UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: puglove on August 16, 2015, 10:47:18 AM
-
I'd much rather see a convincing explanation as to why the gun wasn't plastered in Sheila's prints. &%+((£
31
-
I've lost count of the number of times I've seen Sheila and Bamber's "charts done." It has about as much relevancy as asparamancy.
I'd much rather see a convincing explanantion as to why the gun wasn't plastered in Sheila's prints. &%+((£
Because a member of EP 'made it safe' wearing gloves, which will have wiped a lot off. I'd like to know why it wasn't covered in the prints of the colleague he handed it to, who admitted he wasn't wearing gloves. We don't know who left it lying propped on the window sill, or how many other EP handled it either.
-
Cue for a song - "We can't go on together with suspicious minds!"
Usually the most straightforward answer is the true and accurate one - the rifle was held by its two metal strap lugs and placed out of the way by the window so as not to be disturbed and contaminated by others while the bodies were removed.
-
Because a member of EP 'made it safe' wearing gloves, which will have wiped a lot off. I'd like to know why it wasn't covered in the prints of the colleague he handed it to, who admitted he wasn't wearing gloves. We don't know who left it lying propped on the window sill, or how many other EP handled it either.
DI Cook put the gun by the window after the photos were taken.
-
Cue for a song - "We can't go on together with suspicious minds!"
Usually the most straightforward answer is the true and accurate one - the rifle was held by its two metal strap lugs and placed out of the way by the window so as not to be disturbed and contaminated by others while the bodies were removed.
This is when I need Holly here to dig out the bit in the court proceedings where they admitted handling it incorrectly 8)><(
-
This is when I need Holly here to dig out the bit in the court proceedings where they admitted handling it incorrectly 8)><(
Trial transcript of Ron Cook regarding handling of the rifle...
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=168.0;attach=295)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=168.0;attach=297)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=168.0;attach=299)
-
@)(++(*
Thanks for finding some relevant transcripts! What plod said isn't quite true though: in the photographs of Sheila's head the gun barrel is quite clearly in different positions relating to it - the gun was certainly moved in between the photos being taken. I find it quite disturbing to keep posting photos of the bodies, so I'm just going to assume you all know where the photos of that are without posting them.
Trying to find the bit for they guy who made it safe . . .
-
@)(++(*
Thanks for finding some relevant transcripts! What plod said isn't quite true though: in the photographs of Sheila's head the gun barrel is quite clearly in different positions relating to it - the gun was certainly moved in between the photos being taken. I find it quite disturbing to keep posting photos of the bodies, so I'm just going to assume you all know where the photos of that are without posting them.
Trying to find the bit for they guy who made it safe . . .
The rifle was moved and checked at least twice and by different officers who didn't necessarily witness the other doing it. It would have been checked by the first responders and then again before being removed from the body either during or after the photos were taken.
DI Ron Cook arrived around 9.20am which was nearly two hours after the first firearms officers entered the farmhouse and checked the rifle.
-
The rifle was moved and checked at least twice and by different officers who didn't necessarily witness the other doing it. It would have been checked by the first responders and then again before being removed from the body either during or after the photos were taken.
DI Ron Cook arrived around 9.20am which was nearly two hours after the first firearms officers entered the farmhouse and checked the rifle.
It's quite staggering how little gun crime we had then yet how casually they all meandered along when they could spare the time at EP!
-
So what's the story with Sheila having a print on the gun then? It's one of those exquisite point/counterpoint elements of this case that their should be one print for either of them.
He used the gun normally, so his prints should be on there - so there would be no need to wipe them off. However how did Sheila's get on there if she never handled the gun, and if it's possible for Bamber to somehow grip her finger on the gun to produce it, surely there would be lots more?
-
There were more fingerprints on the rifle, including three on the barrel, all of which couldn't be identified. Bamber explained to Julie that the mercenary he'd hired told him that a glove had come off during the fight in the kitchen, so seems reasonable to assume that Bamber could have worn some and disposed of them in the Aga combustion chamber, or took them home to hide or bin before the police had the chance to discover them.
