Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: scipio_usmc on June 17, 2014, 10:28:PM
-
(http://s9.postimg.org/3xfkjelov/rifle_strike.jpg)
Nevill was struck by the butt of the rifle. This image shows how someone would hold a rifle to strike someone in the head with it. One hand around the narrow part of the stock and the other hand around the foregrip. If you don't hold it this way the gun is not only hard to control it will fall out of your hands as you hit someone.
As you strike someone what happens to the gun? The wooden stock is pushed against the metal of the gun where the stock attaches to the rifle.
(http://s12.postimg.org/ldlb6bwpp/anschutz.jpg)
If the strikes are hard enough and the wood has flaws then the wood could split.
That is what happened a piece of wood split off as the wood was forced into the metal.
Where would the hand have been of the person wielding the rifle? Right where the break occurred so the hand would have been cut or damaged in some way unless gloves were being worn.
This shows the missing wood which happens to be right where the metal curves in so the wood in this area would have hit the metal while it was not hitting in the lower region which helps explain why it split and broke in this particualr area and manner.
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/_/rsrc/1332405668994/the-rifle/Rifle1.jpg
-
I think Sheila hit the Aga and not her father. Neville would have dodged the full blow of the butt which would have caused Sheila to go off-balance with the force behind her,and as a consequence,hit the frame of something hard. Could even have been the door frame.
-
I think Sheila hit the Aga and not her father. Neville would have dodged the full blow of the butt which would have caused Sheila to go off-balance with the force behind her,and as a consequence,hit the frame of something hard. Could even have been the door frame.
The righ side if his head was bashed in and his arms had defensive wounds.
The killer definitely smashed his head with the rifle even if the stock broke from hitting something while glancing off of him.
He was knocked unconscious from having his head bashed then the killer loaded at least 4 rounds int o the mag and emptied 4 rounds in his head.
-
The righ side if his head was bashed in and his arms had defensive wounds.
The killer definitely smashed his head with the rifle even if the stock broke from hitting something while glancing off of him.
He was knocked unconscious from having his head bashed then the killer loaded at least 4 rounds int o the mag and emptied 4 rounds in his head.
How do you know he was not hit around the head after being shot - and why could not they ID the blood on the rifle?
-
Another year,1987,and they could have DNA'd everything.
-
Another year,1987,and they could have DNA'd everything.
They could have NOT ILLEGALLY DESTROYED ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IN 1996 - and DNA´d everything. WONDER why they did that RIGHT around the time when forensic DNA testing was gaining ground on a grand scale...
-
They could have NOT ILLEGALLY DESTROYED ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IN 1996 - and DNA´d everything. WONDER why they did that RIGHT around the time when forensic DNA testing was gaining ground on a grand scale...
They seem to fall foul when it comes to testing and accuracy,as I read about another case where a jury weren't told of any such results and the guy was imprisoned for 17 years ( innocent ) His sentence was quashed last year and he was released last December.
No compensation because Chris Grayling said it wasn't an MOJ ! What hope Jeremy ?
-
They could have NOT ILLEGALLY DESTROYED ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IN 1996 - and DNA´d everything. WONDER why they did that RIGHT around the time when forensic DNA testing was gaining ground on a grand scale...
Prove it was illegal. Post what law was violated. The claims there was a court order preventing destruction was false. The claim a law prevented it was false. There were police guildelines, that lacked the force of law, which allegedly were violated in the destruction.
Such action being illegal would not have any bearing on the case anyway but as usual you are wrong.
In the meantime DNA tests were able to be conducted anway but were worthless because they had no ability to prove the blood tested by the prosecution and defense that had been found on the baffles and the the flake found in between baffle 1 and 2 were not Sheila's.
-
They seem to fall foul when it comes to testing and accuracy,as I read about another case where a jury weren't told of any such results and the guy was imprisoned for 17 years ( innocent ) His sentence was quashed last year and he was released last December.
No compensation because Chris Grayling said it wasn't an MOJ ! What hope Jeremy ?
Aside from being irraitonal nonsense your post has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. This threa dis about how the stock was thrusted by the killer, how it broke and what damage the killer would have suffered unless wearing gloves or the like to protect the killer's hands.
You seem to want to change the subject because Sheila would not have been likely wearing gloves, no gloves were found that she could have been wearing and the had no damage to her hands.
-
Shutta ya face,,I was talking of DNA testing which is,,or should have been,relevant to this case.
-
Shutta ya face,,I was talking of DNA testing which is,,or should have been,relevant to this case.
The only DNA testing that could have been relevant to overturn the conviction would be DNA testing of the blood that the prosecution and defense found to be group A human blood. In all likelihood the tests they performed would have prevented any successful DNA testing but neither expert saved such evidence.
-
DNA doesn't just include blood you know.
-
DNA doesn't just include blood you know.
and?
How would finding non blood based DNA help establish Jeremy is innocent?
Short of DNA proving all the group A blood found by the prosecution and defense experts in the suppressor was not Sheila's there is no way that DNA evidence could help Jeremy.
Blood found on the first several baffles and blood from a flake stuck in between the 1st and second baffle tested as group A blood consistent with Sheila's blood.
If a DNA test proved both the blood found on the baffles as well as the blood from the flake was not from Sheila then the prosecution would be left with no evidence to prove Sheila's blood was in the suppressor.
To prove this would require a DNA test of the exact blood that tested as group A. Such test would have to successfully provide a DNA profile of the contributor(s). If that happened and Sheila were not a contributor then in that case a new trial would be warranted because the Jury heard evidence this specific blood was Sheilas but there is proof it is not.
But such blood no longer exists so can't be tested and would have unlikely been able to be typed anyway because the blood tests done destroy DNA.
There is no other use a DNA test could serve with respect to trying to disprove the suppressor evidence.
-
and?
How would finding non blood based DNA help establish Jeremy is innocent?
Short of DNA proving all the group A blood found by the prosecution and defense experts in the suppressor was not Sheila's there is no way that DNA evidence could help Jeremy.
Blood found on the first several baffles and blood from a flake stuck in between the 1st and second baffle tested as group A blood consistent with Sheila's blood.
If a DNA test proved both the blood found on the baffles as well as the blood from the flake was not from Sheila then the prosecution would be left with no evidence to prove Sheila's blood was in the suppressor.
To prove this would require a DNA test of the exact blood that tested as group A. Such test would have to successfully provide a DNA profile of the contributor(s). If that happened and Sheila were not a contributor then in that case a new trial would be warranted because the Jury heard evidence this specific blood was Sheilas but there is proof it is not.
But such blood no longer exists so can't be tested and would have unlikely been able to be typed anyway because the blood tests done destroy DNA.
There is no other use a DNA test could serve with respect to trying to disprove the suppressor evidence.
If everything had been preserved instead of having been destroyed,,then DNA testing would have been carried out for sweat from Jeremy,,for starters,,as even the most minute particles can be detected. Fibres,hair,etc.
I think flourescine or similar was used in the drain to see if Jeremy had showered in " his wetsuit ".
The bottom line is, that NOTHING was detected in which to incriminate Jeremy,,and I'd imagine that EP went to great lengths in trying to finding something,however small,,but when all else failed,the " red herring " known as the silencer/moderator,fitted the bill because it all helped to add confusion to the jury.
-
There had been a judicial review in 1996, which granted Jeremy and his team access to the physical evidence - then, POOF, OOPS, it was destroyed minus the silencer.....
Why would Jeremy wish the material examined if he had something to hide? He would never have even mentioned it!
-
Exactly,Alias. You wouldn't want to be reminded of anything if you'd committed those murders ,,let alone plead for tests to be done if you knew your blood,prints and everything else incriminating were to show up.
-
There had been a judicial review in 1996, which granted Jeremy and his team access to the physical evidence - then, POOF, OOPS, it was destroyed minus the silencer.....
Why would Jeremy wish the material examined if he had something to hide? He would never have even mentioned it!
He wanted it examined so he could try to twist any results found to make some bogus argument in his favor. The only DNA test that coudl possibly matter involved blood the defense and proseuction experts identified as gorup A but that wa snot avialable to test even in 1996. That's what would make or break him. He had nothing to worry about with respect to other DNA.
-
Because no hard evidence was found to nail Jeremy,,the case was built purely and simply on circumstantial evidence,only. Built on the lies and coroborration of others.
It must have looked like a coven of witches when they were all making their deliberations !
-
Because no hard evidence was found to nail Jeremy,,the case was built purely and simply on circumstantial evidence,only. Built on the lies and coroborration of others.
It must have looked like a coven of witches when they were all making their deliberations !
Circumstantial evidence can be as powerful as witness testimony if not moreso.
The evidence is that Sheila didn't kill herself so someone else had to have done so. No evidence she beat anyone with the rifle (as this thread highlights) or shot and killed anyone so her killer had to have been th eone who beat Nevill and thus most likely killed everyone else as well. Jeremy is the one who framed her so then he would be the actual killer.
Complaining this isn't enough to be reliable is nonsense which is why instead there are allegations that the evidence that proves Sheila couldn't have killed herself was planted but there is nothing at all to prove such claims and it requires someone other than Jeremy moving her body form a seate dposition to flat very soon after she was shot to try to pretend she could have killed herself but there is no evidence of that either.
