Author Topic: I didn't realise the CT had asked the question..  (Read 1905 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13782
Re: I didn't realise the CT had asked the question..
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2021, 09:58:AM »
Once again Dr Craig's sloppy and negligent 'work' is spawning misinformation.

Had he not been such an incompetent pisshead and bothered to take Sheila's body temperature when he arrived at the scene, none of this would have ever happened in the first place.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2021, 09:58:AM by David1819 »

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: I didn't realise the CT had asked the question..
« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2021, 12:04:PM »
I have to agree with you David.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: I didn't realise the CT had asked the question..
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2021, 12:05:PM »
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/single-gunshot-wound-to-sheila

Single Gunshot Wound to Sheila

Was Sheila Caffell accidentally shot by firearms officers training at the scene?
written by Y.Hartley, on 11.01.20

On the morning of 7th August 1985 Essex police photographer DC Bird was responsible for taking the crime scene photographs. At approximately 10:20am he began to take images of Sheila Caffell in the main bedroom of White House Farm. It is evident that these images show at that time Sheila had suffered two gunshot wounds to her throat. The pathologist Professor Vanezis stated that although it was uncommon for people to kill themselves using two gunshots, whilst unusual, suicide with two shots does occur[1]. However, documents have come to light which raise serious concern about the gunshot injuries sustained by Sheila. Was Sheila initially discovered by police with one gunshot wound? Did officers accidentally set off the gun when they were carrying out training exercises moving the gun on and off the body to make it safe? This would explain why evidence shows requests for so many extra teams of firearms officers to be drafted into the house AFTER the scene had been entered and made safe at 7.40am by the initial team of police.

Reported in news articles on the 9th and 10th of August 1985 it was stated that:[2] “Mrs Caffell was killed by a single gunshot from under the chin into her brain. Other tests confirmed she fired the weapon.”

Close analysis of witness statements has revealed an abundance of material that appears to clarify that Sheila had originally sustained a single wound.

At 08:13am on the morning of 7th August 1985 Chief Superintendent Harris, the Divisional Commander, and Chief Inspector Gibbons saw Sheila in the main bedroom. In their witness statements they describe how Sheila appeared when they saw her. CSI Harris gave evidence[3]:

” A .22 rifle was lying along Mrs Caffell’s body, the barrel of which was resting just below an entry wound beneath her chin.”

Chief Inspector Gibbons recorded he saw[4]:

“a younger female with a wound to her throat.”

It may be easy to assume that these very senior officers, and thus experienced, could have been mistaken about the number of wounds they saw to Sheila’s neck area, but this appears not to have been the case.

At 08:25am Police Surgeon Dr Ian Craig entered the house and recorded in his witness statement, written on the morning of the 7th August 1985, that he made the following observation[5]:

“There was what appeared to be an entry wound in the throat.”

In 1986 during the Dickinson Enquiry Dr Craig went further and informed DCI Dickinson[6]:

“I only saw one gunshot wound at that stage.”

Doctor Craig only saw Sheila in the main bedroom of the house and did not see her at any other time.

Essex Police officers DS 21, Stanley Brian Jones and DI Robert Miller entered the house together at 09:15am. DI Miller recorded in a report dated 15th August[7]:

“The wound appeared to have been made by her own hand.”

DS 21 Jones made no reference to any wounds in his witness statements until 1991 and then informed the City of London Police Enquiry that when he attended the house the following day with pathologist Dr Vanezis he was surprised to be told Sheila had suffered two gunshot wounds. He told the City of London Police[8]:

“Up to that point I thought there had been only one.”

PC 995, Norman Henry Wright was the Coroners Officer who provided information for the official coroner’s report dated 9th August 1985. This report states[9]:

“The appearance suggested in the case of Sheila Caffell the wound had been inflicted by her own hand.”

So we have the evidence from six individuals who were first to observe the deceased, including a Chief Superintendent, a Chief Inspector, a Detective Inspector, a Detective Sergeant, a Coroner’s Officer and a highly experienced Police Surgeon who all gave evidence that when they saw the body of Sheila in the main bedroom, prior to photographs being taken, they observed Sheila had only sustained one gunshot wound.

