Jeremy Bambers Injuries

[grahameb]

And?

If she shot everyone then went and shot herself what acitivisties would she be doing that would result in the GSR being transferred elsewhere so no longer on her body?  It doesn't just vanish it gets transferred elsewhere during activity.

Not mentioned there is that GSR remains longer on clothing and hair even when people are active.

Also not considered is that she supposedly held the rifle up and down adjacent to her body essentially hugging it as she shot which would certainly get GSR on her gown.     

We already know base don other evidence she can't have killed herself the lack of GSR on her fgown and hands is simply more evidence of that.  She certainly can't have washed herself after she died and would not have been moving around transferring it from her clothing and hands after she died.

The cited FBI statistics means that even if some were found that would not necessarily be proof she fired a gun because proof requires a substantial amount of GSR but to have none at all is even worse.

It all depends on whether they tested her properly I should think? You've already proved to us that Taff Jones was incompetent. So since they were all in the same frame of mind then we must assume that they were all similarly slapdash about their work.

[scipio_usmc]

It all depends on whether they tested her properly I should think? You've already proved to us that Taff Jones was incompetent. So since they were all in the same frame of mind then we must assume that they were all similarly slapdash about their work.

The lab tested her clothing and the hand swabs not Taff Jones.  They used an electron scan microscope not a chemical test. The electron scan microscope was the suprior test available at the time the chmical test less reliable.  There is nothing in the record that suggests they erred and no experts to challenge it. It is up to the defense counsel to find someone to try to challenge it or in the event a Jeremy supporter wants to then to find some scientific basis besides just "maybe they messed up".     

Hair had a better chance of retaining GSR long term than skin so if much time passes between the shooting and testing a potential shooter then testing the hair should be done as well.  But since she was not moving around it doens't matter the reduction from her skin would not rapidly happen from just lying dead.  Moreover, GSR leaves clothing at a much reduced rate than even hair so clothing is the optimal place to find it. 

In his case even moreso since the place on the rifle that discharges GSR would have been right next to her gown so we have the location and the fact the fabric reatins GSR combining together.  Finding not a drop of GSR is very bad for the defense under such conditions.

Ironically on appeal the defense brought up the chance of officers contaminating the evidence which the Appeal Court scoffed at because if the police had contaminated the evidence with GSR that would result in GSR being found. That is just one of the things that shows that the appeal was very poorly thought out and constructed.

I understand that there is not much to work with but making ill conceived arguments just pisses courts off and takes attention away for the strongest arguments and makes it less likely for a court to take your claims serious.

 

[Jan]

"Gloves do not leave fibers ordinarily unless they are knits or they are torn. " A statement by Scipio


Fro someone who writes novels on forensics this is a pretty sweeping statement!

There are hundreds of different types of gloves made from hundreds of types of fabrics. As no gloves were found how on earth can you assume that he was wearing gloves that would leave no fibres in any wounds  he inflicted or on the weapon when it broke - etc etc .

[lookout]

 You're forgetting they were Marigolds 

[scipio_usmc]

"Gloves do not leave fibers ordinarily unless they are knits or they are torn. " A statement by Scipio


Fro someone who writes novels on forensics this is a pretty sweeping statement!

There are hundreds of different types of gloves made from hundreds of types of fabrics. As no gloves were found how on earth can you assume that he was wearing gloves that would leave no fibres in any wounds  he inflicted or on the weapon when it broke - etc etc .

Aside for the fact that he told Julie glvoes were used it is obvious that someone planning a murder int he detial that he did woudl plan to use gloves.  Moreover the lack of any bloody prints anywhere at the scene, and lack of prints on the weapon especially the blood on the weapon is indicative of such.  If you touch a bloody weapon with bare hands you will likely leave prints in such blood and also get such blood on your fingers and thus be able to leave bloody prints on other things.   

Fibers from gloves are not usually found at crime scenes.  When they are it is usually from the gloves being torn or cut. 

Go aheead and post cases where fibers established gloves were used at all let alone matched to a specific glove found in someone's house.  Despite gloves being routinley used in murders such is a rare find.

[Caroline]

And?

If she shot everyone then went and shot herself what acitivisties would she be doing that would result in the GSR being transferred elsewhere so no longer on her body?  It doesn't just vanish it gets transferred elsewhere during activity.

