Lack of ammunition-handling evidence on Sheila's hands

[bob]

On of the biggest issues I have with believing that Shiela was responsible is the lack of any trace oils or other ammunition-related materials on Shiela's hands.

To quote from the 2002 judgement:

48. The act of loading the magazine of an automatic weapon (carried out at least twice in this case) would be expected to leave visible traces of the lubricant and the materials from the bullets on the hands.

49. DC Hammersley, the Scenes of Crimes Officer placed plastic bags over Sheila Caffell's hands and feet before her body was removed from the farmhouse. He saw some blood staining to the back of the right hand, but apart from that the hands, to his eye were clean and the nails intact. The deceased's feet were also free from blood staining and from any debris such as sugar.

50. Following removal of the bags at the mortuary, Sheila Caffell's hands and forehead were swabbed. Extremely low traces of lead were detected when the swabs were examined. Such levels being consistent with the levels found from the handling of every day things around the house. These results were compared to hand swabs taken from volunteers at the laboratory who were required to load the magazine with eighteen rounds of ammunition. Significantly higher traces of lead were found than those recorded on the hands of Mrs Caffell. The scientist Mr Elliott gave evidence that if Sheila Caffell had loaded eighteen cartridges into a magazine he would have expected the hand swabs to have revealed appreciably higher deposits of lead.

As anyone who's personally handled new ammunition will attest, it leaves a very distinct smell of oil/grease on your hands. I believe this would have been readily detectable, yet the records show no trace was found.

[mike tesko]

Original hand swab evidence was rejected at the lab' on 9th August 1985 (item 17), because of fears that it could be contaminated because they arrived at the lab' in the same packaging as other firearms connected to another investigation...

According to statement of DC Hammersley, he took possession of various exhibits at the Mortuary on 7th August 1985, including DRH/32, at 2:20pm, that same date and then took hand swabs from Sheila at this time (2;20pm), yet according to the Lab submission forms, hand swabs were taken from Sheila at the scene  at 11am, same date?

[mike tesko]

Please note, that at the time of these submissions to the lab', that the case file reference was SC/688/85, and the hand  swabs had the exhibit reference of DRH/33 - an important feature, because by the time the case filed changed in SC/786/85, the hand swabs had been given a different Exhibit reference of DRH/44...

[mb1]

The reason it was rejected was that it might give a false POSITIVE as it had been placed in packaging (independently wrapped) with firearms evidence from a different case.

There has been criticism that the same sample was re-submitted. This was examined in detail at the 2002 appeal. The conclusion reached was that the potential danger was as above, a false positive.

However, the fact remains, it tested NEGATIVE i.e. very low traces, associated with ordinary household living. There was no forensic evidence that she had loaded bullets or fired a gun. Her hands and feet were wrapped in plastic at the scene and removed at the autopsy.

[mike tesko]

The reason it was rejected was that it might give a false POSITIVE as it had been placed in packaging (independently wrapped) with firearms evidence from a different case.

There has been criticism that the same sample was re-submitted. This was examined in detail at the 2002 appeal. The conclusion reached was that the potential danger was as above, a false positive.

However, the fact remains, it tested NEGATIVE i.e. very low traces, associated with ordinary household living. There was no forensic evidence that she had loaded bullets or fired a gun. Her hands and feet were wrapped in plastic at the scene and removed at the autopsy.

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

Fact remains, documentation relating to the hand swabs were falsified, altered...

[Kaldin]

I read about the hand swabs. It seems that swabs were taken on 7th August and were received at the lab on 9th August. They were rejected because they arrived with another unrelated item and it was thought there may be a risk of contamination.

Then swabs arrived at the lab on 13th September. Were these the same swabs and why did they take so long to be resubmitted?

[mb1]

The reason it was rejected was that it might give a false POSITIVE as it had been placed in packaging (independently wrapped) with firearms evidence from a different case.

There has been criticism that the same sample was re-submitted. This was examined in detail at the 2002 appeal. The conclusion reached was that the potential danger was as above, a false positive.

However, the fact remains, it tested NEGATIVE i.e. very low traces, associated with ordinary household living. There was no forensic evidence that she had loaded bullets or fired a gun. Her hands and feet were wrapped in plastic at the scene and removed at the autopsy.

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

Fact remains, documentation relating to the hand swabs were falsified, altered...

have now seen the rest of the uploaded documents.

These are interesting in that they describe locations, rather than crosses on a plan. Usefu stuff. Thanks Mike.l.

[mike tesko]

The reason it was rejected was that it might give a false POSITIVE as it had been placed in packaging (independently wrapped) with firearms evidence from a different case.

There has been criticism that the same sample was re-submitted. This was examined in detail at the 2002 appeal. The conclusion reached was that the potential danger was as above, a false positive.

