New Technology

[Jan]

see this is the sort of thing that gets the case a bad name 

one document says one thing - then we get this


No fingerprint records existed to prove any of the bullet cases had been done..

There exists no police records to prove that any of the bullet cases were fingerprinted to try and prove who handled them, and loaded them into the gun - according to a report made in the name of Detective sergeant 1099 R. T. Gilbert, dated 1st May, 2000, it states the following:-

"On the 24th March 2000, I attended HQ fingerprints and looked through the file kept there that relates to the BAMBER enquiry. I was able to ascertain the full extent of the fingerprint search at various scenes that were relevant to this enquiry. What was clear was that there was no record of the spent cartridges that had been seized from White house farm, Tolleshunt D'Arcy having been searched for fingerprints

[lookout]

someone said before the casings were too small for prints ( but I guess not for DNA) but I am guessing they did not find fibres from gloves either?

I wonder what the document was that said their were prints?

It'll hopefully come to light with the rest of those which don't run in consecutive order.

[Jane]

Did people really think that Sheila hadn't known one end of a gun/rifle from the other ? On a working farm ?

My friend's daughter has absolutely NO interest in guns, has never touched one and has never been on a shoot. Like me, she knows that the bullet comes out of the end with a hole in it.

[JackiePreece]

My friend's daughter has absolutely NO interest in guns, has never touched one and has never been on a shoot. Like me, she knows that the bullet comes out of the end with a hole in it.

Ngb who knows a lot about guns has previously stated it would have been very easy for Sheila to use the gun in question

I accept his opinion

[Jane]

Ngb who knows a lot about guns has previously stated it would have been very easy for Sheila to use the gun in question

I accept his opinion

If she was proficient with guns, per se, it probably was. The first -and only- time I fired a gun, even holding it felt alien to me, and I required help. I was told that I could have been bruised(?) but that thought had never occurred to me. If Sheila fired all those shots, why was she not bruised?

[Jan]

If she was proficient with guns, per se, it probably was. The first -and only- time I fired a gun, even holding it felt alien to me, and I required help. I was told that I could have been bruised(?) but that thought had never occurred to me. If Sheila fired all those shots, why was she not bruised?

you would be if it was a shotgun . I have seen claims that this rifle is easy to use and would not produce bruising.

[Caroline]

My friend's daughter has absolutely NO interest in guns, has never touched one and has never been on a shoot. Like me, she knows that the bullet comes out of the end with a hole in it.

If they founf nothing on the casings, how many people here would hold up their hands and admit that Jeremy must be guilty?

[Caroline]

If she was proficient with guns, per se, it probably was. The first -and only- time I fired a gun, even holding it felt alien to me, and I required help. I was told that I could have been bruised(?) but that thought had never occurred to me. If Sheila fired all those shots, why was she not bruised?

Or at least had 'some' sign that he had fired it.

[Jane]

you would be if it was a shotgun . I have seen claims that this rifle is easy to use and would not produce bruising.

And if those "claims" refer to a proficient gun user, that may be the case, but Sheila wasn't and numerous shots were fired.

[Jan]

If they founf nothing on the casings, how many people here would hold up their hands and admit that Jeremy must be guilty?

 I would assume they would find Jeremys DNA on some of the casings or all of the casings - if it was the latter - guilty
.

If they found Sheilas  DNA on some casings  and Jeremys on others that would indicate she was responsible

Jeremys on part - nothing on the others - probably would mean guilt as he used gloves - although apparently it would be hard to load the gun with gloves

So I am thinking it would depend on what they found on each casing and whether the super glue would affect the results.

So why do we think there was some residue on the casings but NO records of fingerprints being taken

[Jan]

And if those "claims" refer to a proficient gun user, that may be the case, but Sheila wasn't and numerous shots were fired.

I am no gun expert - you would have to ask NGB . It depends on recoil strength .

[lookout]

Ngb who knows a lot about guns has previously stated it would have been very easy for Sheila to use the gun in question

I accept his opinion

Me too,as even a child who watched " how it was done " would immediately grasp its concept.

[Caroline]

I would assume they would find Jeremys DNA on some of the casings or all of the casings - if it was the latter - guilty
.

If they found Sheilas  DNA on some casings  and Jeremys on others that would indicate she was responsible

Jeremys on part - nothing on the others - probably would mean guilt as he used gloves - although apparently it would be hard to load the gun with gloves

So I am thinking it would depend on what they found on each casing and whether the super glue would affect the results.

So why do we think there was some residue on the casings but NO records of fingerprints being taken

Why? He didn't deny handling the bullets, he said he 'tipped then out' so he's already made his excuse.

[Jan]

Why? He didn't deny handling the bullets, he said he 'tipped then out' so he's already made his excuse.

No - tipping out is different to loading them in the magazine. In his story he only loaded some not all that were used in the shootings and some came from a different box we have to assume? He would not have touched those would he?
 50 on the side - 29 or 30 left .

And I don't think he would be making an excuse for DNA evidence that was not even in existence then.

Did not someone say some bullets had been loaded twice ? So some would have both DNA on?

[Caroline]

No - tipping out is different to loading them in the magazine. In his story he only loaded some not all that were used in the shootings and some came from a different box we have to assume? He would not have touched those would he?
 50 on the side - 29 or 30 left .

And I don't think he would be making an excuse for DNA evidence that was not even in existence then.

Did not someone say some bullets had been loaded twice ? So some would have both DNA on?

A different box? I don't think I've heard that before.

What I mean is if he tipped them out, he could easily say that some rolled across the counter and he had to pick them up. There wouldn't be prints or DNA on all and given that he admits to handling at least 11 it's not going to prove anything unless it's Sheila's prints/DNA - if not, we're right back where we started.