Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: John on April 16, 2011, 11:11:PM
-
One of the most telling factors for me is the fact that the rifle had little or no blood on it. Had Sheila indeed used the weapon to shoot herself and then wandered about the house before doing so again, there would have been blood all over the rifle. Sheila's hands would have been covered in blood as a result of putting her hands on her neck wounds.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=242.0;attach=629;image)
Two things are immediately observed.
1. Sheila did not put her hands on her neck since the blood would have been dispersed more around her neck and face.
2. Sheila did not have any blood on her hands.
3. Had Sheila been walking around, blood would have ran down her neck all the way and then onto her nightdress. Notice how there is no such blood runs in front of her and her nightie is unmarked to the front.
As far as I can see it would have been impossible for Sheila to have done what the defence contend she did do and end up remarkably clean thereafter.
I have absolutely no doubt that girl was murdered.
-
One of the most telling factors for me is the fact that the rifle had little or no blood on it. Had Sheila indeed used the weapon to shoot herself and then wandered about the house before doing so again, there would have been blood all over the rifle. Sheila's hands would have been covered in blood as a result of putting her hands on her neck wounds.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=242.0;attach=629;image)
Two things are immediately observed.
1. Sheila did not put her hands on her neck since the blood would have been dispersed more around her neck and face.
2. Sheila did not have any blood on her hands.
3. Had Sheila been walking around, blood would have ran down her neck all the way and then onto her nightdress. Notice how there is no such blood runs in front of her and her nightie is unmarked to the front.
As far as I can see it would have been impossible for Sheila to have done what the defence contend she did do and end up remarkably clean thereafter.
I have absolutely no doubt that girl was murdered.
I mentioned the following on another thread:
I've just been looking at some older threads at the beginning of this forum and one of them, currently P26, titled "Local Man Hands in Two Guns taken from WHF..." (Dec 29) says that one of the guns was a shotgun and the other was some sort of 'hybrid' in that it had the barrel of a shotgun with the barrel of a .22 rifle beneath it. Was this the gun that made the circular marks on Ralph?
Another one, currently P27 (Dec 27) "Secrets Kept by Essex Police..." is a report of a statement by a local resident who said he heard a shotgun blast between 9.30pm and 10.15pm on 6th Aug. Perhaps things were kicking off earlier in the evening after JB had left WHF.
Could the first one fit in with your third party theory?
-
Wasn't Pamela on the phone to June between about 10 and 10.20pm?
Yes and maybe that's why she said she was worried about Sheila, amongst other things.
-
I think HMEssex that you will find that any bullets emanating from the other gun would have been completely different.
The shot gun is a non starter in reaction to any of the deaths.
-
I have no doubt that the cops despatched to the scene had little experience of such murders and were basically out of their depth.
-
I think HMEssex that you will find that any bullets emanating from the other gun would have been completely different.
The shot gun is a non starter in reaction to any of the deaths.
Still, it's a bit strange how these guns were handed in, and what made the circular marks on Ralph?
I didn't say the shotgun was used in the deaths but that someone heard one being fired.
Plus Mike has said before that not all of the gunshot wounds matched the bullets found at the scene.
-
I am afraid that the photo speaks for itself. Sheila was never upright after being shot so she could not have walked anywhere never mind do the round trip to the kitchen and entertain a conversation with Essex Police's best hostage negotiators.
Looks like Jeremy or a third party are most definitely in the frame.
-
John, I agree with you on points 1&3.
On point 2 Shiela has blood running up her lower arm, and wrist. It also seems she has blood on the top part of her hand.
Mike is now suggesting that 3 guns may have been used. This would surely rule out Shiela.
I have long thought that more than 1 person was involved in the killings.How could 1 person go into three rooms.
For what it,s worth my theory is 1 killer goes into the twins room the other goes into Ralph and Junes room. The noise wakes Shiela who goes to her parents room. The gun is put under her throat, and fired and she falls to the floor.
Ralph then somehow manages to flee downstairs followed by on of the killers, who batters him with the rifle,he then finishes him off with more shots to the head.
Meanwhile the other killer hears Shiela moaning, and fires the shot that kills her.
What do you think.
