I acknowledged the lack of fingerprints on the rifle was a fairly insignificant aspect of the case. The reason I made the point was to highlight incompetence among investigating officers especially DI Cook who was responsible for fingerprinting. I'm not sure it even made its way to trial? DS Jones made much of whether or not JB wore gloves re his claims of bunny hunting. JM's testimony included claims that JB feared a glove might have fallen off. Even Paul Harrison's book claims JB wiped the rifle with the blue socks. Well it seems they were all wrong as firearms and fingerprints don't mix. Google 'firearms and fingerprints' and check it out for yourself. Wow I hope no one nicks my idea(s) 
1) the killer wearing gloves explains why there was no prints in blood. The suspect and victim all had reasons for their prints to be at WHF. Thus finding their prints would mean nothing. Prints in blood in contrast would be evidence of who the killer was. The weapon had blood on it, particularly the stock. The killer's hand was touching the bloody stock. The killer would have left bloody prints on the weapon and it could have gotten on the killer's fingers to be left elsewhere. Gloves are what would prevent such. This is why gloves were a big deal. If they could prove that Jeremy had gloves that vanished right after the murders...
2) Cook didn't believe Jeremy was guilty at first. he agreed with Taff Jones. Both of them ignored considerable evidence. Saying he had lousy intuition and didn't investigate what he should have hurts Jeremy supporters because it is saying the cop that was supporting you was an inept fool and that is why police didn't realize even sooner that Jeremy did it.
3) The blood on the socks are static drips of June's blood. The round drops are made by static drips. Harrison's suggestion that the socks were used to wipe blood is false. All the socks prove is that June stood over them dripping blood on them. IF the socks were in that place when June dripped blood on them it means she walked that far around the bed. If they were in a different location when she bled on them and they were moved subsequently then maybe June didn't walk that far around the bed before turning around. Because of the carpet testing we know she was at the foot of Nevill's side of the bed. It makes little difference whether she walked another foot on Nevill's side or simply turned around and walked back. Maybe Jeremy moved the socks to try to get police to June had been on Nevill's side of the bed when shot. I doubt Jeremy had that much forethought and
find it much more likely they were not moved. There is no way to know for sure whether they were moved or not unless Jeremy decided to confess fully and accurately detail everything.
The above can set trains of thought along certain tracks.
What physical evidence would you expect to find on SC?
There's no evidence of hand-to-hand combat between victims and SC or JB.
One would expect to find medium velocity back spatter and gunshot residue on the killer's clothing and body. Sheila had none. Jeremy's clothing was not taken and tested right away and his body was not inspected. Jeremy had the ability to wash and change before calling police so there is no way to know what he was wearing.
Sheila had no reason to wash and change and no ability to change her clothes without her evidence stained clothing being found at the scene.
Furthermore, one would expect the right hand of the killer to have some damage form when the stock of the weapon broke. At minimum the killer would have suffered scratching and splinters if not an actual cut UNLESS the killer was wearing gloves. Moreover, using the weapon to batter will cause blistering to a hand. There will be friction damage. So in addition to preventing the killer's prints being left in blood the gloves also would have protected the killer's hand from damage.
Sheila had no damage of any kind to her hands.
Also there would be damage to her long nails if she had been using the weapon to batter Nevill. No damage of any kind was observed.
June was shot whilst in bed and NB on the stairs imo but even if NB was shot in bed as you claim these initial shots were fired at a distance of around 3' away plus the length of the rifle separated victim and perp. Enough distance to avoid the perp sustaining any blood spatter from the Eley .22 hollow point subsonic bullets if indeed they were capable of producing any back spatter. There's no blood stains anywhere indicative of blood spatter/high impact velocity spatter eg on the bedding, victims' nightwear, carpets, walls, furniture or rifle. Once a victim sustains a gunshot wound it reduces blood presssure reducing the potential for back spatter from any subsequent gunshot wounds.
You are conflating a number of issues.
1) Multiple wounds in close proximity actually increases the likelihood of spatter it doesn't reduce it.
2) The distance of the shots was close enough that the killer could have been hit with high velocity spatter
3) The location of the wounds will dictate whether spatter would have occurred
4) High velocity impact spatter is very small, it is very easy for police to miss. Only if they tested all the bedding and objects for the presence of blood and yet found none could you saw whether any spatter hit any objects or not. They did not do such testing so we have no way to assert anything in this regard.
5) Not only the shooter but others nearby a victims when shot cane be hit with high velocity spatter.
Were there wounds that could have resulted in high velocity impact spatter? yes
Was the shooter close enough to get hit by high velocity impact spatter? yes
Did they find any high velocity impact spatter on Sheila? No so there was no basis to go further and try to assess whether it was the product of her doing the shooting or simply being nearby while a victim was shot.
Did they test Jeremy for high velocity impact spatter? No. More than a month later they seized some of his clothing but by that time he could have disposed of whatever he wore or laundered it. They found tiny red marks on a jacket but were unable to determine what substance the marks were. As such they could not establish he was hit with high velocity impact spatter though he may have been.
