do the fingerprints really prove anything.

[nugnug]

jeremy worked at the farm sheila was staying there you cant date a finger print so do the fingerprints really prove anything ethere way.

[No-Bits]

jeremy worked at the farm sheila was staying there you cant date a finger print so do the fingerprints really prove anything ethere way.

That's a fair point. Although it is a little concerning that there are not more of Sheila's fingerprints on the rifle if she is supposed to be the one responsible.

Yes I know there were more unidentified or smudged prints, but even so. 

[Adam]

Thought Sheila's fingerprints would be all over the rifle. She had spent half the night holding it and firing off over 20 bullets.

Thought Jeremy's prints would be all over it after going to shoot rabbits that night.

Suspect Jeremy wiped the rifle afterwards to get rid of anything connecting him to the crime. But forgot to put Sheila's prints all over it, suspecting the police would not check.

[nugnug]

so how come one of his prints is still on there.

[Patti]

Thought Sheila's fingerprints would be all over the rifle. She had spent half the night holding it and firing off over 20 bullets.

Thought Jeremy's prints would be all over it after going to shoot rabbits that night.

Suspect Jeremy wiped the rifle afterwards to get rid of anything connecting him to the crime. But forgot to put Sheila's prints all over it, suspecting the police would not check.

Not necessarily. Remember the police removed the rifle and checked that the rifle was safe; then placed it by the window, then placed it back on Sheila. They could not have done this without smearing some of the prints from the rifle even with gloves on. Did they wear gloves even? We have a photo of Sheila touching the rifle with several of her fingers. Yet only one was found....

[nugnug]

id guess that was why all the prints were smudged.

[lookout]

That's a fair point. Although it is a little concerning that there are not more of Sheila's fingerprints on the rifle if she is supposed to be the one responsible.

Yes I know there were more unidentified or smudged prints, but even so. 

Harters,the way she fired it would give you a clue,she musn't have put it down long enough to gather dust let alone fingerprints,as her finger will have remained firmly on the trigger part.

[tyler]

Not necessarily. Remember the police removed the rifle and checked that the rifle was safe; then placed it by the window, then placed it back on Sheila. They could not have done this without smearing some of the prints from the rifle even with gloves on. Did they wear gloves even? We have a photo of Sheila touching the rifle with several of her fingers. Yet only one was found....

No,they didnt wear gloves when handling the weapon. It doesn't sit well with me,the part about - they removed rifle from Sheila to check it was safe,stood it by the window in order to photograph it,then replaced it back on Sheila's body. I thought normal procedure was touch NOTHING at a crime scene until the photographs have taken place. Aside from the victim obviously,in order to ascertain whether dead or alive. Why photograph the rifle in between? And IIRC,there are several different versions as to who actually made the rifle safe in the first place.

[nugnug]

and that means some of there prints should of been on the riffle as well.

[Jan]

"She had spent half the night"

Adam - not taking into account who did it - you believe the twins and june at least were asleep - so how long do you think it would take to enter two or three rooms to shoot the victims ?

Not half the night.

If Jeremy is innocent it  all happened within approx. 40 mins? That is of course assuming that the police could hear shots from outside the house - and I still have not seen anything to say whether that has been tested.

And yes I read the police did not wear gloves when handling the rifle - so it could be that they smudged the prints on the rifle.



 

[lookout]

They'll be the " unidentified " prints of the male that were logged,nugs. Says nothing about how the rifle was man-handled after the bodies were found,nor the rightful place where it was found and that certainly wasn't on Sheilas' body.

[JackiePreece]

No,they didnt wear gloves when handling the weapon. It doesn't sit well with me,the part about - they removed rifle from Sheila to check it was safe,stood it by the window in order to photograph it,then replaced it back on Sheila's body. I thought normal procedure was touch NOTHING at a crime scene until the photographs have taken place. Aside from the victim obviously,in order to ascertain whether dead or alive. Why photograph the rifle in between? And IIRC,there are several different versions as to who actually made the rifle safe in the first place.

Hartley why do you think there were no more prints on the rifle? And surely as crime scene photos they worthless if the gun had been moved around

[No-Bits]

No,they didnt wear gloves when handling the weapon. It doesn't sit well with me,the part about - they removed rifle from Sheila to check it was safe,stood it by the window in order to photograph it,then replaced it back on Sheila's body. I thought normal procedure was touch NOTHING at a crime scene until the photographs have taken place. Aside from the victim obviously,in order to ascertain whether dead or alive. Why photograph the rifle in between? And IIRC,there are several different versions as to who actually made the rifle safe in the first place.

Unfortunately,  I think you have been misled or have misunderstood in this instance.

The rifle was removed after being photographed in situ on Sheila's body. It was then removed and lent against the windows frame. PC Bird continued to taking photographs elsewhere in the house and then returned upstairs and was able to capture a photograph of the rifle leaning against the windows frame.

The rifle was not removed and then replaced on Sheila.

[No-Bits]

Hartley why do you think there were no more prints on the rifle? And surely as crime scene photos they worthless if the gun had been moved around

The crime scene photographs are most certainly not useless.

Obviously we are all guessing as to why there are not more identifiable prints on the rifle.

It may be the case that the surfaces of the rifle simply do not lend themselves to receiving prints, thus the failure to identify many of them.

Alternatively, the rifle could have been wiped down, the killer may have worn gloves, or the police may not have sufficiently preserved the evidence.

[Jan]

If that is correct - and I am not being sarcastic here - the way the rifle has been photographed /position of hands etc does look so obviously staged - for example after firing would the gun remain resting in that exact  position as it was quite a powerful rifle- why did the police not suspect something ?