Author Topic: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85  (Read 23486 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #150 on: July 04, 2017, 07:51:PM »
Why do you think Sheila killed everyone before 3.48am, then kept herself alive for another 4 hours. Shooting herself in the kitchen, before making her way upstairs (without being seen) after the police had entered WHF ?

It seems a new and just as important question from the Stokechurch investigation is who was Sheila ringing at 6.09am. Her hair dresser ?

Mike says the police shot Sheila, surely the bullets in her neck would prove this. Or was this more forgery from the police ?

There is no proof of when Sheila shot herself. Have you ever Seen any tests to establish whether a shot from that rifle from that room at that position would have been heard from the distance that the police were ? Sorry to see that you are using sarcasm still and cherry picking suggestions to embellish your arguments.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44576
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #151 on: July 04, 2017, 08:05:PM »
There is no proof of when Sheila shot herself. Have you ever Seen any tests to establish whether a shot from that rifle from that room at that position would have been heard from the distance that the police were ? Sorry to see that you are using sarcasm still and cherry picking suggestions to embellish your arguments.

Good to see after a year away from the forum you have zeroed straight to the supporters greatest danger. Me.

Why do you think Sheila stayed alive for another 4 hours. And do you believe she used the phone at 6.09am ?
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #152 on: July 04, 2017, 08:45:PM »
Good to see after a year away from the forum you have zeroed straight to the supporters greatest danger. Me.

Why do you think Sheila stayed alive for another 4 hours. And do you believe she used the phone at 6.09am ?

I think you flatter yourself. And it has been proved that Sheila was ill so to apply logic to her actions would be foolish don't you think? Or do you still have your unsympathetic attitudes to mental illness ?

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #153 on: July 04, 2017, 08:47:PM »
There is no proof of when Sheila shot herself. Have you ever Seen any tests to establish whether a shot from that rifle from that room at that position would have been heard from the distance that the police were ? Sorry to see that you are using sarcasm still and cherry picking suggestions to embellish your arguments.

Or even if she did.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #154 on: July 04, 2017, 08:51:PM »
Or even if she did.

Yes true . But I believe the assumption she could not shoot herself in the position she was in has since been disproven using a person of the same height and a gun of the same length , obviously without the silencer. 

Oh and sorry to hear you are second in line to Adam as a danger to supporters . He doesn't change does he?

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44576
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #155 on: July 04, 2017, 09:00:PM »
I think you flatter yourself. And it has been proved that Sheila was ill so to apply logic to her actions would be foolish don't you think? Or do you still have your unsympathetic attitudes to mental illness ?

I created a recent thread on the last people to see Sheila. As well as the effects of Haloperidol.

Sheila wouldn't have been able to re fill a hot water bottle at 3am, let alone turn into a navy seal.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #156 on: July 04, 2017, 09:02:PM »
Yes true . But I believe the assumption she could not shoot herself in the position she was in has since been disproven using a person of the same height and a gun of the same length , obviously without the silencer. 

Oh and sorry to hear you are second in line to Adam as a danger to supporters . He doesn't change does he?

I don't see myself as a danger to anyone so if he's claimed that crown, he's welcome to it. But no, he doesn't change - have to admit, I have warmed to him a little but shhhhhh  ;) ;D
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #157 on: July 05, 2017, 06:57:PM »
I don't see myself as a danger to anyone so if he's claimed that crown, he's welcome to it. But no, he doesn't change - have to admit, I have warmed to him a little but shhhhhh  ;) ;D

Oh dear .

Offline Reader

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2456
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #158 on: July 06, 2017, 05:02:PM »
Because it has been suggested on police logs/BT operator ? that the line had remained open from a 999 situation and there'd been a request to close it, one naturally assumes that the last call was a 999 one.
Even if the logs indicated that a 999 call was made from WHF (which is debatable, as they don't explicitly confirm that), there's nothing to suggest that Nevill made that call. The time of 06:09 that you've mentioned was well after a BT operator had confirmed (more than once) that the telephone receiver at WHF was off-hook. Any 999 call would have been handled initially by a BT employee (and presumably documented by BT). Also, Jean Rowe (a BT operator) stated that she had twice (shortly before 06:09) been contacted by a police officer (at HQIR) who asked her to connect the WHF line to the police HQIR. She makes no reference to any 999 call having already been made from WHF, but does state that she was not allowed to engage the Direct Emergency Police line, so she telephoned the police headquarters and connected her call with the open WHF line so that the police could monitor it. Her choice of wording suggests that the officer who called her had requested that the emergency line should be used, but that she used a normal line instead.

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #159 on: July 06, 2017, 05:33:PM »
I was thinking the other day that Jeremy never claimed that his father did call the police , because he would not have known if he did . But I think the fact that he said he called back and the line was engaged and then the transcripts later might have convinced him it had happened . But even if Neville did not call the police the one call that would prove that Jeremy was innocent is the call from his father to him. If that was on the records somewhere it would prove his innocence .

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #160 on: July 06, 2017, 05:46:PM »
I was thinking the other day that Jeremy never claimed that his father did call the police , because he would not have known if he did . But I think the fact that he said he called back and the line was engaged and then the transcripts later might have convinced him it had happened . But even if Neville did not call the police the one call that would prove that Jeremy was innocent is the call from his father to him. If that was on the records somewhere it would prove his innocence .

Jan I am sure that call is on record will we get to see it or maybe somebody will come clean and spill

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #161 on: July 06, 2017, 05:55:PM »
Jan I am sure that call is on record will we get to see it or maybe somebody will come clean and spill

Well if that call was proven then it would have to have been Neville or an accomplice which is why I think a record exists . BUT that would mean that the twist in the case would have had to be a fit up totally because then the police could have used that evidence to back up thier initial assumptions . And I can't quite get my head round that . It's frustrating .


Offline Reader

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2456
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #162 on: July 06, 2017, 07:14:PM »
At that time, there was no routine recording of the details of individual dialled local calls between Maldon numbers.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #163 on: July 06, 2017, 07:15:PM »
At that time, there was no routine recording of the details of individual dialled local calls between Maldon numbers.

It just falls on deaf ears reader.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
« Reply #164 on: July 06, 2017, 07:18:PM »
According to most,Sheila's hands were clean too !