Author Topic: Sensational 'twist in blood type results' that were found on nightdress [`ND/3']  (Read 5622 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Well i suppose that is true Steve.I know the nightdress was examined by forensics in 1985 but probably not DNA tested.Maybe JB only thought to have it DNA tested around 1996 and when the police got wind of this,decided to destroy it.I dont know.Mike will have more idea of the circumstances surrounding the nightdress.
'
Here is the 'GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORD', [relating to the rear view only] of 'Sheila Caffells nightdress' ['ND/3' - lab item no. 19] dated, the `14th August 1985`, which serves to confirm that from a very early stage, forensic scientist and police knew that there were numerous bloodstains, in the form of 'smears', 'smudges', 'spottings', 'squirtings', 'drippings', and 'soaking, on the 'rear' of the garment!
« Last Edit: April 01, 2022, 06:11:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
If, as it was claimed, that prior to 'Sheila Caffells' body ending up 'on the main bedroom floor' (irrespective of how her body ended up there) that 'June Bamber' who had already been shot whilst in bed, how she had  managed to climb out of the bed and then walked around to the other side of the bed, and dripped blood from her wounds onto the carpet where 'Sheilas body' subsequently ended up!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
If, as it was claimed, that prior to 'Sheila Caffells' body ending up 'on the main bedroom floor' (irrespective of how her body ended up there) that 'June Bamber' who had already been shot whilst in bed, how she had  managed to climb out of the bed and then walked around to the other side of the bed, and dripped blood from her wounds onto the carpet where 'Sheilas body' subsequently ended up!

Then, for whatever reason, she had walked back around the bottom edge of the bed, toward the main bedroom door where she was shot and killed'..

The point I wish to make regarding this matter, is that if 'Sheilas body' had already been dead on the bedroom floor, then 'it stands to reason', that 'June's blood' would have contaminated the top surface of Sheilas body', in particular, onto the nightdress being worn by 'her'. I think this proves beyond reasonable doubt that 'June Bamber' must have been shot before 'Sheila Caffell, was! This sheds some light on the sequence of events that unfolded that night. More significantly, it could lend support  for' Sheila being the shooter'..

Another worrying feature, as far as I am concerned, was that the police cut out part of the main bedroom carpet and burnt it on a fire in the grounds of the farmhouse
« Last Edit: April 01, 2022, 08:50:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Rob_

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4822
Well i suppose that is true Steve.I know the nightdress was examined by forensics in 1985 but probably not DNA tested.Maybe JB only thought to have it DNA tested around 1996 and when the police got wind of this,decided to destroy it.I dont know.Mike will have more idea of the circumstances surrounding the nightdress.

Why would the police destroy a vital exhibit in a murder case where the convicted person was protesting their innocence Snow? If they thought it would help the Crowns case would it have been destroyed?

The technology has come on in leaps and bounds, if Sheila was the perpetrator there would be microscopic traces of the victims blood all over her nightdress which could be detected with todays technology that is what the police were scared of.


Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17586
Wow indeed...


Offline snow66!

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5940
Wow indeed...
Good morning Roch.I am a bit slow when it comes to the technical stuff.Why wow? What is the scenario we are looking at here and the significance of the blood stains.Can you simplify things a bit for a dummy like me?

Offline snow66!

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5940
Why would the police destroy a vital exhibit in a murder case where the convicted person was protesting their innocence Snow? If they thought it would help the Crowns case would it have been destroyed?

The technology has come on in leaps and bounds, if Sheila was the perpetrator there would be microscopic traces of the victims blood all over her nightdress which could be detected with todays technology that is what the police were scared of.
Hi Rob.Yes of course it is suspicious the destroying of the nightdress.But i think what happened was the cops that did this got off scot free because the appeal courts decided not to investigate them,and sweep it under the carpet.Their reason being that any evidence that could have come from destroyed evidence would therefore be in JBs favour,But of course the cops knew JB was still protrsting his innocence and destroying the dress should give ANYONE reasonable doubt about JBs guilt,surely.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
We must also gather that blood on the back of the nightdress denotes injuries from whence the blood came ?

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13781
Wow indeed...

Yet no damage to the night dress.  ::)

Offline snow66!

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5940
We must also gather that blood on the back of the nightdress denotes injuries from whence the blood came ?
Good morning Lookout.So the gist of it is that Sheila could not have sustained any injuries or cuts to her back by simply walking through to the bedroom,they must have been inflicted while fighting with her parents.Is that it?

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13781
Good morning Lookout.So the gist of it is that Sheila could not have sustained any injuries or cuts to her back by simply walking through to the bedroom,they must have been inflicted while fighting with her parents.Is that it?

If she had cuts inflicted on her back, there would be corresponding damage to dress fabric. Yet there is none.

Offline snow66!

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5940
If she had cuts inflicted on her back, there would be corresponding damage to dress fabric. Yet there is none.
Hi Dave,Well might this possibly prove that Sheila washed and changed into the nightdress after the injuries were inflicted.?

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Good morning Lookout.So the gist of it is that Sheila could not have sustained any injuries or cuts to her back by simply walking through to the bedroom,they must have been inflicted while fighting with her parents.Is that it?





That's about the strength of it snow. Seems pretty logic to me.

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17586
Yet no damage to the night dress.  ::)

There wouldn't necessarily need to be. For a number of factors. But if the injuries were small, how do we know there wasn't corresponding small damage to the nightdress? It would be difficult to see. Especially if there was blood.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
If she had cuts inflicted on her back, there would be corresponding damage to dress fabric. Yet there is none.





Not if she'd changed David.