-
There were more fingerprints on the rifle, including three on the barrel, all of which couldn't be identified. Bamber explained to Julie that the mercenary he'd hired told him that a glove had come off during the fight in the kitchen, so seems reasonable to assume that Bamber could have worn some and disposed of them in the Aga combustion chamber, or took them home to hide or bin before the police had the chance to discover them.
I think you mean 'Julie said Bamber explained to Julie . . .' 8(0(*
It doesn't tell us how Sheila's print got on there though.
-
I think you mean 'Julie said Bamber explained to Julie . . .' 8(0(*
It doesn't tell us how Sheila's print got on there though.
In the same way that a police practitioner takes a suspect's fingerprint, but using the greasy beeswax coating from a used bullet casing instead of an inkpad...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7N-4UNAzsw&feature=youtu.be&t=56s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7N-4UNAzsw&feature=youtu.be&t=57s)
-
In the same way that a police practitioner takes a suspect's fingerprint, but using the greasy beeswax coating from a used bullet casing instead of an inkpad...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7N-4UNAzsw&feature=youtu.be&t=56s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7N-4UNAzsw&feature=youtu.be&t=57s)
Good point! But then -ahem! - wouldn't that leave residue on her fingers . . . ?
-
CAL's book tells that DI Cook didn't wear gloves and moved the rifle by its straps. According to him there would be no chance of removing prints from these locations. This was all checked out by COLP and apparently he followed the correct procedures.
I've previously pointed out that it appears its a misconception that if one touches a surface a print is deposited:
"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
http://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/2013/10/27/why-we-dont-find-fingerprints-on-firearms/
Its interesting how stories have been built around the lack of prints: DS Jones interviewing JB put it to him that he wore gloves when he went out shooting bunnies on 6th. JM's testimony refers to a glove falling off when NB was beaten with the rifle. Paul Harrison's 'anonymous' letter claims JB wiped the rifle with the blue socks. Think it was AE who made much of finding Margold gloves in the fields around WHF.
We know JB handled the rifle on many occasions so the fact one print from him was on the rifle was to be expected but why was SC's print on the rifle?
-
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?
-
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!
-
They found both Jeremy's and Sheila's prints on the gun.
8
-
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.
-
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
-
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? &%+((£
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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"
-
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.
-
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?
-
Your luck's running out...
http://riflemags.co.uk/anschutz-525-10-round-22lr-magazine-525-u8/ (http://riflemags.co.uk/anschutz-525-10-round-22lr-magazine-525-u8/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluing_%28steel%29 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluing_%28steel%29)
-
Your luck's running out...
http://riflemags.co.uk/anschutz-525-10-round-22lr-magazine-525-u8/ (http://riflemags.co.uk/anschutz-525-10-round-22lr-magazine-525-u8/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluing_%28steel%29 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluing_%28steel%29)
8)><(
-
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?
The COA would view even more prints as meaningless. They viewed the efforts to overcome the blood evidence as meaningless on numerous separate grounds one of which was that the jury already heard there was a slight chance the blood wasn't Sheila's. Sure Fletcher said there was a very slight chance it wasn't Sheilas blood but his full testimony was he tested if there was a way for blood to not intimately mix and thus be a mixture of blood from other victims and said such was not possible. So what he said is effectively like saying well in theory anything is possible even God existing but there is no reasonable possibly that it could be anyone's blood but Sheila's. The COA ignored that and said swell he admitted it could be their blood mixed though he really didn't in actuality and that the jury knew this possibility and rejected it so they will reject it no matter what unless you come up with solid proof it was in fact a mixture.
What they would hold with regard to prints is that the jury already knew her prints were on the weapon and in their view would change nothing the defense needs to come up with evidence to prove she fired the weapon not simply that she touched it and that it was possible for her to shoot herself.