-
Circumstantial proves nothing,,and I'm no expert. A person can be all sorts of things,,but a murderer is stretching it a bit without any evidence at all.
Yes,,Sheila was shot-------the first time,,whether intentional or not, we'll never know,,but I think June delivered that one,,and it's quite possible that it was the second time too as it didn't happen long after that first shot. Both women were in the bedroom at the time,,both sitting,,with the door propping June up because there was blood where she'd leaned against.
Sheila would have slid from a sitting position to where and how she was found.
The rifle would have been on the floor as neither women would have had the strength to have " neatly " placed it on themselves after such a savage attack. You're forgetting that June had a " psychosis " of a religious nature,,but nevertheless it was still a fragile and unpredictable illness.
Jeremy didn't frame anyone,,as he knew nothing about his sisters' illness,,neither did anyone else !
-
Circumstantial proves nothing,,and I'm no expert. A person can be all sorts of things,,but a murderer is stretching it a bit without any evidence at all.
Yes,,Sheila was shot-------the first time,,whether intentional or not, we'll never know,,but I think June delivered that one,,and it's quite possible that it was the second time too as it didn't happen long after that first shot. Both women were in the bedroom at the time,,both sitting,,with the door propping June up because there was blood where she'd leaned against.
Sheila would have slid from a sitting position to where and how she was found.
The rifle would have been on the floor as neither women would have had the strength to have " neatly " placed it on themselves after such a savage attack. You're forgetting that June had a " psychosis " of a religious nature,,but nevertheless it was still a fragile and unpredictable illness.
Jeremy didn't frame anyone,,as he knew nothing about his sisters' illness,,neither did anyone else !
The one lacking in any evidence is you. You have zero evidence that Sheial or June did anything. You have zero evidence to back up any claims Jeremy made about receiving a phone call.
Worse though not only is there no evidence that Sheila fired a wepaon or beat anyone there is evidence she could not have killed herself.
You choose to believe that such evidence was faked but have no evidence to prove it. You have valid basis to believe it was faked you simply choose to because you want to believe Jeremy is innocent. You choosing to beleive such irrationally doesn't make the evidence go away no matter how bad you wish it would, nor does trying to pretend it is not evidence make it go away.
This thread is about the damage caused by the rifle stock to Nevill though.
It is about how the person wielding the rifle would have been splashed with Nevill's blood and also have damaged their hands unless wearing gloves. No gloves were found at the scene that could have been worn by June or Sheila let alone would they have any reason to wear them. Nor were their hands injured in any way. While you want to change th esubject and ignore this rational peopel recognize the significance and your bogus claims that this is not evidence of anything doesn't stop it from being evidence anymore than your unsupported claims about the suppressor evidence being planted stops the suppressor evidence from being reliable.
-
Sod off with your insults. You're not even worth speaking to !
-
(http://s9.postimg.org/3xfkjelov/rifle_strike.jpg)
Nevill was struck by the butt of the rifle. This image shows how someone would hold a rifle to strike someone in the head with it. One hand around the narrow part of the stock and the other hand around the foregrip. If you don't hold it this way the gun is not only hard to control it will fall out of your hands as you hit someone.
As you strike someone what happens to the gun? The wooden stock is pushed against the metal of the gun where the stock attaches to the rifle.
(http://s12.postimg.org/ldlb6bwpp/anschutz.jpg)
If the strikes are hard enough and the wood has flaws then the wood could split.
That is what happened a piece of wood split off as the wood was forced into the metal.
Where would the hand have been of the person wielding the rifle? Right where the break occurred so the hand would have been cut or damaged in some way unless gloves were being worn.
This shows the missing wood which happens to be right where the metal curves in so the wood in this area would have hit the metal while it was not hitting in the lower region which helps explain why it split and broke in this particualr area and manner.
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/_/rsrc/1332405668994/the-rifle/Rifle1.jpg
Yes the semi was in the kitchen when they went in and the piece was still on the floor later it got picked up as it gave away where the semi was found.
The semi was the only gun how Shelia shot herself twice with out raising suspicion something funny went on
-
Yes the semi was in the kitchen when they went in and the piece was still on the floor later it got picked up as it gave away where the semi was found.
The semi was the only gun how Shelia shot herself twice with out raising suspicion something funny went on
There is no evidence at all the the rifle was in the kitchen, no witnesses place it there, none saw it through the window or upon entering. Had they seen the rifle there it would have been a giant red flag, only the piece of broken stock had been found in the kitchen.
If the gun had been found in the kitchen that would be extreme evidence that Sheila didn't kill herself. There is no way she could have walked the gun downstairs after she was dead. If this had been the case there would be no need at all for police to plany any evidence as many allege occurred.
But they didn't find it there, all police statements say it was found in the bedroom on top of Sheila.
-
What about the rifle that's clearly seen behind the cupboard door ? Where did that come from,where did it end up,and whose was it ?
-
What about the rifle that's clearly seen behind the cupboard door ? Where did that come from,where did it end up,and whose was it ?
It was taken months later to prove it fit in the closet contrary to what Jeremy told a number of people including his relatives.
-
Hearsay-----------again if it involves the relatives.
-
Hearsay-----------again if it involves the relatives.
Many of their claims are excluded from court rules as hearsay and we ar enot in court so hearsay rules don't apply at all in assessing his guilt.
While you have decided their claims are not reliable you do so only because you are biased beyond all reason which is the same reason you insist the blood evidence was planted without a shred of evidence at all.
I choose to evaluate evidence based on standard indices of liabilty not bias. That disconnect is why you and so many here have a vastly different view of the case than the public and judges.
-
He wanted it examined so he could try to twist any results found to make some bogus argument in his favor. The only DNA test that coudl possibly matter involved blood the defense and proseuction experts identified as gorup A but that wa snot avialable to test even in 1996. That's what would make or break him. He had nothing to worry about with respect to other DNA.
With all due respect what you said would have strengthened Jeremy's argument. It would make no sense whatsoever for a guilty man who was supposed to know he used the silencer and that there was blood inside it that could be tested to want any kind of investigation that would confirm his guilt. What you are saying is just more verbal diarrhea. You need to eat more charcoal.
-
Circumstantial evidence can be as powerful as witness testimony if not moreso.
The evidence is that Sheila didn't kill herself so someone else had to have done so. No evidence she beat anyone with the rifle (as this thread highlights) or shot and killed anyone so her killer had to have been th eone who beat Nevill and thus most likely killed everyone else as well. Jeremy is the one who framed her so then he would be the actual killer.
Complaining this isn't enough to be reliable is nonsense which is why instead there are allegations that the evidence that proves Sheila couldn't have killed herself was planted but there is nothing at all to prove such claims and it requires someone other than Jeremy moving her body form a seate dposition to flat very soon after she was shot to try to pretend she could have killed herself but there is no evidence of that either.
Again with all due respect the problem with circumstantial evidence is that it can often be twisted. The problem of course with those prosecution witnesses was that most of them had an interest in seeing the accused convicted of the crime. They would naturally corroberate each others words. And I suggest that that is just what they did. JM had a bone to pick with Jeremy for his unfaithfulness and the extended family were in danger of losing everything if he was found not guilty. I wonder what David Boutflour meant when he said to his sister, "I have something up my sleeve"?
The whole family knew how to get in and out of WHF. They had plenty of opportunity (not saying they did of course) to get into the house the night before they were given the keys and to plants anything they wanted. Next day, "Ooh look. This MUST be the silencer?" You mean there were no ther silencers on the property? With blood conveniently dripping out of it like jam. Too convenient.
-
grahame
do you remember something about the hatch being open that lead up on to the roof? Or am I imagining reading that ?
-
With all due respect what you said would have strengthened Jeremy's argument. It would make no sense whatsoever for a guilty man who was supposed to know he used the silencer and that there was blood inside it that could be tested to want any kind of investigation that would confirm his guilt. What you are saying is just more verbal diarrhea. You need to eat more charcoal.
NO what I said makes perfect sense and in fact there have been DNA tests performed at the request of defendants which have ended up proving guilt. Criminals serving a lengthy sentence having nothing to lose and HOPE that DNA that implicates them will not be found. They are going to rot in jail without the test so want the test in hopes to find something to latch onto to argue they are innocent.
Tests done by the defense in 1986 found only microscopic drops of blood that the defense expert removed. Test done by the defense in 1999 proved no blood was left in the rifle the last of it had been removed by the defense expert in 1986. Therefore there would be no expectation of finding Sheila's DNA in the suppressor and of course he would welcome a DNA test of the suppressor.
Then he could claim her blood was never there which is exactly what he claimed but the court saw right through it and pointed out that what mattered was a DNA test of the blood that was removed and had been determined to be group A. That is the issue whether that specific blood was Sheila's or not.
-
Again with all due respect the problem with circumstantial evidence is that it can often be twisted. The problem of course with those prosecution witnesses was that most of them had an interest in seeing the accused convicted of the crime. They would naturally corroberate each others words. And I suggest that that is just what they did. JM had a bone to pick with Jeremy for his unfaithfulness and the extended family were in danger of losing everything if he was found not guilty. I wonder what David Boutflour meant when he said to his sister, "I have something up my sleeve"?
The whole family knew how to get in and out of WHF. They had plenty of opportunity (not saying they did of course) to get into the house the night before they were given the keys and to plants anything they wanted. Next day, "Ooh look. This MUST be the silencer?" You mean there were no ther silencers on the property? With blood conveniently dripping out of it like jam. Too convenient.
