The breaking of the rifle stock

[Jan]

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.

? why would he wipe the barrel it would only have blood from her "staged suicide" no need to wipe that?

[grahameb]

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.

But as with the silencer it would have been found inside the gun if he had taken off the silencer in order to shoot Sheila. Personally because the police handled the gun I rather think it was them who wiped the gun down, as there was one police fingerprint on the gun.

[scipio_usmc]

? why would he wipe the barrel it would only have blood from her "staged suicide" no need to wipe that?

The barrel had blood spatter from the victims.  There was both high velocity spatter (from gunshots) and medium velocity spatter (from the beating).  If he had not been wearing gloves then he woudl have needed to wipe down the barrel because he could have left latent prints in the blood and even coudl have lef this own blood on it somewhere.  But since he was wearing gloves he had no need to wipe down the rifle except where perhaps the stock where he thought his hand might have come into contact. 

So that is why we know he didn't wipe down the gun after the murders except maybe the stock though he might not have wiped it down either.

[scipio_usmc]

But as with the silencer it would have been found inside the gun if he had taken off the silencer in order to shoot Sheila. Personally because the police handled the gun I rather think it was them who wiped the gun down, as there was one police fingerprint on the gun.

1) It wasn't wiped down, it had a considerable amount of blood on it.  Some of it was high velocity spatter (small drops) but the more considerable amounts was clearly from Nevill as he was beaten.  If Jeremy had not used gloves then his prints would have been found in that blood the same way Sheila's prints would have been found in it if she had been the killer. Some of that blood could also come from a killer who had not been wearing gloves since the rifle stock would have damaged the hand tha thad been holding the stock when it broke.  So that is another reason it would need to be wiped down.  But such blood wa snot cleaned from the rifle and it wasn't cleaned because the killer had been wearing gloves so had no need to clean it.

2) He didn't remove the moderator until after he killed Sheila.  Had he removed the moderator before he killed Sheila then yes her blood would have been in the muzzle of the rifle instead. But the muzzle was clean and her blood was in the moderator which means it was attached when she was killed. 

The moderator and scope are problems no matter what .  He had a reason to use the moderator but the scope would be a hindrance, it would block good aiming at close quarters.  There was no reason to remove the scope except to use the weapon as close quarters. The claim it was found in the closet without the scope and moderator is not credible. But saying it was found with the moderator attached but not the scope is even less credible.  Removing the scope is least credible but especially removing it and leaving the moderator.  So he decided to pretend that both accessories would usually be removed for storage purposes.  Hence his story the gun had no accessories.  Which leads to a big problem with the moderator being used at all because that means Sheila would have to have fetched it and attached it.  That is not consistent with the crazy rage claims though.  So it was a quandry no matter what.

Even replacing the scope after the murders would not have been helpful because it would lack blood that it would have gotten on it while Nevill was being beaten.  That would have revealed it was replaced later.

In hindsight moving her flat was a big screwup as well.  But you think about some things and not necessarily all things when planning a murder.  That is why some are lazy and burn the place afterwards to try to conceal evidence.

       

[Steve_uk]

1) It wasn't wiped down, it had a considerable amount of blood on it.  Some of it was high velocity spatter (small drops) but the more considerable amounts was clearly from Nevill as he was beaten.  If Jeremy had not used gloves then his prints would have been found in that blood the same way Sheila's prints would have been found in it if she had been the killer. Some of that blood could also come from a killer who had not been wearing gloves since the rifle stock would have damaged the hand tha thad been holding the stock when it broke.  So that is another reason it would need to be wiped down.  But such blood wa snot cleaned from the rifle and it wasn't cleaned because the killer had been wearing gloves so had no need to clean it.

2) He didn't remove the moderator until after he killed Sheila.  Had he removed the moderator before he killed Sheila then yes her blood would have been in the muzzle of the rifle instead. But the muzzle was clean and her blood was in the moderator which means it was attached when she was killed. 

