Essex police found evidence that Sheila fired rifle (SC/688/85)

[shonapugs]

Shona you haven't really said to me how things happened that night and why you think Jeremy was definitely responsible.
If you go on to the subject you always bring up the way Sheila was found would you agree one of the relatives could be responsible?

I believe that at least one person on here thinks that JB and Anthony Pargeter may have committed the murders together. I don't, though. I think that a third party killed the family, made the phone call from WHF to JB's cottage, told JB of the unexpected struggle he'd had with Ralph, and that's what JB meant when he told JM that something had gone wrong. IMO.

[mike tesko]

Yes it does Grahame, I wonder if somebody could refresh my memory as to where this 'spotlessly clean' comment comes from? I'll have a look for myself later if not.

I know the clean feet is taken out of context because the pathologist only refers to the tops of her feet being clean, although I haven't looked at this for a while so there may be other sources.

The pathologists statement dated 30/9/85 specifically states that Sheilas palms and fingers were not contaminated with blood.

 http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,988.msg29919.html#msg29919

DC Hammersley (soc) made a statement claiming to have taken hand swabs from Sheila at the scene, before body was taken to mortuary where pathologist viewed body and reported the condition and state of her hands, including her palms and fingers - so, are you now suggesting when the hand swabs were taken at the scene, that these so called swabs were not wiped over Sheila`s right hand palm, and the fingers of her right hand?

So...

If hand swabs were done correctly! Any residue and blood would be wiped off the palm and fingers, long before the pathologist even saw Sheila`s body...

So your point now is?

Mike could your post make any less sense?

Hammersley statement dated 22/10/85
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,373.msg5090.html#msg5090

The relevant extract is below.

Stop trying to mislead people. Hand swabs were taken and tested for firearms residue, none was found.

Visual inspection of her hands by the pathologist stated that her fingers and palms were not contaminated by blood.

According to the evidence, hand swabs were taken at the scene, before pathologist viewed Sheia`s hands at the mortuary, and if swabs were taken properly, palms and fingers were almost certainly wiped clean by swabs, so it would not be surprising that when pathologist examined these, they were clean...

 Hand swabs were later checked for lead deposit from handling bullets, not for FDR...

[jackiepreece]

Shona there is no proof that Jeremy was involved in the murders if you can come up with something I would be interested to hear it

That is why we are here 26 years on

Anyone could have carried out those murders

You think jm was telling the truth but there is not a single shred of evidence

You cannot keep saying Jeremy was responsible without giving proof

[Newbury1]

Shona there is no proof that Jeremy was involved in the murders if you can come up with something I would be interested to hear it

That is why we are here 26 years on

Anyone could have carried out those murders

You think jm was telling the truth but there is not a single shred of evidence

You cannot keep saying Jeremy was responsible without giving proof

Hi Jackie, we know that this comment works both ways.

I know JB's legal team is working on this, and if they really have some new stuff then I look forward to eventually hearing it 

[mike tesko]

If sheila's palms and fingers of her right hand were clean as argued by Hartley, to be pondered is how could the bloodied finger marks which can be seen on the nightdress, have been made by her hand being placed there, and if it wasn`t her blood, how did the blood from another victim end up on Sheila`s nightdress? Was this blood on her nightdress evidence that She struggled with one or other of the parents she killed?

[Newbury1]

Yes it does Grahame, I wonder if somebody could refresh my memory as to where this 'spotlessly clean' comment comes from? I'll have a look for myself later if not.

I know the clean feet is taken out of context because the pathologist only refers to the tops of her feet being clean, although I haven't looked at this for a while so there may be other sources.

That's a point. I can't remember where I read it tell you the truth. Probably someone Else's comment. Just goes to show how many of us take other folk's comments as gospel.

Well it's about time people stopped doing that isn't it, if I utter a single word without supplying the source I get people queuing up to burn me at the stake, even I if I dare disagree with somebody I get comments like 'oh Hartley, you would say that wouldn't you', or 'I can't wait for Hartley's comments on this'. Along with being called a dimwit, an idiot or worse depending on who the insult is coming from.

