Burning down of the caravan park shop.

[snow66!]

Those marks were probably made when Sheila lifted her hand to her throat, smudged the blood around the wound, and put her arm back down again.

So, spots of blood land on her arm, after being shot once, with her arm being fairly level with the floor, so gravity doesn't make the blood drip down.  Then, in shock after being shot first time, she moves her hand to the wound.  Gravity then makes the blood move, then her arm moves back down.  The blood stops moving, congeals a bit, then she gets shot a second time and dies.

That is how I understand those streaks of blood were produced in the way that they were.

You have to remember that there were 10 people that observed the post mortem, and the bodies were washed.  So any physical wounds would have been noticed and noted.

4 of the 10 people in the post mortem were police officers who fully expected the pathologists to concur that Sheila had murdered everyone and then shot herself.  So anything that jollied that along would be gratefully accepted.

Off the top of my head, there was Vanezis, an assistant, 2 students, 4 police, then two others who I can't remember.

The pathologists were very aware when they examined the bodies, what the police wanted to hear.  And all they were looking for at that time, was confirmation that Sheila committed the crime, then killed herself.

There are no smudge marks on the first wound Killingeve.

[Rob_]

Refusing to repeat what you've said previously just muddies the waters and confuses things.

You made grandiose statements in your post in my introduction thread, but without any explanation.

You haven't in any way whatsoever explained why Mr Ismails forensic report, which proves that Sheila Caffell was murdered (which none of us has actually seen), is wrong.

But you have said it was wrong.  Which is mind boggling given that you haven't even read it.

But if you want to know why it has been proven that Sheila Caffell was murdered, then read on...

But let's go over the issues properly, which you seem reluctant to do.

Mt Ismails evidence wasn't ruled inadmissible, that is totally misleading. 

The CoA will hear any evidence submitted to it by both defence and prosecution, the same as in a normal court case.

Mr Ismails evidence was submitted by the prosecution, and it was treated in exactly the same way as grounds 1 to 16, which was submitted by the defence.

Michael Turner's job, was to disprove Mr Ismails evidence, which he failed to do.   More on that later.

Micheal Turner's next job is, if you can't disprove the science, then get it slung out on a technicality.

That's what he successfully did. 

The judges agreed that the evidence in theory, was available in 1986, and therefore would not be considered in the final conclusion of the CoA report. 

But it remains a valid piece of evidence, perfectly admissible in a legal sense.  It was just disregarded by the judges when drawing up their final conclusions.

Paragraph 519 from the 2002 CoA states (concerning Mr Ismails evidence):  ...if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it.

The bit in brackets is important, as it applies specifically to the CoA.

That bit in brackets makes very clear that Michael Turner QC, declined to make an application to the judges to call his own expert witness, in order to contradict Mr Ismails evidence.

Put simply Michael Turner QC, couldn't find an expert witness to contradict the evidence.  Remember his job is to disprove everything the prosecution put forward. And they only put forward one piece of evidence.

If Michael Turner QC could have found an expert witness to contradict Mr Ismails evidence, he would have done. Because that would have put a lid on the argument for good. 

It would have killed it off. 

If Michael Turner QC cannot disprove Mr Ismails evidence using his own expert witness, then it remains that Sheila Caffell was murdered.

------------------------

I don't know where you got that from, but this is how the judges worded it in their final report (The final report is the only thing that matters):

Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet

The CoA judges, in their report, also say this:

...there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force...

That means that the only weight above the body is the head.

So, the back of her head propped against the bedside cabinet, combined with, only the weight above the body is the head; can only mean that her head was vertical against the bedside cabinet, and the body was "lying almost flat on her back".

And that is what Mr Ismails forensic examination discovered, and that is a predicted final resting position after death.  So please don't say 'where are the photos'. Surely you know the answer to that?

Given that Sheila fell into this predicted position after the second shot, and is now dead, blood has stopped pumping, but there must be escaped blood inside her body, and gravity must be keeping that escaped blood below anywhere where it can exit. Remember, her head is vertical at this point.

When her murderer pulls the body back from the bedside cabinet, probably by the ankles, the head drops down and becomes horizontal, and that is when the blood spills out. The blood may have spilled out because of the physical movement of the body, or because her mouth and wounds were now in a more favourable position to enable blood to leak out.  And maybe it was a combination of those things that led to the blood leaking out.

