The breaking of the rifle stock

[lookout]

 You couldn't swing a cat in it Susan,I don't know about anything else.

[grahameb]

1) Sweat leaves latent prints. It is 1 of 2 natural body functions that result in leaving prints the other is oil the body forms to cleanse the skin

2) foreign substances on the hands OR on the object being touched enable prints to be left. The ifle had blood on it, touching such blood coudl result in leaving a print on the gun and transferring blood to the fingers so that the fingers could leave bloody prints on other objects as well.

3) Prior to committing the murders Jeremy likely wiped the gun down to try to eliminate his prints from having handled the gun in the past. That is the most rational explanation for so few prints being found on the gun including none at all from Nevill. Wiping it down after would have washed the blood away so it wasn't washed after.

4) If Jeremy was the killer then the tale about taking the gun out to shoot rabbits is pure fiction.  He took out the gun to take off the scope and load the magazine so that later on he could just take it and use it.  No way would he leave the gun around where someone could end up hiding it so he could not find it.  He either would put it back in the closet or hide it someplace where only he would know to go fetch it. He could have wiped it down after he removed the scope or right before he carried out the murders we have no way to know which.

6) A dead person with clean hands will be more difficult to get to leave fingerprints than someone with dirty hands.  The cleaner the object like the stock which was not full of oil or grease or the like the harder to get to leave prints. A dead person also will have less oil on their fingers than someone living because the skin stops secreting oil so the sooner the better and your best bet is to take a finger like you are fingerprinting the person abd press each finger hard and roll it.  It is highly doubtful Jeremy did that or there would have likely been more prints successfully left.

7) criminals don't think about everything in advance that they should, don't know all there is to know about staging scenes and planting evidence and make mistakes.  The news just had a guy who broke into a house and got busted because he broke in and during the course of the burglary decided to check his facebook page and forgot to sign out of his facebook account and left the computer still on.

I doubt that Jeremy knew about all that stuff? As you said yourself criminals do not think of everything. So he probably would have done it anyway? In any case allegedly he'd only just shot her. So all that about a dead person stopping secreting oil would not apply. Nah! I don't buy your theory.

[scipio_usmc]

I doubt that Jeremy knew about all that stuff? As you said yourself criminals do not think of everything. So he probably would have done it anyway? In any case allegedly he'd only just shot her. So all that about a dead person stopping secreting oil would not apply. Nah! I don't buy your theory.

Don't buy what theory?  That he wouldn't have pressed her fingers individually as if rolling a fingerprint onto a card?  Because unless he did that or bothered to put something on her hands to help then he would not have a great chance of leaving multiple nice clear prints.

The theory that he can't have done it because he would have definitely rolled her fingers and definitely left many nice clear prints is the theory that is hard to buy.

[Steve_uk]

Don't buy what theory?  That he wouldn't have pressed her fingers individually as if rolling a fingerprint onto a card?  Because unless he did that or bothered to put something on her hands to help then he would not have a great chance of leaving multiple nice clear prints.

The theory that he can't have done it because he would have definitely rolled her fingers and definitely left many nice clear prints is the theory that is hard to buy.

I was never quite clear why Jeremy purportedly told Julie he had to wipe the gun because a glove came off in the fight with Nevill. Maybe his fingerprints would be smudged in blood which necessitated towelling it down,but surely Sheila's prints wouldn't be on it at that stage?

[scipio_usmc]

I was never quite clear why Jeremy purportedly told Julie he had to wipe the gun because a glove came off in the fight with Nevill. Maybe his fingerprints would be smudged in blood which necessitated towelling it down,but surely Sheila's prints wouldn't be on it at that stage?

It makes it sound like he told her that he planted Sheila's prints on the gun earlier by making her hold it but then during the struggle with Nevill they could have been wiped away by his gloved hands grabbing at the gun or Nevill's prints could have been added as he was grabbing at it or the killer's prints could have been added if a glove came off which might have happened.  If we take her claim at face value he was vague enough to have implied MM's glove could have come off and resulted in him leaving a print.  She doesn't say straight out he admitted he did it and tha this glove might have come off. Her claim still leaves th epossibility of Jeremy saying MM's glove might have came off.

