Gun Sights

[mb1]

From the photos i have seen, she has her hand resting on the gun, that is not going to leave prints. It is just as feasible as someone killing everyone, wiping the gun and placing her hand on the gun. Is it not. Again this is just an opinion.

-------------------------------

Good points, however, ask yourself this question - considering that Sheila's fingerprints were found upon the wooden stock of the gun, why was her hand not photographed by PC Bird (SOC) in that precise position, on or at, or after, 10 O'clock, at the scene?

How did Sheila's fingerprints get onto the gun in the location they were found, if the police did not photograph her hand, or fingers on the gun, in that position, or location?

"Sheila, will you just steady this for me while I take off the sights?
Thanks Sis."

[simong]

naughty mb1

Conjecture of course, but couldn't the killer have tried to put her prints on the gun hence the odd position of her fingerprint. We could go round in circles on this one as with a lot of the evidence in this case.

On a separate note, i do admire your dedication and the hard work you put in for Jeremy's cause Mike and it was sad to read what happened in the site thread.

[simong]

naughty mb1

Conjecture of course, but couldn't the killer have tried to put her prints on the gun hence the odd position of her fingerprint. We could go round in circles on this one as with a lot of the evidence in this case.

On a separate note, i do admire your dedication and the hard work you put in for Jeremy's cause Mike and it was sad to read what happened in the site thread.

Replying to myself i know! but this blows out my idea of the gun being wiped after killing everyone, from the appeal


71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding. On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful. A "pull-through" on the barrel of the rifle was conducted for any traces of blood within the weapon. There were none.

I suppose there would be no blood on the gun if it had been wiped before hand.

[mike tesko]

naughty mb1

Conjecture of course, but couldn't the killer have tried to put her prints on the gun hence the odd position of her fingerprint. We could go round in circles on this one as with a lot of the evidence in this case.

On a separate note, i do admire your dedication and the hard work you put in for Jeremy's cause Mike and it was sad to read what happened in the site thread.

Replying to myself i know! but this blows out my idea of the gun being wiped after killing everyone, from the appeal


71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding. On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful. A "pull-through" on the barrel of the rifle was conducted for any traces of blood within the weapon. There were none.

I suppose there would be no blood on the gun if it had been wiped before hand.

-----------------------------

And not clear who's blood it was?

[Kaldin]

One of the officers handled the gun without wearing gloves, so it's possible that he put his hands all over it and obliterated other finger prints.

[simong]

Kaldin, sorry to keep asking for evidence but where have you read that?

[Kaldin]

Kaldin, sorry to keep asking for evidence but where have you read that?

No need to apologise. I should post evidence anyway. 

It was in the SOC report - page 2. It was DI Cook who handled the gun without wearing gloves.

http://www.freejeremybamber.com/files/P01.pdf

[mb1]

naughty mb1

Conjecture of course, but couldn't the killer have tried to put her prints on the gun hence the odd position of her fingerprint. We could go round in circles on this one as with a lot of the evidence in this case.

On a separate note, i do admire your dedication and the hard work you put in for Jeremy's cause Mike and it was sad to read what happened in the site thread.

Replying to myself i know! but this blows out my idea of the gun being wiped after killing everyone, from the appeal


71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding. On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful. A "pull-through" on the barrel of the rifle was conducted for any traces of blood within the weapon. There were none.

I suppose there would be no blood on the gun if it had been wiped before hand.

Pure conjecture - the gun was wiped before use and gloves used. Only print should be Sheila's. But unless you have time to really wipe  down the gun, or use a UV light, then you couldn't be sure.

[simong]

good point mb1.

Kaldin it says DCI Cook who has 20 years experience in scenes of crime did not use gloves as he did not contaminate the evidence. So would that be picking the gun up around the trigger part of the gun?

[mb1]

Mike may be relieved - my experts have left the building! (say it's the long journey but I think it's a combination of the pub calling and my interrogations...)

They didn't have much time, so concentrated on 'big facts' and wounds. My cousin has the cartridge listing and I've warned him I expect results!

Ignoring all the forensic evidence ( I know!) and arguing between themselves, they came up with an O.J. style 'if I had planned...' They put Nevill in the upstairs office.

For me it was all about moderator/Nevill/Sheila. For them, the evidence is the sight and the boys' wounds. It's interesting what a different perspective offers.

Was there any evidence that the sights were regularly removed in the period Nov 1984-Aug 85?






 

[mb1]

Are there any images of Nevill's upstairs office? Particularly the chair.

Also images of the sitting room - esp sofas/couches - and the downstairs bathroom?

[mike tesko]

Mike may be relieved - my experts have left the building! (say it's the long journey but I think it's a combination of the pub calling and my interrogations...)

They didn't have much time, so concentrated on 'big facts' and wounds. My cousin has the cartridge listing and I've warned him I expect results!

Ignoring all the forensic evidence ( I know!) and arguing between themselves, they came up with an O.J. style 'if I had planned...' They put Nevill in the upstairs office.

For me it was all about moderator/Nevill/Sheila. For them, the evidence is the sight and the boys' wounds. It's interesting what a different perspective offers.

Was there any evidence that the sights were regularly removed in the period Nov 1984-Aug 85?

----------------------------------------------

According to Anthony Pargeter, he saw the Bamber rifle (anshulz .22 semi-automatic) in the gun cupboard, ion the penultimate week-end before the shootings - I will try to post his statement where he mentions this within the next few days if I can lay my hand's upon it...

Jeremy maintains that the sites were not on the gun when he handled it, on the evening before the shootings...