Whose Bloodied right hand palm print was left on pages of bible?

[Caroline R]

i don't wish to be a damp squib but can someone please explain the significance of it appearing to be the case that the blood pattern on the bible is a palm print ?
Jim

Because it isn't mentioned anywhere!! AND if it turns out that it's Sheila's it PROVES her hands weren't spotless!! Which then begs the question of why they were reported as such ..... and on, and on ......

[jim ignatowski]

Because it isn't mentioned anywhere!! AND if it turns out that it's Sheila's it PROVES her hands weren't spotless!! Which then begs the question of why they were reported as such ..... and on, and on ......

hi Caroline
How can it be established that its Sheila's bloody palm print ?
Jim

[Caroline R]

Because it isn't mentioned anywhere!! AND if it turns out that it's Sheila's it PROVES her hands weren't spotless!! Which then begs the question of why they were reported as such ..... and on, and on ......

And if not Sheila's - who's is it? But that still begs the question of why there is no mentiion of it - it can't Jeremy's or I'm sure we would have heard about it long ago.

[jim ignatowski]

And if not Sheila's - who's is it? But that still begs the question of why there is no mentiion of it - it can't Jeremy's or I'm sure we would have heard about it long ago.

where is this bible now ?
Jim

[Bridget]

And if not Sheila's - who's is it? But that still begs the question of why there is no mentiion of it - it can't Jeremy's or I'm sure we would have heard about it long ago.

If no one has identified it as a palm print until now, what makes you think they've considered whether or not it is Jeremy's?

Plus, lets not forget that it hasn't actually been confirmed as being a palm print at all.

[Caroline R]

hi Caroline
How can it be established that its Sheila's bloody palm print ?
Jim

They took prints - obviously  they had to in order to establish which prints were hers at the scene. Whether that extended to palm prints, I have no idea.

People go on about how the same things just keep being regurgitated - I don't know what all of the implications are - maybe it's nothing BUT maybe it's something. Lets just see shall we?

[Caroline R]

If no one has identified it as a palm print until now, what makes you think they've considered whether or not it is Jeremy's?

Plus, lets not forget that it hasn't actually been confirmed as being a palm print at all.

Who said it wasn't identified as a palm print? It's seems obvious to me and has done for some time. I'm not asking you or anyone else to buy into it (although I think you think there's a strong possibility that it is). If it looks like a palm print on a fairly bad reproduced picture, it must be obvious from the original.

[Caroline R]

where is this bible now ?
Jim

No idea.

[Bridget]

Who said it wasn't identified as a palm print? It's seems obvious to me and has done for some time. I'm not asking you or anyone else to buy into it (although I think you think there's a strong possibility that it is). If it looks like a palm print on a fairly bad reproduced picture, it must be obvious from the original.

Or it could be obvious that it isn't.

I haven't seen it described as a palm print anywhere else, but it does certainly look like one. The CoA suggested (as I did wrongly) that it was a transfer from the carpet so certainly no one was suggesting it was a palm print in 2002.

[Bridget]

Here is what I'm thinking..

If it is a palm print and it could be shown to be Sheila's, it damages the police evidence with regards the cleanliness of her hands and as a knock on effect, the hand swab evidence.

If it is a palm print and it's shown to be JBs, he's toast.

If it is a palm print and it's shown to be June of Neville's, it means nothing.

If it is a palm print you'd better hope its Sheila's!

[Caroline R]

Or it could be obvious that it isn't.

I haven't seen it described as a palm print anywhere else, but it does certainly look like one. The CoA suggested (as I did wrongly) that it was a transfer from the carpet so certainly no one was suggesting it was a palm print in 2002.

Exactly Bridget, they made a mistake by not turning it over in their minds eye. It's easy done - but it looks like no one realised that the stain on the carpet is under the wrong page to transfer to that side of the book. I knew there was something wrong with the COA description and I mentioned about the stain being on the wrong side a short while after joining but no one seemed interested. I think there was a big argument about the picture on the bed at the time. However, it looks like a palm print, it's on the wrong side to be from the stain on the floor so I'm going with palm print and Mikes suggestion actually seems quite plausible. I have wondered before why there is only finger prints on Sheila's nightdress that seem to end abruptly.

[Bridget]

Exactly Bridget, they made a mistake by not turning it over in their minds eye. It's easy done - but it looks like no one realised that the stain on the carpet is under the wrong page to transfer to that side of the book. I knew there was something wrong with the COA description and I mentioned about the stain being on the wrong side a short while after joining but no one seemed interested. I think there was a big argument about the picture on the bed at the time. However, it looks like a palm print, it's on the wrong side to be from the stain on the floor so I'm going with palm print and Mikes suggestion actually seems quite plausible. I have wondered before why there is only finger prints on Sheila's nightdress that seem to end abruptly.

Ok, I agree it looks like a palm print but see above

[Caroline R]

Here is what I'm thinking..

If it is a palm print and it could be shown to be Sheila's, it damages the police evidence with regards the cleanliness of her hands and as a knock on effect, the hand swab evidence.

If it is a palm print and it's shown to be JBs, he's toast.

If it is a palm print and it's shown to be June of Neville's, it means nothing.

If it is a palm print you'd better hope its Sheila's!

If it is JB's then he's be guilty beyond doubt!! I'd be happy with that, at least I would KNOW an innocent hasn't had the best years of his life stolen. However, it looks too small to be a man's hand!!

[Caroline R]

Ok, I agree it looks like a palm print but see above

Wow!! You actually agree with me on something (about the case). I'm gobsmacked!! 

[Bridget]

If it is JB's then he's be guilty beyond doubt!! I'd be happy with that, at least I would KNOW an innocent hasn't had the best years of his life stolen. However, it looks too small to be a man's hand!!

So you're a palm print expert already?

Wow!! You actually agree with me on something (about the case). I'm gobsmacked!! 

I often agree with you, I just don't tell you