An acid test for forum members

[bob]

The hit man explaination of how Sheila was killed seems logical - imagine a mafia execution where the victim kneels down with his hands behind his back before being shot through the back of the head - I imagine if somone points a gun at you and demands a position one would have little option but to comply, the fact she moved therefore it required 2 shots is a pretty good explaination - as opposed to her shooting herself in the kitchen and then going upstairs for another go.....

I don't buy into the hitman/third party theory on the basis that they would surely not rely on using weapons found at the scene...

We only have Jeremy's word that he left the rifle at WHF when he left the evening before.

Could he not have taken it with him and given it to the hitman, who then left it behind where it fitted in very nicely?

[grahameb]

I doubt very much that Sheila would meekly submit to that? More logical that she shot herself. The only one without multiple shots.

[grahameb]

The hit man explaination of how Sheila was killed seems logical - imagine a mafia execution where the victim kneels down with his hands behind his back before being shot through the back of the head - I imagine if somone points a gun at you and demands a position one would have little option but to comply, the fact she moved therefore it required 2 shots is a pretty good explaination - as opposed to her shooting herself in the kitchen and then going upstairs for another go.....

I don't buy into the hitman/third party theory on the basis that they would surely not rely on using weapons found at the scene...

We only have Jeremy's word that he left the rifle at WHF when he left the evening before.

Could he not have taken it with him and given it to the hitman, who then left it behind where it fitted in very nicely?

If that was so then why didn't he take it home himself to make sure he could use it and brought it with him. Not out of place in the countryside.

[bob]

The hit man explaination of how Sheila was killed seems logical - imagine a mafia execution where the victim kneels down with his hands behind his back before being shot through the back of the head - I imagine if somone points a gun at you and demands a position one would have little option but to comply, the fact she moved therefore it required 2 shots is a pretty good explaination - as opposed to her shooting herself in the kitchen and then going upstairs for another go.....

I don't buy into the hitman/third party theory on the basis that they would surely not rely on using weapons found at the scene...

We only have Jeremy's word that he left the rifle at WHF when he left the evening before.

Could he not have taken it with him and given it to the hitman, who then left it behind where it fitted in very nicely?

If that was so then why didn't he take it home himself to make sure he could use it and brought it with him. Not out of place in the countryside.

You've lost me Grahame

[chochokeira]

or if they were aware Hm, maybe they were too scared too move or say anything.

but with one twin still having his thumb in his mouth i think its unlikely.

I see no way those kids slept through the masacre as described.
Now if a silencer was involved... but then that becomes a bit more inconvenient 

Bob, are you aware how little noise a .22 makes, with, or without a silencer.
it does not make a noise like a twelve bore, in fact a .22 is reletivly quiet.

Not really Cliff, but if they're that quiet why do people use silencers on them?

Okay Bob, I understand that a lot of folk do not know how much noise these guns make.
A silencer is normally fitted, so when you have a shot at a rabbit for instance it will not spook the other rabbits around it.
I have been out with my son, and he has shot a rabbit, and the others just sit there, as they did not hear the shot.
Different things can also come into play, for instance the wind direction.
There are many variables

Thanks for clarifying that Cliff.

But even with the gun not making much noise I still think the human noise of people being shot, running up and down the stairs, presumably shouting at each other, and the fight in the kitchen would have woken the kids.

The question of whether or not Sheila's two boys might have slept through a commotion or have been woken by one is a difficult issue.

On the one hand, as Sheila's friend, Freddie, testified, the poor little mites had seen and heard their mother ranting and raving about the devil and punching walls and herself during her psychotic episodes. Freddie stated that he was afraid for the safety of everyone in the flat during one episode, so how much more afraid must those the twins have been at times? There were also violent rows at times, for example, when Sheila punched her hand through a plate glass window. So the twins may have been so used to rows and commotion that they slept through these,

On the other hand, those disturbing pictures that the boys produced suggests to me that these little lads may have been quite disturbed themselves by the chaotic situation that surrounded them. Were the boys aware that Sheila believed that they were possessed by the devil? Sheila was so clearly out of control at times that it would not surprise me if the boys were aware of her delusions about demonic possession. I would also not be surprised if the twins suffered from nightmares and had problems sleeping. Of course, they may have been so exhausted by their day running around on the farm that they slept very soundly that night and knew nothing of what happened. I hope so.