Since he made up a lot of things he told her we have no way to know if any of this is true or not.  I tend to believe he didn't make up a glove possibly coming off and that he was worried that happened but have some doubts about him planting Sheila's prints beforehand. 

Still there were other accounts that right before the murders he was making Sheila handle a gun I forget which relative saw that and asked if it was wise.  So you never know maybe he did make Sheila handle the gun to try to get her prints on it before carrying out the murders.  He could have wiped it down and then gave it to her to handle and try to make sure she touched places where he would not ordinarily hold it.  The accounts of him teaching her to use a gun could have been him trying to get her prints on it.

I don't remember how long before the murders that supposedly was though and worrying about fresh prints it would be best to try planting them after she was dead because blood could cover them and they could be wiped away from use.

We simply have no way to know for sure though what he did precisely to try to plant her prints.  All we know is it didn't work well.

[lookout]

 PRINTS.

 Why wasn't the Bible scrutinised ? Whose prints/blood was on it ?

[grahameb]

Don't buy what theory?  That he wouldn't have pressed her fingers individually as if rolling a fingerprint onto a card?  Because unless he did that or bothered to put something on her hands to help then he would not have a great chance of leaving multiple nice clear prints.

The theory that he can't have done it because he would have definitely rolled her fingers and definitely left many nice clear prints is the theory that is hard to buy.

No mate, sorry. In order to get her prints onto the gun, which was a nice shiny serface. Nay problem for Bamber. But then again if there were fingerprints on it and there were at least two, one of Sheilas and one of Jeremy's.

Because there was one of Sheila's this is concrete proof that she came in contact with the gun. It most certainly does not prove that Jeremy pressed her fingers onto the gun, which of course goes against what you yourself are contending, that Jeremy could only transfer her prints onto the gun if he had rolled them on. It also goes against you other contention that dead bodies do not secrete oil. If that is so then the only conclusion you can come to is that Sheila was alive when her fingerprints found their way onto the gun.

[lookout]

 If a surface had been " wiped down ",forensic testing would still detect minute traces of whatever was used.The same as wearing gloves,fibres would then come into play. Forensic testing is very accurate.

[scipio_usmc]

No mate, sorry. In order to get her prints onto the gun, which was a nice shiny serface. Nay problem for Bamber. But then again if there were fingerprints on it and there were at least two, one of Sheilas and one of Jeremy's.

Because there was one of Sheila's this is concrete proof that she came in contact with the gun. It most certainly does not prove that Jeremy pressed her fingers onto the gun, which of course goes against what you yourself are contending, that Jeremy could only transfer her prints onto the gun if he had rolled them on. It also goes against you other contention that dead bodies do not secrete oil. If that is so then the only conclusion you can come to is that Sheila was alive when her fingerprints found their way onto the gun.

The gun was left on her body with her hands on it- we already had concrete proof she came in contact with the gun.  A dead body stops producing oil but could still have oil OR other materials on their fingers that got there before death.

To shoot everyone she would have had one hand on the foregrip and one hand on the trigger/narrow area of the stock where it attached to the rifle. Were her prints found in either location?  No though that is where she would have held it while shooting everyone and also would have held it when beating Nevill. Her only print was found on the wide part of the stock and it could have gotten there either from the killer placing her hand on the stock to try to get it there after she died or by making her handle it sometime before she died.  There is no way to know.  For sure it didn't get there while shooting or killing anyone because the trigger could not be reached by a hand on that part of the stock.

[grahameb]

The gun was left on her body with her hands on it- we already had concrete proof she came in contact with the gun.  A dead body stops producing oil but could still have oil OR other materials on their fingers that got there before death.

To shoot everyone she would have had one hand on the foregrip and one hand on the trigger/narrow area of the stock where it attached to the rifle. Were her prints found in either location?  No though that is where she would have held it while shooting everyone and also would have held it when beating Nevill. Her only print was found on the wide part of the stock and it could have gotten there either from the killer placing her hand on the stock to try to get it there after she died or by making her handle it sometime before she died.  There is no way to know.  For sure it didn't get there while shooting or killing anyone because the trigger could not be reached by a hand on that part of the stock.