However, the fact remains, it tested NEGATIVE i.e. very low traces, associated with ordinary household living. There was no forensic evidence that she had loaded bullets or fired a gun. Her hands and feet were wrapped in plastic at the scene and removed at the autopsy.

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

Fact remains, documentation relating to the hand swabs were falsified, altered...

have now seen the rest of the uploaded documents.

These are interesting in that they describe locations, rather than crosses on a plan. Usefu stuff. Thanks Mike.l.

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

Notice how exhibit reference for hand swabs, changes from DRH/33 to DRH/44 (DRH/44 used to be bible)...

[bob]

The reason it was rejected was that it might give a false POSITIVE as it had been placed in packaging (independently wrapped) with firearms evidence from a different case.

There has been criticism that the same sample was re-submitted. This was examined in detail at the 2002 appeal. The conclusion reached was that the potential danger was as above, a false positive.

However, the fact remains, it tested NEGATIVE i.e. very low traces, associated with ordinary household living. There was no forensic evidence that she had loaded bullets or fired a gun. Her hands and feet were wrapped in plastic at the scene and removed at the autopsy.

Exactly. I'm really surprised there isn't more discussion on this point. It seems absolutely fundamental to whether Sheila could possibly have committed the murders. On this evidence alone it seems that she couldn't have.

This is a deal-breaker for me.

[bob]

Disappointed that this thread didn't have more legs.

Are those that believe Sheila is guilty just putting this issue into the "inconvenient so best off ignored" basket?

Surely it's fundamental to that arguement and has to be explained?

[Kaldin]

Disappointed that this thread didn't have more legs.

Are those that believe Sheila is guilty just putting this issue into the "inconvenient so best off ignored" basket?

Surely it's fundamental to that arguement and has to be explained?

Yes it is but I don't have much to say about it. Perhaps she washed her hands or perhaps she didn't handle the bullets.

[Dr Pal]

The reason it was rejected was that it might give a false POSITIVE as it had been placed in packaging (independently wrapped) with firearms evidence from a different case.

There has been criticism that the same sample was re-submitted. This was examined in detail at the 2002 appeal. The conclusion reached was that the potential danger was as above, a false positive.

However, the fact remains, it tested NEGATIVE i.e. very low traces, associated with ordinary household living. There was no forensic evidence that she had loaded bullets or fired a gun. Her hands and feet were wrapped in plastic at the scene and removed at the autopsy.

Exactly. I'm really surprised there isn't more discussion on this point. It seems absolutely fundamental to whether Sheila could possibly have committed the murders. On this evidence alone it seems that she couldn't have.

This is a deal-breaker for me.

On this evidence alone proves Bamber did it.

[chochokeira]

The reason it was rejected was that it might give a false POSITIVE as it had been placed in packaging (independently wrapped) with firearms evidence from a different case.

There has been criticism that the same sample was re-submitted. This was examined in detail at the 2002 appeal. The conclusion reached was that the potential danger was as above, a false positive.

However, the fact remains, it tested NEGATIVE i.e. very low traces, associated with ordinary household living. There was no forensic evidence that she had loaded bullets or fired a gun. Her hands and feet were wrapped in plastic at the scene and removed at the autopsy.

Exactly. I'm really surprised there isn't more discussion on this point. It seems absolutely fundamental to whether Sheila could possibly have committed the murders. On this evidence alone it seems that she couldn't have.

This is a deal-breaker for me.

On this evidence alone proves Bamber did it.

Ritualistic washing, guys, plus washing out some of her clothes. If she did this after the murders, which is I believe when the experts suggest it would be done, there wouldn't be any traces, would there?

[simong]

So you are saying that someone who has just killed their adoptive parents as well as the two children they have brought into the world, goes to the bathroom and washes their hands to make sure they are clean, then washes their clothes and then methodically shoots themselves twice because this is ritualistic of being a Paranoid Schizophrenic.

[mb1]

So you are saying that someone who has just killed their adoptive parents as well as the two children they have brought into the world, goes to the bathroom and washes their hands to make sure they are clean, then washes their clothes and then methodically shoots themselves twice because this is ritualistic of being a Paranoid Schizophrenic.

Welcome back SimonG!

It has to be more than her hands. SC would have to shower or bathe or seriously strip wash - no-one's blood/spatter or gun residue on her at all.
She then has to remove traces from shower/bath/sink.
Dispose of towels plus clothes (unless she carried out crimes dressed in just knickers and tights from bannisters) and gloves, as there were no prints on the 25 cartridges loaded.
She then puts on a clean nightgown but fails to put on fresh knickers - that jars - to kill herself.

As a model, someone keenly aware of appearances, wouldn't she have chosen to meet her maker in a special outfit and fully made up?
Time didn't matter, as she obviously did all of the above while the police were sitting outside.
Perhaps it was because she couldn't see in the dark, yet managed to get herself oh so clean...