-
Seems a bit of a quantum leap from 'Sheila didn't do what the defence team claim' to 'That puts Jeremy in the frame'. If one accepts that there is doubt about the silencer evidence and that the bodies in the kitchen mixup was just a blunder by police. It doesn't mean that Shiela couldn't have killed her parents and children and then committed suicide.
-
I think that Sheila was probably sitting up when the first shot happened, and she was leaning slightly to the right - the blood went down the right side of her nightdress. She was not lying down IMO because the blood would not have ended up on her nightdress if she had been. She remained sitting long enough for the blood to go down her nightdress, and then she fell back or lay back.
The second shot is a bit of a mystery. Her head is at an awkward angle and it looks like she could not have received that second shot unless her head was slightly raised against the cabinet, in which case it would be difficult for anyone to shoot her under the chin - or for her to shoot herself under the chin.
Re the issue of blood on her hands, I can't see any, but it does look like the fatal shot has been touched and the blood has been smeared. Obviously, she couldn't do that voluntarily because she was dead by then, but it's possible that she was shot and her hand fell back against the wound and the killer then moved her hand down to the gun. The blood on her arm suggests that's what might have happened.
There has been a claim that the pathologist said she had gouges on her arm so that's why there's blood on her arm but so far the evidence of that has not been forthcoming.
It's possible that someone else touched the wound but I'm not sure why they would do that.
-
peter vanezis recorded this during post mortem:
Bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand.Also bloodstains R hand side of nightdress. moderate stains R hand both hands not contaminated apart from blood.
thepolice said her hands were free from blood? not according to this they werent
-
peter vanezis recorded this during post mortem:
Bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand.Also bloodstains R hand side of nightdress. moderate stains R hand both hands not contaminated apart from blood.
thepolice said her hands were free from blood? not according to this they werent
The issue of the bloodstain from the right hand came up during the appeal but I simply can't make head or tail of it - my eyes glaze over when I try to follow it. ;D It appears that the defence didn't want to make an issue of it. Perhaps someone else could make sense of it. ;D
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.htm
Para 517 onwards.
-
hmmm i see what you mean, it doesnt mention the blood hardly though does it.
-
hmmm i see what you mean, it doesnt mention the blood hardly though does it.
I'm not sure. I keep trying to read it but I lose the will to do so after about ten seconds. ;D
-
im the same when it comes to reading about the sliencer(s) i just glaze over and go on to something else
-
im the same when it comes to reading about the sliencer(s) i just glaze over and go on to something else
It would be nice if it could be explained with even the tiniest bit of clarity.
-
its the numbers DRB/1 etc that confuse me i know the basics where it was found and by who etc...but the rest, it just sends me to sleep, so i dont bother reading ;)
-
2002 appeal [Quote:...He said that he understood that Dr Vanezis, the pathologist, had given evidence that there was no blood on the palm side of Sheila Caffell’s hands. Therefore, he concluded, this staining must have been deposited by another individual. However, whilst Mr Ismail rightly recorded the evidence of Dr Vanezis, Mr Turner was able to point to a note made by Dr Vanezis at the time of the post-mortem examination that read:
“bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. ”]
Yes, so why did Mr Turner oppose that evidence being introduced in the appeal?
-
sarann posted;
2002 appeal [Quote:...He said that he understood that Dr Vanezis, the pathologist, had given evidence that there was no blood on the palm side of Sheila Caffell’s hands. Therefore, he concluded, this staining must have been deposited by another individual. However, whilst Mr Ismail rightly recorded the evidence of Dr Vanezis, Mr Turner was able to point to a note made by Dr Vanezis at the time of the post-mortem examination that read:
“bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. ”]
For those who wish to leap to a claim that the palm print on the nightdress could not have come from Sheila herself but still want it to be a palm print...
There was nothing in this claimed print to identify it being from JB.
We know Ralph (Neville) had a bloodied left hand at least ...so it could have come from him ..which if correct could support Sheila having been in the kitchen with him.
-
sarann posted;
2002 appeal [Quote:...He said that he understood that Dr Vanezis, the pathologist, had given evidence that there was no blood on the palm side of Sheila Caffell’s hands. Therefore, he concluded, this staining must have been deposited by another individual. However, whilst Mr Ismail rightly recorded the evidence of Dr Vanezis, Mr Turner was able to point to a note made by Dr Vanezis at the time of the post-mortem examination that read:
“bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. ”]
For those who wish to leap to a claim that the palm print on the nightdress could not have come from Sheila herself but still want it to be a palm print...