The moderator and scope are problems no matter what .  He had a reason to use the moderator but the scope would be a hindrance, it would block good aiming at close quarters.  There was no reason to remove the scope except to use the weapon as close quarters. The claim it was found in the closet without the scope and moderator is not credible. But saying it was found with the moderator attached but not the scope is even less credible.  Removing the scope is least credible but especially removing it and leaving the moderator.  So he decided to pretend that both accessories would usually be removed for storage purposes.  Hence his story the gun had no accessories.  Which leads to a big problem with the moderator being used at all because that means Sheila would have to have fetched it and attached it.  That is not consistent with the crazy rage claims though.  So it was a quandry no matter what.

Even replacing the scope after the murders would not have been helpful because it would lack blood that it would have gotten on it while Nevill was being beaten.  That would have revealed it was replaced later.

In hindsight moving her flat was a big screwup as well.  But you think about some things and not necessarily all things when planning a murder.  That is why some are lazy and burn the place afterwards to try to conceal evidence.

       

I have to admit these are very good posts scipio and you have certainly thrown a spanner in the works on this site,but none of us are dunces or as gullible as you claim..

[Jan]

The barrel had blood spatter from the victims.  There was both high velocity spatter (from gunshots) and medium velocity spatter (from the beating).  If he had not been wearing gloves then he woudl have needed to wipe down the barrel because he could have left latent prints in the blood and even coudl have lef this own blood on it somewhere.  But since he was wearing gloves he had no need to wipe down the rifle except where perhaps the stock where he thought his hand might have come into contact. 

So that is why he didn't wipe down the gun after the murders except maybe the stock though he might not have wiped it down either.

So if neither of them wiped the gun  then  you are saying he wore gloves and did not think to place Sheilas  sweaty hands to make prints?

Or the police wiped it?

[grahameb]

1) It wasn't wiped down, it had a considerable amount of blood on it.  Some of it was high velocity spatter (small drops) but the more considerable amounts was clearly from Nevill as he was beaten.  If Jeremy had not used gloves then his prints would have been found in that blood the same way Sheila's prints would have been found in it if she had been the killer. Some of that blood could also come from a killer who had not been wearing gloves since the rifle stock would have damaged the hand tha thad been holding the stock when it broke.  So that is another reason it would need to be wiped down.  But such blood wa snot cleaned from the rifle and it wasn't cleaned because the killer had been wearing gloves so had no need to clean it.

2) He didn't remove the moderator until after he killed Sheila.  Had he removed the moderator before he killed Sheila then yes her blood would have been in the muzzle of the rifle instead. But the muzzle was clean and her blood was in the moderator which means it was attached when she was killed. 

The moderator and scope are problems no matter what .  He had a reason to use the moderator but the scope would be a hindrance, it would block good aiming at close quarters.  There was no reason to remove the scope except to use the weapon as close quarters. The claim it was found in the closet without the scope and moderator is not credible. But saying it was found with the moderator attached but not the scope is even less credible.  Removing the scope is least credible but especially removing it and leaving the moderator.  So he decided to pretend that both accessories would usually be removed for storage purposes.  Hence his story the gun had no accessories.  Which leads to a big problem with the moderator being used at all because that means Sheila would have to have fetched it and attached it.  That is not consistent with the crazy rage claims though.  So it was a quandry no matter what.

Even replacing the scope after the murders would not have been helpful because it would lack blood that it would have gotten on it while Nevill was being beaten.  That would have revealed it was replaced later.

In hindsight moving her flat was a big screwup as well.  But you think about some things and not necessarily all things when planning a murder.  That is why some are lazy and burn the place afterwards to try to conceal evidence.

       

You make a good argument scipio.

[lookout]

 Only a woman would have had to have used the force enough to damage the rifle. A man by his very nature being the stronger,would have had no need to have used such force.

[scipio_usmc]

So if neither of them wiped the gun  then  you are saying he wore gloves and did not think to place Sheilas  sweaty hands to make prints?

Or the police wiped it?

Why would Sheila's hands be sweaty?  If she fought with Nevill she would have been sweaty but she didn't.  He took her clean fingers and put them on the gun.  It is highly unlikely he pushed each finger individually he apparently just tried to drop the hand on it which didn't acocmplish much beyond the ring finger.  Why didn't he try taking each finger like when ou take fingerprints?  How shoudl I know.  Maybe he was too excited to think of it. Maybe he didn't realize just smacking the hand against it wasn't enough.  I have no way to know how calm he was and what he recognized as far as print transfers.