In the absence of actually finding impact spatter the only way to establish for sure the killer would have been hit by high velocity impact spatter would be if:
1) it were determined a shot was in a location that definitely would result in high velocity impact back spatter
and
2) the range of the shot for sure was a distance at which the killer would have to have been hit by it
No experts assessed that any of the gunshot wounds for sure would have resulted in impact spatter and at a range where the killer would have been hit for sure. This is why it was never argued anywhere that Sheila would have had high velocity impact spatter had she been the killer. It is why I have stated many times that while it is possible the Jeremy got hit with high velocity spatter we don't know for sure.
While it is true that the killer did not necessarily get hit with high velocity spatter you present inaccurate info wile arriving at your conclusion. I don't correct the record in order to show off I correct the record to prevent any of the errors from being applied in other cases or even in this case.
Although the bullets are low velocity they are lethal due to the hollow point design. The first shots fired would have incapacitated June and NB to such a degree it would not be possible for them to put up any resistance. The idea that NB could sustain two hollow point bullets in his face fired at close range and a further shot to the back of his shoulder causing total incapacitation to his left arm and yet put up some sort of "violent struggle" is just not plausible imo.
The UK and US have strict laws restricting the use of hollow point bullets:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb9nXeXqEho
Nevill was shot in the master bedroom in the lip and the jaw. The medical experts said these wounds were not serious enough to inhibit his mobility. This is supported not only by considerable medical evidence but by the fact he did in fact walk from the bedroom to the kitchen after receiving such wounds. June's first wound was a very serious headshot that would have killed her in short order. Despite such and being shot 5 more times right away, she got out of bed and walked to Nevill's side of the bed then back towards the door before collapsing. That was a much more serious wound than the Nevill's lip and jaw wounds.
Your opinion that Nevill would not have been able to fight back is not a scientific one it is one you have based purely on your bias in this case where you don't want to face the truth. That same bias makes you close your eyes to the considerable evidence Nevill was beaten with the butt of the rifle. You know that th ekiller woudl have been hit with medium velocity spatter and sheila would have damaged her nails so pretend it never happened so you can still pretend in your mind that Sheila did it.
It is also claimed the perp beat NB with the rifle, or some other blunt instrument, but there's no evidence this caused medium impact spatter normally associated from a blunt weapon. Again there's no medium impact spatter anywhere eg rifle, NB's pyjamas, floor, walls, furniture, ceiling.
Why would you expect to find spatter on the perp and none elsewhere?
Whether SC was the perp or a victim the rifle was found resting across her chest with her hand/fingers also resting on the rifle. The rifle was fired a total of 25 times in quick succession and SC sustained two contact wounds I don't buy into the lack of GSR argument. I believe SC's nightdress was tested weeks later and her hands were swabbed at PM AFTER they had been placed in bags and her body moved.
I think most just cannot get their heads round a female, especially a middle class, attractive and slim one, meting out the sort of violence evidenced at WHF. Females are traditionally seen as nurturing and passive and men as aggressive. This is clearly a myth regardless of mental health issues. In the UK during the last few days 3 young females have been given lengthy prison sentences for very serious acts of violence. Happens all the time.
How many times are you going to hide from reality? The stock of the weapon had medium velocity impact spatter on it as did some of the metal parts of the rifle. In the past you denied the stock had blood on it and I proved you were wrong and that it did. The blood would not have simply hit the weapon but also the person holding it. Someone touching a bloody stock would leave their prints in such blood and also transfer such blood to other objects they touched. When firing the weapon subsequently the stock would be against the clothing of the shooter and transfer it. The spatter that got on the stock was thus subsequently smeared.
You continuously present the false claim that they analyzed all the blood on all the objects though they didn't. They didn't take all objects that had blood, didn't record all blood drops that might have been on furnishings and they destroyed plenty of things that had blood including the quilt. You simply make up the quilt had no blood though you can't say such unless they had tested it and found no blood.
You want to pretend Nevill was beaten while he was unconscious instead of as he was trying to defend himself.
You ignore the casings that were in the bedroom and the bullet that grazed Nevill being found in the bedroom, ignore that it is impossible to deliver any of Nevill's wounds if he had been on the stairs and simply say he was shot on the stairs anyway.
You decided that you want to believe Jeremy is innocent and try casting the evidence in a way that comports with your desired beliefs as opposed to simply taking the evidence as it is and following it to its logical conclusion.
Destroying the bedding without testing it prevents us from knowing how much blood was on it, where any blood was and whose blood it was. It is totally inaccurate to say that because it was destroyed without being tested that means there was no blood of Nevill's on it. This is just one example where you turn things on their head. in fact you turn thing son their head by admitting spatter doesn't always occur and yet saying there would have to be spatter from Nevill on the bed if he were sitting on it when he was shot in the lip and jaw. That's not true and thus the lack of his blood would fail to prove he wasn't shot while sitting on the bed. The angle of his wounds as well as the location of the casings establish that is where he was shot. Those are reliable indicators which you close your eyes to because they harm your preferred view of Jeremy being innocent.
Your preferred view guides you as opposed to following the evidence where it leads. If you just follow the evidence without any agenda it makes life far easier because you don't need to contort anyway. It makes it far easier when you try to explain and justify your views.