There was nothing in this claimed print to identify it being from JB.
We know Ralph (Neville) had a bloodied left hand at least ...so it could have come from him ..which if correct could support Sheila having been in the kitchen with him.
-----------------
In addition. why do EP ignore for the fact that a set of bloodied fingerprints were found on the edge of the kitchen worktop in close proximity to the bullets and the telephone?
-
That blood on the edge is quite odd. There doesn't appear to be any on the top of the surface, so it's as if someone was on the floor and they reached up and left those stains there.
-
It is interesting and very noticeable that Sheila had no blood whatsoever on her left hand. Are we expected to believe that she was a one handed gun-woman now?
-
It is interesting and very noticeable that Sheila had no blood whatsoever on her left hand. Are we expected to believe that she was a one handed gun-woman now?
Rather convenient isn't it. Certainly the rifle had little or no blood on it because Sheila Caffell never handled it.
-
Did they take 'swabs' of those bloodied fingerprints, I wonder, to find out whose blood it was?
Slight, change to topic sorry, but looking at the phone's handpiece in the pic, was Ralph left-handed as that is where he may have placed it? Then, again, Mike has said one of the policemen used the phone for about 15 mins so maybe it was in this position after he had used it.
-
Did they take 'swabs' of those bloodied fingerprints, I wonder, to find out whose blood it was?
Slight, change to topic sorry, but looking at the phone's handpiece in the pic, was Ralph left-handed as that is where he may have placed it? Then, again, Mike has said one of the policemen used the phone for about 15 mins so maybe it was in this position after he had used it.
I haven't read anything to indicate they tested the blood on the edge of work top. They should have done so of course.
-
It is interesting and very noticeable that Sheila had no blood whatsoever on her left hand. Are we expected to believe that she was a one handed gun-woman now?
Rather convenient isn't it. Certainly the rifle had little or no blood on it because Sheila Caffell never handled it.
I've just read that both of Sheila's hand's were contaminated with blood? In Venezis autopsy report. It was the feet that were reported to be clean. If Shiela never handled the gun how come her fingerprint is on it?
-
It is interesting and very noticeable that Sheila had no blood whatsoever on her left hand. Are we expected to believe that she was a one handed gun-woman now?
Rather convenient isn't it. Certainly the rifle had little or no blood on it because Sheila Caffell never handled it.
I've just read that both of Sheila's hand's were contaminated with blood? In Venezis autopsy report. It was the feet that were reported to be clean. If Shiela never handled the gun how come her fingerprint is on it?
Presumably because someone put her hand on it to make it look like she killed herself. Her right hand was on the gun so that could account for the fingerprint. However, I would expect there to be more of her prints on it if someone wanted it to look like she killed herself - they would surely make sure her prints were on it.
-
It is interesting and very noticeable that Sheila had no blood whatsoever on her left hand. Are we expected to believe that she was a one handed gun-woman now?
Rather convenient isn't it. Certainly the rifle had little or no blood on it because Sheila Caffell never handled it.
I've just read that both of Sheila's hand's were contaminated with blood? In Venezis autopsy report. It was the feet that were reported to be clean. If Shiela never handled the gun how come her fingerprint is on it?
Wherever you read that it is completely wrong.
DC Hammersley, the Scenes of Crimes Officer placed plastic bags over Sheila's hands and feet before her body was removed from the farmhouse. He saw some blood staining to the back of the right hand, but apart from that the hands, to his eye were clean and the nails intact.
The firearms officers who were the first to see her body noted that her feet and hands were “perfectly clean”. He added that her fingernails were well manicured and not broken and that there were no marks or indentations on any of her fingers. Her fingertips were clean and free from any blood.
Whoever is feeding you anything to the contrary is feeding you misinformation. It has always been said that Sheila could not possibly have handled that rifle.
-
It is interesting and very noticeable that Sheila had no blood whatsoever on her left hand. Are we expected to believe that she was a one handed gun-woman now?
Rather convenient isn't it. Certainly the rifle had little or no blood on it because Sheila Caffell never handled it.
I've just read that both of Sheila's hand's were contaminated with blood? In Venezis autopsy report. It was the feet that were reported to be clean. If Shiela never handled the gun how come her fingerprint is on it?