Circumstantial evidence is just as reliable as direct evidence.
Saying hey maybe the suppressor evidence was planted is not enough. You need to establish there is a reasonable likelihood the evidence in the suppressor was planted. Of course yo uhave no such evidenc ejust wild suspicions that are meaningless in the eyes of the law and to anyone with common sense and capable of objective rational reasoning.
The family had no way of knowing about drawback and that Sheila's fatal wound definitely resulted in drawback. Nor did they have a way to know her blood type or to have access to her blood. Tossing bloody clothing in water and blood being diluted in water doesn't provide someone with blood to plant in a suppressor.
If the family knew all about drawback and the natre of her fatal wound then they woudl know the rifle itself would have her blood in it and this woudl not have been possible with the suppressor in place so would help prove it wasn't attached during the murders no matter what they plant in the suppressor.
Even if they had found a bag of her blood in a fridge that was being saved by her in case she needed a transfusion and they had wanted to plant it they would have no way of knowing if her blood matched the blood of any other victims or not and thus weather the blood could be tied specifically to her. moreover they would have no idea that they needed to spray the blood inside let alone know what tool they could use to accomplish it. The average person trying to plant blood uses a dropper or tiny via and pours it.
There is nothing at all to indicate it was reasonably likely the family could, would or did plant the blood in the suppressor.
Likewise there is nothing to indicate the lab planted the blood and found blood in the rifle and concealed it.
Your claims in such regard are irrational, unsupported claims. You need proof but have none.
You can be as irrational as you like in constructing your opinion. You decided early on that you will never believe Jeremy was capable and did it just because people told you he wouldn't and you don't like police. So you have decided to ignore all evidence of guil and any excuse necessary to pretend he is innocent is fine.
in the real world proof and evidence are king. Sheila was shot then bled down her shoulder and arm. This indicates she was shot while seated propped up against something. If she were not propped up against somethign she would have immediately fell back and been lying flat and would not have been able to bleed vertically down her shoulder and arm. Someone moved her flat after she died but while she was still bleeding because after being placed flat the blood flowed down the side of her neck onto the floor. The bible was in the pool of blood that formed after she was dead then was opened and closed before the blood dried. She can't have done that so this is additional evidence someone was there after she was dead. The suppressor is part of a triad of evidence that someone else killed Sheila.
Not only didn't Sheila kill herself, it is obvious she didn't kill anyone else. She had no foreign blood, no GSR, no elevated lead levels on her hands and no damage to her hands as would have occurred during the struggle with Nevill. So no evidence she loaded a gun, fired a gun, beat Nevill or even was near anyone else when they were shot (because high velocity spatter indicates being near a victim not necessarily being the shooter) when they died.
Based on all this evidence the same person who killed her killed the others, she didn't kill anyone before being killed herself. This evidence is not unreliable it is strong sound evidence. You need to prove it is unreliable just saying it is because you want desperately to believe Jeremy is innocent doesn't make it so. You can't though, everyone on this site has failed miserably at establishing the evidence is unreliable and many have even distorted tremendously to try to pretend it is.
The evidence proves that Sheila was framed and did nothing, who is the person who did it then? Well who framed her, that is who did it. Jeremy is the one who framed her with his fake call from Nevill, fake claims he left the rifle and bullets out (including stagign too many rounds in the kitchen for such ammunition to have been the source) , outright lies that she fired every weapon in the house etc.
Jeremy's own actions including constantly telling Julie about how he wanted them dead and his plans totally gave away that he is the one who framed Sheila.
The evidence is solid so many distortions are posted here with bogus claims of evidence that 2 different rifles were used and much more. When such lies and distortions are resorted to that means the evidence is solid because the real evidence can't be disputed by legitimate means.
Peopel outside of this site find it hard to take anyone here serious since the theories change by the hour of what supposedly happened. The same people are simultaneously arguing there were 2 guns, police shot victims, Juen and Sheila did it together, the blood and paint was planted, there were 3 suppressors, there were...
What this signals is an effort to just throw as much shit at the wall as possible hoping that base don sheer volume that some of it will stick. That is resorted to when one has no actual proof to use to attack the evidence used to convict.
-
NO what I said makes perfect sense and in fact there have been DNA tests performed at the request of defendants which have ended up proving guilt. Criminals serving a lengthy sentence having nothing to lose and HOPE that DNA that implicates them will not be found. They are going to rot in jail without the test so want the test in hopes to find something to latch onto to argue they are innocent.
Tests done by the defense in 1986 found only microscopic drops of blood that the defense expert removed. Test done by the defense in 1999 proved no blood was left in the rifle the last of it had been removed by the defense expert in 1986. Therefore there would be no expectation of finding Sheila's DNA in the suppressor and of course he would welcome a DNA test of the suppressor.
Then he could claim her blood was never there which is exactly what he claimed but the court saw right through it and pointed out that what mattered was a DNA test of the blood that was removed and had been determined to be group A. That is the issue whether that specific blood was Sheila's or not.
It has always been my understanding that the dna tests were inconclusive?
I also thought that the pull through of the rifle was done after the superglue test?
Not only that I was of the opinion that the dna tests were carried out before the whole life tariff was imposed?
-
Circumstantial evidence is just as reliable as direct evidence.
Saying hey maybe the suppressor evidence was planted is not enough. You need to establish there is a reasonable likelihood the evidence in the suppressor was planted. Of course yo uhave no such evidenc ejust wild suspicions that are meaningless in the eyes of the law and to anyone with common sense and capable of objective rational reasoning.
The family had no way of knowing about drawback and that Sheila's fatal wound definitely resulted in drawback. Nor did they have a way to know her blood type or to have access to her blood. Tossing bloody clothing in water and blood being diluted in water doesn't provide someone with blood to plant in a suppressor.
If the family knew all about drawback and the natre of her fatal wound then they woudl know the rifle itself would have her blood in it and this woudl not have been possible with the suppressor in place so would help prove it wasn't attached during the murders no matter what they plant in the suppressor.
Even if they had found a bag of her blood in a fridge that was being saved by her in case she needed a transfusion and they had wanted to plant it they would have no way of knowing if her blood matched the blood of any other victims or not and thus weather the blood could be tied specifically to her. moreover they would have no idea that they needed to spray the blood inside let alone know what tool they could use to accomplish it. The average person trying to plant blood uses a dropper or tiny via and pours it.
There is nothing at all to indicate it was reasonably likely the family could, would or did plant the blood in the suppressor.
Likewise there is nothing to indicate the lab planted the blood and found blood in the rifle and concealed it.
Your claims in such regard are irrational, unsupported claims. You need proof but have none.
You can be as irrational as you like in constructing your opinion. You decided early on that you will never believe Jeremy was capable and did it just because people told you he wouldn't and you don't like police. So you have decided to ignore all evidence of guil and any excuse necessary to pretend he is innocent is fine.
in the real world proof and evidence are king. Sheila was shot then bled down her shoulder and arm. This indicates she was shot while seated propped up against something. If she were not propped up against somethign she would have immediately fell back and been lying flat and would not have been able to bleed vertically down her shoulder and arm. Someone moved her flat after she died but while she was still bleeding because after being placed flat the blood flowed down the side of her neck onto the floor. The bible was in the pool of blood that formed after she was dead then was opened and closed before the blood dried. She can't have done that so this is additional evidence someone was there after she was dead. The suppressor is part of a triad of evidence that someone else killed Sheila.
Not only didn't Sheila kill herself, it is obvious she didn't kill anyone else. She had no foreign blood, no GSR, no elevated lead levels on her hands and no damage to her hands as would have occurred during the struggle with Nevill. So no evidence she loaded a gun, fired a gun, beat Nevill or even was near anyone else when they were shot (because high velocity spatter indicates being near a victim not necessarily being the shooter) when they died.
Based on all this evidence the same person who killed her killed the others, she didn't kill anyone before being killed herself. This evidence is not unreliable it is strong sound evidence. You need to prove it is unreliable just saying it is because you want desperately to believe Jeremy is innocent doesn't make it so. You can't though, everyone on this site has failed miserably at establishing the evidence is unreliable and many have even distorted tremendously to try to pretend it is.
The evidence proves that Sheila was framed and did nothing, who is the person who did it then? Well who framed her, that is who did it. Jeremy is the one who framed her with his fake call from Nevill, fake claims he left the rifle and bullets out (including stagign too many rounds in the kitchen for such ammunition to have been the source) , outright lies that she fired every weapon in the house etc.
Jeremy's own actions including constantly telling Julie about how he wanted them dead and his plans totally gave away that he is the one who framed Sheila.
The evidence is solid so many distortions are posted here with bogus claims of evidence that 2 different rifles were used and much more. When such lies and distortions are resorted to that means the evidence is solid because the real evidence can't be disputed by legitimate means.
Peopel outside of this site find it hard to take anyone here serious since the theories change by the hour of what supposedly happened. The same people are simultaneously arguing there were 2 guns, police shot victims, Juen and Sheila did it together, the blood and paint was planted, there were 3 suppressors, there were...
What this signals is an effort to just throw as much shit at the wall as possible hoping that base don sheer volume that some of it will stick. That is resorted to when one has no actual proof to use to attack the evidence used to convict.