Although it's hardly surprising given my views and that this is a Pro-Bamber site, I'm not whining, I actually find it somewhat amusing in my own weird way.

Hartley, try not to take things to hart 

A lot of these threads and posts are designed to embellish, "spin" and draw in the reader. It's the nature of "headline" reporting. Some do it more than others.

My example of one headline thread is " I am am prepared to take a lie detector test..." and for nearly a month I have been waiting for some written evidence (which has been offered) to support various claims made in that thread.

No written evidence to date 

I for one am interested in what is said on this forum but not necessarily "taken in", anyway that's all up to the official bods to sort out.

[Hartley]

Yes it does Grahame, I wonder if somebody could refresh my memory as to where this 'spotlessly clean' comment comes from? I'll have a look for myself later if not.

I know the clean feet is taken out of context because the pathologist only refers to the tops of her feet being clean, although I haven't looked at this for a while so there may be other sources.

The pathologists statement dated 30/9/85 specifically states that Sheilas palms and fingers were not contaminated with blood.

 http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,988.msg29919.html#msg29919

DC Hammersley (soc) made a statement claiming to have taken hand swabs from Sheila at the scene, before body was taken to mortuary where pathologist viewed body and reported the condition and state of her hands, including her palms and fingers - so, are you now suggesting when the hand swabs were taken at the scene, that these so called swabs were not wiped over Sheila`s right hand palm, and the fingers of her right hand?

So...

If hand swabs were done correctly! Any residue and blood would be wiped off the palm and fingers, long before the pathologist even saw Sheila`s body...

So your point now is?

Mike could your post make any less sense?

Hammersley statement dated 22/10/85
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,373.msg5090.html#msg5090

The relevant extract is below.

Stop trying to mislead people. Hand swabs were taken and tested for firearms residue, none was found.

Visual inspection of her hands by the pathologist stated that her fingers and palms were not contaminated by blood.

According to the evidence, hand swabs were taken at the scene, before pathologist viewed Sheia`s hands at the mortuary, and if swabs were taken properly, palms and fingers were almost certainly wiped clean by swabs, so it would not be surprising that when pathologist examined these, they were clean...

 Hand swabs were later checked for lead deposit from handling bullets, not for FDR...

According to what evidence, would you be able to show me please, because his statement above does indicate swabs were taken in the mortuary.

Also if you think that the collecting of forensic evidence by swabbing of hands will remove every trace of evidence from said hand, then you are crazy. I would also recommend that murderers carry one of these swabbing kits around with them to clean themselves up afterwards.

FDR contains parts from the explosive, the cartridge, the bullet and the firearm. Lead would be contained in that mixture.

In any event you are not making sense, unless you now want to suggest that she fired the weapon but didn't load the gun? As regardless of whether you think that FDR does or doesn't contain lead, lead in amounts much greater than those associated with general housekeeping duties would be present on a person who has loaded the firearm.

[Hartley]

Yes it does Grahame, I wonder if somebody could refresh my memory as to where this 'spotlessly clean' comment comes from? I'll have a look for myself later if not.

I know the clean feet is taken out of context because the pathologist only refers to the tops of her feet being clean, although I haven't looked at this for a while so there may be other sources.

That's a point. I can't remember where I read it tell you the truth. Probably someone Else's comment. Just goes to show how many of us take other folk's comments as gospel.

Well it's about time people stopped doing that isn't it, if I utter a single word without supplying the source I get people queuing up to burn me at the stake, even I if I dare disagree with somebody I get comments like 'oh Hartley, you would say that wouldn't you', or 'I can't wait for Hartley's comments on this'. Along with being called a dimwit, an idiot or worse depending on who the insult is coming from.

Although it's hardly surprising given my views and that this is a Pro-Bamber site, I'm not whining, I actually find it somewhat amusing in my own weird way.

Hartley, try not to take things to hart 

A lot of these threads and posts are designed to embellish, "spin" and draw in the reader. It's the nature of "headline" reporting. Some do it more than others.