Wherever you read that it is completely wrong.
DC Hammersley, the Scenes of Crimes Officer placed plastic bags over Sheila's hands and feet before her body was removed from the farmhouse. He saw some blood staining to the back of the right hand, but apart from that the hands, to his eye were clean and the nails intact.
The firearms officers who were the first to see her body noted that her feet and hands were “perfectly clean”. He added that her fingernails were well manicured and not broken and that there were no marks or indentations on any of her fingers. Her fingertips were clean and free from any blood.
Whoever is feeding you anything to the contrary is feeding you misinformation. It has always been said that Sheila could not possibly have handled that rifle.
Said by whom though ? Read solicitor's complaint's about thing's which were withheld from him you will see he his not happy with the hand swab evidence !
-
Said in testimony at the trial. Undoubtedly the solicitor is not happy with many things but that doesn't change Jeremy's culpability.
All the professionals who attended the scene spoke of the lack of blood on Sheila's hands and the fact that her nails were intact. The post mortem returned the same results.
-
Said in testimony at the trial. Undoubtedly the solicitor is not happy with many things but that doesn't change Jeremy's culpability.
All the professionals who attended the scene spoke of the lack of blood on Sheila's hands and the fact that her nails were intact. The post mortem returned the same results.
Can you post these please ? Did the hand's swab's not get sent to the lab twice ?
-
Said in testimony at the trial. Undoubtedly the solicitor is not happy with many things but that doesn't change Jeremy's culpability.
All the professionals who attended the scene spoke of the lack of blood on Sheila's hands and the fact that her nails were intact. The post mortem returned the same results.
Can you post these please ? Did the hand's swab's not get sent to the lab twice ?
Have a read for yourself jon, it is all there about the hand swabs.
http://netk.net.au/UK/Bamber2.asp
-
Said in testimony at the trial. Undoubtedly the solicitor is not happy with many things but that doesn't change Jeremy's culpability.
All the professionals who attended the scene spoke of the lack of blood on Sheila's hands and the fact that her nails were intact. The post mortem returned the same results.
Can you post these please ? Did the hand's swab's not get sent to the lab twice ?
Have a read for yourself jon, it is all there about the hand swabs.
http://netk.net.au/UK/Bamber2.asp
Intersesting they say 'the implausable suggestion that Shiela may have worn socks' [ground 2, 3rd para] when there are a pair right next to her body????
-
Of course she couldn't have shot herself. Try it yourself with your kids toy rifle. Put the muzzle in your neck and pull the trigger with your finger. Would it not be more appropriate to use one's thumb?
-
It is interesting and very noticeable that Sheila had no blood whatsoever on her left hand. Are we expected to believe that she was a one handed gun-woman now?
Rather convenient isn't it. Certainly the rifle had little or no blood on it because Sheila Caffell never handled it.
I've just read that both of Sheila's hand's were contaminated with blood? In Venezis autopsy report. It was the feet that were reported to be clean. If Shiela never handled the gun how come her fingerprint is on it?
Wherever you read that it is completely wrong.
DC Hammersley, the Scenes of Crimes Officer placed plastic bags over Sheila's hands and feet before her body was removed from the farmhouse. He saw some blood staining to the back of the right hand, but apart from that the hands, to his eye were clean and the nails intact.
The firearms officers who were the first to see her body noted that her feet and hands were “perfectly clean”. He added that her fingernails were well manicured and not broken and that there were no marks or indentations on any of her fingers. Her fingertips were clean and free from any blood.
Whoever is feeding you anything to the contrary is feeding you misinformation. It has always been said that Sheila could not possibly have handled that rifle.
Could you link to wherever you got most of that from? Thanks.
-
Kaldin you are like a broken record. You have already stated in a post that the quote was from a court document yet you persist with the same question repeatedly. She has answered your question previously so I for one cannot understand what your problem is?
Do you not take info from documents Kaldin and edit it to suit your own ends?
-
Kaldin you are like a broken record. You have already stated in a post that the quote was from a court document yet you persist with the same question repeatedly. She has answered your question previously so I for one cannot understand what your problem is?
So what's the problem with her posting a link? It's usual to quote your source if you're copying what someone else said.
