Did Jeremy wear a wet suit for the massacre ?

[Adam]

Hopefully Grahame will apologise to me and Scipio for his offensive insults.

It is possible Jeremy wore a wet suit, shoes, gloves and a balaclava.

The other possibility is he wore the same clothes he arrived at WHF to meet the police with.  He did have several layers of clothes on which would have protected him, together with a balaclava and gloves.

He may have worn neither for the massacre, wearing something totally different and changed after arriving back at his cottage.

Disposing of the massacre clothes was easy.  Either on the night, or during the month later.

[scipio_usmc]

Hopefully Grahame will apologise to me and Scipio for his offensive insults.

It is possible Jeremy wore a wet suit, shoes, gloves and a balaclava.

The other possibility is he wore the same clothes he arrived at WHF to meet the police with.  He did have several layers of clothes on which would have protected him, together with a balaclava and gloves.

He may have worn neither for the massacre, wearing something totally different and changed after arriving back at his cottage.

Disposing of the massacre clothes was easy.  Either on the night, or during the month later.

There is no doubt he wore gloves and shoes.

Why would he ruin an expensive wetsuit when there wa sno need to do so?  Why would he wear a baclava?  He planned to kill everyone so he didn't care if they saw his face or not.  He had plenty of time to wash up and change before he got around to calling police.

[Adam]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6145.0.html

Here is the link. A respected journalist who Jeremy approached said he wore a wet suit and why.

A balaclava to protect his face from potential injuries. A good idea in my view. Just as wearing gloves is.

[Mr. Gee]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6145.0.html

Here is the link. A respected journalist who Jeremy approached said he wore a wet suit and why.

A balaclava to protect his face from potential injuries. A good idea in my view. Just as wearing gloves is.

Rubbish. It just shows his ignorance concerning wet suits. But if you don't listen to experts then you will listen to no one. Anything that is said by those on here about wetsuits or gloves or overcoats is just conjecture as there is absolutely no forensic evidence to suggest anything like that happened. As I said before this is a silly thread.

[scipio_usmc]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6145.0.html

Here is the link. A respected journalist who Jeremy approached said he wore a wet suit and why.

A balaclava to protect his face from potential injuries. A good idea in my view. Just as wearing gloves is.

His conjecture is not in the least bit persuasive.  Evidence indicates he wore gloves that is most likely the only precaution he took clothing wise.

[Mr. Gee]

His conjecture is not in the least bit persuasive.  Evidence indicates he wore gloves that is most likely the only precaution he took clothing wise.

There is absolutely no evidence that anyone wore gloves, except of course the police when they handled things and perhaps smudging any fingerprints that may have been there.
On the contrary Jeremy confessed to have used or at least handled the gun the night before, so why would he have used gloves if he was guilty?  Your reasoning is not even logical.

[nugnug]

as he worked there he had an excuse for his prints being there so he wouldent of needed to wear gloves he may of done but of needed to.

[Mr. Gee]

as he worked there he had an excuse for his prints being there so he wouldent of needed to wear gloves he may of done but of needed to.

It's just another straw man argument nugnug in order to explain why there were no clear prints on the gun. But if the police did not treat the scene as a proper crime scene then neither would they have taken great care with the gun. That is the most logical assumption in my opinion.

[Adam]

He wore gloves to protect his hands. A good job to as the judge said Neville 'put up a ferocious fight for life'.

[Mr. Gee]

He wore gloves to protect his hands. A good job to as the judge said Neville 'put up a ferocious fight for life'.

Assumption lad just assumption. No forensic proof. In fact no proof at all except in your own imagination. These are not facts.

[Alias]

He wore gloves to protect his hands. A good job to as the judge said Neville 'put up a ferocious fight for life'.

Jeremy couldn´t have predicted that. You don´t expect a physical fight if you enter house to shoot people with a firearm.

[Adam]

Jeremy couldn´t have predicted that. You don´t expect a physical fight if you enter house to shoot people with a firearm.

It's called being prepared. He had enough time to prepare.

[Alias]

It's called being prepared. He had enough time to prepare.

He wouldn´t have been preparing for a physical altercation. I would imagine it would be difficult to handle a rifle with a pair of gloves on.

[lookout]

 How about solving the problem of Sheilas' prints all over the shotgun ? What was she doing with it because she didn't use it to shoot anyone ? Maybe as a threat at first ?

How do we know that Neville used the downstairs phone when he rang Jeremy ? Seeing as he " was in bed " ,did he use the office phone ? NOBODY KNOWS,do we ? !

This all kicked off upstairs in the bedroom--------not the kitchen,though ended up there when Neville had attempted to go downstairs followed by Sheila,prodding him.

[Adam]

Jeremy couldn´t have predicted that. You don´t expect a physical fight if you enter house to shoot people with a firearm.

What do you think Jeremy wore for the massacre ?