My example of one headline thread is " I am am prepared to take a lie detector test..." and for nearly a month I have been waiting for some written evidence (which has been offered) to support various claims made in that thread.

No written evidence to date 

I for one am interested in what is said on this forum but not necessarily "taken in", anyway that's all up to the official bods to sort out.

Yes you are absolutely right. 

[Hartley]

If sheila's palms and fingers of her right hand were clean as argued by Hartley, to be pondered is how could the bloodied finger marks which can be seen on the nightdress, have been made by her hand being placed there, and if it wasn`t her blood, how did the blood from another victim end up on Sheila`s nightdress? Was this blood on her nightdress evidence that She struggled with one or other of the parents she killed?

Can we just get this one straight first, I am not arguing that Sheila's palms and fingers were clean, I am pointing out documents and evidence which indicates that is the case.

With regards to the hand print on the night dress, my belief that it was either caused by Sheila's hand or by the murderers hand, as there is no evidence indicating that Sheila's palm or fingers were contaminated with blood, in fact the complete opposite, then that leaves the murderer.

I would also like to draw your attention to Macdonell's report, whose findings would be consistent with my opinion.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,264.0.html

Relevant extract below:

[mike tesko]

If sheila's palms and fingers of her right hand were clean as argued by Hartley, to be pondered is how could the bloodied finger marks which can be seen on the nightdress, have been made by her hand being placed there, and if it wasn`t her blood, how did the blood from another victim end up on Sheila`s nightdress? Was this blood on her nightdress evidence that She struggled with one or other of the parents she killed?

Can we just get this one straight first, I am not arguing that Sheila's palms and fingers were clean, I am pointing out documents and evidence which indicates that is the case.

With regards to the hand print on the night dress, my belief that it was either caused by Sheila's hand or by the murderers hand, as there is no evidence indicating that Sheila's palm or fingers were contaminated with blood, in fact the complete opposite, then that leaves the murderer.

I would also like to draw your attention to Macdonell's report, whose findings would be consistent with my opinion.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,264.0.html

Relevant extract below:

Bloodied fingerprints on the front part of nightdress were not made by killer, it was fresh red blood, blood which
Had not dried up or coagulated - Sheila`s right hand was resting on this fresh red looking bloodstain, yet if true how could Sheila's palm and fingers of her right hand be clean by the time the pathologist viewed her hands?

[jon]

If sheila's palms and fingers of her right hand were clean as argued by Hartley, to be pondered is how could the bloodied finger marks which can be seen on the nightdress, have been made by her hand being placed there, and if it wasn`t her blood, how did the blood from another victim end up on Sheila`s nightdress? Was this blood on her nightdress evidence that She struggled with one or other of the parents she killed?

Can we just get this one straight first, I am not arguing that Sheila's palms and fingers were clean, I am pointing out documents and evidence which indicates that is the case.

With regards to the hand print on the night dress, my belief that it was either caused by Sheila's hand or by the murderers hand, as there is no evidence indicating that Sheila's palm or fingers were contaminated with blood, in fact the complete opposite, then that leaves the murderer.

I would also like to draw your attention to Macdonell's report, whose findings would be consistent with my opinion.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,264.0.html

Relevant extract below:

Bloodied fingerprints on the front part of nightdress were not made by killer, it was fresh red blood, blood which
Had not dried up or coagulated - Sheila`s right hand was resting on this fresh red looking bloodstain, yet if true how could Sheila's palm and fingers of her right hand be clean by the time the pathologist viewed her hands?

A fingerprint expert , by looking at the photo's alone should be able to say whether they belonged to a male or female !!   

[jackiepreece]

Nick with respect Shona is on this forum day after day saying Jeremy is guilty without a shadow of doubt and this forum is set up to discuss the case I think I am entitled to ask something that Shona has so far not answered.

I am not interested in 'I think Jm was telling the truth, as one of the reasons Shona believes Jeremy is guilty without a shadow of doubt.