As it happens, I recognise a lot of her stuff from the 2002 appeal but if I don't recognise some of her words how do I know if they're her own or not?
-
Kaldin you are like a broken record. You have already stated in a post that the quote was from a court document yet you persist with the same question repeatedly. She has answered your question previously so I for one cannot understand what your problem is?
So what's the problem with her posting a link? It's usual to quote your source if you're copying what someone else said.
As it happens, I recognise a lot of her stuff from the 2002 appeal but if I don't recognise some of her words how do I know if they're her own or not?
I agree Kaldin that if a complete document is referred to it should be linked to but if information is merely used from a document and edited by the poster there is little need to provide a link unless asked to do so. Fact are facts Kaldin no matter how they are written.
I think that you have seen these comments posted so many times that you recognise parts of them in others posts. I sympathise with you as I too have found this happening on other forums which I contribute to and find it annoying when I cannot find the original text.
-
Kaldin you are like a broken record. You have already stated in a post that the quote was from a court document yet you persist with the same question repeatedly. She has answered your question previously so I for one cannot understand what your problem is?
So what's the problem with her posting a link? It's usual to quote your source if you're copying what someone else said.
As it happens, I recognise a lot of her stuff from the 2002 appeal but if I don't recognise some of her words how do I know if they're her own or not?
I agree Kaldin that if a complete document is referred to it should be linked to but if information is merely used from a document and edited by the poster there is little need to provide a link unless asked to do so. Fact are facts Kaldin no matter how they are written.
I don't agree. If posters are using the words of others, they should quote their source and post a link to it.
-
Kaldin you are like a broken record. You have already stated in a post that the quote was from a court document yet you persist with the same question repeatedly. She has answered your question previously so I for one cannot understand what your problem is?
So what's the problem with her posting a link? It's usual to quote your source if you're copying what someone else said.
As it happens, I recognise a lot of her stuff from the 2002 appeal but if I don't recognise some of her words how do I know if they're her own or not?
I agree Kaldin that if a complete document is referred to it should be linked to but if information is merely used from a document and edited by the poster there is little need to provide a link unless asked to do so. Fact are facts Kaldin no matter how they are written.
I don't agree. If posters are using the words of others, they should quote their source and post a link to it.
Of course.
-
One of the most telling factors for me is the fact that the rifle had little or no blood on it. Had Sheila indeed used the weapon to shoot herself and then wandered about the house before doing so again, there would have been blood all over the rifle. Sheila's hands would have been covered in blood as a result of putting her hands on her neck wounds.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=242.0;attach=629;image)
Two things are immediately observed.
1. Sheila did not put her hands on her neck since the blood would have been dispersed more around her neck and face.
2. Sheila did not have any blood on her hands.
3. Had Sheila been walking around, blood would have ran down her neck all the way and then onto her nightdress. Notice how there is no such blood runs in front of her and her nightie is unmarked to the front.
As far as I can see it would have been impossible for Sheila to have done what the defence contend she did do and end up remarkably clean thereafter.
I have absolutely no doubt that girl was murdered.
-------------------------
Police had to substitute bullet PV/20 (the non fatal wound bullet) which was fired by another different gun, downstairs...
Oddly enough, whoever used the rifle to shoot the victims - there should have been more blood upon the rifle, whether Sheila did it, Jeremy did it, or somebody else did it...
-
One of the most telling factors for me is the fact that the rifle had little or no blood on it. Had Sheila indeed used the weapon to shoot herself and then wandered about the house before doing so again, there would have been blood all over the rifle. Sheila's hands would have been covered in blood as a result of putting her hands on her neck wounds.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=242.0;attach=629;image)
Two things are immediately observed.
1. Sheila did not put her hands on her neck since the blood would have been dispersed more around her neck and face.
2. Sheila did not have any blood on her hands.
3. Had Sheila been walking around, blood would have ran down her neck all the way and then onto her nightdress. Notice how there is no such blood runs in front of her and her nightie is unmarked to the front.
As far as I can see it would have been impossible for Sheila to have done what the defence contend she did do and end up remarkably clean thereafter.
I have absolutely no doubt that girl was murdered.
-------------------------
Police had to substitute bullet PV/20 (the non fatal wound bullet) which was fired by another different gun, downstairs...
