What makes Bamber innocent?

[sami]

And before that it Claims Jeremy was showing her how to load the rifle. Loading a rifle requires putting fingertips on bullets BTW

They identified positive results for fingerprints on shell casings. In this situation you only have two suspects Sheila and Jeremy. Determining between Jeremy and Sheila would be rather easy even with partial prints and size of the prints alone. 

To show they identified Sheila's prints is the fact RWB tried to explain Sheila's prints on the shell casings and the Police then covering up any testing on shell casings took place. Are you saying police found all prints consistent with Jeremy and then covered up the evidence for the fun of it?

I did not say that. RWB sais he was given information in confidence from the police. full stop

take a look david,the link is below

[David1819]

take a look david,the link is below

More details on that can be found here.
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cci/reference/lpdnactg.pdf

notice it sais
After processing, no useable or identifiable prints were developed

what is their standard or benchmark for useable or identifiable prints? 

In this case you only have two suspects, even the size/width of poor quality prints could help establish whether it be Sheila or Jeremy. We know they found prints and it begs the question as to why they covered up the results and never disclosed them.

[Jane]

And before that it Claims Jeremy was showing her how to load the rifle. Loading a rifle requires putting fingertips on bullets BTW..............................

...................But then we have June STATING -not just CLAIMING- that Sheila would have NOTHING to do with loading the rifle. However, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Jeremy surreptitiously got Sheila to handle a bullet or bullets. After all, his only aim would have been to get her fingerprints.

[sami]

More details on that can be found here.
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cci/reference/lpdnactg.pdf

notice it sais
After processing, no useable or identifiable prints were developed

what is their standard or benchmark for useable or identifiable prints? 

In this case you only have two suspects, even the size/width of poor quality prints could help establish whether it be Sheila or Jeremy. We know they found prints and it begs the question as to why they covered up the results and never disclosed them.

it clearly says NO identifiable prints can be found on .22 shellcases,as to standing up in court and saying the size n width are the same as one of the above 2 ,would be throwen out of court ,cause size n width can never show who a print belongs to,i think there has to be a certain amount  of ridge lines for positive id

[mike tesko]

In the instant matter, (whf) there were a total of 'nine cartridge cases' amongst the 'finalised batch of crime scene ammunition' (FCSA) which had 'not' been exposed to 'superglue treatment', and 'fifthteen cartridge cases' which 'had'...

[mike tesko]

In the instant matter, (whf) there were a total of 'nine cartridge cases' amongst the 'finalised batch of crime scene ammunition' (FCSA) which had 'not' been exposed to 'superglue treatment', and 'fifthteen cartridge cases' which 'had'...

Yet, according to 'Ron' Cook, 'all of the 25 originall cartridge cases', were fingerprinted twice, once on the 15th August 1985 by 'oblique light test', and secondly, on the 25th August 1985, by 'superglue technique'. This being true then why did a total of nine cartridge cases in the batch of 'fcsa' have 'no white residue' upon them?

[mike tesko]

The only possible solution to this discrepancy was that at least these nine cartridge cases had 'not' formed part and parcel of the batch of the original batch of ammunition ('OBA') fingerprinted by way of 'superglue treatment' by 'Ron' Cook on the 25th August 1985, otherwise they would have 'all been coated in white residue' from the superglue treatment. This suggests that nine cartridge cases may have been 'swapped over', and there has to be a reason for the cops and the ballistic expert to have to have done that? The only conclusion that I am drawn to, is that (a) the 'originals of these nine cartrge cases' had 'Sheila Caffells part fingerprints upon them', and or, (b) that at least nine of the original batch of 25 cartridges had been loaded into and fired from a different weapon than the anshuzt rifle...

[mike tesko]

How 'remarkable, that two of these nine cartridge cases which 'do not' have 'white residue' upon them were 'DRH/1' and 'DRH/2', supposedly found with Sheila Caffells body...

[mike tesko]

How 'remarkable, that two of these nine cartridge cases which 'do not' have 'white residue' upon them were 'DRH/1' and 'DRH/2', supposedly found with Sheila Caffells body...

