What Happened In The Kitchen?

[Adam]

87.

Thereafter Sheila Caffell received monthly injections of Haloperidol, a drug used to treat agitated states which had anti-psychotic and tranquillising properties. It also has sedative side effects at the levels prescribed.

[Adam]

148.

Sheila Caffell, probably in a sedated state from her medication, was also shot in the bedroom.

[Adam]

This is not true.

First, I have contributed a Sheila scenario.  I have also mentioned it several times.   I have also established that the sedation explanation for Sheila's placidity has no foundation and I now see that you no longer mention it.  You now say she was asleep throughout the massacre of her family taking place yards away in the same house.

I have put forward a case for why, on the evidence, Nevill could not have dialled 999.

I've also narrowed you down to a precise incident sequence and chronology.  You now tell us that Jeremy ran out of bullets upstairs and you say that Nevill was running for the back door.

I've also raised questions about Jeremy's actions, in particular the 3 a.m. phone call, which I consider very suspicious.

I've also advanced a new theory about Julie Mugford involving the possibility that she was in fact Jeremy's accomplice.

What I'm doing is testing the Crown's case using the evidence.  I have no stake in the matter, one way or the other.  I'm not on Jeremy's side, but I'm not on the side of the authorities either.

Don't mislead people about me again and don't tell me what I should or should not do.  Nobody forces you to read my posts or engage me.

I have always said Bamber ran out of bullets upstairs. Otherwise Nevill would have been shot more.

I don't believe Nevill was running downstairs to phone 999. However agree he may have wanted to get outside.

I will look for your Sheila scenario.

[guest29835]

You miss out the word "probably" from your quote of paragraph 148 and you fail to make clear that the judges are not giving their own view in that paragraph, but summarising the prosecution case.

In fact, nowhere in that judgment to my knowledge do the appellate judges claim that Sheila was sedated.  Besides, in and of themselves, statements from the court are not evidence.  That would be like saying that Judge Drake's summing-up to the jury is proof.

Did the 2002 appeal judges hear expert evidence on sedative effects of the drug?

And just so we're clear, is it your argument that she was sedated and that is why she heard nothing and/or did not leave her bedroom?

[Steve_uk]

You miss out the word "probably" from your quote of paragraph 148 and you fail to make clear that the judges are not giving their own view in that paragraph, but summarising the prosecution case.

In fact, nowhere in that judgment to my knowledge do the appellate judges claim that Sheila was sedated.  Besides, in and of themselves, statements from the court are not evidence.  That would be like saying that Judge Drake's summing-up to the jury is proof.

Did the 2002 appeal judges hear expert evidence on sedative effects of the drug?

And just so we're clear, is it your argument that she was sedated and that is why she heard nothing and/or did not leave her bedroom?

There's impartial evidence from house painter Michael Horsnell that she was walking stiffly that afternoon, we have the account by Tiptree shopkeeper Barry Parker that she was "vague and distant", and of course the final telephone call from Pamela in which Sheila spoke very little and didn't muster enough energy even to say goodbye.

Anyway isn't it time to give your steed a brief respite for the weekend..

[Adam]

There's impartial evidence from house painter Michael Horsnell that she was walking stiffly that afternoon, we have the account by Tiptree shopkeeper Barry Parker that she was "vague and distant", and of course the final telephone call from Pamela in which Sheila spoke very little and didn't muster enough energy even to say goodbye.

Anyway isn't it time to give your steed a brief respite for the weekend..

Bamber said himself Sheila was very quiet at dinner & didn't even react when there were suggestions of fostering.

Impossible she woke at that time of night from hearing 11 shots with a silencer attached. In other rooms. Even if awake it would be impossible to hear.

[Adam]

https://youtu.be/SNrlfDPC_xs

--------

COA

Examination of the rifle 69. The rifle was a German made Anschutz model 525 .22 self-loading rifle in good working order. Cartridges are loaded into a magazine, which has a capacity of 10. It is, as the jury found when they conducted the exercise themselves, progressively harder to load as the number of cartridges increases. Loading the tenth is exceptionally hard. Assuming a full capacity at the commencement of the shooting at the farm, the discharge of the rifle twenty-five times would require it to be re-loaded a minimum of two more times.

--------

[Adam]

So far the main arguments against the straight forward Bamber scenario are -

Nevill didn't dial 999 - With Bamber seconds behind him.

Sheila may not have been under sedation - Although she was on Haloperidol & the rifle with silencer would be impossible to hear anyway.

Bamber fought Nevill in the kitchen rather than shoot him - He had run out of bullets.

[guest29835]

There's impartial evidence from house painter Michael Horsnell that she was walking stiffly that afternoon, we have the account by Tiptree shopkeeper Barry Parker that she was "vague and distant", and of course the final telephone call from Pamela in which Sheila spoke very little and didn't muster enough energy even to say goodbye.

