Why wasn't crispy shot?

[lookout]

No.

Well what was the muck on her hand and what had caused it ?

[Adam]

Well what was the muck on her hand and what had caused it ?

There is no 'muck on her hand'. You are praying again.

[David1819]

Wasn't there " soot " on her hand ?

where do you get these ideas from? 

[Adam]

Wasn't there " soot " on her hand ?

After firing 25 shots & re loading twice.

47.  Her fingernails were well manicured and not broken and there were no marks or indentations on any of her fingers. All her fingertips were clean and free from any blood, dirt or powder and there appeared to be no trace of any lead dust or coating which is usual when handling .22 ammunition.


Saying 'wasn't there', 'if', 'didn't this', 'could have' does not help Bamber.

[Adam]

Wasn't there " soot " on her hand ?

48. The act of loading the magazine of an automatic weapon (carried out at least twice in this case) would be expected to leave visible traces of the lubricant and the materials from the bullets on the hands

[Adam]

Wasn't there " soot " on her hand ?

50. Following removal of the bags at the mortuary, Sheila Caffell's hands and forehead were swabbed. Extremely low traces of lead were detected when the swabs were examined. Such levels being consistent with the levels found from the handling of every day things around the house.

These results were compared to hand swabs taken from volunteers at the laboratory who were required to load the magazine with eighteen rounds of ammunition. Significantly higher traces of lead were found than those recorded on the hands of Mrs Caffell.

The scientist Mr Elliott gave evidence that if Sheila Caffell had loaded eighteen cartridges into a magazine he would have expected the hand swabs to have revealed appreciably higher deposits of lead.

[Adam]

Wasn't there " soot " on her hand ?

177. At trial Brian Elliott, a scientist from the Home Office Forensic Science Laboratory, gave evidence that the item DRH/33 described as "Swabbing Kit – hands of Sheila Caffell" had been received at the laboratory on 13 September 1985.

He said that tests had been carried out for the presence of lead and that only "very low levels of lead have been detected on the two hand swabs".

He further reported that tests had been carried out on two members of the laboratory staff who had loaded eighteen cartridges, similar to those used to shoot those who died at White House Farm, into the magazine of the rifle, and "significantly higher levels of lead" had been detected.

Clearly if this evidence was right it cast doubt upon Sheila Caffell having loaded the cartridges into the gun and thus to her having killed the others and then herself.

[lookout]

There is no 'muck on her hand'. You are praying again.

Praying ?

[lookout]

where do you get these ideas from? 

Blimey,don't you start too 

[Kaldin]

Surely, had there been anything obvious on her hands, they wouldn't have been described as being clean?

I think that saying her hands were clean is not really accurate because there was blood on them. It's all too vague really.

[Adam]

A quote from the judge in his summing up. Copied from the COA -

"Then another point is that when she was found, there was no blood marks on her feet – on the soles of her feet.

Well, you may think that is a matter of considerable importance because she had been involved in the fighting with her father as well as killing her mother, surely it is inconceivable that her feet would have been clean in the way that they were found to be, and in the way you see them to be clean from the photograph.

What is suggested on behalf of the Defence is that after killing, at any rate, the father and the mother, she went and washed; and tied up with that piece of evidence is the fact that there were no marks of lead on her hands."

                                           ---------------------

What is interesting here is the jury were shown pictures of Sheila's feet. I suspect this included the same picture which surfaced in the media a few years ago. Which just shows a bit of redness, perhaps due to recent digital enhancement.

[Kaldin]

After firing 25 shots & re loading twice.

47.  Her fingernails were well manicured and not broken and there were no marks or indentations on any of her fingers. All her fingertips were clean and free from any blood, dirt or powder and there appeared to be no trace of any lead dust or coating which is usual when handling .22 ammunition.


Saying 'wasn't there', 'if', 'didn't this', 'could have' does not help Bamber.

Does it actually say anywhere that her fingernails were "well manicured". Obviously, she had red nail varnish on, but I don't recall anyone saying it was perfect. Besides, why would firing a gun damage her fingernails?

[Kaldin]

48. The act of loading the magazine of an automatic weapon (carried out at least twice in this case) would be expected to leave visible traces of the lubricant and the materials from the bullets on the hands

What if she wiped her hands? If bullets are really that greasy you would wipe your hands after putting them in the magazine otherwise you wouldn't be able to hold the gun.

[Kaldin]

177. At trial Brian Elliott, a scientist from the Home Office Forensic Science Laboratory, gave evidence that the item DRH/33 described as "Swabbing Kit – hands of Sheila Caffell" had been received at the laboratory on 13 September 1985.

He said that tests had been carried out for the presence of lead and that only "very low levels of lead have been detected on the two hand swabs".

He further reported that tests had been carried out on two members of the laboratory staff who had loaded eighteen cartridges, similar to those used to shoot those who died at White House Farm, into the magazine of the rifle, and "significantly higher levels of lead" had been detected.

Clearly if this evidence was right it cast doubt upon Sheila Caffell having loaded the cartridges into the gun and thus to her having killed the others and then herself.

Do we know for sure that the hand swabs which were eventually tested were the same swabs which were submitted previously? They were rejected the first time.

[Jane]

I think that saying her hands were clean is not really accurate because there was blood on them. It's all too vague really.

You may think so.