Yes I'd have to agree with you on that one. I think the gun was definitely wiped by someone in some way or another. But saying that I must still disagree with you on the bit about the dead body stops producing secretions. In some instances that it true. But in other ways it is not true, as the body secretes many fluids after death. But having said that we must remember that if Bamber did kill her and he desired to imprint her fingerprints on the gun, then she would not have been long dead, so the secretions would not have been a problem.

[scipio_usmc]

Yes I'd have to agree with you on that one. I think the gun was definitely wiped by someone in some way or another. But saying that I must still disagree with you on the bit about the dead body stops producing secretions. In some instances that it true. But in other ways it is not true, as the body secretes many fluids after death. But having said that we must remember that if Bamber did kill her and he desired to imprint her fingerprints on the gun, then she would not have been long dead, so the secretions would not have been a problem.

If the gun was wiped down there would not have been the blood on it that was there.  If he made her touch it before the murders there is still the issue that even living people do not leave that many prints around. If they have dirty hands the chance is greater.  Depending on what kind of gloves he used they could potentially wipe away prints if they were in a place he touched with the gloves.  That is why beforehand you would want to put the prints in places you would not need to touch to commit the murders.  That presents the problem though of the prints not proving the person was necessarily the shooter.

Anyone could have potentially picked the gun up for an innocent reason.

The smartest thing to do is try to plant the prints later and to do so not by casually placing the hand against the gun but rather using pressure to roll a print or even to use 1 finger on the cuticle of each of Sheila's fingers in unison and then push her thumb. Idelaly this should be done on the foregrip and the stock where the gun meets.  Even that might not be overly successful but has a better chance than to not push down each finger.  Personally I see the GSR and foreign back spatter as much more crucial so would have concentrated on trying to plant that.  That is how you prove someone fired a weapon/beat Nevill with it.

There is a fine line though between successfully planting evidence and leaving telltale clues that evidence was planted so there is always a risk.   

[Steve_uk]

It makes it sound like he told her that he planted Sheila's prints on the gun earlier by making her hold it but then during the struggle with Nevill they could have been wiped away by his gloved hands grabbing at the gun or Nevill's prints could have been added as he was grabbing at it or the killer's prints could have been added if a glove came off which might have happened.  If we take her claim at face value he was vague enough to have implied MM's glove could have come off and resulted in him leaving a print.  She doesn't say straight out he admitted he did it and tha this glove might have come off. Her claim still leaves th epossibility of Jeremy saying MM's glove might have came off.

Since he made up a lot of things he told her we have no way to know if any of this is true or not.  I tend to believe he didn't make up a glove possibly coming off and that he was worried that happened but have some doubts about him planting Sheila's prints beforehand. 

Still there were other accounts that right before the murders he was making Sheila handle a gun I forget which relative saw that and asked if it was wise.  So you never know maybe he did make Sheila handle the gun to try to get her prints on it before carrying out the murders.  He could have wiped it down and then gave it to her to handle and try to make sure she touched places where he would not ordinarily hold it.  The accounts of him teaching her to use a gun could have been him trying to get her prints on it.

I don't remember how long before the murders that supposedly was though and worrying about fresh prints it would be best to try planting them after she was dead because blood could cover them and they could be wiped away from use.

We simply have no way to know for sure though what he did precisely to try to plant her prints.  All we know is it didn't work well.

Of course what Jeremy told Julie at Goldhanger does not have to be gospel truth but I don't see Jeremy pressing a gun into Sheila's hand at some stage before he has dealt with the threats in the household,so this does remain yet another mystery.

[scipio_usmc]

Of course what Jeremy told Julie at Goldhanger does not have to be gospel truth but I don't see Jeremy pressing a gun into Sheila's hand at some stage before he has dealt with the threats in the household,so this does remain yet another mystery.

During the course of the murders it would definitely not make sense.

He could have tried it before the murders.  Before going home he could have tried to make her handle the unloaded weapon or even sometime prior to that though it would not make too much sense because the further away the more the chance of someone else touching it.

Not only did he not necessarily tell her the whole truth though she might not have fully understood everything he was telling her.  So there is ample opportunity for details to be messed up and for all we know she forgot or didn't appreciate things he said that could have been more damning. 

One thing she said that interested me was that relatively early on she threatened telling on him because he pissed her off but he responded saying he was bulletproof and that police would not believe her.  I wonder what he did and more about the circumstances.  She didn't elaborate and no one ever asked her.