It is a fact that scenes of crime officers who arrived at the house at approximately 09:15am were prevented access to the house for 45 minutes and only allowed in after 10:00am.

Documented evidence from a scene log and from two documents from DCI Dickinson’s investigation supports that “informatives” or training exercises were being conducted at this time[10]. No documents have ever been disclosed to the defence that establish what actions took place during the training exercises within the house with the bodies in situ.

Those who attended the scene that day are as follows: Sixty-two (62) Police Officers, eight (8) Paramedics, a Divisional Commander from the Ambulance Service, a Doctor, two (2) undertakers, two (2) builders and Jeremy Bamber. Of these, 47 police officers and 5 civilians entered the house. If the house had been made safe after the intital raid at 7.40pm then why was a transit van called to arrive at 8.57am containing a senior officer and 6 further FSU, so 7 FSU in total?

The non disclosure of case material, including a substantial number of crime scene photographs and witness statements has impeded the defence in being able to establish a consistent chain of events throughout the morning. Officers who are now known to have attended the scene and to have entered the main bedroom have been hidden from the defence, and their existence only become known from references to them in fingerprint forms etc. Why did Essex Police attempt to hide the involvement of these officers? Why are there so many undisclosed crime scene photographs? Do they show the faces of officers who were in attendance? Why are so many witness statements missing from the disclosed material? The CPS are aware of the extent of the non disclosure, and this issue is currently subject to a JR application to the High Court.

During Jeremy’s trial, and ever since, the issue of Sheila being shot twice has been detrimental to Jeremy’s defence, as many people believe that Sheila could not have fired the gun twice, and don’t accept theories about a ‘recoil’ shot. Or that the first shot did not kill Sheila but simply lodged in the neck tissue and therefore she could have fired the gun a second time.

Withholding this information about Sheila having only one bullet wound when she was first seen, coupled with the non-disclosure of the full coroner’s inquiry, allowed Essex police and the crown to hide this issue from the trial and bring doubt into the minds of the jury that Sheila had committed suicide.

However, the evidence above clearly reveals that when Sheila’s body was first seen, she had only sustained a single gunshot wound. It is possible that the rifle was accidentally discharged by any of the individuals who entered the main bedroom which included Police Officers, FSU officers and paramedics. This evidence has enormous implications for the safety of Jeremy’s conviction and makes up a small part of the vast submissions that will be presented to the CCRC in the very near future.



[1] AT-08-258) Dr Vanezis (12.11.86) Report PDF

[2] East Anglian Daily Times dated 09.08.85 front page, 

[3] AI-007-01) CSI Harris - (19.09.85) PDF

[4] BU-19-413) CI Gibbons - 23.09.85 PDF

[5] Holmes Box 8/318) Dr Craig - (07.08.85) PDF

[6] Holmes Box 8/317) Dickinson Dr Craig notes PDF Pg. 3

[7] AI-035-01) DCI Miller - (15.08.85)(a) PDF, AI-035-01) DCI Miller - (15.08.85)(b) PDF, AI-035-01) DCI Miller - (15.08.85)(c) PDF

[8] Holmes Box 6/98 16.10.91 Stan Jones COLP PDF

[9] Holmes Box 1/111 – Coroner report PDF
« Last Edit: April 05, 2021, 12:06:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: I didn't realise the CT had asked the question..
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2021, 12:18:PM »
Eight Issues have been submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

 Each issue contains multiple grounds.

 The Issues are:

Issue 1 - The silencers – The corpus of evidence that two silencers featured in the case and were forensically examined. There are multiple grounds regarding chain of evidence and contaminate issues.

Why is this important? One example of the many grounds here is on the Crown’s assertions that a tiny flake of blood inside one of the silencers was a match for Sheila Caffell only. The jury were not told it was also an exact match for the beneficiary Robert Boutflour. This links to Issue 6 and Issue 8.

Issue 2 – The telephone calls – Substantial fresh evidence regarding the telephone call from Nevill Bamber to Jeremy and two phone calls to the police, one made by Nevill at 03:26, one made by Jeremy at 03:36.

Why this is important? This is Jeremy’s alibi. The Crown told the jury that a single phone call was made from Jeremy to the police. Proving that Jeremy and the police had a call from Nevill Bamber to alert them to the unfolding incident is Jeremy’s cast iron alibi.

