involvement of special branch.

[Mr. Gee]

Junes' nightie would have been of interest !

And also the blood pattern on the Bible? But I seem to remember reading that the Bible was returned to the relatives, I wonder if that was correct?

[lookout]

And also the blood pattern on the Bible? But I seem to remember reading that the Bible was returned to the relatives, I wonder if that was correct?

The Bible seems to be a mystery,as it wasn't the only one in the vicinity,with one being comparatively newer and less dog-eared.
I had heard that the relatives took" it",but I hardly would have thought it would have been the blood-stained one. Saying that,they managed to live with a bloody lampshade and spatters on the wallpaper,to say nothing of blood on a cobweb years later,FGS ! To think that was reported to the police 

[nugnug]

esex police knew they had a friend in special branch who would agrea to the destruction of those items i think.

[scipio_usmc]

No I know they wouldn't be any use for dna testing. But if Shiela's nightdress was available they could do other tests such as examining the blood spatter patters etc. I could be wrong, but I'm sure I saw posted a list of the items that were destroyed?

There was no spatter on Sheila's gown.  There was the blood that ran down her shoulder/arm and then the stain where her hand was.  The lack of spatter is how we know she wasn't even near the victims when they were killed. 

Spatter from the victims would indicate she had been present as they were killed so either she was a witness to their deaths or she was the one killing them.  There was none though.  She especially would have had medium velocity impact spatter of Nevill's blood had she been the one who was beating him.  The blood splashed all over the killer and weapon.  The parents were shot so close that the killer also most likely had high velocity impact spatter. There wasn't any on Sheila's gown.

If there had been spatter on her gown the defense would have had a better foundation to suggest Sheila could have been the killer.  If there were spatter and the defense made the arument but the prosecution had contended it wasn't blood of the victims then that spatter could have been DNA tested to try to establish who was right.  But was no spatter to DNA test.  They merely could have DNA tested the shoulder blood and blood that leaked down her arm to her wrist and was then transferred from her wrist to her gown.  Quite obviously this blood was her own though so would accomplish nothing.   

[Mr. Gee]

There was no spatter on Sheila's gown. There was the blood that ran down her shoulder/arm and then the stain where her hand was.  The lack of spatter is how we know she wasn't even near the victims when they were killed. 

Spatter from the victims would indicate she had been present as they were killed so either she was a witness to their deaths or she was the one killing them.  There was none though.  She especially would have had medium velocity impact spatter of Nevill's blood had she been the one who was beating him.  The blood splashed all over the killer and weapon.  The parents were shot so close that the killer also most likely had high velocity impact spatter. There wasn't any on Sheila's gown.

If there had been spatter on her gown the defense would have had a better foundation to suggest Sheila could have been the killer.  If there were spatter and the defense made the arument but the prosecution had contended it wasn't blood of the victims then that spatter could have been DNA tested to try to establish who was right.  But was no spatter to DNA test.  They merely could have DNA tested the shoulder blood and blood that leaked down her arm to her wrist and was then transferred from her wrist to her gown.  Quite obviously this blood was her own though so would accomplish nothing.

Well we shall never know now will we? But it does surprise me that there was not bloodspatter on her nighty as blood spatter would be a common thing I would have thought if someone was shot with a rifle? I'm no an expert of course, but I would have thought that there would also be negligable bloodspatter on the shooter as well as it was a long gun and not a handgun.
But having said that I still think it might have yielded some interesting things? It is always better to see the actual item rather than reading a report that someone else has compiled.

[scipio_usmc]

Well we shall never know now will we? But it does surprise me that there was not bloodspatter on her nighty as blood spatter would be a common thing I would have thought if someone was shot with a rifle? I'm no an expert of course, but I would have thought that there would also be negligable bloodspatter on the shooter as well as it was a long gun and not a handgun.
But having said that I still think it might have yielded some interesting things? It is always better to see the actual item rather than reading a report that someone else has compiled.

A contact wound features the spatter going inside the muzzle instead of away from the victim onto those around the victim.  A non-contact would will result in spatter going towards the shooter and others who are nearby. 

So the spatter will only hit others in non-contact wound situations and only if the shooter or someone else is standing close to the victim.  Since the blood shoots away from the victim it will not usually get on the victim. A drop or 2 maybe but not any discernable pattern really.

That is why spatter is so valuable. Spatter means you were near the victim so you either are a witness or perpetrator if you have spatter present on you.

The closeness of some of the shots to the parents says the shooter would have had spatter and the lack of any to Sheila's gown is a good indication she didn't fire the shots.  High velocity spatter is small so distant photos are unlikely to capture it we really need the expert testimony for such.  The prosecution and defense experts of course found nothing.  Medium velocity spatter stains are larger those we would be likely to see in photos.  So if she had beaten Neville we should see spatter on her gown from such.  The blood is only the giant stain on her shoulder and then the hand stain though.

The only blood to DNA test was from the hand stain area and the shoulder.  They already tested such and it was determien dot be her blood.  The chance of it coming up as someone else's DNA is astronomical there simply is no explanation of how someone else's blood could get there because it was not spatter but blood that flowed down her shoulder and arm to her wrist that she transferred.

The chance that the real killer cut his hand and got his blood on her wrist and his blood was then transferred to the gown is so remote it is not even worth considering and obviously would not help the defense anyway unless the killer were some thrid party no one even thought about.  If it is Jeremy it would confirm his guilt instead of helping the defense.

