The breaking of the rifle stock

[Alias]

Thank you scipio, that is very interesting. So this superglue vapor will have no effect upon any blood that may have been in the barrel of the gun?

I think it would. It would have an effect on anything it would come into contact with. A vapour of glue. I don´t know exactly how that would affect blood, would need to ask an expert.

[scipio_usmc]

Thank you scipio, that is very interesting. So this superglue vapor will have no effect upon any blood that may have been in the barrel of the gun?

No if it did then it would not be able to be used to lift latent prints left in blood and a different process would have to be used if blood is a potential source of latent prints.  But fortunately that is not the case.  As crazy as it seems they have even super glue fumed vehicles.

There are little things that matter for instance there are agents used to enhace blood stains like amido black. If you intend to use water based amido black it is best to do it before super glue fuming because
super glue treatment has the potential to inhibit effectiveness of water based amido black.  It won't always but it could whereas methanol based amido black is not affected so if amido black is used after super glue fuming then it is typically methanol.

There are all sorts of little rules like this but none of them have any implications for the considerations at play in the Bamber case.   

[Jan]

Do you know what I think is strange - if there was only a partial print of JB and SC then surely that would indicate the gun had been cleaned in some way .

If you were a murderer that planned this for months then surely you would 

1) wear gloves
2) press SC prints all over the gun to prove that she had been firing it and beating someone with it.
3) Would there not have been fibres from the gloves he used as well?

Odd that  because apparently he planned the phones/bed/ destroying his clothes /timings/ getting back to the house / and getting out of a locked window ?

yet the most obvious thing was missed?

[scipio_usmc]

Do you know what I think is strange - if there was only a partial print of JB and SC then surely that would indicate the gun had been cleaned in some way .

If you were a murderer that planned this for months then surely you would 

1) wear gloves
2) press SC prints all over the gun to prove that she had been firing it and beating someone with it.
3) Would there not have been fibres from the gloves he used as well?

Odd that  because apparently he planned the phones/bed/ destroying his clothes /timings/ getting back to the house / and getting out of a locked window ?

yet the most obvious thing was missed?

He obviously wiped the gun down before he started but either failed to clean it sufficiently leaving a single print behind or he left the print when his glove came off.  He noted he was scared a glove came off and a print had been left. It coudl simply have been missed when he wiped it down or that he accidentally transferred it during the murders we have no way of knowing which.

If he hadn't worn gloves he would have hurt his hand when the rifle stock broke and could have left prints in his own blood. He also would likely have left prints in the blood of the victims that was on the weapon.  The weapon have a good amount of blood on it and touching it would have resulted in leaving his prints in the blood if he had not been wearing gloves.  Both of these are strong signs gloves were worn.  If the killer wiped down the whole gun after the murders then the back spatter would not have remained on the weapon to the extent it did.  Yet that spatter exhibited no prints.  The lack of any substantial cut fromt he broken stock also is a strong indication of glove use.

Taking the hands of a deadperson and making sure they leave prints is not that easy.  If their hands are clean it is difficult to force a print to be left.  Placing a foreign agent on the hands and then pressing them against the item helps but most criminal are not aware of this. The natural body functions that enable leaving prints are sweat and oils that are secreted as the body cleans the skin.  Obviously once dead the hands are not going to perspire and the natural skin cleansing process ceases.  So whatever is on the hands at the time of death is all that can be used unless you intentionally stick a foreign substance on the hands and then apply them. But that can be obvious too if you apply something the person would not having a reason to have on their hands it can give away that the prints were being planted.   

   

[grahameb]

Do you know what I think is strange - if there was only a partial print of JB and SC then surely that would indicate the gun had been cleaned in some way .

If you were a murderer that planned this for months then surely you would 

1) wear gloves
2) press SC prints all over the gun to prove that she had been firing it and beating someone with it.
3) Would there not have been fibres from the gloves he used as well?

Odd that  because apparently he planned the phones/bed/ destroying his clothes /timings/ getting back to the house / and getting out of a locked window ?

yet the most obvious thing was missed?

Well certainly I would have thought if he wanted to implicate Sheila in the crime he would have made sure to have plastered her prints all over the gun? According to some he made sure he had an alibi for everything else. But he cleaned the gun. I often wonder why? It is little oddities like this that cause me to doubt. No one has been able to give a satisfactory explanation yet.

[Jan]

He obviously wiped the gun down before he started but either failed to clean it sufficiently leaving a single print behind or he left the print when his glove came off.  He noted he was scared a glove came off and a print had been left. It coudl simply have been missed when he wiped it down or that he accidentally transferred it during the murders we have no way of knowing which.

If he hadn't worn gloves he would have hurt his hand when the rifle stock broke and could have left prints in his own blood. He also would likely have left prints in the blood of the victims that was on the weapon.  The weapon have a good amount of blood on it and touching it would have resulted in leaving his prints in the blood if he had not been wearing gloves.  Both of these are strong signs gloves were worn.  If the killer wiped down the whole gun after the murders then the back spatter would not have remained on the weapon to the extent it did.  Yet that spatter exhibited no prints.  The lack of any substantial cut fromt he broken stock also is a strong indication of glove use.

Taking the hands of a deadperson and making sure they leave prints is not that easy.  If their hands are clean it is difficult to force a print to be left.  Placing a foreign agent on the hands and then pressing them against the item helps but most criminal are not aware of this. The natural body functions that enable leaving prints are sweat and oils that are secreted as the body cleans the skin.  Obviously once dead the hands are not going to perspire and the natural skin cleansing process ceases.  So whatever is on the hands at the time of death is all that can be used unless you intentionally stick a foreign substance on the hands and then apply them. But that can be obvious too if you apply something the person would not having a reason to have on their hands it can give away that the prints were being planted.   

