Forensic evidence on Neville:

[Caroline]

The rifle butt most likely fell off because Neville was repeatedly hit by it with extreme brute force. As there was blood on the rifle and Neville's injuries were so horrific.

If there was a struggle in the kitchen over the rifle, it would not hit a hard surface hard enough to break. Neither Bamber or Neville have any reason to hit a hard surface with the rifle with extreme brute force.

It is much more likely the silencer would scratch the wall in a struggle, resulting in the red paint getting on there.

i did break!

[Adam]

i did break!

That's what my first sentence says. Breaking from Bamber hitting Neville with it.

Bamber would have hit Neville using all his strength. Neville's skull and body were hard enough objects for the rifle to break. And the rifle was a hard enough object to help Neville get his horrifc injuries.

[Adam]

The rifle breaking, the upturned chairs and Neville's horrific beating highlights what the judge called a tremendous struggle in the kitchen. 

Sheila could not have participated in this and not got a mark on her. Several supporters agree with this and have looked at ways around this. Resulting in the claim that Sheila had a shower and put a clean nightie on, prior to killing herself.

[guest7363]

No, that was the first picture, the yellow highlight was this .......

It looks to me if it came off the grip area? Looks lighter in that area as though varnish was missing?

[Caroline]

It looks to me if it came off the grip area? Looks lighter in that area as though varnish was missing?

Yes, I noticed that too.

[Caroline]

It looks to me if it came off the grip area? Looks lighter in that area as though varnish was missing?

Here?

[Jan]

I cant understand why there was not more blood/fingerprint evidence or even other evidence from the beating such as skin etc.   Unless the police did realise they should not have handled the gun without gloves and did wipe it?

It does not make sense.

Also if you are saying that there should be evidence on Sheila then there should have been on Jeremy as well and to this day there is no evidence of that either - and we can assume all we like about where his clothes went but they were never found and it appears he funnily did not reveal that bit to Julie - Everything he "revealed" was either in the evidence the police already  had or could have been made up. 

[Adam]

I cant understand why there was not more blood/fingerprint evidence or even other evidence from the beating such as skin etc.   Unless the police did realise they should not have handled the gun without gloves and did wipe it?

It does not make sense.

Also if you are saying that there should be evidence on Sheila then there should have been on Jeremy as well and to this day there is no evidence of that either - and we can assume all we like about where his clothes went but they were never found and it appears he funnily did not reveal that bit to Julie - Everything he "revealed" was either in the evidence the police already  had or could have been made up.

Well Bamber had a month to dispose of the clothes. In Eastbourne, Burnham, London, Amsterdam or St Tropez. I suspect he washed them straight away.

[Jan]

 quote author=Adam link=topic=7195.msg340852#msg340852 date=1450638270]
Well Bamber had a month to dispose of the clothes. In Eastbourne, Burnham, London, Amsterdam or St Tropez. I suspect he washed them straight away.
[/quote]
 

 

yes of course he did .

[Jan]

Well Bamber had a month to dispose of the clothes. In Eastbourne, Burnham, London, Amsterdam or St Tropez. I suspect he washed them straight away.

so why do you think there were not bits of nevilles flesh  and blood on the gun?

[Adam]

so why do you think there were not bits of nevilles flesh  and blood on the gun?

Why should there be his flesh.?

How does this relate to guilt or innocence to either person ?

I thought the rifle did have blood on. I will check.

[Jan]

Why should there be his flesh.?

How does this relate to guilt or innocence to either person ?

I thought the rifle did have blood on. I will check.

it did - some was animal - but not enough for blood grouping .

you just said he was beaten with the rifle and listed the injuries - so why would there not be lots of blood and bits of flesh on the gun?

[Caroline]

I cant understand why there was not more blood/fingerprint evidence or even other evidence from the beating such as skin etc.   Unless the police did realise they should not have handled the gun without gloves and did wipe it?

It does not make sense.

Also if you are saying that there should be evidence on Sheila then there should have been on Jeremy as well and to this day there is no evidence of that either - and we can assume all we like about where his clothes went but they were never found and it appears he funnily did not reveal that bit to Julie - Everything he "revealed" was either in the evidence the police already  had or could have been made up.

There would have been blood on Jeremy - he had time to clean up.

[Adam]

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.

There was blood. No one has ever suggested there should be bits of flesh as well.

[Jan]

There would have been blood on Jeremy - he had time to clean up.

but there is no evidence he did .