Issue 3 – The integrity of the scene – Detailed grounds including fresh evidence regarding the police interference with the scene and the exhibits.

Why this is important? Movement of items and the deceased by the police prior and during crime scene photographs being taken which contradicted evidence in disclosed police statements. An untruthful and inaccurate scenario was then created by the police at a later stage in an attempt to implicate Jeremy Bamber.

Issue 4 – The windows at White House Farm - Multiple grounds in relation to the kitchen and the downstairs shower room windows that undermines the Crown’s evidence at trial.

Why this is important? The windows were supposedly Jeremy Bamber’s means of entry and exit to the locked house. The fresh evidence proves there was no signs of forced entry and therefore, no one entered the house.

Issue 5 – Sheila Caffell – Multiple grounds which prove Sheila was alive until after the raid team entered the house. In addition, fresh evidence regarding Sheila at the scene.

Why this is important? Jeremy Bamber was standing outside the house in the company of many police officers when activity was logged as occurring within the house. Therefore, he cannot have been involved.

Issue 6 - Photographic issues – Multiple, very focused grounds regarding the non-disclosure of case photographs in respect of many individual case issues.

Why this is important? One example is that Essex police and scientists took lots of photographs of the case silencers which have never been disclosed. These would prove two featured in the case but were merged into one exhibit which the crown claimed was on the gun and had blood inside from Sheila Caffell. This links to Issue 1.

Issue 7 - Complaints against police officers – Detailed and focused on the actions of two key police officers and their interference in the case from 1985 to date.

Why this is important? The senior Scenes of Crime officer, DI Cook, and the Senior Investigating Officer, DSI Ainsley, retained undisclosed case material and exhibits they later supplied to members of the public. They were responsible for a range of actions in manipulating the case including lying to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Issue 8 - Inheritance issues – Multiple grounds regarding the actions of the beneficiaries in the case and how the jury were deceived.

Why this is important? The wealth of evidence shows that there was clear motive for witnesses, including Jeremy Bamber’s Uncle, Robert Boutflour to lie on oath in order to achieve the conviction. This was the only way they would inherit from June’s, Nevill’s and Sheila’s estates. This was undisclosed to the court when the jury asked if they had motive. This links to issue 1.

Brand new forensic reports have been obtained to support a range of grounds within the main Issues.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2021, 12:21:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline ESKIMO TEC

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 146
Re: I didn't realise the CT had asked the question..
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2021, 12:18:PM »
same shite,different day.... 

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: I didn't realise the CT had asked the question..
« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2021, 12:38:PM »
A one time Birmingham Solicitor, who has since become 'a CCRC Commissioner, interviewed Dr Craig in the presence of (Craig's) his wife. On that occasion Dr Craig told/confessed.to Ewen Smith (Jeremy Bambers solicitor at that,  that at the time of this interview that there was only a single/ solitary bullet wound in/on her neck (at that time)! This interview between Ewen Smith, Dr Craig and his wife, took place whilst Ewen Smith was acting in the capacity of Jeremy Bambers solicitor ( prior to his appointment as a CCRC Commissioner). Additionally, Ewen Smith had a meeting with one of the police officers who had attended the scene on the morning of the shooting tragedy - this meeting took place in London. The Officer told Ewen Smith, that 'the silencer exhibited at the trial', was 'not the first (and second) silencers which had initially been submitted/ received at Huntingdon Lab', namely on the dates, 13th August 1985 ( under the exhibit  reference of 'SBJ/1'), and or, on the 30th August 1985 (DB/1), but rather that court exhibit ('DB/1')  and
« Last Edit: April 05, 2021, 02:56:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: I didn't realise the CT had asked the question..
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2021, 12:55:PM »
same shite,different day....





Good Morning to you too !

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44398
Re: I didn't realise the CT had asked the question..
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2021, 01:13:PM »
Eight Issues have been submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

 Each issue contains multiple grounds.

 The Issues are:

Issue 1 - The silencers – The corpus of evidence that two silencers featured in the case and were forensically examined. There are multiple grounds regarding chain of evidence and contaminate issues.