Not mentioned there is that GSR remains longer on clothing and hair even when people are active.

Also not considered is that she supposedly held the rifle up and down adjacent to her body essentially hugging it as she shot which would certainly get GSR on her gown.     

We already know base don other evidence she can't have killed herself the lack of GSR on her fgown and hands is simply more evidence of that.  She certainly can't have washed herself after she died and would not have been moving around transferring it from her clothing and hands after she died.

The cited FBI statistics means that even if some were found that would not necessarily be proof she fired a gun because proof requires a substantial amount of GSR but to have none at all is even worse.

What are you on about? I wasn't talking about Sheila!! You steam in shoving your opinion down people's throats when they aren't even talking to you. I posted the article in response to something Lookout said about Jeremy and sniffer dogs. The point was that he would have showered and changed by the time he returned or do you want to suggest he wouldn't,  just for the sake of disagreeing with someone??

[Jan]

You're forgetting they were Marigolds 

ah yes ! he would have thought about fibres - although obviously not the silencer / position of shot / showing them how he got in and out of the windows etc.

Clever Jeremy

[Jan]

What are you on about? I wasn't talking about Sheila!! You steam in shoving your opinion down people's throats when they aren't even talking to you. I posted the article in response to something Lookout said about Jeremy and sniffer dogs. The point was that he would have showered and changed by the time he returned or do you want to suggest he wouldn't,  just for the sake of disagreeing with someone??

 

[Caroline]

well that's true but where did he put hes bloody clothes if he had done it to traces of blood were found in his cottage did he wash them or throw them away.

if he had a shower traces would of been left in the shower.

He wasn't a suspect initially, his cottage was never searched until he was a suspect - by then, there would be nothing to find.

[grahameb]

He wasn't a suspect initially, his cottage was never searched until he was a suspect - by then, there would be nothing to find.

Come to think of it the cops thought for two weeks that it was murder suicide, so I'm wondering when they made all these tests on Sheila's clothes etc, or even if the did the swab tests properly?

[scipio_usmc]

What are you on about? I wasn't talking about Sheila!! You steam in shoving your opinion down people's throats when they aren't even talking to you. I posted the article in response to something Lookout said about Jeremy and sniffer dogs. The point was that he would have showered and changed by the time he returned or do you want to suggest he wouldn't,  just for the sake of disagreeing with someone??

What did the FBI article have to do with sniffer dogs?

I saw your previous response to lookout about sniffer dogs but didnd't know the FBI article was supposed to be about such. 

[scipio_usmc]

He wasn't a suspect initially, his cottage was never searched until he was a suspect - by then, there would be nothing to find.

The odd thing is that at a later date cop did notice clothing that had what could have been blood spatter but either tests were unsuccessful because of the amount of time that passed/the clothign being washed or the clothing vanished between when seen and they finally went to collect it.  I forget which is the case. 

He might have been so arrogant that he didn't dispose of all the clothes right away and only did so after police were closing in on him. 

I would have expected him to be paranoid enough to throw away the clothing right away.  I was rather surprised that such clothing might not have been immediately disposed of.     

[lookout]

 It wasn't Jeremy who suffered paranoia,remember ?

[scipio_usmc]

It wasn't Jeremy who suffered paranoia,remember ?

He was so paranoid of being seen going to and from WHF in th emiddle fo the night that he planned to use a bike.  He was so paranoid of them waking up and using the phone to call authorities before he could successfully kill them that he removed the phone fromt he bedroom in advance.

Apparently he didn't know about blood spatter and was not paranoid about blood evidence though.

[Caroline]

What did the FBI article have to do with sniffer dogs?

I saw your previous response to lookout about sniffer dogs but didnd't know the FBI article was supposed to be about such.

I thought you were supposed to be intelligent? I highlighted the relevant point which was;

"Gunshot residue particles can be removed easily from the surfaces they land on. Regular activities, such as putting hands in pockets, rubbing hands together, or handling items, can wipe them away.4 The washing of hands can remove most, if not all, particles"

Lookouts post suggested sniffer dogs would have been able to smell gunshot residue and blood on Jeremy,"even if he'd have bathed or showered, or both" - The article QUITE CLEARLY refutes the suggestion that gunshot reside would survive a shower. Now perhaps after I have spelled things out for you, you can see the relevance? If not, I can't help you!