I think you will find that my suggestion that the silencer was planted is quite a reasonable one. You ask for proof? Well of course I don't. You rightly said that it is only a suggestion. But it is also a logical suggestion for relatives to plant the silencer as they had motive to do so. David Bamber said he had something up his sleeve. They have opportunity to do so and also the motive to do so. They accused him right from the beginning.
But if I may also point out the court had no real evidence that the silencer was found and not planted. In spite of it being removed from the scene (allegedly) there is no real evidence except the word of the relatives, who had motive to lie and to want Jeremy out of the way as a not guilty verdict would prove disasterous for each of them. I just simply cannot accept that the silencer was accepted as evidence against Jeremy. What fool allowed that to happen? It was a total travesty of the truth.
By the way I never suggested that two rifles were ever used. I explored the notion, but rejected the idea and agreed that only one rifle was used and not the Pargeter rifle.
And please don't call me a Jeremy supporter. If I believed he actually did this monstrous thing then there is no way I would support him. The fact is I just cannot see how anyone can agree that he had a fair trial. What you see as evidence I see as a lie. Who you see as angels I see liars.
Also I still contend that if you know about splashback then so did the relatives. They are very knowledgeable regarding these things. But as you correctly assert I only have my suspicions. But they are suspicions that are equal to your "circumstancial" evidence
-
It has always been my understanding that the dna tests were inconclusive?
I also thought that the pull through of the rifle was done after the superglue test?
Not only that I was of the opinion that the dna tests were carried out before the whole life tariff was imposed?
1) The DNA tests were inconclusive in the sense they were worthless from the outset.
The prosecution argued and proved to the satisfaction of the jury that that the blood TESTED by the police was Sheila's. The only way DNA could be used to prove it wasn't is to do a DNA test of that exact blood. The blood typing tests used in 1985 destroy DNA so the chance of successfully developing a DNA profile from such blood would be nil but such blood was not retained so there was no chance to even try.
The prosecution removed all visible blood and the defense removed the microscopic blood from the suppressor. IF there had been any blood that both missed and it were successsfully typed all that would prove is whose blood it was that they missed. It would not answer the question of whose blood the blood removed belonged to.
At any rate there was no blood left in the suppressor. In 1999 it was tested and determined not to contain anymore blood. So any DNA found coudl not be blood based and could not prove the donor's blood had been in the suppressor. So what value was the test? It was worthless.
The test found DNA from Sheila, June and an incomplete profile from an unknown donor. The incomplete profile only resulted in a few markers being detected. 17 markers were detected for Sheila so enough to say it was her DNA and June's complete profile was found. The DNA was not blood based so by definition could not prove June and Sheila's blood were present or would have been rather bad for the defense. Finding June's blood would not have been too great anyway because the notion Sheila put the suppressor away after using it on everyone else is not very believable.
So while everyone likes to talk about DNA and DNA tests in this particular case it can't offer any help. The only blood that matters was not saved so can't be tested and would not have likely had any DNA remaining after the typing tests anyway.
------
2) Superglue fuming doesn't inhibit testing of blood for DNA or determing blood type. It can inhibit DNA testing of saliva and semen so often can't be used in rape cases until after semen and saliva are tested.
So if blood had been in the barrel of the rifle it still would have been in there to be found by the technician. Blood in a barrel can only be removed by someone who cleans it using rifle cleaning tools.
-
1) The DNA tests were inconclusive in the sense they were worthless from the outset.
The prosecution argued and proved to the satisfaction of the jury that that the blood TESTED by the police was Sheila's. The only way DNA could be used to prove it wasn't is to do a DNA test of that exact blood. The blood typing tests used in 1985 destroy DNA so the chance of successfully developing a DNA profile from such blood would be nil but such blood was not retained so there was no chance to even try.
The prosecution removed all visible blood and the defense removed the microscopic blood from the suppressor. IF there had been any blood that both missed and it were successsfully typed all that would prove is whose blood it was that they missed. It would not answer the question of whose blood the blood removed belonged to.
At any rate there was no blood left in the suppressor. In 1999 it was tested and determined not to contain anymore blood. So any DNA found coudl not be blood based and could not prove the donor's blood had been in the suppressor. So what value was the test? It was worthless.
The test found DNA from Sheila, June and an incomplete profile from an unknown donor. The incomplete profile only resulted in a few markers being detected. 17 markers were detected for Sheila so enough to say it was her DNA and June's complete profile was found. The DNA was not blood based so by definition could not prove June and Sheila's blood were present or would have been rather bad for the defense. Finding June's blood would not have been too great anyway because the notion Sheila put the suppressor away after using it on everyone else is not very believable.
So while everyone likes to talk about DNA and DNA tests in this particular case it can't offer any help. The only blood that matters was not saved so can't be tested and would not have likely had any DNA remaining after the typing tests anyway.
------
2) Superglue fuming doesn't inhibit testing of blood for DNA or determing blood type. It can inhibit DNA testing of saliva and semen so often can't be used in rape cases until after semen and saliva are tested.
So if blood had been in the barrel of the rifle it still would have been in there to be found by the technician. Blood in a barrel can only be removed by someone who cleans it using rifle cleaning tools.
I was under the impression that the barrel was superglue treated before the pullthough was done. And that this would have eliminated any trace of blood?
-
grahame
do you remember something about the hatch being open that lead up on to the roof? Or am I imagining reading that ?
I'm not sure? But Jeremy complained about some pictures of the police officers "horsing around" at the farm (a strange thing to do at a crime scene) and one of those pictures was of one officer outside the skylight hatch waving a banner of some sort. But I would have thought that if the catch was on the inside then anyone could get access to the roof?
-
Who were the firearms officers talking to if everyone was supposedly dead ?
M.Bonnetts' log states---
@04.58. Firearms and dog unit at scene.
@05.25. Firearms team are in conversation with a person from inside the farmhouse.
@05.29 CA7 challenge to person/s inside house met with no response.
-
Who were the firearms officers talking to if everyone was supposedly dead ?
M.Bonnetts' log states---
@04.58. Firearms and dog unit at scene.
@05.25. Firearms team are in conversation with a person from inside the farmhouse.
@05.29 CA7 challenge to person/s inside house met with no response.
The interesting thing here though is that they apparently talked to no one for two whole hours.
-
The interesting thing here though is that they apparently talked to no one for two whole hours.
Impossible,Grahame-----------for 2 hours ? Who'd believe that ? Jeremy outside building his hopes up,hence his calmness as everyone keeps talking about !
-
I was under the impression that the barrel was superglue treated before the pullthough was done. And that this would have eliminated any trace of blood?
No superglue fuming doesn't eliminate blood nor does it damage blood so that it can no longer be used for serological testong or DNA testing. Superglue fuming has no impact on blood at all.
-
No superglue fuming doesn't eliminate blood nor does it damage blood so that it can no longer be used for serological testong or DNA testing. Superglue fuming has no impact on blood at all.
So what is the purpose of superglue fuming?
-
So what is the purpose of superglue fuming?
To detect latent fingerprints, a latent print is one not visible to the naked eye. The glue adheres to oils secreted by humans, sweat or foreign substances that might have been on a hand when it touched the object). The glue thus provides the fingerprint ridge detail necessary to be able to both see the ridge detail and to photograph it. You can keep the photos for use to make comparisons to fingerprint records.
Since latent prints are not visible to the naked eye it means you never know if an object has a latent print(s) or not. Superglue fuming is great because instea do f brekaing your ass dusting every square inch with powder you simply stick it in a chmaber where the superglue vapors are exposed to the entire item. When when it is done you just look it over to see if any prints are now visible to the naked eye.
Moreover, it will detect prints that powder often misses.
The gun and suppressor were thus super glue fumed to see if they contained any latent fingerprints. 3 partial prints were found on the rifle which lacked sufficient detail to be tied to anyone. But one print ended up being Jeremy's and another was Sheila's ring finger.
-
To detect latent fingerprints, a latent print is one not visible to the naked eye. The glue adheres to oils secreted by humans, sweat or foreign substances that might have been on a hand when it touched the object). The glue thus provides the fingerprint ridge detail necessary to be able to both see the ridge detail and to photograph it. You can keep the photos for use to make comparisons to fingerprint records.
Since latent prints are not visible to the naked eye it means you never know if an object has a latent print(s) or not. Superglue fuming is great because instea do f brekaing your ass dusting every square inch with powder you simply stick it in a chmaber where the superglue vapors are exposed to the entire item. When when it is done you just look it over to see if any prints are now visible to the naked eye.
Moreover, it will detect prints that powder often misses.
The gun and suppressor were thus super glue fumed to see if they contained any latent fingerprints. 3 partial prints were found on the rifle which lacked sufficient detail to be tied to anyone. But one print ended up being Jeremy's and another was Sheila's ring finger.
Thank you scipio, that is very interesting. So this superglue vapor will have no effect upon any blood that may have been in the barrel of the gun?
-
Thank you scipio, that is very interesting. So this superglue vapor will have no effect upon any blood that may have been in the barrel of the gun?
I think it would. It would have an effect on anything it would come into contact with. A vapour of glue. I don´t know exactly how that would affect blood, would need to ask an expert.
-
Thank you scipio, that is very interesting. So this superglue vapor will have no effect upon any blood that may have been in the barrel of the gun?
