The rifle had little or no blood on it.

[jon]

Said in testimony at the trial.  Undoubtedly the solicitor is not happy with many things but that doesn't change Jeremy's culpability.

All the professionals who attended the scene spoke of the lack of blood on Sheila's hands and the fact that her nails were intact.  The post mortem returned the same results.

Can you post these please ? Did the hand's swab's not get sent to the lab twice ?

[sandy]

Said in testimony at the trial.  Undoubtedly the solicitor is not happy with many things but that doesn't change Jeremy's culpability.

All the professionals who attended the scene spoke of the lack of blood on Sheila's hands and the fact that her nails were intact.  The post mortem returned the same results.

Can you post these please ? Did the hand's swab's not get sent to the lab twice ?

Have a read for yourself jon, it is all there about the hand swabs.

http://netk.net.au/UK/Bamber2.asp

[lebaleb]

Said in testimony at the trial.  Undoubtedly the solicitor is not happy with many things but that doesn't change Jeremy's culpability.

All the professionals who attended the scene spoke of the lack of blood on Sheila's hands and the fact that her nails were intact.  The post mortem returned the same results.

Can you post these please ? Did the hand's swab's not get sent to the lab twice ?

Have a read for yourself jon, it is all there about the hand swabs.

http://netk.net.au/UK/Bamber2.asp

Intersesting they say 'the implausable suggestion that Shiela may have worn socks' [ground 2, 3rd para] when there are a pair right next to her body?

[John]

Of course she couldn't have shot herself.  Try it yourself with your kids toy rifle. Put the muzzle in your neck and pull the trigger with your finger.  Would it not be more appropriate to use one's thumb?

[Kaldin]

It is interesting and very noticeable that Sheila had no blood whatsoever on her left hand.  Are we expected to believe that she was a one handed gun-woman now?

Rather convenient isn't it.  Certainly the rifle had little or no blood on it because Sheila Caffell never handled it.

I've just read that both of Sheila's hand's were contaminated with blood? In Venezis autopsy report. It was the feet that were reported to be clean. If Shiela never handled the gun how come her fingerprint is on it?

Wherever you read that it is completely wrong. 

DC Hammersley, the Scenes of Crimes Officer placed plastic bags over Sheila's hands and feet before her body was removed from the farmhouse. He saw some blood staining to the back of the right hand, but apart from that the hands, to his eye were clean and the nails intact.

The firearms officers who were the first to see her body noted that her feet and hands were “perfectly clean”. He added that her fingernails were well manicured and not broken and that there were no marks or indentations on any of her fingers. Her fingertips were clean and free from any blood.

Whoever is feeding you anything to the contrary is feeding you misinformation.  It has always been said that Sheila could not possibly have handled that rifle.

Could you link to wherever you got most of that from? Thanks.

[John]

Kaldin you are like a broken record. You have already stated in a post that the quote was from a court document yet you persist with the same question repeatedly.  She has answered your question previously so I for one cannot understand what your problem is?

Do you not take info from documents Kaldin and edit it to suit your own ends?

[Kaldin]

Kaldin you are like a broken record. You have already stated in a post that the quote was from a court document yet you persist with the same question repeatedly.  She has answered your question previously so I for one cannot understand what your problem is?

So what's the problem with her posting a link? It's usual to quote your source if you're copying what someone else said.

As it happens, I recognise a lot of her stuff from the 2002 appeal but if I don't recognise some of her words how do I know if they're her own or not?

[John]

Kaldin you are like a broken record. You have already stated in a post that the quote was from a court document yet you persist with the same question repeatedly.  She has answered your question previously so I for one cannot understand what your problem is?

So what's the problem with her posting a link? It's usual to quote your source if you're copying what someone else said.

As it happens, I recognise a lot of her stuff from the 2002 appeal but if I don't recognise some of her words how do I know if they're her own or not?

I agree Kaldin that if a complete document is referred to it should be linked to but if information is merely used from a document and edited by the poster there is little need to provide a link unless asked to do so.  Fact are facts Kaldin no matter how they are written.

I think that you have seen these comments posted so many times that you recognise parts of them in others posts.  I sympathise with you as I too have found this happening on other forums which I contribute to and find it annoying when I cannot find the original text.

[Kaldin]

Kaldin you are like a broken record. You have already stated in a post that the quote was from a court document yet you persist with the same question repeatedly.  She has answered your question previously so I for one cannot understand what your problem is?

So what's the problem with her posting a link? It's usual to quote your source if you're copying what someone else said.

As it happens, I recognise a lot of her stuff from the 2002 appeal but if I don't recognise some of her words how do I know if they're her own or not?

I agree Kaldin that if a complete document is referred to it should be linked to but if information is merely used from a document and edited by the poster there is little need to provide a link unless asked to do so.  Fact are facts Kaldin no matter how they are written.

I don't agree. If posters are using the words of others, they should quote their source and post a link to it.

[Alias]

Kaldin you are like a broken record. You have already stated in a post that the quote was from a court document yet you persist with the same question repeatedly.  She has answered your question previously so I for one cannot understand what your problem is?

So what's the problem with her posting a link? It's usual to quote your source if you're copying what someone else said.

As it happens, I recognise a lot of her stuff from the 2002 appeal but if I don't recognise some of her words how do I know if they're her own or not?