   

really - that's your opinion because you Know its difficult to leave prints - but lets face it JB was not a hardened criminal he had no previous record - he probably would not know that - so IF he wiped the gun then that was possibly the most incriminating thing he did . If he placed her hands on the gun immediately after he led her to her death and she knew he had killed her sons I would imagine her hands would have been pretty sweaty - wouldn't you?

So Sorry I am not agreeing with your argument. I don't think he would have missed the opportunity to put her hands on the gun immediately after he killed her.

[grahameb]

He obviously wiped the gun down before he started but either failed to clean it sufficiently leaving a single print behind or he left the print when his glove came off.  He noted he was scared a glove came off and a print had been left. It coudl simply have been missed when he wiped it down or that he accidentally transferred it during the murders we have no way of knowing which.

If he hadn't worn gloves he would have hurt his hand when the rifle stock broke and could have left prints in his own blood. He also would likely have left prints in the blood of the victims that was on the weapon.  The weapon have a good amount of blood on it and touching it would have resulted in leaving his prints in the blood if he had not been wearing gloves.  Both of these are strong signs gloves were worn.  If the killer wiped down the whole gun after the murders then the back spatter would not have remained on the weapon to the extent it did.  Yet that spatter exhibited no prints.  The lack of any substantial cut fromt he broken stock also is a strong indication of glove use.

Taking the hands of a deadperson and making sure they leave prints is not that easy.  If their hands are clean it is difficult to force a print to be left.  Placing a foreign agent on the hands and then pressing them against the item helps but most criminal are not aware of this. The natural body functions that enable leaving prints are sweat and oils that are secreted as the body cleans the skin.  Obviously once dead the hands are not going to perspire and the natural skin cleansing process ceases.  So whatever is on the hands at the time of death is all that can be used unless you intentionally stick a foreign substance on the hands and then apply them. But that can be obvious too if you apply something the person would not having a reason to have on their hands it can give away that the prints were being planted.

   

I know you've gone to a lot of trouble coming up with that theory scipio. But I trow that most of what you have said is just guesswork? I can't see Jeremy standing there thinking to himself, "Hmm, taking fingerprints from a dead person is not that easy, so that's no good? I know, let's try treacle" He would have just gone ahead and done it.

[Jan]

So we are left with options

JB was extremely stupid ( that does not tie up with everything else he planned did it?) and used gloves - wiped the gun ( but left some blood that they could not ID) and some partial prints but no fibres from his gloves ( that were never found)

SC did it and her prints were on the gun but someone else wiped it?

JB did it put her prints on the gun , but someone else wiped it?

[scipio_usmc]

I know you've gone to a lot of trouble coming up with that theory scipio. But I trow that most of what you have said is just guesswork? I can't see Jeremy standing there thinking to himself, "Hmm, taking fingerprints from a dead person is not that easy, so that's no good? I know, let's try treacle" He would have just gone ahead and done it.

The issue is that he obviously tried to plant her prints but only managed to leave a single print and the reason why is because it is not that easy to do when someone has clean hands and is dead.

[lookout]

 Daft question,Grahame. Was Jeremy bailed ?

[grahameb]

So we are left with options

JB was extremely stupid ( that does not tie up with everything else he planned did it?) and used gloves - wiped the gun ( but left some blood that they could not ID) and some partial prints but no fibres from his gloves ( that were never found)

SC did it and her prints were on the gun but someone else wiped it?

JB did it put her prints on the gun , but someone else wiped it?

Aren't we forgetting something? There is all this talk about blood in the silencer. But if Jeremy took the silencer off in order to shoot Sheila, why then was no blood found in the rifle? Personally I think there is too much made of this supposed "drawback"? Anyone want to volunteer to shoot someone in the bum to see if it's true?

[grahameb]

The issue is that he obviously tried to plant her prints but only managed to leave a single print and the reason why is because it is not that easy to do when someone has clean hands and is dead.

But apparently she had blood on her hands? Also how would he know if he was unsuccessful or not? Nah! sounds like guesswork on your part to me? Next time someone dies I'll try it.

[Jan]

The issue is that he obviously tried to plant her prints but only managed to leave a single print and the reason why is because it is not that easy to do when someone has clean hands and is dead.

its not obvious -I think she would have been scared and sweating profusely - so that counters your argument.

[scipio_usmc]

So we are left with options

JB was extremely stupid ( that does not tie up with everything else he planned did it?) and used gloves - wiped the gun ( but left some blood that they could not ID) and some partial prints but no fibres from his gloves ( that were never found)

SC did it and her prints were on the gun but someone else wiped it?

JB did it put her prints on the gun , but someone else wiped it?

If the gun had been wiped after the murders then the back spatter found on the gun would not have been there to find.  At best after the murders there might have been a wipedown of the stock where he though his glove came off and though he had touched.  The back spatter all around the barrel and main portion of the rifle would not have been there if wiped down.

The wipe down was before and gloves clearly used.  Sheila had no reason to use gloves though during the murders and to taken them off as she killed herself nor were any gloves found that she could have used.  The stock breaking would damage a hand unless wearing gloves and she had no damage, her long nails  would also have some damage if using the rifle to batter someone.

[scipio_usmc]

Aren't we forgetting something? There is all this talk about blood in the silencer. But if Jeremy took the silencer off in order to shoot Sheila, why then was no blood found in the rifle? Personally I think there is too much made of this supposed "drawback"? Anyone want to volunteer to shoot someone in the bum to see if it's true?

He took it off after he killed Sheila.  That was one of his fatal flaws.