Forensic evidence on Neville:

[Jan]

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.

where does it say it was nevilles - read my post - they were not able to blood group it . And you have just raised a point to indicate he was beaten after being shot - so no reason why Sheila was not capable .

So no evidence on her clothing ? And no evidence on Jeremys .

[Jane]

where does it say it was nevilles - read my post - they were not able to blood group it . And you have just raised a point to indicate he was beaten after being shot - so no reason why Sheila was not capable .

So no evidence on her clothing ? And no evidence on Jeremys .

Jan, I'm not certain how you can confidently state that there was no evidence on Jeremy's clothes. The most that can confidently be said is that there was no evidence that anyone saw. The reason for this would be that he had all the time in the world to put clothes in his washing machine -if he'd been questioned, he could have said, truthfully, that they were the clothes he'd worn to work that day- or hide them in different places all over the house. He had a month to get rid of them if he'd wanted but may have thought he'd have longer as didn't believe he'd be caught.

[Adam]

where does it say it was nevilles - read my post - they were not able to blood group it . And you have just raised a point to indicate he was beaten after being shot - so no reason why Sheila was not capable .

So no evidence on her clothing ? And no evidence on Jeremys .

Whose blood was it then, a rabbits ?

The smashed lampshade, paint on the silencer, upturned chairs, sugar on the floor and Neville getting downstairs all points to what the judge described as a 'tremendous fight for life'.

If Neville just got downstairs and collapsed, Sheila would just shoot him again.  Spending several minutes giving a dead man such horrific injuries is warped. And there is no reason why the kitchen should be damaged.

[Jan]

Jan, I'm not certain how you can confidently state that there was no evidence on Jeremy's clothes. The most that can confidently be said is that there was no evidence that anyone saw. The reason for this would be that he had all the time in the world to put clothes in his washing machine -if he'd been questioned, he could have said, truthfully, that they were the clothes he'd worn to work that day- or hide them in different places all over the house. He had a month to get rid of them if he'd wanted but may have thought he'd have longer as didn't believe he'd be caught.

there was no evidence found . I doubt he had a tumble drier in those days so his damp clothes would have been in the house . and I am well aware of the argument he had a month - but he can not have known that . I am just stating facts . There was no proof  he got rid of evidence and apparently no evidence on sheilas clothes either . So we can assume what he was thinking all we like but there is no proof.

BTW the comment that Julie made about forensics was in 2002 and is about 70% through the CAL book.

she stood by her evidence - she believed he was guilty - but new forensic methods might shed light on the case - or words to that effect.

I suppose you cold read that either was but IMO I though it was an odd thing to say.

[Jane]

Whose blood was it then, a rabbits ?

The smashed lampshade, paint on the silencer, upturned chairs, sugar on the floor and Neville getting downstairs all points to what the judge described as a 'tremendous fight for life'.

If Neville just got downstairs and collapsed, Sheila would just shoot him again.  Spending several minutes giving a dead man such horrific injuries is warped. And there is no reason why the kitchen should be damaged.

Whilst an uninjured Nevill was a fine, upright figure of a man, a badly injured Nevill would have been very unsteady on his feet. Until such time he eventually collapsed into a chair, I imagine he'd probably have stumbled all over the kitchen, crashing/bumping into everything as he tried to reach out to steady himself. I can't see how the kitchen wouldn't have been damaged in the process.

[Jan]

Whose blood was it then, a rabbits ?

The smashed lampshade, paint on the silencer, upturned chairs, sugar on the floor and Neville getting downstairs all points to what the judge described as a 'tremendous fight for life'.

If Neville just got downstairs and collapsed, Sheila would just shoot him again.  Spending several minutes giving a dead man such horrific injuries is warped. And there is no reason why the kitchen should be damaged.

ha ! yes Adam you are right there is a document from the lab showing animal blood - well done!

but some of it could have been blood from any of the victims - so the fact is it was not proven it was Nevilles which is what I said in the first place. 

And the whole thing is warped so why try and apply logic? If Sheila was guilty she was not of sound mind so why would she not beat her father if she shot him? Your reply is illogical?

[Jan]

Whilst an uninjured Nevill was a fine, upright figure of a man, a badly injured Nevill would have been very unsteady on his feet. Until such time he eventually collapsed into a chair, I imagine he'd probably have stumbled all over the kitchen, crashing/bumping into everything as he tried to reach out to steady himself. I can't see how the kitchen wouldn't have been damaged in the process.

that would apply for either murder suspect.