No if it did then it would not be able to be used to lift latent prints left in blood and a different process would have to be used if blood is a potential source of latent prints. But fortunately that is not the case. As crazy as it seems they have even super glue fumed vehicles.
There are little things that matter for instance there are agents used to enhace blood stains like amido black. If you intend to use water based amido black it is best to do it before super glue fuming because
super glue treatment has the potential to inhibit effectiveness of water based amido black. It won't always but it could whereas methanol based amido black is not affected so if amido black is used after super glue fuming then it is typically methanol.
There are all sorts of little rules like this but none of them have any implications for the considerations at play in the Bamber case.
-
Do you know what I think is strange - if there was only a partial print of JB and SC then surely that would indicate the gun had been cleaned in some way .
If you were a murderer that planned this for months then surely you would
1) wear gloves
2) press SC prints all over the gun to prove that she had been firing it and beating someone with it.
3) Would there not have been fibres from the gloves he used as well?
Odd that because apparently he planned the phones/bed/ destroying his clothes /timings/ getting back to the house / and getting out of a locked window ?
yet the most obvious thing was missed?
-
Do you know what I think is strange - if there was only a partial print of JB and SC then surely that would indicate the gun had been cleaned in some way .
If you were a murderer that planned this for months then surely you would
1) wear gloves
2) press SC prints all over the gun to prove that she had been firing it and beating someone with it.
3) Would there not have been fibres from the gloves he used as well?
Odd that because apparently he planned the phones/bed/ destroying his clothes /timings/ getting back to the house / and getting out of a locked window ?
yet the most obvious thing was missed?
He obviously wiped the gun down before he started but either failed to clean it sufficiently leaving a single print behind or he left the print when his glove came off. He noted he was scared a glove came off and a print had been left. It coudl simply have been missed when he wiped it down or that he accidentally transferred it during the murders we have no way of knowing which.
If he hadn't worn gloves he would have hurt his hand when the rifle stock broke and could have left prints in his own blood. He also would likely have left prints in the blood of the victims that was on the weapon. The weapon have a good amount of blood on it and touching it would have resulted in leaving his prints in the blood if he had not been wearing gloves. Both of these are strong signs gloves were worn. If the killer wiped down the whole gun after the murders then the back spatter would not have remained on the weapon to the extent it did. Yet that spatter exhibited no prints. The lack of any substantial cut fromt he broken stock also is a strong indication of glove use.
Taking the hands of a deadperson and making sure they leave prints is not that easy. If their hands are clean it is difficult to force a print to be left. Placing a foreign agent on the hands and then pressing them against the item helps but most criminal are not aware of this. The natural body functions that enable leaving prints are sweat and oils that are secreted as the body cleans the skin. Obviously once dead the hands are not going to perspire and the natural skin cleansing process ceases. So whatever is on the hands at the time of death is all that can be used unless you intentionally stick a foreign substance on the hands and then apply them. But that can be obvious too if you apply something the person would not having a reason to have on their hands it can give away that the prints were being planted.
-
Do you know what I think is strange - if there was only a partial print of JB and SC then surely that would indicate the gun had been cleaned in some way .
If you were a murderer that planned this for months then surely you would
1) wear gloves
2) press SC prints all over the gun to prove that she had been firing it and beating someone with it.
3) Would there not have been fibres from the gloves he used as well?
Odd that because apparently he planned the phones/bed/ destroying his clothes /timings/ getting back to the house / and getting out of a locked window ?
yet the most obvious thing was missed?
Well certainly I would have thought if he wanted to implicate Sheila in the crime he would have made sure to have plastered her prints all over the gun? According to some he made sure he had an alibi for everything else. But he cleaned the gun. I often wonder why? It is little oddities like this that cause me to doubt. No one has been able to give a satisfactory explanation yet.
-
He obviously wiped the gun down before he started but either failed to clean it sufficiently leaving a single print behind or he left the print when his glove came off. He noted he was scared a glove came off and a print had been left. It coudl simply have been missed when he wiped it down or that he accidentally transferred it during the murders we have no way of knowing which.
If he hadn't worn gloves he would have hurt his hand when the rifle stock broke and could have left prints in his own blood. He also would likely have left prints in the blood of the victims that was on the weapon. The weapon have a good amount of blood on it and touching it would have resulted in leaving his prints in the blood if he had not been wearing gloves. Both of these are strong signs gloves were worn. If the killer wiped down the whole gun after the murders then the back spatter would not have remained on the weapon to the extent it did. Yet that spatter exhibited no prints. The lack of any substantial cut fromt he broken stock also is a strong indication of glove use.
Taking the hands of a deadperson and making sure they leave prints is not that easy. If their hands are clean it is difficult to force a print to be left. Placing a foreign agent on the hands and then pressing them against the item helps but most criminal are not aware of this. The natural body functions that enable leaving prints are sweat and oils that are secreted as the body cleans the skin. Obviously once dead the hands are not going to perspire and the natural skin cleansing process ceases. So whatever is on the hands at the time of death is all that can be used unless you intentionally stick a foreign substance on the hands and then apply them. But that can be obvious too if you apply something the person would not having a reason to have on their hands it can give away that the prints were being planted.
really - that's your opinion because you Know its difficult to leave prints - but lets face it JB was not a hardened criminal he had no previous record - he probably would not know that - so IF he wiped the gun then that was possibly the most incriminating thing he did . If he placed her hands on the gun immediately after he led her to her death and she knew he had killed her sons I would imagine her hands would have been pretty sweaty - wouldn't you?
So Sorry I am not agreeing with your argument. I don't think he would have missed the opportunity to put her hands on the gun immediately after he killed her.
-
He obviously wiped the gun down before he started but either failed to clean it sufficiently leaving a single print behind or he left the print when his glove came off. He noted he was scared a glove came off and a print had been left. It coudl simply have been missed when he wiped it down or that he accidentally transferred it during the murders we have no way of knowing which.
If he hadn't worn gloves he would have hurt his hand when the rifle stock broke and could have left prints in his own blood. He also would likely have left prints in the blood of the victims that was on the weapon. The weapon have a good amount of blood on it and touching it would have resulted in leaving his prints in the blood if he had not been wearing gloves. Both of these are strong signs gloves were worn. If the killer wiped down the whole gun after the murders then the back spatter would not have remained on the weapon to the extent it did. Yet that spatter exhibited no prints. The lack of any substantial cut fromt he broken stock also is a strong indication of glove use.
Taking the hands of a deadperson and making sure they leave prints is not that easy. If their hands are clean it is difficult to force a print to be left. Placing a foreign agent on the hands and then pressing them against the item helps but most criminal are not aware of this. The natural body functions that enable leaving prints are sweat and oils that are secreted as the body cleans the skin. Obviously once dead the hands are not going to perspire and the natural skin cleansing process ceases. So whatever is on the hands at the time of death is all that can be used unless you intentionally stick a foreign substance on the hands and then apply them. But that can be obvious too if you apply something the person would not having a reason to have on their hands it can give away that the prints were being planted.
I know you've gone to a lot of trouble coming up with that theory scipio. But I trow that most of what you have said is just guesswork? I can't see Jeremy standing there thinking to himself, "Hmm, taking fingerprints from a dead person is not that easy, so that's no good? I know, let's try treacle" He would have just gone ahead and done it.
-
So we are left with options
JB was extremely stupid ( that does not tie up with everything else he planned did it?) and used gloves - wiped the gun ( but left some blood that they could not ID) and some partial prints but no fibres from his gloves ( that were never found)
SC did it and her prints were on the gun but someone else wiped it?
JB did it put her prints on the gun , but someone else wiped it?
-
I know you've gone to a lot of trouble coming up with that theory scipio. But I trow that most of what you have said is just guesswork? I can't see Jeremy standing there thinking to himself, "Hmm, taking fingerprints from a dead person is not that easy, so that's no good? I know, let's try treacle" He would have just gone ahead and done it.
The issue is that he obviously tried to plant her prints but only managed to leave a single print and the reason why is because it is not that easy to do when someone has clean hands and is dead.
-
Daft question,Grahame. Was Jeremy bailed ?
-
So we are left with options
JB was extremely stupid ( that does not tie up with everything else he planned did it?) and used gloves - wiped the gun ( but left some blood that they could not ID) and some partial prints but no fibres from his gloves ( that were never found)
SC did it and her prints were on the gun but someone else wiped it?
JB did it put her prints on the gun , but someone else wiped it?
Aren't we forgetting something? There is all this talk about blood in the silencer. But if Jeremy took the silencer off in order to shoot Sheila, why then was no blood found in the rifle? Personally I think there is too much made of this supposed "drawback"? Anyone want to volunteer to shoot someone in the bum to see if it's true? ::)
-
The issue is that he obviously tried to plant her prints but only managed to leave a single print and the reason why is because it is not that easy to do when someone has clean hands and is dead.
But apparently she had blood on her hands? Also how would he know if he was unsuccessful or not? Nah! sounds like guesswork on your part to me? Next time someone dies I'll try it.
-
The issue is that he obviously tried to plant her prints but only managed to leave a single print and the reason why is because it is not that easy to do when someone has clean hands and is dead.
its not obvious -I think she would have been scared and sweating profusely - so that counters your argument.
