Burning down of the caravan park shop.

[Adam]

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.

---------

How did he manage that?

[David1819]

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.

The blood running from Sheila's nose, mouth and neck is all running in the same downward direction (with no deviations) as it would have done in the position her head was found (lying flat). Thus her head was always in that position. With her head lying flat and her left shoulder right by the bedside table, it is simply not possible for her body to have been any further up than it already was. Thus she cannot have been pulled down with her head up against the bedside table.



Moreover PC Collins and PS Adams said the crime scene photos of Sheila is not how she first appeared when they entered the room. Leading to the only possible deduction that the police had moved the body.



https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,189.msg510.html#msg510

[David1819]

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.

---------

How did he manage that?

If you read the full hearing transcript. Turner pointed out that Vanezis had already looked into this back in 1985/6 and the prosecution never brought it forward at trial. Thus it was not admissible for the prosecution to use at appeal.

[snow66!]

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.

Hi Killing eve,nice day.Just one question,why did the killer shoot Sheila and immediately pull her body flat? As usual,I have missed the reason for doing this.

[snow66!]

Hi Killing eve,nice day.Just one question,why did the killer shoot Sheila and immediately pull her body flat? As usual,I have missed the reason for doing this.

Good evening everyone,are you sitting having a cold beer? Anyway,my question hasn't been answered by Killingeve,so I will just have to inflict the forum with a long post on the pulling of Sheilas legs,as it were ,later on.

[Jane]

Hi Killing eve,nice day.Just one question,why did the killer shoot Sheila and immediately pull her body flat? As usual,I have missed the reason for doing this.

Possibly because he realized that the first shot hadn't killed her. Perhaps he'd taken the shot from the wrong angle? Pulling her flat may have tilted her head? Whatever, the second shot obviously did the job.

[Cambridgecutie]

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.

---------

How did he manage that?

It's written in the transcript for the actual CoA

Vincent Temple QC presented the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, stating that Mr Ismail's evidence was as good as DNA evidence.

Michael Turner QC responded by saying that the evidence only works if the police didn't move Sheila's body before taking the photos.   Therefore it should be dis-regarded.   The judges disagreed with that.

Then Michael Turner had another go by saying that the evidence was available in 1986, and the CoA can only deal with new evidence.  Which the judges agreed, and declared that the evidence wouldn't have any influence over their final judgement.

The evidence was never declared inadmissible in the same way that hearsay might be deemed inadmissible.  So it's perfectly admissible in the conventional legal sense.

Michael Turner QC would have much preferred to get the evidence disproven, rather than disregarded on a technicality.  Because now, today, 20 years later, it still stands that there is very strong scientific, forensic evidence,  that says that Sheila was murdered, and murdered before the firearms officers entered the house.

It would have been a feather in his cap if he could have disproven it, but he was unable to.  And that was confirmed very clearly by the judges in the CoA report 2002. 

The actual transcript is here...

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4276.msg174390.html#msg174390

But the transcriber writes almost in broken English, probably due to the lack of transcribing technology at the time.  So it's quite hard to read, plus we don't have the documentation that they were referring to, so it's of limited use.  The 2002 CoA report is a much better source of information.

[snow66!]

Possibly because he realized that the first shot hadn't killed her. Perhaps he'd taken the shot from the wrong angle? Pulling her flat may have tilted her head? Whatever, the second shot obviously did the job.

Hiya Jane,but the argument by ismail or whatever you call him,is that Sheila received the second shot then had her legs pulled immediately.

[Cambridgecutie]

The blood running from Sheila's nose, mouth and neck is all running in the same downward direction (with no deviations) as it would have done in the position her head was found (lying flat). Thus her head was always in that position. With her head lying flat and her left shoulder right by the bedside table, it is simply not possible for her body to have been any further up than it already was. Thus she cannot have been pulled down with her head up against the bedside table.



Moreover PC Collins and PS Adams said the crime scene photos of Sheila is not how she first appeared when they entered the room. Leading to the only possible deduction that the police had moved the body.



https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,189.msg510.html#msg510

Nice try, no cigar.

(Two can play at your game)

[Roch]

Possibly because he realized that the first shot hadn't killed her. Perhaps he'd taken the shot from the wrong angle? Pulling her flat may have tilted her head? Whatever, the second shot obviously did the job.

Jane, you mention the two shots.. sorry to press but..  which shot caused these marks?

[Jane]

Hiya Jane,but the argument by ismail or whatever you call him,is that Sheila received the second shot then had her legs pulled immediately.

Mmm. He might be right............it's anyone's guess, isn't it? None of us were there.

[snow66!]

Mmm. He might be right............it's anyone's guess, isn't it? None of us were there.

Well, I am afraid I am going to subject you to my opinion anyway Jane.

[Jane]

Well, I am afraid I am going to subject you to my opinion anyway Jane.

Mmm. I was afraid you might

[snow66!]

Mmm. I was afraid you might

Blame Killingeve 

[Jane]

Blame Killingeve 

Not at all. Their posts are very enjoyable.