[chochokeira]

I think most of us agree it was an unfair trial.

What bothered me about this case, more than anything, was how on earth those two shots went into Shelia, under what circumstances, from what angle, and from whom.

I know some members don't like me to mention McDonald - but he is the only person who ever explained this in detail. Fabrication or not. If he was the fantasist he was known to be then he was thinking outside of the box on this occasion.



Perhaps this was a form of personal escapism - it certainly never ended up in the domain of Essex Police at the time, or for all anyone knows, since.

Could you (or someone) please let us have McDonald's detailed explanation of the shots to SC? I don't think this is on the forum  , but if it is could it be stuck up here?

McDonalds words are not recorded anywhere in written word to my knowledge.

As this is coming from last year I will do my best -

Me. 'So how did he ( McDonald ) account for the shots into Shelia then?'

My source. 'He got her to lay down on the bedroom floor and held the rifle to her throat, she moved her head when the first shot went in and he had to shoot her again'.

Sorry if this offends or upsets anyone, I have no idea if this is true but my source has been giving me information for many years and the vast majority of what she has told me has been accurate enough for me to use as reference in my work. That is not to say her version is definitive in the respect of WHF.

I was confident enough in her word to cast her in a number of filmed interviews on Sky News re. Suffolk Serial Murders.

She also gave me confidential information of a police operation a few months ago that was spot on in terms of names, locations, timings and details. I knew about the raid which involved 60 officers before it occurred - at least a few days in fact. It turned out to be a complete fiasco.

Hi Sparks, I can't see anything groundbreaking in this statement; it is basically what people say Jeremy did.
"Moved her head", that isn't difficult to come up with when you know she was shot twice.

Personally I have such a hard time seeing how a person (one person) could face killing three children and THREE adults. It would have been exceedingly difficult for Jeremy, and almost impossible for Matthew McDonald. Having to go through a dark house, finding the rooms, finding light switches, facing, again, THREE adults!
I am not buying it. Two assassins, OK, I can see that; it would be difficult too, but not impossible. One - impossible IMO.

Very well put, Abs +1

[Alias]

I think most of us agree it was an unfair trial.

What bothered me about this case, more than anything, was how on earth those two shots went into Shelia, under what circumstances, from what angle, and from whom.

I know some members don't like me to mention McDonald - but he is the only person who ever explained this in detail. Fabrication or not. If he was the fantasist he was known to be then he was thinking outside of the box on this occasion.



Perhaps this was a form of personal escapism - it certainly never ended up in the domain of Essex Police at the time, or for all anyone knows, since.

Could you (or someone) please let us have McDonald's detailed explanation of the shots to SC? I don't think this is on the forum  , but if it is could it be stuck up here?

McDonalds words are not recorded anywhere in written word to my knowledge.

As this is coming from last year I will do my best -

Me. 'So how did he ( McDonald ) account for the shots into Shelia then?'

My source. 'He got her to lay down on the bedroom floor and held the rifle to her throat, she moved her head when the first shot went in and he had to shoot her again'.

Sorry if this offends or upsets anyone, I have no idea if this is true but my source has been giving me information for many years and the vast majority of what she has told me has been accurate enough for me to use as reference in my work. That is not to say her version is definitive in the respect of WHF.

I was confident enough in her word to cast her in a number of filmed interviews on Sky News re. Suffolk Serial Murders.

She also gave me confidential information of a police operation a few months ago that was spot on in terms of names, locations, timings and details. I knew about the raid which involved 60 officers before it occurred - at least a few days in fact. It turned out to be a complete fiasco.

Hi Sparks, I can't see anything groundbreaking in this statement; it is basically what people say Jeremy did.
"Moved her head", that isn't difficult to come up with when you know she was shot twice.

Personally I have such a hard time seeing how a person (one person) could face killing three children and THREE adults. It would have been exceedingly difficult for Jeremy, and almost impossible for Matthew McDonald. Having to go through a dark house, finding the rooms, finding light switches, facing, again, THREE adults!
I am not buying it. Two assassins, OK, I can see that; it would be difficult too, but not impossible. One - impossible IMO.

Very well put, Abs +1

Thanks choco - I meant to say two children, of course.