-
So we are left with options
JB was extremely stupid ( that does not tie up with everything else he planned did it?) and used gloves - wiped the gun ( but left some blood that they could not ID) and some partial prints but no fibres from his gloves ( that were never found)
SC did it and her prints were on the gun but someone else wiped it?
JB did it put her prints on the gun , but someone else wiped it?
If the gun had been wiped after the murders then the back spatter found on the gun would not have been there to find. At best after the murders there might have been a wipedown of the stock where he though his glove came off and though he had touched. The back spatter all around the barrel and main portion of the rifle would not have been there if wiped down.
The wipe down was before and gloves clearly used. Sheila had no reason to use gloves though during the murders and to taken them off as she killed herself nor were any gloves found that she could have used. The stock breaking would damage a hand unless wearing gloves and she had no damage, her long nails would also have some damage if using the rifle to batter someone.
-
Aren't we forgetting something? There is all this talk about blood in the silencer. But if Jeremy took the silencer off in order to shoot Sheila, why then was no blood found in the rifle? Personally I think there is too much made of this supposed "drawback"? Anyone want to volunteer to shoot someone in the bum to see if it's true? ::)
He took it off after he killed Sheila. That was one of his fatal flaws.
-
If the gun had been wiped after the murders then the back spatter found on the gun would not have been there to find. At best after the murders there might have been a wipedown of the stock where he though his glove came off and though he had touched. The back spatter all around the barrel and main portion of the rifle would not have been there if wiped down.
The wipe down was before and gloves clearly used. Sheila had no reason to use gloves though during the murders and to taken them off as she killed herself nor were any gloves found that she could have used. The stock breaking would damage a hand unless wearing gloves and she had no damage, her long nails would also have some damage if using the rifle to batter someone.
? why would he wipe the barrel it would only have blood from her "staged suicide" no need to wipe that?
-
If the gun had been wiped after the murders then the back spatter found on the gun would not have been there to find. At best after the murders there might have been a wipedown of the stock where he though his glove came off and though he had touched. The back spatter all around the barrel and main portion of the rifle would not have been there if wiped down.
The wipe down was before and gloves clearly used. Sheila had no reason to use gloves though during the murders and to taken them off as she killed herself nor were any gloves found that she could have used. The stock breaking would damage a hand unless wearing gloves and she had no damage, her long nails would also have some damage if using the rifle to batter someone.
But as with the silencer it would have been found inside the gun if he had taken off the silencer in order to shoot Sheila. Personally because the police handled the gun I rather think it was them who wiped the gun down, as there was one police fingerprint on the gun.
-
? why would he wipe the barrel it would only have blood from her "staged suicide" no need to wipe that?
The barrel had blood spatter from the victims. There was both high velocity spatter (from gunshots) and medium velocity spatter (from the beating). If he had not been wearing gloves then he woudl have needed to wipe down the barrel because he could have left latent prints in the blood and even coudl have lef this own blood on it somewhere. But since he was wearing gloves he had no need to wipe down the rifle except where perhaps the stock where he thought his hand might have come into contact.
So that is why we know he didn't wipe down the gun after the murders except maybe the stock though he might not have wiped it down either.
-
But as with the silencer it would have been found inside the gun if he had taken off the silencer in order to shoot Sheila. Personally because the police handled the gun I rather think it was them who wiped the gun down, as there was one police fingerprint on the gun.
1) It wasn't wiped down, it had a considerable amount of blood on it. Some of it was high velocity spatter (small drops) but the more considerable amounts was clearly from Nevill as he was beaten. If Jeremy had not used gloves then his prints would have been found in that blood the same way Sheila's prints would have been found in it if she had been the killer. Some of that blood could also come from a killer who had not been wearing gloves since the rifle stock would have damaged the hand tha thad been holding the stock when it broke. So that is another reason it would need to be wiped down. But such blood wa snot cleaned from the rifle and it wasn't cleaned because the killer had been wearing gloves so had no need to clean it.
2) He didn't remove the moderator until after he killed Sheila. Had he removed the moderator before he killed Sheila then yes her blood would have been in the muzzle of the rifle instead. But the muzzle was clean and her blood was in the moderator which means it was attached when she was killed.
The moderator and scope are problems no matter what . He had a reason to use the moderator but the scope would be a hindrance, it would block good aiming at close quarters. There was no reason to remove the scope except to use the weapon as close quarters. The claim it was found in the closet without the scope and moderator is not credible. But saying it was found with the moderator attached but not the scope is even less credible. Removing the scope is least credible but especially removing it and leaving the moderator. So he decided to pretend that both accessories would usually be removed for storage purposes. Hence his story the gun had no accessories. Which leads to a big problem with the moderator being used at all because that means Sheila would have to have fetched it and attached it. That is not consistent with the crazy rage claims though. So it was a quandry no matter what.
Even replacing the scope after the murders would not have been helpful because it would lack blood that it would have gotten on it while Nevill was being beaten. That would have revealed it was replaced later.
In hindsight moving her flat was a big screwup as well. But you think about some things and not necessarily all things when planning a murder. That is why some are lazy and burn the place afterwards to try to conceal evidence.
-
1) It wasn't wiped down, it had a considerable amount of blood on it. Some of it was high velocity spatter (small drops) but the more considerable amounts was clearly from Nevill as he was beaten. If Jeremy had not used gloves then his prints would have been found in that blood the same way Sheila's prints would have been found in it if she had been the killer. Some of that blood could also come from a killer who had not been wearing gloves since the rifle stock would have damaged the hand tha thad been holding the stock when it broke. So that is another reason it would need to be wiped down. But such blood wa snot cleaned from the rifle and it wasn't cleaned because the killer had been wearing gloves so had no need to clean it.
2) He didn't remove the moderator until after he killed Sheila. Had he removed the moderator before he killed Sheila then yes her blood would have been in the muzzle of the rifle instead. But the muzzle was clean and her blood was in the moderator which means it was attached when she was killed.
The moderator and scope are problems no matter what . He had a reason to use the moderator but the scope would be a hindrance, it would block good aiming at close quarters. There was no reason to remove the scope except to use the weapon as close quarters. The claim it was found in the closet without the scope and moderator is not credible. But saying it was found with the moderator attached but not the scope is even less credible. Removing the scope is least credible but especially removing it and leaving the moderator. So he decided to pretend that both accessories would usually be removed for storage purposes. Hence his story the gun had no accessories. Which leads to a big problem with the moderator being used at all because that means Sheila would have to have fetched it and attached it. That is not consistent with the crazy rage claims though. So it was a quandry no matter what.
Even replacing the scope after the murders would not have been helpful because it would lack blood that it would have gotten on it while Nevill was being beaten. That would have revealed it was replaced later.
In hindsight moving her flat was a big screwup as well. But you think about some things and not necessarily all things when planning a murder. That is why some are lazy and burn the place afterwards to try to conceal evidence.
I have to admit these are very good posts scipio and you have certainly thrown a spanner in the works on this site,but none of us are dunces or as gullible as you claim..
-
The barrel had blood spatter from the victims. There was both high velocity spatter (from gunshots) and medium velocity spatter (from the beating). If he had not been wearing gloves then he woudl have needed to wipe down the barrel because he could have left latent prints in the blood and even coudl have lef this own blood on it somewhere. But since he was wearing gloves he had no need to wipe down the rifle except where perhaps the stock where he thought his hand might have come into contact.
So that is why he didn't wipe down the gun after the murders except maybe the stock though he might not have wiped it down either.
So if neither of them wiped the gun then you are saying he wore gloves and did not think to place Sheilas sweaty hands to make prints?
Or the police wiped it?
-
1) It wasn't wiped down, it had a considerable amount of blood on it. Some of it was high velocity spatter (small drops) but the more considerable amounts was clearly from Nevill as he was beaten. If Jeremy had not used gloves then his prints would have been found in that blood the same way Sheila's prints would have been found in it if she had been the killer. Some of that blood could also come from a killer who had not been wearing gloves since the rifle stock would have damaged the hand tha thad been holding the stock when it broke. So that is another reason it would need to be wiped down. But such blood wa snot cleaned from the rifle and it wasn't cleaned because the killer had been wearing gloves so had no need to clean it.
2) He didn't remove the moderator until after he killed Sheila. Had he removed the moderator before he killed Sheila then yes her blood would have been in the muzzle of the rifle instead. But the muzzle was clean and her blood was in the moderator which means it was attached when she was killed.
The moderator and scope are problems no matter what . He had a reason to use the moderator but the scope would be a hindrance, it would block good aiming at close quarters. There was no reason to remove the scope except to use the weapon as close quarters. The claim it was found in the closet without the scope and moderator is not credible. But saying it was found with the moderator attached but not the scope is even less credible. Removing the scope is least credible but especially removing it and leaving the moderator. So he decided to pretend that both accessories would usually be removed for storage purposes. Hence his story the gun had no accessories. Which leads to a big problem with the moderator being used at all because that means Sheila would have to have fetched it and attached it. That is not consistent with the crazy rage claims though. So it was a quandry no matter what.
Even replacing the scope after the murders would not have been helpful because it would lack blood that it would have gotten on it while Nevill was being beaten. That would have revealed it was replaced later.
In hindsight moving her flat was a big screwup as well. But you think about some things and not necessarily all things when planning a murder. That is why some are lazy and burn the place afterwards to try to conceal evidence.
