The moving rifle and the absence of fingerprints thereon.

[Myster]

Because her brother got hold of a finger, one that's the easiest, say her right index, pressed it on the butt and maybe tried with other ones as well but they didn't show up when dusted... simples!

Torches in fields I've read about... but AE finding Marigold rubber gloves!?  Is that another blue yonder myth?

[Holly Goodhead]

Because her brother got hold of a finger, one that's the easiest, say her right index, pressed it on the butt and maybe tried with other ones as well but they didn't show up when dusted... simples!

Torches in fields I've read about... but AE finding Marigold rubber gloves!?  Is that another blue yonder myth?

Yes that's one explanation.  Pre or post death?  Fingerprints are caused by perspiration in the ridges so I guess post death this would present some difficulty?  Other explanations might be SC moved the rifle if it was left out or handled it some time previously or was in fact the perp. 

Numerous items were tested for fingerprints and none were found eg the silencer and June's bike. 

CAL makes ref to the marigold gloves on page 307: "A local man handed in two torches he had found in the field immediately opposite the farm and a polythene bag containing Marigold gloves was recovered near a ditch".  These items were sent for forensic examination.

I bet the torches were used by a couple doing things al fresco at night and shining the torches on their bits and pieces! 

[david1819]

They found both Jeremy's and Sheila's prints on the gun. 

8

[APRIL]

They found both Jeremy's and Sheila's prints on the gun.

That's right. It appears they found prints of Jeremy's right fore finger and Sheila's right ring finger. I wonder how anyone manages to shoot four people and commit suicide using just their right ring finger..................unless it's the only finger they have.

[Holly Goodhead]

They found both Jeremy's and Sheila's prints on the gun.

But it appears that latent fingerprints are notoriously difficult to lift from some surfaces firearms being one of them.  In CAL's book DI Cook states had SC been the perp he would have expected to find more of her fingerprints on the rifle but his findings, ie one from of each of JB and SC, seem fairly typical when users have recently handled a firearm and yet:

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

http://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/2013/10/27/why-we-dont-find-fingerprints-on-firearms/

Anyone can Google 'latent fingerprints firearms' and they will find numerous articles to this effect.  The fact DI Cook seems unaware of this just reinforces my view that many were simply incompetent due to lack of training and experience.  Maybe he had 19 years experience as a fingerprint expert but how many cases had he worked on which involved firearms

[david1819]

That's right. It appears they found prints of Jeremy's right fore finger and Sheila's right ring finger. I wonder how anyone manages to shoot four people and commit suicide using just their right ring finger..................unless it's the only finger they have.

So you are saying none of them could be responsible because police could only find one print for each of them?  &%+((£

[scipio_usmc]

That's right. It appears they found prints of Jeremy's right fore finger and Sheila's right ring finger. I wonder how anyone manages to shoot four people and commit suicide using just their right ring finger..................unless it's the only finger they have.

That would be some trick being able to hold a gun and also fire it with a single finger...

The obvious answer is if she were wearing gloves this would explain things but why would she wear gloves and worse how could they have vanished from the scene if she had worn them?

[Holly Goodhead]

That would be some trick being able to hold a gun and also fire it with a single finger...

The obvious answer is if she were wearing gloves this would explain things but why would she wear gloves and worse how could they have vanished from the scene if she had worn them?

It appears latent fingerprints are notoriously difficult to lift from some surfaces; firearms being one?

[Myster]

That would be some trick being able to hold a gun and also fire it with a single finger...

The obvious answer is if she were wearing gloves this would explain things but why would she wear gloves and worse how could they have vanished from the scene if she had worn them?

No doubt Miss Marple would have found any gloves if the police didn't, together with any of Sheila's clothes which showed the slightest speck of blood had she decided to shower and change into a nightdress before committing suicide.  All this while police were slowly and stealthily making their way upstairs.

[scipio_usmc]

It appears latent fingerprints are notoriously difficult to lift from some surfaces; firearms being one?

