mugford rwb and the order of death.

[David1819]

Why would there be "distinctive marks" if a silencer were used but they were non-contact shots?

"He concluded that the abrasions found were consistent with those of a rifle without a silencer, that there were no distinctive marks on the body which showed that a silencer had been attached, and the residue was consistent with contact wounds"

[maggie]

I said that because of coming from over the water myself I used to hear it in conversation with aunts and uncles of yore when they spoke of " ancestors ". Yes,pot-herbs too.

Of course you're a Cheshire girl now.

[Adam]

It seems everyone agrees that it was Sheila's blood in the silencer.

The simple explanation is Bamber is an 'inheritance killer' & the silencer was on the rifle when he gave Sheila a contact shot.

The much more complex & outlandish reason is an industrial frame commenced the minute Bamber went on his first holiday. Involving half of EP & dozens of experts.

The 'treacherous' Stan Jones was in charge of fabricating one piece of evidence - the silencer. He persuaded the relatives to agree to lie in their WS's & under oath & say that they found the silencer in the gun cupboard.

[nugnug]

It seems everyone agrees that it was Sheila's blood in the silencer.

The simple explanation is Bamber is an 'inheritance killer' & the silencer was on the rifle when he gave Sheila a contact shot.

The much more complex & outlandish reason is an industrial frame commenced the minute Bamber went on his first holiday. Involving half of EP & dozens of experts.

The 'treacherous' Stan Jones was in charge of fabricating one piece of evidence - the silencer. He persuaded the relatives to agree to lie in their WS's & under oath & say that they found the silencer in the gun cupboard.

no not everybody agreas it could of been her blood in the silencer it could of been somone else all you can say for certan is it was her blood group in the silencer.

[Adam]

no not everybody agreas it could of been her blood in the silencer it could of been somone else all you can say for certan is it was her blood group in the silencer.

13 out of 17 markers seems conclusive to me Nugs. Sheila received a contact shot & there was no blood on the rifle nozzle. All the experts say it's Sheila's blood.

A fabrication would still be Sheila's blood as the police had samples of her blood at the station.

The view that the relatives expertly put someone else's blood into the silencer & hoped it would be similar to Sheila's, whose blood type they wouldn't even know, is a non starter.

[nugnug]

13 out of 17 markers seems conclusive to me Nugs. Sheila received a contact shot & there was no blood on the rifle nozzle. All the experts say it's Sheila's blood.

A fabrication would still be Sheila's blood as the police had samples of her blood at the station.

The view that the relatives expertly put someone else's blood into the silencer & hoped it would be similar to Sheila's, whose blood type they wouldn't even know, is a non starter.

i dont know what your talking about marker for dna testing did not exist back then.

they could test for a blood group and that was it fact its sheilas group.

but thats all that can be said.

[lookout]

QC Michael Turner was strong in his support when he said that the" DNA in the silencer was Junes with a possible mixture of that belonging to her husband,Nevill ".

Blood-based exhibits couldn't be proved as they'd been destroyed.

[David1819]

13 out of 17 markers seems conclusive to me Nugs. Sheila received a contact shot & there was no blood on the rifle nozzle. All the experts say it's Sheila's blood.

A fabrication would still be Sheila's blood as the police had samples of her blood at the station.

The view that the relatives expertly put someone else's blood into the silencer & hoped it would be similar to Sheila's, whose blood type they wouldn't even know, is a non starter.

No, the relatives also took Sheila's bloodstained underwear with them back to their farm.

That's two possible sources.

[Adam]

i dont know what your talking about marker for dna testing did not exist back then.

they could test for a blood group and that was it fact its sheilas group.

but thats all that can be said.

How did the relatives know Sheila's blood group ?

Or did they just hope the blood they put in there would match.

[Adam]

No, the relatives also took Sheila's bloodstained underwear with them back to their farm.

That's two possible sources.

Oh yes. The clothes in the bucket of water.

The relatives were very determined to frame an innocent man of murdering his family. Days after the massacre.

Wet clothes, silencer, blood, rifle lenght, Sheila's contact shot, the rifle nozzle not having any blood on. They had all angles covered.

I hope my family never turn on me like that.

[nugnug]

How did the relatives know Sheila's blood group ?

Or did they just hope the blood they put in there would match.

facts is fact the same blood group does not prove for fact its the same person.

[Adam]

facts is fact the same blood does not prove for fact its the same person.

Yes but how did they even know Sheila's blood group ? I doubt they even knew her birthday as she was not immediate family.

And tests were done later on the blood = 13 out of 17.

[lookout]

How did the relatives know Sheila's blood group ?

Or did they just hope the blood they put in there would match.

Sheila hadn't been the only one with the same components in her blood.That's why it was dodgy.

[nugnug]

Yes but how did they even know Sheila's blood group ? I doubt they even knew her birthday as she was not immediate family.

And tests were done later on the blood = 13 out of 17.

well they cliamed to know almost everyting else about her why wouldent they know her blood group.

[lookout]

well they cliamed to know almost everyting else about her why wouldent they know her blood group.

Hahahahahaha,I bet they hadn't bargained for the result.