Jeremy Bambers Injuries

[No-Bits]

this is what I have asked as well - if he was beaten with the gun then his blood and perhaps skin would have been on the gun . But although it seems they can make detailed reports on the small amount of  blood in the moderator I have not seen the same type of reports on the rifle.

This might be of interest? 

[Jan]

So who was the  blood attributed to?

[Jan]

And so does that mean there was blood on the rifle but only one partial fingerprint - so the gun was not "wiped" then ?

[Jane]

Ta for that, Harters Blood staining and blood smears, given the vast amount of ready to bleed profusely tiny blood vessels laying just beneath a thin layer of skin stretching over the skull, doesn't exactly fit with a "vicious" attack. It certainly doesn't seem to fit with him being hit repeatedly.

[lookout]

That's only a kastle-meyer test which forensics use to test if it's blood,so it's not grouped. 

[Jan]

So that could not be grouped - but the flake in the moderator could?

[No-Bits]

So that could not be grouped - but the flake in the moderator could?

This is from the 2002 Appeal:

71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding. On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful. A "pull-through" on the barrel of the rifle was conducted for any traces of blood within the weapon. There were none.

[No-Bits]

So that could not be grouped - but the flake in the moderator could?

That's about the size of it.

Further extracts from the 2002 Appeal indicate that the blood on the outside of the moderator also couldn't be grouped:

75. Traces of blood in the form of smears were found in three places on the outside of the moderator: on the flat surface at the muzzle end, in the knurled end and in the ridge at the gun end of the device. The blood on the outside of the moderator was confirmed to be of human origin but there were insufficient quantities to permit grouping analysis.

76. Inside the moderator, on the four or five baffles nearest to the end from which the bullet would exit, there was a considerable amount of blood. At one point blood had pooled to form a flake when it dried, and this flake was subjected to group testing. Results were obtained for four of the five tests performed. Mr Hayward, the forensic scientist said that they showed that the blood could have come from Sheila Caffell but not from any of the other individuals involved. Mr. Hayward said that there was a possibility that the blood could be a mixture of blood from more than one person and if it was, a mixture of blood from Nevill Bamber and June Bamber could account for the findings in the grouping tests. However he judged that possibility to be a "remote" one.

[lookout]

So that could not be grouped - but the flake in the moderator could?

I can't see how,Jansus. Someone doesn't know very much 

[Caroline]

And so does that mean there was blood on the rifle but only one partial fingerprint - so the gun was not "wiped" then ?

No, it wasn't wiped.

[Caroline]

That's about the size of it.

Further extracts from the 2002 Appeal indicate that the blood on the outside of the moderator also couldn't be grouped:

75. Traces of blood in the form of smears were found in three places on the outside of the moderator: on the flat surface at the muzzle end, in the knurled end and in the ridge at the gun end of the device. The blood on the outside of the moderator was confirmed to be of human origin but there were insufficient quantities to permit grouping analysis.

76. Inside the moderator, on the four or five baffles nearest to the end from which the bullet would exit, there was a considerable amount of blood. At one point blood had pooled to form a flake when it dried, and this flake was subjected to group testing. Results were obtained for four of the five tests performed. Mr Hayward, the forensic scientist said that they showed that the blood could have come from Sheila Caffell but not from any of the other individuals involved. Mr. Hayward said that there was a possibility that the blood could be a mixture of blood from more than one person and if it was, a mixture of blood from Nevill Bamber and June Bamber could account for the findings in the grouping tests. However he judged that possibility to be a "remote" one.

So much for a 'fine mist distribution' 

[scipio_usmc]

And so does that mean there was blood on the rifle but only one partial fingerprint - so the gun was not "wiped" then ?

It is funny how the same stuff comes up over and over again. I don't know how many times I indicated there was blood so the weapon was not completely cleaned and rubbed down as peopel were trying to claim.

This is only of the reaons why I said it is obvious gloves were used.  This is just the blood that remained after the killings but is enough to show the gun had blood all around which means so did the killer. blood wasn't just splashing on the gun but also the killer.   There was more blood even but some would have dripped off or be transferred from the gun to the killer as it was being used.  What happens if you don't use gloves?  1) you leave bloody prints on the gun, 2) you leave bloody prints elsewhere. Someone using the gun without gloves would have left an impression in some of the blood unless they were extremely careful and someone in a crazy rage would not have been.

If you have gloves on you smudge blood without leaving any prints. THere are niche items like things tips that cover your fingers including a sticky substance that some use instead of gloves because it provides greater dexterity but they allow plam prints and don't protect against wounds so are a bafd idea.  If a killer's blood is left behind that is very damaging.  Hands are the number 1 thing dmaged when committing murders so you need gloves. Gloves used for Tattooing are very strong yet provide great flexibility so are ideal.  I use them (though not for crime).   

 

[Jane]

It is funny how the same stuff comes up over and over again. I don't know how many times I indicated there was blood so the weapon was not completely cleaned and rubbed down as peopel were trying to claim.

This is only of the reaons why I said it is obvious gloves were used.  This is just the blood that remained after the killings but is enough to show the gun had blood all around which means so did the killer. blood wasn't just splashing on the gun but also the killer.   There was more blood even but some would have dripped off or be transferred from the gun to the killer as it was being used.  What happens if you don't use gloves?  1) you leave bloody prints on the gun, 2) you leave bloody prints elsewhere. Someone using the gun without gloves would have left an impression in some of the blood unless they were extremely careful and someone in a crazy rage would not have been.

If you have gloves on you smudge blood without leaving any prints. THere are niche items like things tips that cover your fingers including a sticky substance that some use instead of gloves because it provides greater dexterity but they allow plam prints and don't protect against wounds so are a bafd idea.  If a killer's blood is left behind that is very damaging.  Hands are the number 1 thing dmaged when committing murders so you need gloves. Gloves used for Tattooing are very strong yet provide great flexibility so are ideal.  I use them (though not for crime).   

 

But when you use a thousand words when fifty would do, nobody gets round to reading it all.

[scipio_usmc]

So much for a 'fine mist distribution' 

All that speaks to is the flake tested it doesn't discuss the distributon on the baffles that resulted from a spray.  I provided you all the relavenat passages regarding such is you memory that short or are you just that dishonest?

At any rate if you hactually had the expertise that you shoudl have from studying this case for so long you should know all about the visible blood found by the prosecution ont he first 4-6 baffles or 4-7 if you go by Fletecher and microscopic blood found by the defense on the first 8 and how the quantity on each dimished and how it was testified to that this was consistent with drawback.

But only the people who are actually objective are willing to face and discuss all the evidence.

Those like yourself with an agenda can't so won't and instead have to live in denial to make your fantasy claims work.

[scipio_usmc]

But when you use a thousand words when fifty would do, nobody gets round to reading it all.

They read it they said I was wrong but failed to explain how and went on to ignore the point.