why were June Bambers hands covered with gun powder resIdue?

[mike tesko]

Gunshot residue on June's hand or hands could easily have come from grasping at the barrel of the rifle when Sheila was attacking her or having a hand in close proximity to the muzzle when the rifle was fired by Sheila.

What should be remembered is the shot that went through June's left breast that the pathologist seemed to fail to report on but that appears on the bullet entry/exit/trajectory diagrams. This bullet seems to be accounted for as being one of the three that ended up on the bed/pillow.
Between June's breasts was a graze injury that may have been caused by the end of the rifle. When Sheila was attempting to fire this shot it would have been an ideal opportunity for June to grasp the barrel or end of the rifle to try deflecting it. In fact it is possible that the shot through the left breast was directed partially by June's struggling and it was not deliberately fired through the left breast as part of a sexual motivation on Sheila part.

This is an interesting theory, but June Bambers fingerprints were not found on the end of the guns barrel or the silencer...

[andrea]

This from the claire powell book.



the police had a very odd attitude' said one of the newsman. "i can almost say that they couldnt care less. I had had a call about the  killings and i immediatley telephoned the police spokesman to ask what had happened and to get the official comment.

He said to me "oh, its a domestic incident , you wont be bothered with this". Well i know the press and the police have different priorities, but even so i was amazed. I said: "five bodies and you think we wont be bothered, are you joking?" But thats is how they saw it. As far as  they were concerened, it was family thing and it was all sorted out. They just couldnt understand the interest.

Other felt that the police reaction was admirably low-key and controlled, indicating that the mopping up operation was orderly and thorough. word did eventually begin to seep through from behind the scenes and favoures journalists  were given an unattributed briefing about the tragedy.
They were told is was a family. Grandmother june Bamber had gone crazy, shooting her husband,  daughter and grandsons beofre killing herself.

It was only a tip off, but it had come straight from the scene of the crime and the police were almost casual in their confidence that everything was unbder control. The stories were assembled and ready when one of the press group raced in with a tale which flatly contradicted the version they had already been given.

[smiffy]

Gunshot residue on June's hand or hands could easily have come from grasping at the barrel of the rifle when Sheila was attacking her or having a hand in close proximity to the muzzle when the rifle was fired by Sheila.

What should be remembered is the shot that went through June's left breast that the pathologist seemed to fail to report on but that appears on the bullet entry/exit/trajectory diagrams. This bullet seems to be accounted for as being one of the three that ended up on the bed/pillow.
Between June's breasts was a graze injury that may have been caused by the end of the rifle. When Sheila was attempting to fire this shot it would have been an ideal opportunity for June to grasp the barrel or end of the rifle to try deflecting it. In fact it is possible that the shot through the left breast was directed partially by June's struggling and it was not deliberately fired through the left breast as part of a sexual motivation on Sheila part.

This is an interesting theory, but June Bambers fingerprints were not found on the end of the guns barrel or the silencer...

Correct...
though other prints were on it (rifle) they could not be identified...and only a single print for Sheila and for JB were found on the rifle....which is not much at all!
All in all it cannot be said either way that June did or did not grasp the rifle's barrel.

[grahameb]

We are not talking about a Colt 45 here are we? This was a .22 rifle and I wonder if the residue left by such a tiny bullet would be that significant?

[andrea]

strange what the press were told in the early stages though wasnt it?

[mike tesko]

We are not talking about a Colt 45 here are we? This was a .22 rifle and I wonder if the residue left by such a tiny bullet would be that significant?

It would be significant because of the three vent holes on the left hand side of the weapon, which is designed to allow discharge of the blast after detonation of the bullet in the chamber. Most rifles do not have these vent holes, and therefore there would have been ample FDR forced out through these three vent holes. This discharge of residue would be visible on parts of the firers body...

[Lefty]

Hi Mike

it was stated that there was no residue and no oil on Sheila's nigthdress.  Do you happen to know what testing was done to specify this?  I'm sure I read somewhere that there was only a visual inspection but I can't believe that.

FDR particles are 0.5 - 2 microns in diametre. 

one micrometre = 0.001mm.  That is 1/1000 of a millimetre. 

That is simply not visible by the naked eye.  It requires tapings of the target garment which are then viewed with a Scanning Electron Microscope.

Due to the tiny size and the fact they are round FDR particles are liable to move around, a lot, and will not remain on a shooters hands for long.  That is why garments are tested as well hands as it is more likely for particles to get caught in material than on skin.  FDR is also highly susceptible to contamination so normally 1 individual particle is not given any weight (unless your name is Barry George/Bulsara).

[mike tesko]

Hi Mike

it was stated that there was no residue and no oil on Sheila's nigthdress.  Do you happen to know what testing was done to specify this?  I'm sure I read somewhere that there was only a visual inspection but I can't believe that.

FDR particles are 0.5 - 2 microns in diametre. 

one micrometre = 0.001mm.  That is 1/1000 of a millimetre. 

That is simply not visible by the naked eye.  It requires tapings of the target garment which are then viewed with a Scanning Electron Microscope.

Due to the tiny size and the fact they are round FDR particles are liable to move around, a lot, and will not remain on a shooters hands for long.  That is why garments are tested as well hands as it is more likely for particles to get caught in material than on skin.  FDR is also highly susceptible to contamination so normally 1 individual particle is not given any weight (unless your name is Barry George/Bulsara).

There was no proper examination of Sheila's nightdress for FDR, only a visual inspection...