Anyway isn't it time to give your steed a brief respite for the weekend..

All that is subjective and can be picked apart.  Did Mr Horsnell give evidence or at least provide a statement to the police?  I can't recall seeing it.

[guest29835]

So far the main arguments against the straight forward Bamber scenario are -

Nevill didn't dial 999 - With Bamber seconds behind him.

Sheila may not have been under sedation - Although she was on Haloperidol & the rifle with silencer would be impossible to hear anyway.

Bamber fought Nevill in the kitchen rather than shoot him - He had run out of bullets.

I notice you are studiously avoiding the problem of a lack of a blood trail from the main landing to the kitchen.  That's rather a serious hole in the prosecution case.  It could be resolved by saying that Sheila was the killer, but you would prefer not to do that.

The reason I think Nevill didn't dial 999 is because there is no blood on the kitchen phone.  The issue isn't really whether he dialled 999 but whether he made it to the phone.  It seems to me it would be instinctive for him to do this under attack from Jeremy, regardless of injuries; either that, or flee the house.  But he would be fleeing the house bare-foot in his pyjamas. 

It's a bold statement to say that the gun fire would have been impossible to hear.  I'm not so sure, even if a silencer was a fitted, because it all depends on acoustics. A moderated rifle can still have a noticeable report, even with subsonic bullets.  I also don't accept she was sedated and I don't accept that it has been proved the silencer was even used.  It's not even certain that Haloperidol would help her sleep.  One possible side-effect of it is insomnia.  We know she had cannabis in her system and I wonder what contraindications this produced.  I also wonder about the effect of reducing her Haloperidol dosage by half. 

I note your scenario depends on Jeremy running out of bullets.  Otherwise, you can't explain why Jeremy would need to struggle with Nevill.

In my view, what's needed is:

Expert pharmacological evidence.

An incident reconstruction looking at sequencing/time-and-motion and the noise impact of the same make and model of silencer (ideally the very same silencer) using the same make and model of gun (ideally the very same gun) and the same bullets.

Expert blood evidence, to explain the almost total lack of a discernible blood trail between the main landing and the kitchen.  Maybe the blood soaked into his clothes and didn't drip?

[Adam]

Why would there be a blood trail? Nevill had been shot 4 times with a rifle used for shooting rabbits. Then ran down stairs. Blood wouldn't be flying off him like it does in slasher movies.

Nevill didn't phone 999. He would not consider it. Bamber was right behind & going to try to kill him.

I have just posted a video of rifle with silencer. No noise.

[guest29835]

Why would there be a blood trail? Nevill had been shot 4 times with a rifle used for shooting rabbits. Then ran down stairs. Blood wouldn't be flying off him like it does in slasher movies.

I didn't say it would be like a slasher movie.

Do you accept he would be bleeding?

didn't phone 999. He would not consider it. Bamber was right behind & going to try to kill him.

This is based on an assumption and we really don't know.  He was behind him because the bullet casings on the landing suggest this, but he stops to fire - twice - and the stairs are steep and narrow, and he is carrying a long rifle, with - as you claim - a silencer on it as well.  It would have been awkward.  I therefore wonder why Nevill doesn't make it to either the phone or the back door or the den.

I have just posted a video of rifle with silencer. No noise.

I can't see it anywhere here, but it may not be of much use.  I have seen videos showing a similar moderated rifle with a quite noticeable report.  I really think it depends on the interior acoustics.

[Adam]

I didn't say it would be like a slasher movie.

Do you accept he would be bleeding?

This is based on an assumption and we really don't know.  He was behind him because the bullet casings on the landing suggest this, but the stairs are steep and narrow and he is carrying a long rifle, with - as you claim - a silencer on it as well.  It would have been awkward.  I therefore wonder why Nevill doesn't make it to either the phone or the back door.

I can't see it anywhere here, but it may not be of much use.  I have seen videos showing a similar moderated rifle with a quite noticeable report.  I really think it depends on the interior acoustics.

https://youtu.be/SNrlfDPC_xs

[guest29835]

https://youtu.be/SNrlfDPC_xs

I've seen that before.  It tells us nothing, unfortunately, because it's outside.  The acoustics within a building are entirely different.  I know this for a fact.

Incidentally, this seems to be another of the flaws of the 1986 trial.  They demonstrated the rifle on an outdoor range, they did not reconstruct the incident using an interior range with similar acoustic properties, nor did they have the jury visit the farmhouse and look around - which I find shocking. 

[JackieD]

Adam why do you always quote something as a fact when you clearly don’t know when most other posters quote scenarios

It’s bloody annoying, can you stop please it’s making you look ridiculous