If Jeremy Bamber cannot persuade us of his innocence...

[Samson]

I don't have access to the notes.  Maybe Caroline does on the Blue forum and she can post them up or the section relating to June's hands? I've asked David to post up the notes on IA relating to June's hands in terms of bloodstains so we can see how they compare with notes re SC's hands.  David has this idea he can see an image of SC's bloodstained handprint on the bible.  I disagree. 

If David is serious about getting to the truth he will oblige.  We'll see.

Posters have a habit of making various assertions and then when challenged they run away or get silly eg David with his gifs.  I'm waiting for an answer from LuminiousWanderer about how a two gun theory would work.

Just Sheila's hands I am interested in from David's transcript, blood on hand transferred to blood on nightwear.

Blood stained palm print on nightdress
matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from
right hand.

[Caroline]

Just Sheila's hands I am interested in from David's transcript, blood on hand transferred to blood on nightwear.

Blood stained palm print on nightdress
matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from
right hand.

What about it? By the way, that was transcribed long before David made an appearance. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6884.msg320641.html#msg320641

[Samson]

What about it? By the way, that was transcribed long before David made an appearance. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6884.msg320641.html#msg320641

It is part of the crime scene.
It will be possible to explain in words how it came about if
1. Jeremy shot Sheila twice.
2. Sheila shot herself twice.
Charlie for example has explained 2 but not 1, and that is from an uncomplicated view of the body.

It does matter.

[Caroline]

It is part of the crime scene.
It will be possible to explain in words how it came about if
1. Jeremy shot Sheila twice.
2. Sheila shot herself twice.
Charlie for example has explained 2 but not 1, and that is from an uncomplicated view of the body.

It does matter.

I saw Charlie's explanation - there are many, his is one and not one I hold in any regard.

[Holly Goodhead]

Just Sheila's hands I am interested in from David's transcript, blood on hand transferred to blood on nightwear.

Blood stained palm print on nightdress
matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from
right hand.

David's transcript was taken from autopsy notes.  Dr Vanezis trial testimony is as follows and he makes clear SC's hands were not contaminated with blood.   

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7970.msg386209#msg386209

If SC handled the bible why were her fingerprints not found on it?

52. The Bible found by Sheila Caffell's body, belonged to her mother and was normally kept in a cupboard to the right of her bed. It was examined for fingerprints. Many belonged to June Bamber and there were a small number of insufficient detail for comparison, save for one which appeared to have been made by a small child.

Pages 12 -17 of the following contain a report from a Dr Lincoln, blood serologist, for the defense.  It contains test results for all the blood stained exhibits but no mention of the bible.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=276.msg4584#msg4584

Of course JB's defense needed to chase this down but failed to do so. 

This allowed the prosecution to get away with JM's testimony claiming MM placed the bible on SC's chest.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1112

It's now clear SC was moved at SoC after officers found her and before she was photographed meaning there's no reliable data for SC's found position in relation to the bible. 

IMO what has happened is that many people including the lawyers and judges have looked at the SoC image and have made assumptions about the bible and SC without considering the surrounding facts.  The surrounding facts suggest SC did not have any contact with the bible whatsoever.  The surrounding facts suggest June either carried it with her when she walked around the bed dropping it in the vicinity or it was thrown or on the bed and was effectively thrown off NB's side as June threw back the duvet to get up.  I'm not convinced the stain inside the bible is a handprint or that the marks on SC's nightdress are a palm print.  I'm looking at a good quality SoC image and there appears to be a void pattern above what appear to be fingerprints.  The void pattern seems to have straight lines around which to my eyes could mean it was some blood transfer from the rifle and the void pattern represents a part of the rifle.

JB's lawyers at appeal claimed SC sought out the bible and the open pages represented her state of mind!  Not surprisingly he was laughed out of court.

The CT claim the notes sticking out are a suicide letter from SC when in fact they were June's handwritten notes. 

No one bothers with evidence just assumptions and imagination.  Consequently JB gets nowhere.

[Holly Goodhead]

What about it? By the way, that was transcribed long before David made an appearance. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6884.msg320641.html#msg320641

Thanks Caroline.  So David's transcripts are incomplete:

Caroline

Bloodstained palm print on nightdress. Bloodstains appear to have transfered from R hand
Both hands not contaminatd APART from bloodstains.

David

Blood stained palm print on nightdress
matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from
right hand.

So it seems David is setting out to deceive by providing us with misleading information?
 
Dr Vanezis trial testimony:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7970.msg386209#msg386209

[Holly Goodhead]

Thanks Caroline.  So David's transcripts are incomplete:

Caroline

Bloodstained palm print on nightdress. Bloodstains appear to have transfered from R hand
Both hands not contaminatd APART from bloodstains.

David

Blood stained palm print on nightdress
matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from
right hand.