Police can't wipe dry blood from the metal parts of the gun they would need to clean the dry blood off by scraping it or using a cleaner but didn't because the blood was still there for the lab to go over. Why would they wipe the stock down to eliminate prints? 

[grahameb]

Why would Sheila's hands be sweaty?  If she fought with Nevill she would have been sweaty but she didn't.  He took her clean fingers and put them on the gun.  It is highly unlikely he pushed each finger individually he apparently just tried to drop the hand on it which didn't acocmplish much beyond the ring finger.  Why didn't he try taking each finger like when ou take fingerprints?  How shoudl I know.  Maybe he was too excited to think of it. Maybe he didn't realize just smacking the hand against it wasn't enough.  I have no way to know how calm he was and what he recognized as far as print transfers.

Police can't wipe dry blood from the metal parts of the gun they would need to clean the dry blood off by scraping it or using a cleaner but didn't because the blood was still there for the lab to go over. Why would they wipe the stock down to eliminate prints?

Unfortunately scupio all that you have just said is only speculation. You thought up the questions yourself and then answered them yourself. There is nothing to suggest that what you suggest really happened. As not of us were there on the night, none of us can say with any confidence what did actually happen. And it's no good you stating that no one can answer you. It is probably for that very reason that they were not their either. Just because they won't challenge your questions does not mean that they know nothing or cannot answer them. It just means that they have grasped the complexity of the matter in those things that you appear to be overly confident in?

[scipio_usmc]

Unfortunately scupio all that you have just said is only speculation. You thought up the questions yourself and then answered them yourself. There is nothing to suggest that what you suggest really happened. As not of us were there on the night, none of us can say with any confidence what did actually happen. And it's no good you stating that no one can answer you. It is probably for that very reason that they were not their either. Just because they won't challenge your questions does not mean that they know nothing or cannot answer them. It just means that they have grasped the complexity of the matter in those things that you appear to be overly confident in?

I was asked a question of why Jeremy would not have tried harder to get her prints on the gun or did he do so and police wipe it down.

There is no evidence police eliminated her prints and the most likely prints to be found if she had been the killer would have been in the blood and would have been left elsewhere.  The killer clearly wore gloves.  A host of things reveals that. 

Even Mike realizes there is no way Sheila delivered the beating to Nevill which is why he came up with his story about June doing it and conveniently also uses that to account for the lack of elevated lead levels.  While I don't by it at all it does serve his intended function as far as taking care of some of the physical evidence that is lacking.

[grahameb]

I was asked a question of why Jeremy would not have tried harder to get her prints on the gun or did he do so and police wipe it down.

There is no evidence police eliminated her prints and the most likely prints to be found if she had been the killer would have been in the blood and would have been left elsewhere.  The killer clearly wore gloves.  A host of things reveals that. 

Even Mike realizes there is no way Sheila delivered the beating to Nevill which is why he came up with his story about June doing it and conveniently also uses that to account for the lack of elevated lead levels.  While I don't by it at all it does serve his intended function as far as taking care of some of the physical evidence that is lacking.

So if Bamber had used the rifle earlier in the evening why would he have bothered to wipe them off? Answering whether Sheila's hands were sweaty or not, it matters not because it is generally not the sweat that leaves fingerprints, but the oil in the skin and may I suggest that the rifle and the butt were both shiny enough for any prints to stick whether the person be dead or no?

[scipio_usmc]

So if Bamber had used the rifle earlier in the evening why would he have bothered to wipe them off? Answering whether Sheila's hands were sweaty or not, it matters not because it is generally not the sweat that leaves fingerprints, but the oil in the skin and may I suggest that the rifle and the butt were both shiny enough for any prints to stick whether the person be dead or no?

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.

 

[lookout]

I have to admit these are very good posts scipio and you have certainly thrown a spanner in the works on this site,but none of us are dunces or as gullible as you claim..

I'm glad you think so,Steve. Thanks for the vote of confidence anyway.

[susan]

lookout you are so lucky having steve to support you think it was the weekend in the caravan that did it