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

[Caroline R]

That is a relief!

Ha, ha!! must have taken ages to type out - I wouldn't have had the heart to just say "Nah" 

But it is more or less what I was thinking this afternoon. It would be natural to put your hand over a wound so (to me) having no blood on her hands would be unlikely.

[Jane]

I have a theory about how this mark on bible and nightgown came about. Some will say it is far out, but so many things are - the crimescene in and of itself is far out and even more so the handling of it by police. So I take a deep breath and throw it out there.
I think that after the first shot, which obviously was not fatal, Sheila immediately and automatically moved her right hand up to her wound. Blood poured from it to her hand and down her lower arm.
Here I have some experience and have seen blood pool EXACTLY as the blood on Sheila´s lower arm (which some think are scratch-marks, I don´t). My husband had a sudden and violent nosebleed. He leaned forward and quick as lightning put his arm up to his nose. I saw, with my own two eyes, how the blood ran down his lower arm JUST LIKE THE STREAMS ON SHEILA´S ARM! To my amazement, the bloodstreams stopped and pooled half-way - yes, just like on Sheila´s arm. The blood dried very quickly, that was odd, but it did. Wish I had taken a picture, but that would have peed my husband off maybe a tad.... LOL, I just sat there staring at it as it was. Another detail: he didn´t get one single drop of blood on the front of his white shirt - drops on the floor though.
So, I think that POSSIBLY Sheila put her hand on the bible she had with her to gather strength after this, and then fired again, this time "successfully".
There should be blood traces on the rifle in the trigger area with this theory, there probably was. How couldn´t there have been in any case, whether Sheila did it or Jeremy. The handling of evidence leaves a lot of room for theories like this one of mine! 

Far out. FAR OUT!!???  ALIAS, as theories go, it sure beats the hell out of some that have been put forward here. Females put their hands up the the place where they've picked a spot so it makes perfect sense that she would put her hand up to a bloody wound.

[Alias]

Far out. FAR OUT!!???  ALIAS, as theories go, it sure beats the hell out of some that have been put forward here. Females put their hands up the the place where they've picked a spot so it makes perfect sense that she would put her hand up to a bloody wound.

Some will think that it is far out.... 

[Caroline R]

Some will think that it is far out.... 

Yep, no doubt. I'm sure they are gathering their spanners as I type this 

[Jane]

Some will think that it is far out.... 

Alias, it would appear that your theory is SO together that you even have a thread named after you :D :D :D

[Bridget]

And you of course, are enitled to your opinion - like I said, you don't have to buy into it. But I can see blood on the ball of her thumb - I have pretty good eye sight, I'm not going mad - it's there. The print on the bible does fit with with the marks on the nighdress but again - you don't have to agree. But in my book seeing is believing!!

The reason I don't buy into these theories is because almost invariably some part of every single one eventually relies on inventing something for which there is no evidence, or ignoring as an inconvenience contradictory evidence, or, as in this particular case, both.

There is no evidence that there is blood on the fingers and palms of Sheila's hands. There is expert witness evidence that in fact there was no blood on the palms or fingers of Sheila's hands. But in an effort to prove that the 'palm print' (if that is what it is) is Sheila's you start with the palm print and conclude that because it exists it is proof in itself that there was blood on Sheila's hands and therefore the palm print must be hers. Similar applies to the 'finger marks'. When you add that to the fact that someone obviously closed the bible and opened it again before it wound up on Sheila's body it's no wonder the defence didn't go there.

[Caroline R]

The reason I don't buy into these theories is because almost invariably some part of every single one eventually relies on inventing something for which there is no evidence, or ignoring as an inconvenience contradictory evidence, or, as in this particular case, both.

There is no evidence that there is blood on the fingers and palms of Sheila's hands. There is expert witness evidence that in fact there was no blood on the palms or fingers of Sheila's hands. But in an effort to prove that the 'palm print' (if that is what it is) is Sheila's you start with the palm print and conclude that because it exists it is proof in itself that there was blood on Sheila's hands and therefore the palm print must be hers. Similar applies to the 'finger marks'. When you add that to the fact that someone obviously closed the bible and opened it again before it wound up on Sheila's body it's no wonder the defence didn't go there.

Oh but they do ......

[Lugg]

I guess if the blood which had previously been on her hand became transferred to her nightdress and bible, there would have been no more than a stain left on her hand and it wouldn't have run.

That seems quite logical to me. If it had been a man's hand then I suspect that much would have been made of that in court by the prosefution in order to further incriminate Bamber.

[Alias]

The reason I don't buy into these theories is because almost invariably some part of every single one eventually relies on inventing something for which there is no evidence, or ignoring as an inconvenience contradictory evidence, or, as in this particular case, both.

There is no evidence that there is blood on the fingers and palms of Sheila's hands. There is expert witness evidence that in fact there was no blood on the palms or fingers of Sheila's hands. But in an effort to prove that the 'palm print' (if that is what it is) is Sheila's you start with the palm print and conclude that because it exists it is proof in itself that there was blood on Sheila's hands and therefore the palm print must be hers. Similar applies to the 'finger marks'. When you add that to the fact that someone obviously closed the bible and opened it again before it wound up on Sheila's body it's no wonder the defence didn't go there.

In essence I do agree with you. I don´t fling around theories that often, but today I felt compelled.
I do see this bloodied hand print positioned in a way that it would have been natural for Sheila to have made it, and I do think the marks on her nightgown look like finger-imprints, not palm prints. I have always thought that.

April, have to check that thread out!

[lookout]

There was no blooming evidence at the trial either.    Certainly nothing like this,anyway.

[Alias]

Alias, it would appear that your theory is SO together that you even have a thread named after you :D :D :D

There is no thread. It must have been taken down FAST! LOL

[maggie]

In essence I do agree with you. I don´t fling around theories that often, but today I felt compelled.
I do see this bloodied hand print positioned in a way that it would have been natural for Sheila to have made it, and I do think the marks on her nightgown look like finger-imprints, not palm prints. I have always thought that.

April, have to check that thread out!

I also have to agree, I am often sceptical like Alias and others but I find this quite compelling.  I can also see that Caroline's palm print in paint was extremely close in appearance to the blood stain and I agree the stain on her nightie looks very much like bloodied fingers.   So they belonged to someone and as usual all has been destroyed so there is no chance of testing.   
 

[Bridget]

In essence I do agree with you. I don´t fling around theories that often, but today I felt compelled.
I do see this bloodied hand print positioned in a way that it would have been natural for Sheila to have made it, and I do think the marks on her nightgown look like finger-imprints, not palm prints. I have always thought that.

April, have to check that thread out!

Alias I agree with your assessment of the blood trails, and I agree that the marks look like finger and palm prints, where I parted company with your theory was your conclusion that the blood was in her hand because you simply dismissed the witness evidence that there was none in her hand. How would you explain that? For me the simple explanation is that the palm print either isn't a palm print or it's from someone else's palm, and the finger marks are in fact blood transferred from her wrist as Vanezis (who had the advantage of actually seeing it in person) submitted.

[Alias]

Maybe we can lure Caroline into painting her hand yet again, lie down on the floor with a book about the same thickness of the opened bible, a old t-shirt or some other garment and place her hand the same way? Caroline, you would have to have someone take the picture.
Some other volunteers?

[maggie]

Maybe we can lure Caroline into painting her hand yet again, lie down on the floor with a book about the same thickness of the opened bible, a old t-shirt or some other garment and place her hand the same way? Caroline, you would have to have someone take the picture.
Some other volunteers?

I volunteer alias but it's a bit of a journey!!!