Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Ainsley was head of the new investigation, involving when the second dodgy silencer was introduced on 11th September 1985 - anybody who thinks it's great that they have the same views as Ainsley as though this is some sort of heaven sent signal, should step back and reflect on what they are claiming...

Clear evidence exists that a second silencer was introduced by Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985, which changed the course of the investigation..

If, Ainsley shares anybody's view on what really took place in this matter, it leads to dishonesty, a deception, and collusion between a senior officer who deliberately set out to try and conceal the true facts concerning and surrounding the death of Sheila Caffell, great to know that so which like you is so easily bamboozled by bullshit!
22

You disappoint me, Mike. I expected more lively and considered argument from you. You're very fond of demanding we not insult your intelligence but have few qualms about insulting mine, it would seem. I do know "Sheila was not Jeremy's daughter"!!!!  and I also know that if someone tells me something over the phone that I repeat to another, the first person is likely to become the third person. To suggest otherwise is simply a smoke screen.

A) If you truly believe Nevill made a call to the police, it's for you to prove -that log you insist proves he did does no such thing- because no call from Nevill was made, a negative can't be proved.
B) It's generally accepted that police will ask for information. It was down to Jeremy to decide what he told them, whether voluntarily or in response to questions, and as he famously said, "It's always best to tell as much of the truth as possible". The rest can be coloured any which way or simply left out, I guess.
C) "Independent witness statements allude to.........." Means precisely nothing. I've yet to see it suggested anywhere -other than here- that Sheila had made any attempts at suicide...........but saying she had certainly added 'colour' to Jeremy's narrative.
D) In relation to Sheila's alleged gun competency. "It was never fully proven that she wasn't............"? Again, negatives can't be proven. But again, it added colour to the narrative, and as WE can clearly see what sort of picture of Sheila he was painting, it wouldn't have been lost on the police, either.
E) Are you saying there's the possibility a relative was there at the scene with or without Jeremy's knowledge?
F) But i'm not talking about what relatives said further down the line, or anything other than the immediacy of a particular situation in which Jeremy was centre stage.


The rest is simply your opinion to which you're fully entitled. For myself, I have as much belief in Nevill's call to the police -I'd be interested to know how you're claiming he made that call and whether you think he looked up the number or called 999- as I have in police shooting Sheila. By the way, thank-you for posting those statements and reports that you've found. I was fascinated and amused to read that Ainsley's thoughts seem to match my own..................and we've never even met!!!!!

Why has it taken 34 years for you to realize that you and Ainsley share the same views on the case? That's an awful long time for the truth between you to sink in!
23



You disappoint me, Mike. I expected more lively and considered argument from you. You're very fond of demanding we not insult your intelligence but have few qualms about insulting mine, it would seem. I do know "Sheila was not Jeremy's daughter"!!!!  and I also know that if someone tells me something over the phone that I repeat to another, the first person is likely to become the third person. To suggest otherwise is simply a smoke screen.

A) If you truly believe Nevill made a call to the police, it's for you to prove -that log you insist proves he did does no such thing- because no call from Nevill was made, a negative can't be proved.
B) It's generally accepted that police will ask for information. It was down to Jeremy to decide what he told them, whether voluntarily or in response to questions, and as he famously said, "It's always best to tell as much of the truth as possible". The rest can be coloured any which way or simply left out, I guess.
C) "Independent witness statements allude to.........." Means precisely nothing. I've yet to see it suggested anywhere -other than here- that Sheila had made any attempts at suicide...........but saying she had certainly added 'colour' to Jeremy's narrative.
D) In relation to Sheila's alleged gun competency. "It was never fully proven that she wasn't............"? Again, negatives can't be proven. But again, it added colour to the narrative, and as WE can clearly see what sort of picture of Sheila he was painting, it wouldn't have been lost on the police, either.
E) Are you saying there's the possibility a relative was there at the scene with or without Jeremy's knowledge?
F) But i'm not talking about what relatives said further down the line, or anything other than the immediacy of a particular situation in which Jeremy was centre stage.


The rest is simply your opinion to which you're fully entitled. For myself, I have as much belief in Nevill's call to the police -I'd be interested to know how you're claiming he made that call and whether you think he looked up the number or called 999- as I have in police shooting Sheila. By the way, thank-you for posting those statements and reports that you've found. I was fascinated and amused to read that Ainsley's thoughts seem to match my own..................and we've never even met!!!!!
24
With this in mind, it looks almost certain that the prosecution and its experts loaded the evidence in their favour by seeking to rely upon inaccurate results concerning the differences in the levels of lead deposit found on the hand swabs of Sheila Caffell, as opposed to the hand swabs of lab' volunteers..

Here is the formula which should have been used:-


Lab' Volunteers Lead deposit levels from hand swabs / 25 (the number of live rounds they handled), the net result of which should be X 14/15 (the maximum number of live rounds that Sheila needed to have handled and loaded into the other gun)…


I will look into this in more detail at a later time...
25
With this in mind, it looks almost certain that the prosecution and its experts loaded the evidence in their favour by seeking to rely upon inaccurate results concerning the differences in the levels of lead deposit found on the hand swabs of Sheila Caffell, as opposed to the hand swabs of lab' volunteers..
26
This brings me onto the levels of lead deposit found on the hand swabs that were supposedly taken from the hands of Sheila Caffell at the scene by DC HAMMERSLEY, as opposed to the lead deposit levels found on the hands of volunteers at the lab' a long time afterwards who had all handled 25 bullets...


Seems somewhat obvious to me, that the results from Sheila should not have been compared against these volunteers, because to begin with at best the most bullets Sheila might have handled was only 14/15, not 25 (Jeremy had loaded the others).


Therefore, the results taken from the volunteers needed to be rounded down by dividing the net result pertaining to the level of lead deposit on the swabs taken from them, by 25, and the result obtained multiplied by 14/15...


You would then have got a far more accurate assessment of the expected levels of lead deposit you might expect to find on the hand swabs of a person who had potentially handled 14/15 live rounds...
27
I don't believe a word that Pargeter has got to say about his rifle, silencer and ammunition not being present at the scene at the time of these shootings...

I believe Jeremy when he says the Pargeter gun was there, along with its silencer at the time of the shootings..

Essex police, COLP and the Home secretary of the day can't be trusted by the claim that the Pargeter gun played no role in these five deaths - it did...
28
It may not come as a surprise to any of you, that DS Jones was / is also involved in the tampering's with the batch of crime scene ammunitions so that a false case could be presented along the lines that these shootings were a one gun crime (when in actual fact they were not) - at least two different guns were used in the shootings...

If two different guns were used in the shootings it is hardly surprising that there were only low levels of lead deposit on the hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell..

Since..

At least one ammunition magazine full of ammunition had already been pre-loaded by Jeremy on his own account (so 10/11 rounds taken out of the equation altogether). This left 14/15 additional rounds to be loaded into the magazine of the other gun. I am surmising that the other gun used was the Pargeter .22 Brno rifle, which had both a 10 shot, and a 5 shot ammunition magazine. This fits in snugly with the number of bullets fired (26), and paves the way for the ammunition magazines belonging to the Pargeter rifle to have been loaded at any stage long before the shootings took place..

29
It may not come as a surprise to any of you, that DS Jones was / is also involved in the tampering's with the batch of crime scene ammunitions so that a false case could be presented along the lines that these shootings were a one gun crime (when in actual fact they were not) - at least two different guns were used in the shootings...
30
These three individuals are at the heart of this conspiracy - but cops must also have been involved...
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10