Where there would be a true judgment call would be a situation for instance if on appeal they tested her hair and head samples and found PGSR in a quantity supportive of her having fired a weapon. The jury heard she tested negative for PGSR. More PGSR gets on the hair and head than the hands. Would this rise to the level of warranting a new trial? On the one hand such doesn't refute the evidence that she can't have killed herself or Julie's testimony and the COA can simply decide that unless that is overcome they won't vacate the verdict. On the other hand they could decide that since the jury heard testimony clearly wrong- that she had tested negative for firing a weapon- then give a new trial because evidence of whether she fired a weapon could have influenced their decision.
That is the kind of situation where you don't know what they will do because different judges will do different things in those circumstances. If the main evidence at the trial revolved around whether someone had PGSR and the jury incorrectly heard that there was none then in that instance the court for sure would vacate. But where there is other evidence it is a more thorny issue and the mentality of the judges takes on greater significance.
The case where the defendant was convicted on the basis of a single grain of PGSR is a good example. The key evidence in the case was a single grain of PGSR found in his pocket. His lawyer did a horrible job challenging the significance at trial. His appellate lawyer was more competent and recognized the flaw in the argument that it proved he fired a weapon very recently. They relaxed the rule of requiring the scientific evidence to not exist at the time of the trial and effectively ruled the jury heard blatantly wrong evidence. He was convicted based on false science. On retrial the defense had experts who testified far more PGSR would be deposited on his clothing and his body from firing a weapon and that a single grain is very easy to be the result of contamination. he was acquitted because the defense had no real evidence he had committed the crime. The defense noted he was picked up by police too quickly after the crime to wash himself or change his clothes.
So you have to look at it in the context of the overall case. That is how you determine whether "an error" is harmless or not.
The key testimony in this case apart from Julie was:
1) Evidence Sheila can't have killed herself because the moderator was used
2) Evidence Sheila didn't load a weapon because she lacked elevated lead levels and visible deposits that would be present had she done so
3) Evidence Sheila didn't beat Nevill because she lacked spatter that would have been present
4) Evidence Sheila didn't fire a weapon because her clothing and body lacked various residues that would have been on her clothing and body had she done so.
The defense needs to rebut one of the above just to have a chance of getting the COA to vacate the conviction and one might not be enough they still could decide that one is not enough to overcome all of the other evidence and thus overcoming one still doesn't create reasonable doubt.
Anyone serious about trying to get the conviction vacated needs to concentrate on the above. Julie's testimony is another way to attack but nothing short of evidence she lied such as her having admitted to someone she lied or recanting her testimony would work so far as that avenue is concerned; so all that can be done investigative wise is to try to ask people who know her if she ever told them anything or wait for someone to publicly declare she did so.
The defense physically inspected her gown and found no sign of anything that could be spatter.
The defense saw nothing that could be residues on her gown
The defense experts found no basis to challenge the assessments of her hand swabs
The defense chose not to test her hair and head swabs for whatever reason and they were never used by anyone hence never an exhibit and were destroyed. If they had been saved that would be something that could have been tested for PGSR.
So the defense has no way to try challenging anything except the moderator evidence which was the most important evidence anyway because it proves she can't have killed herself.
We have discussed already how they found no way to challenge that effectively. Short of someone coming forward to say they planted blood and concealed the finding of blood in the rifle or knows for a fact someone else did such the moderator evidence can't be impeached. That's really the only way it could happen.
So realistically the only way Jeremy's conviction will be overturned is if Julie recants and admits lying or some cops admit they doctored evidence to pretend the moderator was used.
Even if Jeremy were as rich as can be and thus would pay me a fortune to try to find a way to help him I would be ethical instead of milking him for all he is worth and tell him the only way he was getting out would be if one of those 2 things were to happen so the only thing I could do for him would be to hire investigators to try to find ways to interview police or friends of police to try to get them to talk and admit wrongdoing or the same for Julie and her friends but the chance of the finding anything is very slim so he has to make the choice to spend such money knowing that and his best bet would simply be to wait and if someone did decide to come forward with such claims on their own then at that point something could be done.
-
A reminder to all posters to keep on topic please as this avoids the need to split topics.