[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.

Well the 2002 appeal does not mention animal blood.

I am not sure what you trying to say. Neville was battered brutally by Bamber. And got horrific injuries.

If it was not Neville's blood on the rifle, how does it show guilt or innocence to Bamber or Sheila.

[Jane]

there was no evidence found . I doubt he had a tumble drier in those days so his damp clothes would have been in the house . and I am well aware of the argument he had a month - but he can not have known that . I am just stating facts . There was no proof  he got rid of evidence and apparently no evidence on sheilas clothes either . So we can assume what he was thinking all we like but there is no proof.

BTW the comment that Julie made about forensics was in 2002 and is about 70% through the CAL book.

she stood by her evidence - she believed he was guilty - but new forensic methods might shed light on the case - or words to that effect.

I suppose you cold read that either was but IMO I though it was an odd thing to say.

I wonder why you'd think a modern young man in the mid 1980's wouldn't have a tumble drier. Can you see Jeremy hanging his shirts on the line? But even if he hadn't he'd have been entitled to have damp clothes hanging around the house.

Why would there be proof that he'd disposed of any clothes? No one -to my knowledge- asked for a list of his shirts and trousers. It's hardly surprising that there's no evidence of a family slaughter on Sheila's clothes.

I think we've previously discussed what CAL gives Julie as saying. IMO she ISN'T implying that new evidence might show that she's been lying -I simply don't believe, if she'd been lying, she'd be stupid enough to give a clue to the author- but I do think she meant that new forensics could turn up something new which might further corroborate her belief in his guilt.

[Jan]

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.

Well the 2002 appeal does not mention animal blood.

I am not sure what you trying to say. Neville was battered brutally by Bamber. And got horrific injuries.

If it was not Neville's blood on the rifle, how does it show guilt or innocence to Bamber or Sheila.

the word used is consistent- it does not mean it was his blood .

And you are exactly right it proves nothing either way - so it is not forensic proof that Jeremy did it.

At last you get where I am coming from .

He was convicted on circumstancial evidence and I am aware of the legal implications of this so don't waste your breath. But that is why we are still on here discussing the case .

[Adam]

the word used is consistent- it does not mean it was his blood .

And you are exactly right it proves nothing either way - so it is not forensic proof that Jeremy did it.

At last you get where I am coming from .

He was convicted on circumstancial evidence and I am aware of the legal implications of this so don't waste your breath. But that is why we are still on here discussing the case .

Well the 2002 appeal said it was not determined whose blood it was. However there is no doubt that Neville was brutally beaten and shot eight times.

Well there could now be up to a 100 pieces of incriminating forensic evidence against Bamber. I even had to create a forensic evidence' library. The 2002 appeal document is a real treasure trove.

But I admire you're tenacity. Even Lookout is no longer asking me what forensic evidence there is.

[Jan]

Well the 2002 appeal said it was not determined whose blood it was. However there is no doubt that Neville was brutally beaten and shot eight times.

Well there could now be up to a 100 pieces of incriminating forensic evidence against Bamber. I even had to create a forensic evidence' library. The 2002 appeal document is a real treasure trove.

But I admire you're tenacity. Even Lookout is no longer asking me what forensic evidence there is.

No there are not 100  pieces of incriminating forensic evidence . That is not true. And I think you will find that even the people who believe he is guilty would agree with that.

[susan]

No there are not 100  pieces of incriminating forensic evidence . That is not true. And I think you will find that even the people who believe he is guilty would agree with that.

 

Jan I agree think Adam is exaggerating

[Adam]

 

Jan I agree think Adam is exaggerating

Well there were 28 when I created my 'Forensic Breakdown' thread several weeks ago.

Since then there has been detailed threads on the forensic evidence of five people, together with the kitchen fight. Using the 'Primary' source of the 2002 appeal report.

Using common sense from the 2002 forensic evidence reports adds dozens of devastating blows to Bamber.

[Jane]

Well there were 28 when I created my 'Forensic Breakdown' thread several weeks ago.

Since then there has been threads on the forensic evidence of five people, together with the kitchen fight. Using the 'Primary' source of the 2002 appeal report.

Using common sense from the 2002 forensic evidence reports adds dozens of devastating blows to Bamber.

28 is 72 short of 100. There have been no threads on forensic evidence but there have been threads with "forensic" added to the titles in an attempt to give them weight and authority. I suspect that information gathered from the 2002 may have been slanted in the direction the thread compiler wishes it to take.