[Alias]

The hit man explaination of how Sheila was killed seems logical - imagine a mafia execution where the victim kneels down with his hands behind his back before being shot through the back of the head - I imagine if somone points a gun at you and demands a position one would have little option but to comply, the fact she moved therefore it required 2 shots is a pretty good explaination - as opposed to her shooting herself in the kitchen and then going upstairs for another go.....

Then where would the hitman be positioned in this scenario?  Sheila would have to be standing stock still for him to shoot her cleanly under the chin, so was he kneeling whilst she complied?  Or was he lying prone on the floor next to her or on the bed to execute her?

How well you put that!
I have really been trying to picture how someone could shoot Sheila under the chin. What I come up with is also impossibly awkward. 

[HMEssex]

The hit man explaination of how Sheila was killed seems logical - imagine a mafia execution where the victim kneels down with his hands behind his back before being shot through the back of the head - I imagine if somone points a gun at you and demands a position one would have little option but to comply, the fact she moved therefore it required 2 shots is a pretty good explaination - as opposed to her shooting herself in the kitchen and then going upstairs for another go.....

Then where would the hitman be positioned in this scenario?  Sheila would have to be standing stock still for him to shoot her cleanly under the chin, so was he kneeling whilst she complied?  Or was he lying prone on the floor next to her or on the bed to execute her?

How well you put that!
I have really been trying to picture how someone could shoot Sheila under the chin. What I come up with is also impossibly awkward. 

Thank you Abs. 

It could only have been Sheila herself, I reckon.

[chochokeira]

...Hearing the shot police then rushed into the bedroom and found Sheila.  They removed the rifle from her body and checked for signs of life, changing the position of the body.  Realising that they had messed up the raid they panicked.  They repositioned the body and the rifle.  They agreed that they would not mention originally seeing Sheila in the kitchen.

Neil - if this were true I don't see as it provides a compelling reason for the entire raid team to fall in behind a subsequent plot to frame JB. The actions of the raid team as described in your account are not negligent enough to warrant creating such a massive conspiracy to cover their tracks and for so many people to stay silent for so long.If they shot her themselves as Mike seems to think, then maybe that could support such a conspiracy, but simply failing to check signs of life whilst securing the house under such circumstances doesn't cut it for me as a reason for every one of them supporting the framing of JB.

Bob  - The point you make is a fair one.  I accept that the actions of the raid team in my suggested sequence of events would not have led to criminal proceedings against the officers involved and therefore on first analysis it seems surprising that they should have entered into a conspiracy of silence.  However they could have faced disciplinary action, as failing to ascertain that Sheila was still alive and also failing to render the rifle safe amounted to negligence and very poor leadership by the officer in charge of the team.  The decision to remain silent about initially finding Sheila in the kitchen may have appeared to the officers as a pragmatic step, with no harm done. This was not a case of fitting somebody up.  It was four murders and a suicide and Sheila had in fact shot herself in the bedroom and died there.  The silence was therefore only in relation to one detail in the sequence of events and as far as the officers were concerned, that detail did not really matter.  Having made the decision to conceal this detail the officers were then trapped.  When the nature of the enquiry changed from four murders and a suicide to five murders the officers could not reveal the truth because they would then have been in very serious trouble. 

The reason I have had to conclude that my version of events is likely to be correct is that on the evidence available it seems to me to be the least unlikely.  I believe that the evidence that initially the police found two bodies in the kitchen, one male and one female, is persuasive.  It is therefore necessary to present a sequence of events that fits in with that.  The only alternative explanation I can see is that the police for some reason moved Sheila's body upstairs.  I can think of no logical reason why they would do that.  Obviously if I am wrong about Sheila being found in the kitchen my suggested version of events can be simplified, with Sheila shooting herself twice in the bedroom.

Thanks for the detailed reply Neil - see what you are saying, but I wonder if avoiding getting into more serious trouble would be enough for every one of them to commit a man they knew to be innocent to a life behind bars? I would have guessed there would have been a least a few good men of conscience would would have gotten together and said enough is enough at some stage?

On your final point - do you at all entertain the possibility that Sheila was never downstairs, and the "one dead male, one dead female" was the result of confusion over an initial report of the misidentification of Ralph through the window being relayed locally to an officer stood outside the building? That's how I think it might have came about.

Bob -  you could be right on this and I was undecided about it for a while but what has swayed me is that the information about two bodies downstairs is not just contained in a single message.  The police continued with the two bodies downstairs belief for some time after entry to WHF.  The police surgeon was initially requested in relation to two bodies and there was a subsequent report of 3 bodies upstairs. At the very least this is something which should have been properly explored before the jury at trial but the logs were not obtained until after the 2002 appeal.