I agree Kaldin that if a complete document is referred to it should be linked to but if information is merely used from a document and edited by the poster there is little need to provide a link unless asked to do so.  Fact are facts Kaldin no matter how they are written.

I don't agree. If posters are using the words of others, they should quote their source and post a link to it.

Of course.

[mike tesko]

One of the most telling factors for me is the fact that the rifle had little or no blood on it.  Had Sheila indeed used the weapon to shoot herself and then wandered about the house before doing so again, there would have been blood all over the rifle.  Sheila's hands would have been covered in blood as a result of putting her hands on her neck wounds.



Two things are immediately observed.

1. Sheila did not put her hands on her neck since the blood would have been dispersed more around her neck and face.

2. Sheila did not have any blood on her hands.

3. Had Sheila been walking around, blood would have ran down her neck all the way and then onto her nightdress. Notice how there is no such blood runs in front of her and her nightie is unmarked to the front.

As far as I can see it would have been impossible for Sheila to have done what the defence contend she did do and end up remarkably clean thereafter.

I have absolutely no doubt that girl was murdered.

-------------------------

Police had to substitute bullet PV/20 (the non fatal wound bullet) which was fired by another different gun, downstairs...

Oddly enough, whoever used the rifle to shoot the victims - there should have been more blood upon the rifle, whether Sheila did it, Jeremy did it, or somebody else did it...

[sandy]

One of the most telling factors for me is the fact that the rifle had little or no blood on it.  Had Sheila indeed used the weapon to shoot herself and then wandered about the house before doing so again, there would have been blood all over the rifle.  Sheila's hands would have been covered in blood as a result of putting her hands on her neck wounds.



Two things are immediately observed.

1. Sheila did not put her hands on her neck since the blood would have been dispersed more around her neck and face.

2. Sheila did not have any blood on her hands.

3. Had Sheila been walking around, blood would have ran down her neck all the way and then onto her nightdress. Notice how there is no such blood runs in front of her and her nightie is unmarked to the front.

As far as I can see it would have been impossible for Sheila to have done what the defence contend she did do and end up remarkably clean thereafter.

I have absolutely no doubt that girl was murdered.

-------------------------

Police had to substitute bullet PV/20 (the non fatal wound bullet) which was fired by another different gun, downstairs...

Oddly enough, whoever used the rifle to shoot the victims - there should have been more blood upon the rifle, whether Sheila did it, Jeremy did it, or somebody else did it...

There would only be blood on the rifle if it had been used to batter someone or if it had been used by someone who was already bleeding.

[Alias]

One of the most telling factors for me is the fact that the rifle had little or no blood on it.  Had Sheila indeed used the weapon to shoot herself and then wandered about the house before doing so again, there would have been blood all over the rifle.  Sheila's hands would have been covered in blood as a result of putting her hands on her neck wounds.



Two things are immediately observed.

1. Sheila did not put her hands on her neck since the blood would have been dispersed more around her neck and face.

2. Sheila did not have any blood on her hands.

3. Had Sheila been walking around, blood would have ran down her neck all the way and then onto her nightdress. Notice how there is no such blood runs in front of her and her nightie is unmarked to the front.

As far as I can see it would have been impossible for Sheila to have done what the defence contend she did do and end up remarkably clean thereafter.

I have absolutely no doubt that girl was murdered.

-------------------------

Police had to substitute bullet PV/20 (the non fatal wound bullet) which was fired by another different gun, downstairs...

Oddly enough, whoever used the rifle to shoot the victims - there should have been more blood upon the rifle, whether Sheila did it, Jeremy did it, or somebody else did it...

There would only be blood on the rifle if it had been used to batter someone or if it had been used by someone who was already bleeding.

That would contradict the backspatter into/onto an alleged silencer.

[mike tesko]

One of the most telling factors for me is the fact that the rifle had little or no blood on it.  Had Sheila indeed used the weapon to shoot herself and then wandered about the house before doing so again, there would have been blood all over the rifle.  Sheila's hands would have been covered in blood as a result of putting her hands on her neck wounds.



Two things are immediately observed.

1. Sheila did not put her hands on her neck since the blood would have been dispersed more around her neck and face.

2. Sheila did not have any blood on her hands.

3. Had Sheila been walking around, blood would have ran down her neck all the way and then onto her nightdress. Notice how there is no such blood runs in front of her and her nightie is unmarked to the front.

As far as I can see it would have been impossible for Sheila to have done what the defence contend she did do and end up remarkably clean thereafter.

I have absolutely no doubt that girl was murdered.

-------------------------

Police had to substitute bullet PV/20 (the non fatal wound bullet) which was fired by another different gun, downstairs...

Oddly enough, whoever used the rifle to shoot the victims - there should have been more blood upon the rifle, whether Sheila did it, Jeremy did it, or somebody else did it...

There would only be blood on the rifle if it had been used to batter someone or if it had been used by someone who was already bleeding.

-------------------

You are mistaken on that point - since, the bloodied fingers and right hand of Sheila Caffell was placed upon the weapon in the region of the ammunition magazine and three venting holes, which gave access to the internal mechanisms of the weapon. Any wet blood that dripped from the hand or fingers of Sheila, once her right hand had been placed there, would or could very well have found its way inside the rifle, and later blasted out through the barrel, into the silencer during any test firing of the gun later on, be it in an unofficial capacity or an official one?

[Kaldin]

I still haven't seen any evidence that there was blood on Sheila's hands, apart from a blood stain on the back of her right hand.