The Bible

[guest2181]

They would have been on the phone, unless he wiped it. Did they test the phone for fingerprints? I'm surprised there weren't more of his prints on the gun actually.

They did some testing, but I don't know how thorough they were. They had already decided what had happened and any of the occupants prints about the house wouldn't have necessarily been suspicious.

There should be more prints on the rifle, either Sheila's or JB's, or both.

[Adam]

416.

The fact that the defence made no play of the Bible's pages may very well have something to do with another aspect of the matter. The more each member of the court looked at the photographs in order to deal with this point, the more difficult we found it to reconcile the actual bloodstaining with the defence case. The largest area of blood seems to have got onto the Bible when it came into contact with a pool of blood beside the body.

As already observed the Bible must have been shut whilst the blood was wet. It does not seem very likely that it was still wet hours after the event when the police might have handled it. If this is so, it was shut by someone and then reopened to lie beside the body after Sheila Caffell had been shot.

These matters along with other considerations of a similar kind were placed before us by the prosecution on an application to call fresh evidence with which we will deal later. It did not, however, require fresh evidence for us to see that there was a potentially powerful point that might have been made in this regard by the prosecution at trial.

This again has Bamber banged to rights.

[Kaldin]

This again has Bamber banged to rights.

Why do you assume that the Bible was placed there after Sheila was shot, other than the issue of it being on top of her arm? The Bible being shut and opened again doesn't prove that it was placed there after she was dead.

[Kaldin]

Was the Bible produced at the trial or not? The appeal court assumes that it was, but does anyone know for sure?

[David1819]

This again has Bamber banged to rights.

This was written BEFORE the police notes were disclosed showing they found the bible almost 1ft away from her body.

You can keep posting as much outdated evidence as you want. You can't chance the bigger picture that has emerged no matter how many times you post it.

[guest2181]

They're making quite an assumption that - that the Bible was put there after Sheila was shot.

We're not privy to all the information. Perhaps they had concluded that the blood on the bible did belong to Sheila.
If that is the case, then her limited movement after being shot makes it unlikely or dare I say it, impossible for her to have bled on the bible and then closed it before opening it again on the same page.

It might not be an assumption at all.

[guest2181]

Was the Bible produced at the trial or not? The appeal court assumes that it was, but does anyone know for sure?

Have you read Terzeon's statement?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,618.msg13754.html#msg13754

[Adam]

This was written BEFORE the police notes were disclosed showing they found the bible almost 1ft away from her body.

You can keep posting as much outdated evidence as you want. You can't chance the bigger picture that has emerged no matter how many times you post it.

Where is the source that the police moved the bible before the photos were taken ?

[Roch]

We're not privy to all the information. Perhaps they had concluded that the blood on the bible did belong to Sheila.
If that is the case, then her limited movement after being shot makes it unlikely or dare I say it, impossible for her to have bled on the bible and then closed it before opening it again on the same page.

It might not be an assumption at all.

In such circumstances - don't you think a court and jury should have been allowed to decide the importance of it - rather than it being concealed from them?

[Adam]

Why do you assume that the Bible was placed there after Sheila was shot, other than the issue of it being on top of her arm? The Bible being shut and opened again doesn't prove that it was placed there after she was dead.

You know Sheila didn't put the bible on the floor, close it, then open it again. Then put it onto her arm after she had killed herself.

[Adam]

Obviously the police took the bible away after everything had been completed at the crime scene. By then the blood in the bible had dried.

[Kaldin]

We're not privy to all the information. Perhaps they had concluded that the blood on the bible did belong to Sheila.
If that is the case, then her limited movement after being shot makes it unlikely or dare I say it, impossible for her to have bled on the bible and then closed it before opening it again on the same page.

It might not be an assumption at all.

If they had concluded that the blood came from Sheila, I think they would have said so - the document is very detailed.

If it was Sheila's blood, the question still remains as to whether she put the blood there herself, or if someone else put her blood there.

[Kaldin]

Have you read Terzeon's statement?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,618.msg13754.html#msg13754

I have now - thank you.

[Kaldin]

You know Sheila didn't put the bible on the floor, close it, then open it again. Then put it onto her arm after she had killed herself.

How do I know she didn't put it on the floor, close it, then open it again? Why could she not have done so?

I agree about it being on her arm, but I'm still considering that issue.

[lookout]

Didn't I read somewhere that the blood on the Bible belonged to June ?