I know certain things that are happening in high places that Anne Eaton has no idea about and I know how many high profile people are supporting Jeremy right now.

These people do not support people unless they are convinced the person in question is innocent

I am not interested in posts on here from Anne Eatons fan club (although I think that is probably in single figures) I am interested in getting to the truth and getting everything released under PII

I am confident that is happening right now

I will challenge anyone that believes Jeremy is guilty  beyond doubt and I will challenge anyone that tries to make out Jeremy was violent, hated his family and hated farming.
Nobody has come up with a single shred of evidence that is true

So you come to the conclusion why would people make up such viscous nasty lies without a reason

Once again it's not rocket science

[Hartley]

Bloodied fingerprints on the front part of nightdress were not made by killer, it was fresh red blood, blood which had not dried up or coagulated -

Oh come on be serious. At what time was it fresh wet blood and what is the evidence that is the case, please enlighten me.

Particularly given the fact the photographs were not taken until some two-three and a half hours after the police entered.

The amount of blood involved in this stain is small and from transfer, it appears smudged, it would not still be wet even if we pretend that Sheila didn't die until around 8ish.

Sheila`s right hand was resting on this fresh red looking bloodstain, yet if true how could Sheila's palm and fingers of her right hand be clean by the time the pathologist viewed her hands?

Again that is just stupid (in my opinion), you don't know that her hand was resting on the stain, it was concealed by her hand or arm which is why the police moved her arm to photograph it, you do not know what part, if any of her hand was in contact with it. A world renowned blood expert also considers that the blood stain could have come from another person.


I think we're going round and round in circles, I've very clearly and concisely given my opinion and the reasons for my opinions on the subject matter of this thread, so I will now take Nicks advice and leave it alone, people can make their own minds up.

[mike tesko]

Bloodied fingerprints on the front part of nightdress were not made by killer, it was fresh red blood, blood which had not dried up or coagulated -

Oh come on be serious. At what time was it fresh wet blood and what is the evidence that is the case, please enlighten me.

Particularly given the fact the photographs were not taken until some two-three and a half hours after the police entered.

The amount of blood involved in this stain is small and from transfer, it appears smudged, it would not still be wet even if we pretend that Sheila didn't die until around 8ish.

Sheila`s right hand was resting on this fresh red looking bloodstain, yet if true how could Sheila's palm and fingers of her right hand be clean by the time the pathologist viewed her hands?

Again that is just stupid (in my opinion), you don't know that her hand was resting on the stain, it was concealed by her hand or arm which is why the police moved her arm to photograph it, you do not know what part, if any of her hand was in contact with it. A world renowned blood expert also considers that the blood stain could have come from another person.


I think we're going round and round in circles, I've very clearly and concisely given my opinion and the reasons for my opinions on the subject matter of this thread, so I will now take Nicks advice and leave it alone, people can make their own minds up.

So...

Sheila's right hand was levitated and hovering above the wet stain on her nightdress, so that's your theory ?

[shonapugs]

Nick with respect Shona is on this forum day after day saying Jeremy is guilty without a shadow of doubt and this forum is set up to discuss the case I think I am entitled to ask something that Shona has so far not answered.

I am not interested in 'I think Jm was telling the truth, as one of the reasons Shona believes Jeremy is guilty without a shadow of doubt.

I know certain things that are happening in high places that Anne Eaton has no idea about and I know how many high profile people are supporting Jeremy right now.

These people do not support people unless they are convinced the person in question is innocent

I am not interested in posts on here from Anne Eatons fan club (although I think that is probably in single figures) I am interested in getting to the truth and getting everything released under PII

I am confident that is happening right now

I will challenge anyone that believes Jeremy is guilty  beyond doubt and I will challenge anyone that tries to make out Jeremy was violent, hated his family and hated farming.
Nobody has come up with a single shred of evidence that is true

So you come to the conclusion why would people make up such viscous nasty lies without a reason

Once again it's not rocket science

No, Jackie. Clearly, no rocket science is involved.