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

[grahameb]

You have said what i have been thinking for a while Nick.

Well I suppose we must all accept that line of thinking? If I found myself in prison for a crime I didn't do I suppose I too should say, "Well, that's tough". I would either do what Jeremy does and fight untiringly that which was obviously a miscarriage of justice by any sane person's judgement. I would be found hanging from the bars in my cell one day. All because all others would say is "Well, that's tough".

[grahameb]

I understand the point you are making Mike.  I am sure Jeremy will never give up his fight to overturn his convictions. 

Jeremy's position is that he believes the material he has now will be sufficient to secure an appeal and win that appeal.  I do not know whether he is right on that, but I tend to take a cautious approach.  If there is no referral I believe the focus should be on securing the release of all withheld evidence.  There is a reason why the prosecution have doggedly resisted releasing this information and my belief is that much of it will be very helpful to the defence.  In the light of full disclosure I believe a fresh application would be possible, drawing together in a single submission document all of the factors (many of them in isolation not in themselves conclusive) which taken as a whole render the convictions unsafe.  The stark reality is that if in the light of full disclosure, and a proper reconsideration of the entire evidence in the light of that, an appeal is not successful that will effectively be the end of the road for Jeremy.  The only way forward then would be if startling new evidence came to light, for example a former police officer breaking ranks.

I emphasise that this is not the current view of Jeremy.  He believes he has enough already to prove that he did not commit the murders.   

Mike? I'm Grahame.

[Roch]

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

You have said what i have been thinking for a while Nick.

I'm afraid I do not agree.

Destruction of evidence needs to be properly accounted for.  That means it should be meticulously checked against the original soc register (alleged by Mike to withheld under PII) and any other genuine evidence schedules.  Explanations need to be first sought then investigated.  If there are certain key pieces of evidence that have been destroyed, then the World and his Uncle need to know exactly what those pieces of evidence are and the defence should be allowed to proffer possible reasons for the destruction of said evidence.  This reasoning should then be carefully considered. IMO.

[andrea]

Im not hopefull NGB, i agree with what you sadi about the witholding of evidence, there must be something in there thats helpful to the defence.

Do you have any idea what has been submitted to the CCRC ?

Also, IF there has been a conspiracy, do you think it involves the amount of people suggested?

[grahameb]

Well I suppose we must all accept that line of thinking? If I found myself in prison for a crime I didn't do I suppose I too should say, "Well, that's tough". I would either do what Jeremy does and fight untiringly that which was obviously a miscarriage of justice by any sane person's judgement. I would be found hanging from the bars in my cell one day. All because all others would say is "Well, that's tough".

Not only that, but there are certain people who have vowed to kill him as soon as he gets out. "Well, that's tough".

[ngb1066]

Mike? I'm Grahame.

Sorry Grahame, it is obviously going to be one of those days!

[andrea]

Im not hopefull NGB, i agree with what you sadi about the witholding of evidence, there must be something in there thats helpful to the defence.

Do you have any idea what has been submitted to the CCRC ?

Also, IF there has been a conspiracy, do you think it involves the amount of people suggested?

NGB, what do you think 

[grahameb]

Sorry Grahame, it is obviously going to be one of those days!

Same here Neil. T is coming round later to get something printed up from the forum so his dad can have something to read in hospital. If he's still there at the weekend I may go and see him? He is still in a high dependency ward.

[ngb1066]

Im not hopefull NGB, i agree with what you sadi about the witholding of evidence, there must be something in there thats helpful to the defence.

Do you have any idea what has been submitted to the CCRC ?

Also, IF there has been a conspiracy, do you think it involves the amount of people suggested?

Andrea - I am not sure what you mean by your first question.  I know what was contained in the submissions made to the CCRC before their provisional decision in February 2011.  Since then there have not been substantive submissions, but there have been requests for the CCRC to use their powers to obtain further evidence and also requests for the CCRC to release material to the defence (in particular the negatives).

I do not believe there has been a single grand conspiracy in this case.  I believe that there were several parts of the evidence presented at trial which were tainted by dishonest evidence given, in each case by a small number of individuals.  In particular I believe that evidence relating to the silencer, the scratches to the aga surround and the movement of the bodies and rifle by police is all highly suspect. 

 

[Newbury1]

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

I'm afraid I do not agree.

Destruction of evidence needs to be properly accounted for.  That means it should be meticulously checked against the original soc register (alleged by Mike to withheld under PII) and any other genuine evidence schedules.  Explanations need to be first sought then investigated.  If there are certain key pieces of evidence that have been destroyed, then the World and his Uncle need to know exactly what those pieces of evidence are and the defence should be allowed to proffer possible reasons for the destruction of said evidence.  This reasoning should then be carefully considered. IMO.

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).

[ngb1066]

Same here Neil. T is coming round later to get something printed up from the forum so his dad can have something to read in hospital. If he's still there at the weekend I may go and see him? He is still in a high dependency ward.

Please send him my best wishes for a speedy recovery Grahame.

[andrea]

I agree with your last sentence NGB, they are suspect.

Do you think sheila was ever found in the kitchen? looking at the nightdress i would say no, unless her blood had gravity defying properties. But...we have have one male one female found on entry to property?

[ngb1066]

I agree with your last sentence NGB, they are suspect.

Do you think sheila was ever found in the kitchen? looking at the nightdress i would say no, unless her blood had gravity defying properties. But...we have have one male one female found on entry to property?

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.

[Buddy]

I agree with your last sentence NGB, they are suspect.

Do you think sheila was ever found in the kitchen? looking at the nightdress i would say no, unless her blood had gravity defying properties. But...we have have one male one female found on entry to property?

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.

[andrea]

I think she died where she was found Buddy.

the blood staining more or less tells us that.