Letters written to her natural mother, by Sheila Caffell (latest on 24/07/1985).

[andrea]

I am undecided on this point. If it had been a single log entry I would probably dismiss it as an error, but it went a lot further than that so I believe we have to take it seriously.  I am convinced something went on after the firearms team entered WHF, and it was something which the officers concerned felt necessary to cover up.  Unless one of the officers comes forward I suspect that we are never likely to know the truth for certain.
[/quo




I do take it seriously NGB, had she been in kitchen then fled upstairs then there would have been blood down the front of her nightdress, she was photographed where she was found IMO.

Imo she was never on the bed either.

[grahameb]

Andrea, I am yet to be convinced that Sheila was seen in the kitchen when the police burst in.
I think that the reports were jumbled. It was first reported that a female was seen, but I think this sighting was Ralph. [ His long hair ]. After entry it was reported one dead male, so a mistake occured.
These reports were made separately, so it did not come in the same report ie. one dead male AND one dead female.
I am not saying the Sheila was not shot once in the kitchen [although I have my doubts about that], but the raid team did not find her there.
There were cops all over the place, so I don't think it was likely that she fled up one of the staircases after entry was gained.
Of course this is only an opinion.

I find it worrying that there were two independent reports. One dead male and one dead female as they looked in the window. Then we read a completely separate report of one dead male and one dead female "upon entry". Rather a big mistake to make I think? I think I saw on the tv documentary (I'm not sure if this is true mind?) that one of the raid team was left in the kitchen to stand guard over the bodies, but was called upstairs by the others? As I said I haven't seen that written down in any documentary evidence.

[Buddy]

I am undecided on this point. If it had been a single log entry I would probably dismiss it as an error, but it went a lot further than that so I believe we have to take it seriously.  I am convinced something went on after the firearms team entered WHF, and it was something which the officers concerned felt necessary to cover up.  Unless one of the officers comes forward I suspect that we are never likely to know the truth for certain.
[/quo




I do take it seriously NGB, had she been in kitchen then fled upstairs then there would have been blood down the front of her nightdress, she was photographed where she was found IMO.

Imo she was never on the bed either.

Not so sure of your of the last bit Andrea. If the police were using the scene for training [or horsing around] then it is possible she was on the bed. How significant that is I am not sure.

[Hartley]

I am undecided on this point. If it had been a single log entry I would probably dismiss it as an error, but it went a lot further than that so I believe we have to take it seriously.  I am convinced something went on after the firearms team entered WHF, and it was something which the officers concerned felt necessary to cover up.  Unless one of the officers comes forward I suspect that we are never likely to know the truth for certain.

Well unfortunately that is the problem, it is just a single log entry to start with, the rest of the log entries are produced from the information passed along the line. It is a single instance.

[andrea]

We could look at any high profile murder case, and find mistakes, inconsistencies or whatever we want to call them, in the paperwork.

[Roch]

Well unfortunately that is the problem, it is just a single log entry to start with, the rest of the log entries are produced from the information passed along the line. It is a single instance.

I do not believe that argument is credible.  The idea that the information flow/traffic would not be checked / confirmed as it is being taken down doesn't seem a remotely realistic prospect.  The alleged mistaken female seen through the window does not appear in documentary evidence, save that which is written after the fact.

[ngb1066]

We could look at any high profile murder case, and find mistakes, inconsistencies or whatever we want to call them, in the paperwork.

That is undoubtedly true, but in this case the documents containing inconsistencies/mistakes/points which could have assisted the defence were deliberately withheld.  That in my view means that those documents need to be viewed more critically than might otherwise be the case.

[Hartley]

I do not believe that argument is credible.  The idea that the information flow/traffic would not be checked / confirmed as it is being taken down doesn't seem a remotely realistic prospect.  The alleged mistaken female seen through the window does not appear in documentary evidence, save that which is written after the fact.

You don't have to believe it, however it remains a fact. Whether things were, or were not checked, is irrelevant, I said it stemmed from a single instance and travelled down the line, that is evidenced by the sender/receiver sections filled out in the logs. To say that it is recorded independently several times is inaccurate.

When did you expect Collins or the rest of the raid team to make their statements, two minutes after entry?

The thing which is missing from the logs is any mention of a shooting or Sheila being seen alive.

Again I find your argument to be weak, in fact I don't even see an argument.

[Roch]

I do not believe that argument is credible.  The idea that the information flow/traffic would not be checked / confirmed as it is being taken down doesn't seem a remotely realistic prospect.  The alleged mistaken female seen through the window does not appear in documentary evidence, save that which is written after the fact.