It depend son how the weapon is used.  If there is a beating with it then you are more likely to find prints particularly when the weapon gets blood on it.  The typical handgun you have less chance of leaving prints than a rifle which you hold in two different places. If you are beating someone with a handgun then you have more chances of touching other areas and leaving prints.

The weapon got blood on it from beating Nevill so the killer stood a good chance of leaving their prints in blood if not wearing gloves.  Moreover there is no way the gun is the only thing that got hit with spatter so did the killer so the killer was hit with Nevill's spatter.  Worse still the rifle butt broke where the killer's hand would be. At minimum the killer would have been scratched by this if not outright cut.  Only gloves would prevent that from happening.  Subsequent to it breaking the killer had to place their hand on the broken area to shoot the gun. Blood was found on that area and obviously it got there because the killer's hand had blood on it. No prints were left it is obvious the killer had a bloody glove that transferred it. This and the evidence Sheila didn't load a gun is supportive of Sheila not being responsible.  The coup de grace though is the evidence she can't have killed herself.  When you add this to that evidence it paints a complete picture of Sheila not doing anything and being framed as opposes to saying she had a helper who stabbed her in the back and then escaped.

The non-fatal shot is highly significant for a reason most people fail to appreciate.  That non-fatal shot caused her neck to fill with blood and that is what ensured that drawback would occur.  Because drawback would occur that means her blood would get in the muzzle of the weapon directly if no moderator was used or in the moderator if it was used.  If she was killed with one shot then drawback would not have been sure to occur. So it was an important screwup.

Maybe the jury would have convicted anyway based on Julie's claims in combination with everything else but maybe no we have no way to know.   

[Holly Goodhead]

I have made enquiries with a forensic scientist about having the rifle tested using the same corrosion technology as available for the casings but unfortunately it is unlikely to work:

"Weapons are treated with a technique to give them a nice finish and to prevent tarnishing (often known as 'bluing').  This effectively prevents fingerprint sweat from corroding the metal"

[scipio_usmc]

I have made enquiries with a forensic scientist about having the rifle tested using the same corrosion technology as available for the casings but unfortunately it is unlikely to work:

"Weapons are treated with a technique to give them a nice finish and to prevent tarnishing (often known as 'bluing').  This effectively prevents fingerprint sweat from corroding the metal"

The Jury already knew a print of Sheila's was on it and decided such print was either planted or got there innocently.  Finding more prints would not change the complexion at all and thus not be able to result in the conviction being overturned on such basis.  Finding even more of her prints would not prove Jeremy innocent or magicly create reasonable doubt so it would not be a worthwhile effort to bother anyway even if it could be  done.

There are many different processes of coating a weapon some of which are not very strong and easily wear down. 

[Holly Goodhead]

The Jury already knew a print of Sheila's was on it and decided such print was either planted or got there innocently.  Finding more prints would not change the complexion at all and thus not be able to result in the conviction being overturned on such basis.  Finding even more of her prints would not prove Jeremy innocent or magicly create reasonable doubt so it would not be a worthwhile effort to bother anyway even if it could be  done.

There are many different processes of coating a weapon some of which are not very strong and easily wear down.

I'm not sure about that.  It would be a judgement call for the CCRC and ultimately appeal court judges not the likes of us.  Had the jury known SC's fingerprints were on or around the trigger, including many other areas of the rifle, this might have caused them to think differently about the case overall.  Many posters on the forums want to know why only one of SC's fingerprints was on the rifle and see this as evidence of a guilty JB wearing gloves.

I wonder if the magazine is also coated? 

[Myster]

Your luck's running out...

http://riflemags.co.uk/anschutz-525-10-round-22lr-magazine-525-u8/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluing_%28steel%29

[Holly Goodhead]

Your luck's running out...

http://riflemags.co.uk/anschutz-525-10-round-22lr-magazine-525-u8/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluing_%28steel%29