Forensic evidence on Neville:

[lookout]

there was a patch of wallpaper on the stairs with blood on it.there were no blooded finger prints on the work tops .soco would have photoed them.

 


If you saw a pic of the table in which the phone was on you'd see prints on the edge of it,unless you choose not to of course.

[maggie]

I don't recollect those bloodied fingerprints ever being tested. They were near the phone.

There certainly appears to be blood on the edge of the work top, lookout but are they finger marks or do we just assume they are? 

[sami]

 


If you saw a pic of the table in which the phone was on you'd see prints on the edge of it,unless you choose not to of course.

please post the link to me.so i can see.its a very good point if they are blooded prints why does the telephone not have a spec of blood on it.as bamber claimed he got a call from nevill.would dci harris touch that phone if it had blood on it.i dont think so

[Caroline]

 


If you saw a pic of the table in which the phone was on you'd see prints on the edge of it,unless you choose not to of course.

Yes, you are right in this instance Lookout ..... I will always support you if I KNOW you are right!

[sami]

Yes, you are right in this instance Lookout ..... I will always support you if I KNOW you are right!

hi caroline .if your talking about the 3 smudges on the left theres no proof they are blooded prints.unless you can show a soco report saying they are.ive not seen one .have you.it also makes no sense why no traces are on the phone or near it.i mean nevill is said to have called jb from there.he was also dripping blood is there a blood trail to where the smudges are.

[Caroline]

hi caroline .if your talking about the 3 smudges on the left theres no proof they are blooded prints.unless you can show a soco report saying they are.ive not seen one .have you.

No, but although they look like finger prints, there is nothing to suggest they were from Nevill, They could be from a glove, left there deliberately to make it look like Nevill used the phone (which of course he didn't!).

[guest154]

No, but although they look like finger prints, there is nothing to suggest they were from Nevill, They could be from a glove, left there deliberately to make it look like Nevill used the phone (which of course he didn't!).

You'd expect some blood to be on the phone, if Neville was in that area with bloodied hands, which I think is the insinuation by those marks.

[sami]

No, but although they look like finger prints, there is nothing to suggest they were from Nevill, They could be from a glove, left there deliberately to make it look like Nevill used the phone (which of course he didn't!).

youre right caroline.when ds jones asked bamber about owning gloves .bamber said he had 2 pairs 1 sheepskin mittens.but the other leather ones with a rip in them. he didnt know where they were.some have said he may have been wearing gloves that morning and had spilt them when the rifle stock broke.while beating nevill in the kitchen

[Caroline]

youre right caroline.when ds jones asked bamber about owning gloves .bamber said he had 2 pairs 1 sheepskin mittens.but the other leather ones with a rip in them. he didnt know where they were.some have said he may have been wearing gloves that morning and had spilt them when the rifle stock broke.while beating nevill in the kitchen

You seem very familiar with the case Sami which is always good! Welcome to the forum - always nice to welcome a comrade!  !! Hope you will be a regular?

[sami]

You seem very familiar with the case Sami which is always good! Welcome to the forum - always nice to welcome a comrade!  !! Hope you will be a regular?

thank you caroline.we all know bambers guilty and working out how he did it is fun .but without the doubters we would just be patting each other on the back.your knowledge on the case is also pretty good.

[Caroline]

thank you caroline.we all know bambers guilty and working out how he did it is fun .but without the doubters we would just be patting each other on the back.your knowledge on the case is also pretty good.

Thanks Sami - I spend too much time on this! I sometimes wonder what I could have done with the time I spend here!  .

Where does your interest stem from?

[sami]

Thanks Sami - I spend too much time on this! I sometimes wonder what I could have done with the time I spend here!  .

Where does your interest stem from?

i was only 17 when the crimes were committed i think the evil of killing to sleeping toddlers has always haunted me since.hence my interest

[sami]

i will never ridicule a persons theory .as long as it doesnt claim jb is innocent.and i say the in's and out's  of this case can never be proved correctly.ie.how she got in bedroom at gunpoint or shot and carried.why that bedroom was picked to kill her .why not  in the twins bedroom.i do not think sheila knew how to load or chamber a round on that rifle.remember jb had planned this crime it wasnt a spur of the moment thing.

[Caroline]

i was only 17 when the crimes were committed i think the evil of killing to sleeping toddlers has always haunted me since.hence my interest

We were a similar age Sami, I so remember it being a big thing but only got interested after watching an episode of Crimes That Shook Britain - since then, I have learned a LOT more

[sami]

We were a similar age Sami, I so remember it being a big thing but only got interested after watching an episode of Crimes That Shook Britain - since then, I have learned a LOT more

caroline ive just a photo  on the forum .claiming there were drops of blood near the 3 prints on the worktops but not showing them in the photo.how do they know there was bloods drops there if theres no photo of them.some what misleading