You make a good argument scipio.
-
Only a woman would have had to have used the force enough to damage the rifle. A man by his very nature being the stronger,would have had no need to have used such force.
-
So if neither of them wiped the gun then you are saying he wore gloves and did not think to place Sheilas sweaty hands to make prints?
Or the police wiped it?
Why would Sheila's hands be sweaty? If she fought with Nevill she would have been sweaty but she didn't. He took her clean fingers and put them on the gun. It is highly unlikely he pushed each finger individually he apparently just tried to drop the hand on it which didn't acocmplish much beyond the ring finger. Why didn't he try taking each finger like when ou take fingerprints? How shoudl I know. Maybe he was too excited to think of it. Maybe he didn't realize just smacking the hand against it wasn't enough. I have no way to know how calm he was and what he recognized as far as print transfers.
Police can't wipe dry blood from the metal parts of the gun they would need to clean the dry blood off by scraping it or using a cleaner but didn't because the blood was still there for the lab to go over. Why would they wipe the stock down to eliminate prints?
-
Why would Sheila's hands be sweaty? If she fought with Nevill she would have been sweaty but she didn't. He took her clean fingers and put them on the gun. It is highly unlikely he pushed each finger individually he apparently just tried to drop the hand on it which didn't acocmplish much beyond the ring finger. Why didn't he try taking each finger like when ou take fingerprints? How shoudl I know. Maybe he was too excited to think of it. Maybe he didn't realize just smacking the hand against it wasn't enough. I have no way to know how calm he was and what he recognized as far as print transfers.
Police can't wipe dry blood from the metal parts of the gun they would need to clean the dry blood off by scraping it or using a cleaner but didn't because the blood was still there for the lab to go over. Why would they wipe the stock down to eliminate prints?
Unfortunately scupio all that you have just said is only speculation. You thought up the questions yourself and then answered them yourself. There is nothing to suggest that what you suggest really happened. As not of us were there on the night, none of us can say with any confidence what did actually happen. And it's no good you stating that no one can answer you. It is probably for that very reason that they were not their either. Just because they won't challenge your questions does not mean that they know nothing or cannot answer them. It just means that they have grasped the complexity of the matter in those things that you appear to be overly confident in?
-
Unfortunately scupio all that you have just said is only speculation. You thought up the questions yourself and then answered them yourself. There is nothing to suggest that what you suggest really happened. As not of us were there on the night, none of us can say with any confidence what did actually happen. And it's no good you stating that no one can answer you. It is probably for that very reason that they were not their either. Just because they won't challenge your questions does not mean that they know nothing or cannot answer them. It just means that they have grasped the complexity of the matter in those things that you appear to be overly confident in?
I was asked a question of why Jeremy would not have tried harder to get her prints on the gun or did he do so and police wipe it down.
There is no evidence police eliminated her prints and the most likely prints to be found if she had been the killer would have been in the blood and would have been left elsewhere. The killer clearly wore gloves. A host of things reveals that.
Even Mike realizes there is no way Sheila delivered the beating to Nevill which is why he came up with his story about June doing it and conveniently also uses that to account for the lack of elevated lead levels. While I don't by it at all it does serve his intended function as far as taking care of some of the physical evidence that is lacking.
-
I was asked a question of why Jeremy would not have tried harder to get her prints on the gun or did he do so and police wipe it down.
There is no evidence police eliminated her prints and the most likely prints to be found if she had been the killer would have been in the blood and would have been left elsewhere. The killer clearly wore gloves. A host of things reveals that.
Even Mike realizes there is no way Sheila delivered the beating to Nevill which is why he came up with his story about June doing it and conveniently also uses that to account for the lack of elevated lead levels. While I don't by it at all it does serve his intended function as far as taking care of some of the physical evidence that is lacking.
So if Bamber had used the rifle earlier in the evening why would he have bothered to wipe them off? Answering whether Sheila's hands were sweaty or not, it matters not because it is generally not the sweat that leaves fingerprints, but the oil in the skin and may I suggest that the rifle and the butt were both shiny enough for any prints to stick whether the person be dead or no?
-
So if Bamber had used the rifle earlier in the evening why would he have bothered to wipe them off? Answering whether Sheila's hands were sweaty or not, it matters not because it is generally not the sweat that leaves fingerprints, but the oil in the skin and may I suggest that the rifle and the butt were both shiny enough for any prints to stick whether the person be dead or no?
1) Sweat leaves latent prints. It is 1 of 2 natural body functions that result in leaving prints the other is oil the body forms to cleanse the skin
2) foreign substances on the hands OR on the object being touched enable prints to be left. The ifle had blood on it, touching such blood coudl result in leaving a print on the gun and transferring blood to the fingers so that the fingers could leave bloody prints on other objects as well.
3) Prior to committing the murders Jeremy likely wiped the gun down to try to eliminate his prints from having handled the gun in the past. That is the most rational explanation for so few prints being found on the gun including none at all from Nevill. Wiping it down after would have washed the blood away so it wasn't washed after.
4) If Jeremy was the killer then the tale about taking the gun out to shoot rabbits is pure fiction. He took out the gun to take off the scope and load the magazine so that later on he could just take it and use it. No way would he leave the gun around where someone could end up hiding it so he could not find it. He either would put it back in the closet or hide it someplace where only he would know to go fetch it. He could have wiped it down after he removed the scope or right before he carried out the murders we have no way to know which.
6) A dead person with clean hands will be more difficult to get to leave fingerprints than someone with dirty hands. The cleaner the object like the stock which was not full of oil or grease or the like the harder to get to leave prints. A dead person also will have less oil on their fingers than someone living because the skin stops secreting oil so the sooner the better and your best bet is to take a finger like you are fingerprinting the person abd press each finger hard and roll it. It is highly doubtful Jeremy did that or there would have likely been more prints successfully left.
7) criminals don't think about everything in advance that they should, don't know all there is to know about staging scenes and planting evidence and make mistakes. The news just had a guy who broke into a house and got busted because he broke in and during the course of the burglary decided to check his facebook page and forgot to sign out of his facebook account and left the computer still on.
-
I have to admit these are very good posts scipio and you have certainly thrown a spanner in the works on this site,but none of us are dunces or as gullible as you claim..
I'm glad you think so,Steve. Thanks for the vote of confidence anyway. ;D
-
lookout you are so lucky having steve to support you think it was the weekend in the caravan that did it ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You couldn't swing a cat in it Susan,I don't know about anything else. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
1) Sweat leaves latent prints. It is 1 of 2 natural body functions that result in leaving prints the other is oil the body forms to cleanse the skin
2) foreign substances on the hands OR on the object being touched enable prints to be left. The ifle had blood on it, touching such blood coudl result in leaving a print on the gun and transferring blood to the fingers so that the fingers could leave bloody prints on other objects as well.
3) Prior to committing the murders Jeremy likely wiped the gun down to try to eliminate his prints from having handled the gun in the past. That is the most rational explanation for so few prints being found on the gun including none at all from Nevill. Wiping it down after would have washed the blood away so it wasn't washed after.
4) If Jeremy was the killer then the tale about taking the gun out to shoot rabbits is pure fiction. He took out the gun to take off the scope and load the magazine so that later on he could just take it and use it. No way would he leave the gun around where someone could end up hiding it so he could not find it. He either would put it back in the closet or hide it someplace where only he would know to go fetch it. He could have wiped it down after he removed the scope or right before he carried out the murders we have no way to know which.
6) A dead person with clean hands will be more difficult to get to leave fingerprints than someone with dirty hands. The cleaner the object like the stock which was not full of oil or grease or the like the harder to get to leave prints. A dead person also will have less oil on their fingers than someone living because the skin stops secreting oil so the sooner the better and your best bet is to take a finger like you are fingerprinting the person abd press each finger hard and roll it. It is highly doubtful Jeremy did that or there would have likely been more prints successfully left.
7) criminals don't think about everything in advance that they should, don't know all there is to know about staging scenes and planting evidence and make mistakes. The news just had a guy who broke into a house and got busted because he broke in and during the course of the burglary decided to check his facebook page and forgot to sign out of his facebook account and left the computer still on.
I doubt that Jeremy knew about all that stuff? As you said yourself criminals do not think of everything. So he probably would have done it anyway? In any case allegedly he'd only just shot her. So all that about a dead person stopping secreting oil would not apply. Nah! I don't buy your theory.
-
I doubt that Jeremy knew about all that stuff? As you said yourself criminals do not think of everything. So he probably would have done it anyway? In any case allegedly he'd only just shot her. So all that about a dead person stopping secreting oil would not apply. Nah! I don't buy your theory.
Don't buy what theory? That he wouldn't have pressed her fingers individually as if rolling a fingerprint onto a card? Because unless he did that or bothered to put something on her hands to help then he would not have a great chance of leaving multiple nice clear prints.
The theory that he can't have done it because he would have definitely rolled her fingers and definitely left many nice clear prints is the theory that is hard to buy.
-
Don't buy what theory? That he wouldn't have pressed her fingers individually as if rolling a fingerprint onto a card? Because unless he did that or bothered to put something on her hands to help then he would not have a great chance of leaving multiple nice clear prints.
The theory that he can't have done it because he would have definitely rolled her fingers and definitely left many nice clear prints is the theory that is hard to buy.
