to leave prints/ presence ? None on the sills ? Why would you commit mass murder knowing that you'd be found out ? Did JB want / wish to spend the rest of his life in prison ?

He gave the Bunny story just in case he left any.  Would wearing gloves have the same effect as wiping the rifle down, would it smudge and make other prints unreadable, of course he didn’t need to wipe all his off, he only had to show Sheila had handle the rifle.

[lookout]

He gave the Bunny story just in case he left any.  Would wearing gloves have the same effect as wiping the rifle down, would it smudge and make other prints unreadable, of course he didn’t need to wipe all his off, he only had to show Sheila had handle the rifle.

Fibres/particles from gloves are always detectable. Apparently there were other fingerprints which were from an " unknown male ?"

[lookout]

So why wasn't it made a big deal of finding a print belonging to JB ?

[guest7363]

So why wasn't it made a big deal of finding a print belonging to JB ?

Because I’ve already explained, the Bunny story covered this.

[guest7363]

Fibres/particles from gloves are always detectable. Apparently there were other fingerprints which were from an " unknown male ?"

I would say fibres from a cloth are more detectable than fibres from leather gloves?  So why wasn’t fibres from a cloth found then?

[lookout]

Because I’ve already explained, the Bunny story covered this.

JB isn't that backward----gormless he may have been, not exactly a man of the world for all his education, but stupid ? No.

[lookout]

I would say fibres from a cloth are more detectable than fibres from leather gloves?  So why wasn’t fibres from a cloth found then?

Because nobody wore gloves.

[guest7363]

JB isn't that backward----gormless he may have been, not exactly a man of the world for all his education, but stupid ? No.

I agree, that’s why he invented this story as a back up.   The story serves two purposes.