Why the police did not disturb the kitchen crime scene:

[susan]

I once hit my face on a kitchen cupboard Maggie right on the nose and I ended up with 2 of the biggest black eyes ever!!

Lucy I can understand how that could happen.

[Lucy522]

Lucy I can understand how that could happen.

Bloody hurt lol

[notsure]

Notsure if Jeremy had marks anywhere on his body Julie would have mentioned it I am sure.  We have been told by an excellent poster that Sheila had numerous marks on her being and we did see grazes and scratches on her hand well I and some others did too.

Hi Susan yes I agree completely. I have no doubt that if Julie had seen any marks on jb she would have said so. Adam can't argue that point
So it is dismissed lol .

[Lucy522]

Hi Susan yes I agree completely. I have no doubt that if Julie had seen any marks on jb she would have said so. Adam can't argue that point
So it is dismissed lol .

I think the pictures of Sheila show a lot more than a woman who layed down willingly and allowed herself to be shot, did they ever scrape her nails for DNA?

[Caroline]

I think the pictures of Sheila show a lot more than a woman who layed down willingly and allowed herself to be shot, did they ever scrape her nails for DNA?

In 1985?

[notsure]

No sources. Just common sense that Bamber would wear suitable clothes and shoes.

Gloves & a balaclava would also make sense. Didn't Julie say Bamber said one of the gloves fell off mid massacre.

I also believe Bamber could have worn a wet suit under his clothes. He would not lose any flexibility & the skin tight thickness would be a protective barrier for the skin. He also had a wet suit available.

This is hilarious

[Jan]

No sources. Just common sense that Bamber would wear suitable clothes and shoes.

Gloves & a balaclava would also make sense. Didn't Julie say Bamber said one of the gloves fell off mid massacre.

I also believe Bamber could have worn a wet suit under his clothes. He would not lose any flexibility & the skin tight thickness would be a protective barrier for the skin. He also had a wet suit available.

No  sources . Tut tut

Wet suit was tested . It was not used in the crime .

[Lucy522]

In 1985?

They could of scraped them and tested them for blood etc what was the point of the bags on the hands then,?

[Jan]

In 1985?

Not that far out 

In 1986, Richard Buckland was exonerated, despite having admitted to the rape and murder of a teenager near Leicester, the city where DNA profiling was first developed. This was the first use of DNA fingerprinting in a criminal investigation, and the first to prove a suspect's innocence.[62] The following year Colin Pitchfork was identified as the perpetrator of the same murder, in addition to another, using the same techniques that had cleared Buckland.[63]



I am sure that EP knew that the ability to use DNA in criminal cases was not far off .

[Lucy522]

Not that far out 

In 1986, Richard Buckland was exonerated, despite having admitted to the rape and murder of a teenager near Leicester, the city where DNA profiling was first developed. This was the first use of DNA fingerprinting in a criminal investigation, and the first to prove a suspect's innocence.[62] The following year Colin Pitchfork was identified as the perpetrator of the same murder, in addition to another, using the same techniques that had cleared Buckland.[63]



I am sure that EP knew that the ability to use DNA in criminal cases was not far off .

So it wouldn't of been that far away at trial Jan? And could of been used in appeals?

[Caroline]

Not that far out 

In 1986, Richard Buckland was exonerated, despite having admitted to the rape and murder of a teenager near Leicester, the city where DNA profiling was first developed. This was the first use of DNA fingerprinting in a criminal investigation, and the first to prove a suspect's innocence.[62] The following year Colin Pitchfork was identified as the perpetrator of the same murder, in addition to another, using the same techniques that had cleared Buckland.[63]



I am sure that EP knew that the ability to use DNA in criminal cases was not far off .

OK, now EP have to have the power to read the future? It doesn't matter how far off it was, it was far enough off not to be something that was done at the time. Sheila was cremated at Jeremy's request so no chance of getting any further evidence from an exhumation at a later date. It was pre DNA as far as the police were concerned.

[Caroline]

So it wouldn't of been that far away at trial Jan? And could of been used in appeals?

How could they have taken DNA swabs in 1985 when they didn't do DNA testing then? Sheila was cremated shortly after her death so any such tests were out of the question.

[Lucy522]

How could they have taken DNA swabs in 1985 when they didn't do DNA testing then? Sheila was cremated shortly after her death so any such tests were out of the question.

I'm pretty sure they could of scraped her nails and tested for blood, they managed to ascertain "or not" who's blood was in the silencer; there were nail marks on Neville dodged

[Adam]

I'm pretty sure they could of scraped her nails and tested for blood, they managed to ascertain "or not" who's blood was in the silencer; there were nail marks on Neville dodged

The police already had Sheila's blood. In a fridge.

[Jan]

So it wouldn't of been that far away at trial Jan? And could of been used in appeals?

Yes if they had kept everything .