Was the absence of fingerprints on the rifle relevant?

[Caroline]

Up until recently it was difficult if not impossible to recover fingerprints from small cylindrical objects eg casings.  New technology CERA now permits:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UwiHV7nnG8g

Had the casings not been destroyed against all protocols it would have afforded JB the opportunity of attempting to recover fingerprints from the casings ie who loaded the mag!

He may actually be relieved.

[Holly Goodhead]

He may actually be relieved.

Indeed!

[Nicholas]

Julie Mugford witness statement page 32

Not sure if the word here is ‘flaws’ ?

JM stated,

‘The reason for the flaws in the fingerprints was that during the fight with Mr Bamber a glove might have come off or been dropped and it might have rubbed Sheilas fingerprint off or have extra fingerprints on the gun which were ? ? Sheilas and would show up 

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Not sure if the word here is ‘flaws’ ?

JM stated,

‘The reason for the flaws in the fingerprints was that during the fight with Mr Bamber a glove might have come off or been dropped and it might have rubbed Sheilas fingerprint off or have extra fingerprints on the gun which were ? ? Sheilas and would show up 

That sounds like Jeremy had to wipe the rifle after the fight because his own fingerprints would have overlapped Nevill’s, proving he was the killer. Forensics would see by all the fingerprint patterns that Jeremy and Nevill struggled over the rifle. That’s why he had to wipe it clean of prints.

I can’t remember how many of Nevill’s fingerprints were found on the gun, but you’d imagine there’d be hundreds considering it belonged to him, and from memory, I think they only found a couple? And Sheila certainly wouldn’t have wiped them off.

Maybe JB was worried that he had no choice but to wipe the gun clean, and that should have alerted police as to why so few of Nevill’s fingerprints were on it.

Of course, after wiping it clean and having put his glove back on, he pressed Sheila’s finger onto it — just twice, I think? Which is also ridiculous. Sheila’s prints would’ve been all over it!

[Nicholas]

That sounds like Jeremy had to wipe the rifle after the fight because his own fingerprints would have overlapped Nevill’s, proving he was the killer. Forensics would see by all the fingerprint patterns that Jeremy and Nevill struggled over the rifle. That’s why he had to wipe it clean of prints.

I can’t remember how many of Nevill’s fingerprints were found on the gun, but you’d imagine there’d be hundreds considering it belonged to him, and from memory, I think they only found a couple? And Sheila certainly wouldn’t have wiped them off.

Maybe JB was worried that he had no choice but to wipe the gun clean, and that should have alerted police as to why so few of Nevill’s fingerprints were on it.

Of course, after wiping it clean and having put his glove back on, he pressed Sheila’s finger onto it — just twice, I think? Which is also ridiculous. Sheila’s prints would’ve been all over it!

Are there photos of the fingerprints in relation to where on the gun they were found ?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Are there photos of the fingerprints in relation to where on the gun they were found ?

I’m not sure — I don’t remember seeing any.

I’m sure there must be exhibits somewhere...

I do know they documented how many prints were on the gun, and whose. That’s definitely online somewhere and is probably in the court documents. I’ve read so much, to be honest, that I’ve got brain overload and need to reboot my bonce 🤯

[Nicholas]

I’m not sure — I don’t remember seeing any.

I’m sure there must be exhibits somewhere...

I do know the documented how many prints were on the gun, and how many. That’s definitely online somewhere and is probably in the court documents. I’ve read so much, to be honest, that I’ve got brain overload and need to reboot my bonce 🤯

Did Mike Tesko ever publish them ?

[John]

That sounds like Jeremy had to wipe the rifle after the fight because his own fingerprints would have overlapped Nevill’s, proving he was the killer. Forensics would see by all the fingerprint patterns that Jeremy and Nevill struggled over the rifle. That’s why he had to wipe it clean of prints.

I can’t remember how many of Nevill’s fingerprints were found on the gun, but you’d imagine there’d be hundreds considering it belonged to him, and from memory, I think they only found a couple? And Sheila certainly wouldn’t have wiped them off.

Maybe JB was worried that he had no choice but to wipe the gun clean, and that should have alerted police as to why so few of Nevill’s fingerprints were on it.

Of course, after wiping it clean and having put his glove back on, he pressed Sheila’s finger onto it — just twice, I think? Which is also ridiculous. Sheila’s prints would’ve been all over it!

It is all the little things that ultimately added up convinced me in the end.  It's all very logical if one takes the times to study it.

[Caroline]

It is all the little things that ultimately added up convinced me in the end.  It's all very logical if one takes the times to study it.

Me too, I found myself (like a few others) making  excuses for more and more issues. Too many excuses and coincidences to the point where they couldn't have been down to chance anymore.

[Holly Goodhead]

The rifle was examined for fingerprints:

72. The weapon was also examined for fingerprints. A print from the appellant's right forefinger was found on the breech end of the barrel, above the stock and pointing across the gun and Sheila Caffell's right ring fingerprint was found on the right side of the butt, pointing downwards. There were three further finger marks on the rifle, each of insufficient detail for identification purposes.

Instead of relying on what we are told JM claimed about a glove falling off, is there some explanation as to why the rifle contained so few fingerprints despite being handled extensively by others?  Seems so:

Firearms are perhaps among the most difficult objects to yield good latent fingerprints. According to Clemens, technicians will typically get prints on only about ten percent of the guns that are inspected.

“Why are guns so difficult? There are a number of factors involved,” said Clemens. “One of them has to do with the textured nature of the area where the gun is being held. That area is not good for prints. Another factor has to do with how the firearm was treated before the crime. If the person took good care of it, then it probably has oil on it—which makes it almost impossible to get a good print. And if they have not taken care of it, the surface might be rusty—and rust is not good for lifting prints.”

http://www.evidencemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22

[Holly Goodhead]

Why does no one ask about the silencer when talking about fingerprints?

[Holly Goodhead]

And what about the casings that were destroyed in 1996 against all protocols?

165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.

Had the casings not been destroyed they could now be fingerprinted using new technology.  They would either reveal JB's, SC's or no prints suggesting a gloved JB.

[The General]

Why does no one ask about the silencer when talking about fingerprints?

Probably because it was passed around like a peace pipe at a pow wow.

[Holly Goodhead]

Probably because it was passed around like a peace pipe at a pow wow.

 

[Venturi Swirl]

The rifle was examined for fingerprints:

72. The weapon was also examined for fingerprints. A print from the appellant's right forefinger was found on the breech end of the barrel, above the stock and pointing across the gun and Sheila Caffell's right ring fingerprint was found on the right side of the butt, pointing downwards. There were three further finger marks on the rifle, each of insufficient detail for identification purposes.

Instead of relying on what we are told JM claimed about a glove falling off, is there some explanation as to why the rifle contained so few fingerprints despite being handled extensively by others?  Seems so:

Firearms are perhaps among the most difficult objects to yield good latent fingerprints. According to Clemens, technicians will typically get prints on only about ten percent of the guns that are inspected.

“Why are guns so difficult? There are a number of factors involved,” said Clemens. “One of them has to do with the textured nature of the area where the gun is being held. That area is not good for prints. Another factor has to do with how the firearm was treated before the crime. If the person took good care of it, then it probably has oil on it—which makes it almost impossible to get a good print. And if they have not taken care of it, the surface might be rusty—and rust is not good for lifting prints.”

http://www.evidencemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22

Which part of the Anschutz was textured?  How often was it oiled?  Was it rusty?