I agree if it was Jeremy he would have worn gloves, but with blood on the rifle wouldn't there still be marks that were consistent with someone having worn gloves?
Gloves don't leave marks except in one respect. They soak up blood and can transfer it elsewhere like other clothes or body parts. If you have a glove covered in blood and leave it on a clean object it can leave an outline like a hand. If they just sit making an impresison like a hand you know it was a hand or gloves tha tmade it. Any object covered in blood placed against a clean area can do that. Some are easier to recognize than others a full outline is far easier to recognize. It is worthless though since you can't match it to anyone that is the whole point of wearing them to protect from leaving palm prints or finger prints which can actully be matched.
When you have blotches of blood on a weapon being mashed around by gloves the lack of prints is what typically gives away the person wore gloves or even sleeves over their hands. Anything to prevent prints. High velocity spatter is usually little drops just so easy enough to avoid touching so long as you are careful afterwards. It is more substantial spatter that you are going to get on your fingers to leave prints somewhere or would be sure to leave your prints on the blood covered object you touched.
The beating of Nevill would have resulted in hands moving around on the weapon much more than just shooting where you typically don't change your position much.
But for the beating aside from reloading the hand positon for shooting would have been the same few locations touched. Wiping those specific locations would thus be sufficient if not using gloves. Most people won't take that kind of risk though because you never know if you sufficiently got rid of your prints or not and might be careless and touch elsewhere by accident or if plans go awry.
Shoeprints in blood are another problem. though shoeprints can be a problem period of course. Tread patterns and wear can be matched to a single pair of shoes. Some wear socks or socks over shoes to account for such the covers doctors use are good for that.
What you can figure out and can't is very fact specific sometime a lack of certian evidence can tell you something other times not.
General rules only go so far.
By the way, although I STILL believe the silencer was a plant, I am willing to concede that given the time frame between taking the blood samples and the arrival at the lab, makes it unlikely (although not impossible), that they were used to contaminate. I do have another source in mind but not sure how reliable that it - at the moment. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong so don't accuse me of making things up. Everyone makes mistakes including you. EVERYONE here is looking for the truth!!
To me there are some who seem to be here for propaganda sake not the truth so we can agree to disagree on that one.
As for the planting of evidence people can have supicions but I don't see how they can have beliefs when there is no evidence to establish it. It might seem semantics but suspcions and beliefs are different things.
I suspect Sheila encouraged Jeremy and was more helpful than she claimed but I can't prove it and can only go on intuition based on people always minimizing their actions, Jeremy telling her too much if she actually protested anytime he brought it up and how he blamed the family (saying since they liked the idea he would not marry her to spite them) for breaking their engagement so maybe she thought once they were dead he would marry her. I have no evidence though so it is not a belief just somethign I suspect.
However, there was a meeting and from the start Jones had suspicions about Jeremy, so much so that other officers were influenced by him.
I have had a few drinks tonight so can't remember who made the following statement but I'm sure someone will recognise it (Hartley?) and it proves there was most certainly discussion about Jeremy's guilty in the VERY early stages of the investigation in fact in the recent Channel 5 Docu - Murder at the Farm, Miller states that he also suspected Jeremy from day one.
1) I never trust revisionist accounts down the road. Naturally the police want to look smart so say they knew all along... I go by what they told others contemporaneously. It seems that in their conversations with Vanezis they had reservations and some suspicions but had not come around to believing Jeremy was definitely guilty until the lab presented their side.
2) Saying they had doubts though is much different from knowing he did it and knowing there was no evidence to convict him. Till everything was processed by the lab they would not know that and some of the evidence that should have told them went over the head of the cops.
In the US all cops are armed and gun crimes are common so police are more skilled at investigating gun crimes. Those areas in the US with few gun crimes often do not have as skilled personnel investigating and things can slip through the cracks as a result. I think this same problem hurt the Bamber investigation.
The lack of blood and GSR on Sheila's clothing should have set off lightbulbs. It seems not to have done so with anyone but the lab not even Vanezis.
To his credit he did recommend changes so in the future a ballistic expert and pathologist immediately visit the scene and "wrap" about it.
Given this lack of expertise it seems highly unlikely they would be able to figure out the fatal wound would have resulted in drawback and know ot plant blood at all let alone know how to plant it to accurately mimick drawback. If they had planted it then they would have been eager for the lab to test it and would not have wasted weeks on fingerprinting and finally getting the lab do thorugh testing of the blood around the middle of September. In the meantime they didn't think the paint was significant becuas ein theory it could be claimed the paint was chipped off prior to the murders and compared to the blood it wasn't that significnat so if they planted blood why would they even bother with the paint?
Too many things do not add up or make any sense with respect to planting evidence theories