Furthermore, why would the DPP obstruct the defence to the point where the matter had to be taken before a court?  Is it your argument that this obstruction related to there having been a female body mistaken through the window? 

Is it also merely benign coincidence that only faxed versions of logs have been released?  And another further coincidence that Essex Police will not release the original logs for forensic testing, despite numerous requests?  An yet another inconsequential coincidence that the FSS have confirmed part of the event log has been tampered with, resulting in requests for these originals to enable forensic testing?

All these coincidences and all this obstruction, in a hugely controversial 26 year murder case... and yet all because somebody wrongly spied a female body through a window?

And you say it's as if you exist in another dimension, or words to that effect? 

[ngb1066]

Furthermore, why would the DPP obstruct the defence to the point where the matter had to be taken before a court?  Is it your argument that this obstruction related to there having been a female body mistaken through the window? 

Is it also merely benign coincidence that only faxed versions of logs have been released?  And another further coincidence that Essex Police will not release the original logs for forensic testing, despite numerous requests?  An yet another inconsequential coincidence that the FSS have confirmed part of the event log has been tampered with, resulting in requests for these originals to enable forensic testing?

All these coincidences and all this obstruction, in a hugely controversial 26 year murder case... and yet all because somebody wrongly spied a female body through a window?

And you say it's as if you exist in another dimension, or words to that effect? 

Good points David.

[Roch]

Whether things were, or were not checked, is irrelevant

It may be irrelevant in the Fifth Dimension.  But back here inside the Ministry of Common Sense on lowly planet Earth, I can assure you it's very relevant.

[Hartley]

Furthermore, why would the DPP obstruct the defence to the point where the matter had to be taken before a court?  Is it your argument that this obstruction related to there having been a female body mistaken through the window? 

Is it also merely benign coincidence that only faxed versions of logs have been released?  And another further coincidence that Essex Police will not release the original logs for forensic testing, despite numerous requests?  An yet another inconsequential coincidence that the FSS have confirmed part of the event log has been tampered with, resulting in requests for these originals to enable forensic testing?

All these coincidences and all this obstruction, in a hugely controversial 26 year murder case... and yet all because somebody wrongly spied a female body through a window?

And you say it's as if you exist in another dimension, or words to that effect? 

Obstinacy.

You are not trying to discuss with me, you are responding to posts by me with responses which bear no resemblance to the subject matter. Some old thing, I am not making an argument so please do not attempt to draw me into one.

You are more than welcome to your views and opinions, personally I disagree with them, but nevertheless they are your own.

Why don't you stick to talking about the things people say rather than trying to talk about the person. You appear to be in a very different frame of mind compared to discussions that we have respectfully held in months gone by.

[Roch]

I don't see how I can be referring to something that isn't part of the subject matter, if the points I'm referring to are related to the subject I quoted you on. 

Hartley, you portray your self on here almost as some lone voice of factual reason in a sea of Tesko spin.   I don't see either you, nor most of Mike's work in that way.  Sometimes I point this out to you.

It's got nothing to do with obstinacy on my part.  Fair do's you've picked out a specific technical point to adduce a theory that a chain of recording was flawed due to an error from the outset.  What you haven't mentioned is that this theory of yours relies upon somebody in the chain having first noted down the (alleged) mistaken sighting.  Yet no documentary evidence exists for this whatsoever.  If it did, it would have been released in order to shore up the statements you and I have both referred to, not to mention the logs themselves. 

What I have done is to present you with some other facts separate to the technical one you have used, in order to call in to question the theory you have adduced. 

[Roch]

Unless you're relying on this?

[Roch]

Anything that EP has destroyed (as crass as that is) obviously cannot be brought back, just like the lives lost that night!

Sorry Roch, I do not agree with you. My statement as it stands is fact!

However I agree with you that the destruction of evidence needs to be properly accounted for, but this will not actually bring back the physically destroyed evidence (e.g the bullets).

Let's say that the defence pinpoint key specific documentation needed to support their arguments.  Let's say that either these documents existed at one point, either because every investigation would have such documents or because they're listed in schedules known to the defence.  Due process then fails to produce the documentation.  In my opinion, at this point, inference could be drawn in favour of the defence, stemming from the lack of cooperation on the part of either the custodians of the documents or on the part of a buffer agency, for example CCRC.  Now what's the chance that these unavailable documents have been destroyed?  Should that turn out to be the case, in my opinion inference should be drawn in favour of the defence.