Why is this important? One example of the many grounds here is on the Crown’s assertions that a tiny flake of blood inside one of the silencers was a match for Sheila Caffell only. The jury were not told it was also an exact match for the beneficiary Robert Boutflour. This links to Issue 6 and Issue 8.

Issue 2 – The telephone calls – Substantial fresh evidence regarding the telephone call from Nevill Bamber to Jeremy and two phone calls to the police, one made by Nevill at 03:26, one made by Jeremy at 03:36.

Why this is important? This is Jeremy’s alibi. The Crown told the jury that a single phone call was made from Jeremy to the police. Proving that Jeremy and the police had a call from Nevill Bamber to alert them to the unfolding incident is Jeremy’s cast iron alibi.

Issue 3 – The integrity of the scene – Detailed grounds including fresh evidence regarding the police interference with the scene and the exhibits.

Why this is important? Movement of items and the deceased by the police prior and during crime scene photographs being taken which contradicted evidence in disclosed police statements. An untruthful and inaccurate scenario was then created by the police at a later stage in an attempt to implicate Jeremy Bamber.

Issue 4 – The windows at White House Farm - Multiple grounds in relation to the kitchen and the downstairs shower room windows that undermines the Crown’s evidence at trial.

Why this is important? The windows were supposedly Jeremy Bamber’s means of entry and exit to the locked house. The fresh evidence proves there was no signs of forced entry and therefore, no one entered the house.

Issue 5 – Sheila Caffell – Multiple grounds which prove Sheila was alive until after the raid team entered the house. In addition, fresh evidence regarding Sheila at the scene.

Why this is important? Jeremy Bamber was standing outside the house in the company of many police officers when activity was logged as occurring within the house. Therefore, he cannot have been involved.

Issue 6 - Photographic issues – Multiple, very focused grounds regarding the non-disclosure of case photographs in respect of many individual case issues.

Why this is important? One example is that Essex police and scientists took lots of photographs of the case silencers which have never been disclosed. These would prove two featured in the case but were merged into one exhibit which the crown claimed was on the gun and had blood inside from Sheila Caffell. This links to Issue 1.

Issue 7 - Complaints against police officers – Detailed and focused on the actions of two key police officers and their interference in the case from 1985 to date.

Why this is important? The senior Scenes of Crime officer, DI Cook, and the Senior Investigating Officer, DSI Ainsley, retained undisclosed case material and exhibits they later supplied to members of the public. They were responsible for a range of actions in manipulating the case including lying to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Issue 8 - Inheritance issues – Multiple grounds regarding the actions of the beneficiaries in the case and how the jury were deceived.

Why this is important? The wealth of evidence shows that there was clear motive for witnesses, including Jeremy Bamber’s Uncle, Robert Boutflour to lie on oath in order to achieve the conviction. This was the only way they would inherit from June’s, Nevill’s and Sheila’s estates. This was undisclosed to the court when the jury asked if they had motive. This links to issue 1.

Brand new forensic reports have been obtained to support a range of grounds within the main Issues.

This is saying there was police corruption and framing by prosecution witnesses/relatives

Has this ever happened before?
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44398
Re: I didn't realise the CT had asked the question..
« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2021, 01:23:PM »
Julie is not included in the submission.

All of her WS can be proved or it is her word against Bamber's.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: I didn't realise the CT had asked the question..
« Reply #11 on: April 05, 2021, 03:55:PM »
A one time Birmingham Solicitor, who has since become  CCRC Commissioner, interviewed Dr Craig in the presence of (Craig's) his wife. On that occasion Dr Craig to Ewen Smith that at the time of this interview that there was only a single/ solitary bullet wound in/on her neck (at that time)! This interview between Ewen Smith, Dr Craig and his wife, took place whilst Ewen Smith was acting in the capacity of Jeremy Bambers solicitor ( prior to his appointment as a CCRC Commissioner). Additionally, Ewen Smith had a meeting with one of the police officers who had attended the scene on the morning of the shooting tragedy - this meeting took place in London. The Officer told Ewen Smith, that 'the silencer exhibited at the trial', was 'not the first (and second) silencers which had initially been submitted/ received at Huntingdon Lab', namely on the dates, 13th August 1985 (SBJ/1), and or, the 30th August 1985 (DB/1), but rather that court exhibit ('DRB/1')
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...