Here is a comprehensive list of 'these' eight dodgy bullet cases:-

(1) - DRH/1 - next to Sheila Caffells body
(2) - DRH/2 - next to Sheila Caffells body
(3) - DRH/6
(4) - DRH/8
(5) - DRH/10
(6) - DRH/11
(7) - DRH/39 (1)
(8) - DRH/41
(9) - DRH/43

[mike tesko]

Surely, one would expect the cops to fingerprint these two cartridge (DRH/1, and DRH/2) cases found with Sheila's body, yet neither were coated in white residue from superglue treatment. How can that be right?

[Caroline]

I'm not misquoting. The points and evidence I put forward when combined form a cohesive argument for Sheila's being present on the shell casings. Its no good nitpicking minor details of one aspect, because that does not refute or challenge the argument I put forward.

It is clear you are being dishonest David - RB said that June told him that SHEILA WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH LOADING THE RIFLE. So using that as a basis for your argument is dead in the water. What is more, you had his statement in front of you were you would have read what he said, instead you chose to post a misquote from Michael Turner. You're bow even trying to change what the experts say. It doesn't really matter because your argument would fail for all of the above reasons. To suggest 25 bullets all had identifiable prints when that's clearly not possible is just silly.

When you post something, I always check it out - so there is no point in misquoting to suit your own ends.

[Caroline]

And before that it Claims Jeremy was showing her how to load the rifle. Loading a rifle requires putting fingertips on bullets BTW

They identified positive results for fingerprints on shell casings. In this situation you only have two suspects Sheila and Jeremy. Determining between Jeremy and Sheila would be rather easy even with partial prints and size of the prints alone. 

To show they identified Sheila's prints is the fact RWB tried to explain Sheila's prints on the shell casings and the Police then covering up any testing on shell casings took place. Are you saying police found all prints consistent with Jeremy and then covered up the evidence for the fun of it?

I did not say that. RWB sais he was given information in confidence from the police. full stop

So you have no evidence to show they got Sheila's prints from the casings! The best they 'could' have achieved were partial prints and as RB stated that Jeremy was showing Sheila how to load the rifle, they would have been his because RB stated that June was clear that in saying 'Sheila would have nothing to do with it'.

I am saying that they found no IDENTIFIABLE prints and you jumping the gun to suggest RB's statement proves they found Sheila's is ridiculous.

you suggested that RB was given 'information in confidence' by the police and you are suggesting he was told that they found Sheila's prints on the casings!!' You only 'proof' of this is one of RB mad scenario's which at any other point, you would ridicule! 

D) Police found prints on the shell casings and RB was given information "in confidence" by the police

[Caroline]

More details on that can be found here.
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cci/reference/lpdnactg.pdf

notice it sais
After processing, no useable or identifiable prints were developed

what is their standard or benchmark for useable or identifiable prints? 

In this case you only have two suspects, even the size/width of poor quality prints could help establish whether it be Sheila or Jeremy. We know they found prints and it begs the question as to why they covered up the results and never disclosed them.

Now you know better than the experts? The evidence posted shows that the likelihood of obtaining an identifiable print from a bullet casing is zero - the best that can be hoped for is a partial but to suggest that they found partial or whole prints on all of the casings is silly. There is zero evidence of Sheila's prints on the casings.

I posted this link a few days ago but Sami has asked me to post it again.

https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/03/23/fingerprints-from-shell-casings/

[sami]

Now you know better than the experts? The evidence posted shows that the likelihood of obtaining an identifiable print from a bullet casing is zero - the best that can be hoped for is a partial but to suggest that they found partial or whole prints on all of the casings is silly. There is zero evidence of Sheila's prints on the casings.

I posted this link a few days ago but Sami has asked me to post it again.

https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/03/23/fingerprints-from-shell-casings/

i think that kills the arguement STONEDEAD,CAROLINE

[mike tesko]

Fingerprints have been found on cartridge cases in a lot of investigations. Not only that, but 'Ron' Cook fingerprinted these 25 original cartridge cases from the scene at whf, on two separate occasions, once by 'oblique light test' (15th August 1985), and secondly by 'cynoacrylate fumes', on the 25th August 1985 - these are the 'facts' in this investigation. Therefore we should expect all 25 cartridge cases to have been coated in 'white residue', but we find at least eight such cartridges were 'white residue' free...

Cartridges, DRH/1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 39 (1), 41 and 43, were 'all' residue 'free'...

Whereas, cartridges, DRH/3, 4, 7, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 37, 38, 39 (2), and 46, all had residue upon them...

A further four cartridges still under 'review', DRH/6, 13, 14 and 40...