Oddly enough, whoever used the rifle to shoot the victims - there should have been more blood upon the rifle, whether Sheila did it, Jeremy did it, or somebody else did it...
There would only be blood on the rifle if it had been used to batter someone or if it had been used by someone who was already bleeding.
-
One of the most telling factors for me is the fact that the rifle had little or no blood on it. Had Sheila indeed used the weapon to shoot herself and then wandered about the house before doing so again, there would have been blood all over the rifle. Sheila's hands would have been covered in blood as a result of putting her hands on her neck wounds.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=242.0;attach=629;image)
Two things are immediately observed.
1. Sheila did not put her hands on her neck since the blood would have been dispersed more around her neck and face.
2. Sheila did not have any blood on her hands.
3. Had Sheila been walking around, blood would have ran down her neck all the way and then onto her nightdress. Notice how there is no such blood runs in front of her and her nightie is unmarked to the front.
As far as I can see it would have been impossible for Sheila to have done what the defence contend she did do and end up remarkably clean thereafter.
I have absolutely no doubt that girl was murdered.
-------------------------
Police had to substitute bullet PV/20 (the non fatal wound bullet) which was fired by another different gun, downstairs...
Oddly enough, whoever used the rifle to shoot the victims - there should have been more blood upon the rifle, whether Sheila did it, Jeremy did it, or somebody else did it...
There would only be blood on the rifle if it had been used to batter someone or if it had been used by someone who was already bleeding.
That would contradict the backspatter into/onto an alleged silencer.
-
One of the most telling factors for me is the fact that the rifle had little or no blood on it. Had Sheila indeed used the weapon to shoot herself and then wandered about the house before doing so again, there would have been blood all over the rifle. Sheila's hands would have been covered in blood as a result of putting her hands on her neck wounds.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=242.0;attach=629;image)
Two things are immediately observed.
1. Sheila did not put her hands on her neck since the blood would have been dispersed more around her neck and face.
2. Sheila did not have any blood on her hands.
3. Had Sheila been walking around, blood would have ran down her neck all the way and then onto her nightdress. Notice how there is no such blood runs in front of her and her nightie is unmarked to the front.
As far as I can see it would have been impossible for Sheila to have done what the defence contend she did do and end up remarkably clean thereafter.
I have absolutely no doubt that girl was murdered.
-------------------------
Police had to substitute bullet PV/20 (the non fatal wound bullet) which was fired by another different gun, downstairs...
Oddly enough, whoever used the rifle to shoot the victims - there should have been more blood upon the rifle, whether Sheila did it, Jeremy did it, or somebody else did it...
There would only be blood on the rifle if it had been used to batter someone or if it had been used by someone who was already bleeding.
-------------------
You are mistaken on that point - since, the bloodied fingers and right hand of Sheila Caffell was placed upon the weapon in the region of the ammunition magazine and three venting holes, which gave access to the internal mechanisms of the weapon. Any wet blood that dripped from the hand or fingers of Sheila, once her right hand had been placed there, would or could very well have found its way inside the rifle, and later blasted out through the barrel, into the silencer during any test firing of the gun later on, be it in an unofficial capacity or an official one?
-
I still haven't seen any evidence that there was blood on Sheila's hands, apart from a blood stain on the back of her right hand.
-
I think Sandy is referring to the rifle and not the silencer which is a separate issue. We know the silencer was used on the gun and then replaced in the cupboard with the sights by the murderer who thought that they would not be inspected. Unfortunately for him they were inspected and though and behold, Sheila's blood was found in the baffles with the speck of paint which matched the hearth surround.
Total nonsense Mike, the blood was found before the rifle was test fired and in any event, blood would not attach itself to a sound moderator in such a way. It is a known fact that only low back pressure could cause blood to be deposited in a sound moderator between the baffles.
There was no blood, no gun oil or powder residue on her hands other then the small amount you can see for yourself on the above photo.
It is interesting that the outer backing to the Bible has no blood on it. How on earth was Sheila supposed to hold it...with her teeth??
-
Yes, in my post I refer to the rifle per se, not the rifle with silencer attached. I always find it remarkable when posters try to infer that Sheila's hands were covered in blood when that was obviously untrue. Again, if you were shot in the neck would you put your hands on the wound?
I think the answer is quite obvious really.