Excellent points, NGB

[grahameb]

The hit man explaination of how Sheila was killed seems logical - imagine a mafia execution where the victim kneels down with his hands behind his back before being shot through the back of the head - I imagine if somone points a gun at you and demands a position one would have little option but to comply, the fact she moved therefore it required 2 shots is a pretty good explaination - as opposed to her shooting herself in the kitchen and then going upstairs for another go.....

I don't buy into the hitman/third party theory on the basis that they would surely not rely on using weapons found at the scene...

We only have Jeremy's word that he left the rifle at WHF when he left the evening before.

Could he not have taken it with him and given it to the hitman, who then left it behind where it fitted in very nicely?

If that was so then why didn't he take it home himself to make sure he could use it and brought it with him. Not out of place in the countryside.

You've lost me Grahame

Well if he took the gun to give to a hitman then why didn't he take it anyway to use it himself? Why did he leave it there with the chance that Ralph would lock it away in the gun cupboard so he couldn't use it when it came to killing his family?

[haughton]

I am still convinced that the culprit was an intruder. It was someone known to the family and was in debt to them for a large ammount.He came in the night not pay off his debt but to PUT PAID TO IT!
After bolting the door on the inside he shot his first victims. Neville was in his bedroom with his wife,on hearing the shots he assumed that it was Sheila. he phoned Jeremy saying that Sheila has gone berzerk with the gun. Had he known the truth he would have phoned the police and the ambulance. He would also have pressed his panic button that was apparently installed. He would have phoned Jeremy later. O n going downstairs he was confronted by the intruder and they had a set-to. in the fight Sheila took sides by shooting Neville who was then overcome. He then  went upstairs to put paid to Nevilles wife. In order to fool the police he shot Sheila in a way to look liike a suicide.......... he afterwards let himself out via an exit that he already knew about leaving all doors locked on the inside. He may have been spotted sneaking off across the fields. He may have had an accompless who rained hidden in the house until the coast was clear  Pick the bones out of that

[smiffy]

Somebody mentioned dogs barking ...which set me thinking..never mind the dog barking.
How about someone comes round and knocks on the FRONT door. It rouses Nevill. He goes to the window and opens the curtains and raises the sash window to speak or look for who knocked the door.

Depends on what happens he may go open the back door or front door etc.

It gives a reasonable explanation for the open curtains and open window...though I wonder why if it was the case , that he did not close the window and curtains again before heading to the door in such a scenario.
As an alternative ...for the open curtains and window could be June being responsible as a desperate but futile means of escape or to seek/ call for assistance..though lung damage from wounds may have hampered that.

[Sparkfilms]

Somebody mentioned dogs barking ...which set me thinking..never mind the dog barking.
How about someone comes round and knocks on the FRONT door. It rouses Nevill. He goes to the window and opens the curtains and raises the sash window to speak or look for who knocked the door.

Depends on what happens he may go open the back door or front door etc.

It gives a reasonable explanation for the open curtains and open window...though I wonder why if it was the case , that he did not close the window and curtains again before heading to the door in such a scenario.
As an alternative ...for the open curtains and window could be June being responsible as a desperate but futile means of escape or to seek/ call for assistance..though lung damage from wounds may have hampered that.

Did you state on an earlier thread that you have some kind of experience in conducting investigations? Elaborate, please...

[HMEssex]

Somebody mentioned dogs barking ...which set me thinking..never mind the dog barking.
How about someone comes round and knocks on the FRONT door. It rouses Nevill. He goes to the window and opens the curtains and raises the sash window to speak or look for who knocked the door.

Depends on what happens he may go open the back door or front door etc.

It gives a reasonable explanation for the open curtains and open window...though I wonder why if it was the case , that he did not close the window and curtains again before heading to the door in such a scenario.
As an alternative ...for the open curtains and window could be June being responsible as a desperate but futile means of escape or to seek/ call for assistance..though lung damage from wounds may have hampered that.

Hmmm, would an assassin/hitman/killer politely knock at the door, especially in the early hours of the morning?  Can't really see that.

If that did happen, I'm pretty sure Nevill would have had his gun ready since he already had a panic alarm fitted.