The blood running down her cheeks rather than down her chin, proves that she was moved immediately after death, other wise the blood would have dried and congealed inside her body.

Had her dead body (with the head in the vertical position) been moved by the police when they broke in at 07:30, or any time after, there would either be dried blood that had dripped down toward her chin, or no blood at all (if the effect of gravity ensured that the blood remained below any places where it could exit).

And as the blood running down her cheeks was very obviously dry in the photos, Sheila must have died before any of the firearms officers entered the house at approx. 07:30.

Also, some of the firearms officers noted the bullet wounds in her neck.  Had her head been in a vertical position, propped against the bedside cabinet, I would think it would be impossible to see the wounds.

All of that proves that Sheila was murdered, and it proves that she was dead when the firearms officers broke into the house.

It also means that she would have been dead when the police turned up at 03:48, as there were no witnesses to a burglar or assassin leaving the premises after the police turned up.

This may not be how things play out in peoples heads, but what I've described is roughly how things will play out at the CCRC, or a court of law.

As you can see, the truth takes a long time to explain.  Lies and dismissal, ignorance and arrogance, can all be achieved in one small sentence.

Thanks for posting this which is interesting, though I am with David on this and cannot see how it proves murder?

After the first shot if Sheila's head was vertical even for a few seconds then the direction of blood runs on her face and neck would not match? The blood on her neck would run downwards to start with, then as her legs were pulled only then then would the blood change direction and align with the blood escaping on Sheila face.

Where you say "and is now dead, blood has stopped pumping" when someone is shot in the head the persons heart can carry on beating for sometime? So I am not clear on this line of reasoning?

[Rob_]

Hello everyone.Let us look at Mr Ismails evidence that Killingeve claims is proof that Sheila was murdered.To be quite honest,I dont understand it that well,the dress rucked up in different positions and so on.Infact it's no wonder the experts didn't bother to challenge it,they probably didn't know what the hell Ismail was talking about no more than I do.So,what is Ismail claiming? Part of his evidence is that Sheilas dress is rucked up differently front and back,and that this is proof her body was pulled down.He says he can tell this from the photos of Sheila,really? Ismail then says that Sheila received the second shot while she was lying with the back of her head against the bedside cabinet,having slipped down from a sitting position after the first shot.Fair enough,this matches the bullet trajectories.But heres the thing,for me,looking at the photos of Sheila,it looks as if her head has simply fallen to the side after the second shot.Ismail states that as soon as Sheila was shot a second time,JB must have thrown the rifle to one side and immediately pulled Sheila down flat.The reason for and importance of doing so is beyond my understanding.No doubt I will be enlightened by Killingeve.Now Ismail said that Sheila had to be pulled flat by someone because her head did not have enough weight to push her body down flat after the second shot.But as I have said,it looks to me as if Sheilas head has simply fallen to the side.Take another look at the photos of Sheila,her head is still up past the front of the cabinet,she hasnt been pulled at all.If you were to lift her head and place it against the front of the cabinet,that would be the position she was in when she received the second shot.Look at her left shoulder,its only a few inches away from the front of the cabinet,it couldn't be much nearer.Sheila hasn't been pulled AT ALL!,her hesd simply fell to the side after the second shot,and her dress was simply rucked up when she slipped down from the sitting position after the first shot.So,for me,Ismails so called evidence that Sheila was murdered is poop as far as I can see,no conclusive evidence at all.Bye for now.

It would be interesting to know if any experts were actually approached on this matter Snow, I should think such analysis would be very expensive and as you say no need to bother anyway?

[snow66!]

It would be interesting to know if any experts were actually approached on this matter Snow, I should think such analysis would be very expensive and as you say no need to bother anyway?

Hi Rob,I dont see any evidence that Sheila was pulled flat,and it appears that Ismail did not even give a logical reason WHY anyone would bother to pull her flat.And remember,if it was Bamber then he must have planned to do it,it was done the moment after the shot was fired,if not the blood would have run in two different directions as you pointed out Rob.Killingeve says JB may have repositioned her to look more natural,but there would have been no rush to do this,not within a split second anyway,nonsense.Its just a ridiculous half baked claim from Ismail that dosen't hold up in any way.

[snow66!]

The angle of shots may be relevant in trying to work things out Snow?..

Not really sure how Roch.