If there were a realistic possibility of someone else from outside the house having killed everyone other than Jeremy then DNA testing of all the evidence could be far more useful to the defense.

   

[Mr. Gee]

A contact wound features the spatter going inside the muzzle instead of away from the victim onto those around the victim.  A non-contact would will result in spatter going towards the shooter and others who are nearby. 

So the spatter will only hit others in non-contact wound situations and only if the shooter or someone else is standing close to the victim.  Since the blood shoots away from the victim it will not usually get on the victim. A drop or 2 maybe but not any discernable pattern really.

That is why spatter is so valuable. Spatter means you were near the victim so you either are a witness or perpetrator if you have spatter present on you.

The closeness of some of the shots to the parents says the shooter would have had spatter and the lack of any to Sheila's gown is a good indication she didn't fire the shots.  High velocity spatter is small so distant photos are unlikely to capture it we really need the expert testimony for such.  The prosecution and defense experts of course found nothing.  Medium velocity spatter stains are larger those we would be likely to see in photos.  So if she had beaten Neville we should see spatter on her gown from such.  The blood is only the giant stain on her shoulder and then the hand stain though.

The only blood to DNA test was from the hand stain area and the shoulder.  They already tested such and it was determien dot be her blood.  The chance of it coming up as someone else's DNA is astronomical there simply is no explanation of how someone else's blood could get there because it was not spatter but blood that flowed down her shoulder and arm to her wrist that she transferred.

The chance that the real killer cut his hand and got his blood on her wrist and his blood was then transferred to the gown is so remote it is not even worth considering and obviously would not help the defense anyway unless the killer were some thrid party no one even thought about.  If it is Jeremy it would confirm his guilt instead of helping the defense.

If there were a realistic possibility of someone else from outside the house having killed everyone other than Jeremy then DNA testing of all the evidence could be far more useful to the defense.

 

But if as you say the killer had bloodspatter on him from his victims, if he got out of a window wouldn't there have been a very real chance that he would have transfered some of that bloodspatter onto the window or the sill?

[lookout]

There would have been specks everywhere which wouldn't be seen with the naked eye,particularly under cover of darkness as it was,but only under microscopic investigation.

It would be great to hear the taped interview of Jeremy when he was questioned. Sometimes,the " accused " can unwittingly talk/ be tricked into a conviction,depending on the questions,subjects and attitude of the officer asking the questions. The last thing you do is implicate others.

[Mr. Gee]

There would have been specks everywhere which wouldn't be seen with the naked eye,particularly under cover of darkness as it was,but only under microscopic investigation.

It would be great to hear the taped interview of Jeremy when he was questioned. Sometimes,the " accused " can unwittingly talk/ be tricked into a conviction,depending on the questions,subjects and attitude of the officer asking the questions. The last thing you do is implicate others.

Yes and sometimes there is a continual hounding of the suspect which causes a reaction. The reaction is noted down, but the hounding is not. I know for a fact that this does still take place.

[lookout]

Yes and sometimes there is a continual hounding of the suspect which causes a reaction. The reaction is noted down, but the hounding is not. I know for a fact that this does still take place.

Of course it happens. The soft " friendly" talk is a crafty way of wheedling information,such as EP used when Jeremy was in their car outside WHF before anyone was aware what had gone on,so soft lad mentioned getting a Porsche  which played right into their hands so thus was used against him.What they initially failed to add was that it was a kit-form replica. It's all it takes for it to be enhanced and elaborated on.
He probably unknowingly had a duty solicitor,who are usually in cahoots with the cops anyway.

[petey]

Of course it happens. The soft " friendly" talk is a crafty way of wheedling information,such as EP used when Jeremy was in their car outside WHF before anyone was aware what had gone on,so soft lad mentioned getting a Porsche  which played right into their hands so thus was used against him.What they initially failed to add was that it was a kit-form replica. It's all it takes for it to be enhanced and elaborated on.
He probably unknowingly had a duty solicitor,who are usually in cahoots with the cops anyway.

That is not true at all

[Mr. Gee]

Of course it happens. The soft " friendly" talk is a crafty way of wheedling information,such as EP used when Jeremy was in their car outside WHF before anyone was aware what had gone on,so soft lad mentioned getting a Porsche  which played right into their hands so thus was used against him.What they initially failed to add was that it was a kit-form replica. It's all it takes for it to be enhanced and elaborated on.
He probably unknowingly had a duty solicitor,who are usually in cahoots with the cops anyway.

When my son was in trouble with the police when he was 17 years old (he is 29 now) I went to the police station and he had been filling out a form. When I looked at it I saw that he had ticked a box relinquishing his right to a duty solicitor. I immediaely advised him to have one.
The duty solicitor is there to advise the accused and see that there is fair play. In other words he/she represents the accused. He was very good and informed us of the court procedures and advised my son on various things that would be to his benefit. As far as I know the duty solicitors are not connected with the police in any way, but they call on them whenever a person who has been arrested wants one. I would advise anyone, if they haven't a lawyer of their own to ask for one if they are in trouble with the police and are arrested.

[lookout]

That is not true at all

It certainly does happen this way.

[Mr. Gee]

It certainly does happen this way.

Sometimes a solicitor will advise someone to go to Crown Court as opposed to a majistrates court. I remember the judge tearing defence counsel off a strip for taking his minor case into his Crown Court. But if a case does get to Crown Court and the defendant loses the penalties can be higher than if dealt with in a majistrates court.

[nugnug]

a duty solicter is better than no solicter if you don't know what your doing.

and most people dont.