So it seems David is setting out to deceive by providing us with misleading information?
 
Dr Vanezis trial testimony:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7970.msg386209#msg386209

From David's transcript on IA I can see further down he quotes:

"Both hands not contaminated APART from bloodstains".

However Caroline's transcript doesn't include the word 'match' whereas David's does.

Has Caroline simply overlooked the word 'match' when she transcribed the hand written notes to the forum?  Or has David inserted it to bolster his argument and so-called 'forensic evidence breakthrough'? 

I think we need to get to the bottom of this. 

[Caroline]

Thanks Caroline.  So David's transcripts are incomplete:

Caroline

Bloodstained palm print on nightdress. Bloodstains appear to have transfered from R hand
Both hands not contaminatd APART from bloodstains.

David

Blood stained palm print on nightdress
matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from
right hand.

So it seems David is setting out to deceive by providing us with misleading information?
 
Dr Vanezis trial testimony:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7970.msg386209#msg386209

Not sure that he would provide misleading info in this instance, given that the information is available to check. There is a word in between nightdress and bloodstains, it could be matches but the sentence doesn't really make sense?

[Holly Goodhead]

From David's transcript on IA I can see further down he quotes:

"Both hands not contaminated APART from bloodstains".

However Caroline's transcript doesn't include the word 'match' whereas David's does.

Has Caroline simply overlooked the word 'match' when she transcribed the hand written notes to the forum?  Or has David inserted it to bolster his argument and so-called 'forensic evidence breakthrough'? 

I think we need to get to the bottom of this.

I remembered it's in CoA doc:

"bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. "

So David has not omitted or inserted anything.  It seems Caroline overlooked the word 'match' unless CoA doc is incorrect?

In any event the notes are ambigious but Dr Vanezis makes clear the position at trial ie SC's palms and fingers were not contaminated with blood. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Not sure that he would provide misleading info in this instance, given that the information is available to check. There is a word in between nightdress and bloodstains, it could be matches but the sentence doesn't really make sense?

Thanks, yes could be 'match'. At the end of the sentence there's a mark which might represent a question mark?

I have 2 hard copy good quality soc images of SC which I've just tried enlarging by moving my fingers over and then realised the images are hard copies and not my tablet!  Anyway I can see first impression the marks could be said to resemble a hand print but on closer inspection I'm not so sure.  The void area appears very definite and the third finger like mark has a sort of 'L' shape coming out of it?  With the horizontal part of the 'L' pointing towards a blood trail on SC's wrist and the vertical part of the 'L' pointing towards the trigger.  As it seems more likely than not SC was moved between officers finding her and soc images taken there's no reliable data regarding her found position in relation to rifle and bible. 

[Holly Goodhead]

That isn't David's idea - he has adopted it and it originally came from Jeremy himself!

No David wasn't the first to moot it but he still holds dear the idea. 

[Holly Goodhead]

That isn't David's idea - he has adopted it and it originally came from Jeremy himself!

I thought the idea was originally yours? 

[Caroline]

Thanks, yes could be 'match'. At the end of the sentence there's a mark which might represent a question mark?

I have 2 hard copy good quality soc images of SC which I've just tried enlarging by moving my fingers over and then realised the images are hard copies and not my tablet!  Anyway I can see first impression the marks could be said to resemble a hand print but on closer inspection I'm not so sure.  The void area appears very definite and the third finger like mark has a sort of 'L' shape coming out of it?  With the horizontal part of the 'L' pointing towards a blood trail on SC's wrist and the vertical part of the 'L' pointing towards the trigger.  As it seems more likely than not SC was moved between officers finding her and soc images taken there's no reliable data regarding her found position in relation to rifle and bible.

Why does it seem likely she was moved? I don't agree given there would be no reason to move her. Two officers recollections weren't 100%, none of the others commented. Which images are you looking at are they on either forums are were they obtained by yourself?

[Holly Goodhead]

There's no evidence of SC's experience with firearms in general or the rifle used.  Over the years she may have walked around the fields with NB and or others and let off shots.  In any event it isn't remotely complicated.  A twin baby buggy is a far more complex piece of equip.  All the shots were close range and no doubt JB would have got in successful head shots with 1 or 2 gsw regardless of movement at the ranges.  As a marksman he would know to aim slightly to left or right so whichever way the victim moved they would sustain a hit.  In the Bain case 8 gsw's/5 victims at least 2 woke and were out of bed one putting up a fight and he only sustained 2 gsw's.  NB's facial wounds were within inches JB would have got a successful head shot in.  Yes SC suffered from paranoid schizophrenia but maybe she wasn't paranoid on 6th Aug.  Maybe she was just in a rage. 

Have responded above in Blue. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Have responded above in Blue.

It's here!

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9436.msg459629#msg459629