[Rob_]

Hi Rob,I dont see any evidence that Sheila was pulled flat,and it appears that Ismail did not even give a logical reason WHY anyone would bother to pull her flat.And remember,if it was Bamber then he must have planned to do it,it was done the moment after the shot was fired,if not the blood would have run in two different directions as you pointed out Rob.Killingeve says JB may have repositioned her to look more natural,but there would have been no rush to do this,not within a split second anyway,nonsense.Its just a ridiculous half baked claim from Ismail that dosen't hold up in any way.

I know JB did some daft things Snow in this case that defy logic, but surely he would not disturb Sheila's body after the first shot? perhaps he thought putting the silencer in the cupboard was not helping the police enough! Only two suspects, the silencer now moving the body he was determined he was never going to spend his inheritance!

[snow66!]

I know JB did some daft things Snow in this case that defy logic, but surely he would not disturb Sheila's body after the first shot? perhaps he thought putting the silencer in the cupboard was not helping the police enough! Only two suspects, the silencer now moving the body he was determined he was never going to spend his inheritance!

Looks like it Rob.

[Adam]

Very probable Bamber pulled Sheila's legs.

Either after the first shot. To position Sheila differently for the second shot.

Or after the second shot as part of his staging.

He was not expecting to be a suspect, let alone an expert 17 years later confirming Sheila was pulled after she had been shot.

[Adam]

Obviously guilters will go by Ismails evidence. If it's good enough for the COA judges.....

Supporters will become experts themselves & say Ismail is wrong.

[ILB]

Ismail was a tool reinforcement of Victor temples QC appeal

He was a mouthpiece. He looked at one photograph

[Cambridgecutie]

There are no smudge marks on the first wound Killingeve.

There is if you're a pathologist and you know what to look for. 

[Cambridgecutie]

Thanks for posting this which is interesting, though I am with David on this and cannot see how it proves murder?

It proves murder because it proves that Sheila's body was moved after she died, and dead people can't move their own bodies.   

The dried blood shows that she had been in the 'moved' position for a long time, before the firearms officers broke into the building.

It proves that the police didn't move the body, and she couldn't have moved her own body, and so that leaves a 3rd party.  In other words, her murderer.

It sounds a bit like you are in denial, as even Michael Turner QC agrees with the evidence, and the 3 CoA judges, bold as brass made an official comment in their report saying that Michael Turner QC agreed with the evidence.  And the 3 CoA judges also agreed with the evidence.  And they all read the original piece of forensic science.

But apparently there are people on here with no forensic science experience, knowledge,  training, or background, and who haven't read the original piece of forensic science, but they can say with absolute certainty that the scientists have got it wrong. 

And they also say that the 3 CoA judges have got it wrong. 

It also means that they are saying that the forensic science area that deals with blood pattern analysis,  which was employed in this piece of forensic science, and which has been developed internationally over many decades, is incorrect.

Erm...I don't think so.

Anyway... after all that, it still stands that legally, thanks to this evidence, it is proven (as far as can be proven outside of a re-trial)  that Sheila was murdered, and no one can change that fact.

[David1819]

Thanks for posting this which is interesting, though I am with David on this and cannot see how it proves murder?

After the first shot if Sheila's head was vertical even for a few seconds then the direction of blood runs on her face and neck would not match? The blood on her neck would run downwards to start with, then as her legs were pulled only then then would the blood change direction and align with the blood escaping on Sheila face.

Where you say "and is now dead, blood has stopped pumping" when someone is shot in the head the persons heart can carry on beating for sometime? So I am not clear on this line of reasoning?

Yes, she was certainly lying flat throughout as the blood flows show.

As for whether she was moved at all..

You have members of the firearms team stating "Photo of Sheila not in same position as when I saw it" "Head (1) Too close to bedside table. (2) Not sure about about  angle of head but something not right"

[lookout]

No amount of discussing the position of Sheila is going to name the murderer.

[lookout]

JB must be severely retarded to have given two shots to the neck when he should have known that one would have sufficed ?  He would have known of the jugular vein ! At close quarters ?

Yet psychological tests have proved that he had/has no such disability ?

Because that first shot had hit a blunt object ( a bone , hence the shattered bullet internally ) would there have been a recoil straight after because of this failure in hitting its target ?
Gas pressure after the first bullet would have allowed the bolt to remain open, enabling a second shot before re-loading. The idea being, of a semi-automatic, to allow the pressure to drop after firing before re-loading.