I was never quite clear why Jeremy purportedly told Julie he had to wipe the gun because a glove came off in the fight with Nevill. Maybe his fingerprints would be smudged in blood which necessitated towelling it down,but surely Sheila's prints wouldn't be on it at that stage?
-
I was never quite clear why Jeremy purportedly told Julie he had to wipe the gun because a glove came off in the fight with Nevill. Maybe his fingerprints would be smudged in blood which necessitated towelling it down,but surely Sheila's prints wouldn't be on it at that stage?
It makes it sound like he told her that he planted Sheila's prints on the gun earlier by making her hold it but then during the struggle with Nevill they could have been wiped away by his gloved hands grabbing at the gun or Nevill's prints could have been added as he was grabbing at it or the killer's prints could have been added if a glove came off which might have happened. If we take her claim at face value he was vague enough to have implied MM's glove could have come off and resulted in him leaving a print. She doesn't say straight out he admitted he did it and tha this glove might have come off. Her claim still leaves th epossibility of Jeremy saying MM's glove might have came off.
Since he made up a lot of things he told her we have no way to know if any of this is true or not. I tend to believe he didn't make up a glove possibly coming off and that he was worried that happened but have some doubts about him planting Sheila's prints beforehand.
Still there were other accounts that right before the murders he was making Sheila handle a gun I forget which relative saw that and asked if it was wise. So you never know maybe he did make Sheila handle the gun to try to get her prints on it before carrying out the murders. He could have wiped it down and then gave it to her to handle and try to make sure she touched places where he would not ordinarily hold it. The accounts of him teaching her to use a gun could have been him trying to get her prints on it.
I don't remember how long before the murders that supposedly was though and worrying about fresh prints it would be best to try planting them after she was dead because blood could cover them and they could be wiped away from use.
We simply have no way to know for sure though what he did precisely to try to plant her prints. All we know is it didn't work well.
-
PRINTS.
Why wasn't the Bible scrutinised ? Whose prints/blood was on it ?
-
Don't buy what theory? That he wouldn't have pressed her fingers individually as if rolling a fingerprint onto a card? Because unless he did that or bothered to put something on her hands to help then he would not have a great chance of leaving multiple nice clear prints.
The theory that he can't have done it because he would have definitely rolled her fingers and definitely left many nice clear prints is the theory that is hard to buy.
No mate, sorry. In order to get her prints onto the gun, which was a nice shiny serface. Nay problem for Bamber. But then again if there were fingerprints on it and there were at least two, one of Sheilas and one of Jeremy's.
Because there was one of Sheila's this is concrete proof that she came in contact with the gun. It most certainly does not prove that Jeremy pressed her fingers onto the gun, which of course goes against what you yourself are contending, that Jeremy could only transfer her prints onto the gun if he had rolled them on. It also goes against you other contention that dead bodies do not secrete oil. If that is so then the only conclusion you can come to is that Sheila was alive when her fingerprints found their way onto the gun.
-
If a surface had been " wiped down ",forensic testing would still detect minute traces of whatever was used.The same as wearing gloves,fibres would then come into play. Forensic testing is very accurate.
-
No mate, sorry. In order to get her prints onto the gun, which was a nice shiny serface. Nay problem for Bamber. But then again if there were fingerprints on it and there were at least two, one of Sheilas and one of Jeremy's.
Because there was one of Sheila's this is concrete proof that she came in contact with the gun. It most certainly does not prove that Jeremy pressed her fingers onto the gun, which of course goes against what you yourself are contending, that Jeremy could only transfer her prints onto the gun if he had rolled them on. It also goes against you other contention that dead bodies do not secrete oil. If that is so then the only conclusion you can come to is that Sheila was alive when her fingerprints found their way onto the gun.
The gun was left on her body with her hands on it- we already had concrete proof she came in contact with the gun. A dead body stops producing oil but could still have oil OR other materials on their fingers that got there before death.
To shoot everyone she would have had one hand on the foregrip and one hand on the trigger/narrow area of the stock where it attached to the rifle. Were her prints found in either location? No though that is where she would have held it while shooting everyone and also would have held it when beating Nevill. Her only print was found on the wide part of the stock and it could have gotten there either from the killer placing her hand on the stock to try to get it there after she died or by making her handle it sometime before she died. There is no way to know. For sure it didn't get there while shooting or killing anyone because the trigger could not be reached by a hand on that part of the stock.
-
The gun was left on her body with her hands on it- we already had concrete proof she came in contact with the gun. A dead body stops producing oil but could still have oil OR other materials on their fingers that got there before death.
To shoot everyone she would have had one hand on the foregrip and one hand on the trigger/narrow area of the stock where it attached to the rifle. Were her prints found in either location? No though that is where she would have held it while shooting everyone and also would have held it when beating Nevill. Her only print was found on the wide part of the stock and it could have gotten there either from the killer placing her hand on the stock to try to get it there after she died or by making her handle it sometime before she died. There is no way to know. For sure it didn't get there while shooting or killing anyone because the trigger could not be reached by a hand on that part of the stock.
Yes I'd have to agree with you on that one. I think the gun was definitely wiped by someone in some way or another. But saying that I must still disagree with you on the bit about the dead body stops producing secretions. In some instances that it true. But in other ways it is not true, as the body secretes many fluids after death. But having said that we must remember that if Bamber did kill her and he desired to imprint her fingerprints on the gun, then she would not have been long dead, so the secretions would not have been a problem.
-
Yes I'd have to agree with you on that one. I think the gun was definitely wiped by someone in some way or another. But saying that I must still disagree with you on the bit about the dead body stops producing secretions. In some instances that it true. But in other ways it is not true, as the body secretes many fluids after death. But having said that we must remember that if Bamber did kill her and he desired to imprint her fingerprints on the gun, then she would not have been long dead, so the secretions would not have been a problem.
If the gun was wiped down there would not have been the blood on it that was there. If he made her touch it before the murders there is still the issue that even living people do not leave that many prints around. If they have dirty hands the chance is greater. Depending on what kind of gloves he used they could potentially wipe away prints if they were in a place he touched with the gloves. That is why beforehand you would want to put the prints in places you would not need to touch to commit the murders. That presents the problem though of the prints not proving the person was necessarily the shooter.
Anyone could have potentially picked the gun up for an innocent reason.
The smartest thing to do is try to plant the prints later and to do so not by casually placing the hand against the gun but rather using pressure to roll a print or even to use 1 finger on the cuticle of each of Sheila's fingers in unison and then push her thumb. Idelaly this should be done on the foregrip and the stock where the gun meets. Even that might not be overly successful but has a better chance than to not push down each finger. Personally I see the GSR and foreign back spatter as much more crucial so would have concentrated on trying to plant that. That is how you prove someone fired a weapon/beat Nevill with it.
There is a fine line though between successfully planting evidence and leaving telltale clues that evidence was planted so there is always a risk.
-
It makes it sound like he told her that he planted Sheila's prints on the gun earlier by making her hold it but then during the struggle with Nevill they could have been wiped away by his gloved hands grabbing at the gun or Nevill's prints could have been added as he was grabbing at it or the killer's prints could have been added if a glove came off which might have happened. If we take her claim at face value he was vague enough to have implied MM's glove could have come off and resulted in him leaving a print. She doesn't say straight out he admitted he did it and tha this glove might have come off. Her claim still leaves th epossibility of Jeremy saying MM's glove might have came off.
Since he made up a lot of things he told her we have no way to know if any of this is true or not. I tend to believe he didn't make up a glove possibly coming off and that he was worried that happened but have some doubts about him planting Sheila's prints beforehand.
Still there were other accounts that right before the murders he was making Sheila handle a gun I forget which relative saw that and asked if it was wise. So you never know maybe he did make Sheila handle the gun to try to get her prints on it before carrying out the murders. He could have wiped it down and then gave it to her to handle and try to make sure she touched places where he would not ordinarily hold it. The accounts of him teaching her to use a gun could have been him trying to get her prints on it.
I don't remember how long before the murders that supposedly was though and worrying about fresh prints it would be best to try planting them after she was dead because blood could cover them and they could be wiped away from use.
We simply have no way to know for sure though what he did precisely to try to plant her prints. All we know is it didn't work well.
Of course what Jeremy told Julie at Goldhanger does not have to be gospel truth but I don't see Jeremy pressing a gun into Sheila's hand at some stage before he has dealt with the threats in the household,so this does remain yet another mystery.
-
Of course what Jeremy told Julie at Goldhanger does not have to be gospel truth but I don't see Jeremy pressing a gun into Sheila's hand at some stage before he has dealt with the threats in the household,so this does remain yet another mystery.
During the course of the murders it would definitely not make sense.
He could have tried it before the murders. Before going home he could have tried to make her handle the unloaded weapon or even sometime prior to that though it would not make too much sense because the further away the more the chance of someone else touching it.
Not only did he not necessarily tell her the whole truth though she might not have fully understood everything he was telling her. So there is ample opportunity for details to be messed up and for all we know she forgot or didn't appreciate things he said that could have been more damning.
One thing she said that interested me was that relatively early on she threatened telling on him because he pissed her off but he responded saying he was bulletproof and that police would not believe her. I wonder what he did and more about the circumstances. She didn't elaborate and no one ever asked her.