Discussion about Marks on Shiela in the locked thread.

[Hartley]

Firstly why is this thread locked: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2015.0.html

Secondly Mike posts:

The claim made by the prosecution that Sheila`s body was spotlessly clean and unmarked except for two bullet wounds to her throat, was false and misleading, since she had what appeared to be bloodied smears on her right forearm and the top part of her right hand which are consistent with her being involved in a struggle with another person...

Please could somebody provide evidence that the prosecution made such claims, because I put it to you that the above allegation is inaccurate.

Thirdly Grahame makes this post:
Yes I saw that misleading remark in the 2002 appeal review. That her hands were "spotlessly clean". Clearly a false statement calculated to mislead any future appeal court. Photographs that were even available at the trial show that to be a totally false statement of the facts. She even had signs of a fight with scratches on her arm and at the very least blood.

Please could somebody show me where this remark is made, because again it is inaccurate, this is false and misleading information.

The 2002 appeal Judgement can be viewed here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html


An extract of which is as follows (my bold):

The condition of Sheila Caffell's body and her clothing
The firearms officers who were the first to see her body noted that her feet and hands were "perfectly clean". Her fingernails were well manicured and not broken and there were no marks or indentations on any of her fingers. All her fingertips were clean and free from any blood, dirt or powder and there appeared to be no trace of any lead dust or coating which is usual when handling .22 ammunition.

The act of loading the magazine of an automatic weapon (carried out at least twice in this case) would be expected to leave visible traces of the lubricant and the materials from the bullets on the hands.

DC Hammersley, the Scenes of Crimes Officer placed plastic bags over Sheila Caffell's hands and feet before her body was removed from the farmhouse. He saw some blood staining to the back of the right hand, but apart from that the hands, to his eye were clean and the nails intact. The deceased's feet were also free from blood staining and from any debris such as sugar.

[Hartley]

I hope I'm wrong, but it would appear to me that Mike has locked that thread so that people cannot challenge his inaccurate claims.

[Hartley]

Mike has now posted:

She had what appeared to be shallow gouge marks on the t op part of her right hand and wrist...

These marks are consistent with someone trying to wrestle or seize control of something in Sheila 's right hand, the other bloodied smears on her right forearm appear to be linked to the marks on the top part of her hand, when another person with bloodied fingers attempted to grapple something from Sheila`s grasp?

Whilst that may be Mikes individual opinion, it is certainly not backed up with any evidence, in fact the lack of mention of this theory in the pathologists report and in the independent defence instructed blood experts report, goes a very long way to completely dispelling this particular false claim.

[grahameb]

I didn't lock the thread and I don't think Neil has either. I wasn't aware that it had been locked.
I confess that I have read so many statements this week and because of my child like mind may have confused Ann's statement with the 2002 appeal statement.
However in paragraph 45 we read. "There was no evidence of any other mark or injury to Sheila Caffell's body such as might be suffered during a fight or in a scuffle." Which of course was untrue as she certainly showed marks consistent with a struggle in the photograph.
Then in paragraph 47 we read, "The firearms officers who were the first to see her body noted that her feet and hands were "perfectly clean"."
Again the photographs tell a very different story.

[Hartley]

I didn't lock the thread and I don't think Neil has either. I wasn't aware that it had been locked.
I confess that I have read so many statements this week and because of my child like mind may have confused Ann's statement with the 2002 appeal statement.
However in paragraph 45 we read. "There was no evidence of any other mark or injury to Sheila Caffell's body such as might be suffered during a fight or in a scuffle." Which of course was untrue as she certainly showed marks consistent with a struggle in the photograph.
Then in paragraph 47 we read, "The firearms officers who were the first to see her body noted that her feet and hands were "perfectly clean"."

That is clearly not true and can not be corroborated with any evidence, it may be a persons opinion or interpretation from looking at a photograph, however that does not constitute to proof or warrant an allegation that the claim, that 'there was lack of evidence of a scuffle' as being untrue.

There is nothing here which detracts from the prosecutions case.

[Hartley]

Mike posted:

Did someone try to wrestle possession of the rifle and or ammunition from her?

I would say no, there is no evidence of that taking place.

[Hartley]

Mike posted:

Ask yourselves if another person would go to all that trouble for the sake of trying to wrench a  bible from Sheila?

Again I would say no, not only because there is no evidence of it occurring in the first place, but also I couldn't even imaging a scenario where such actions would ever have taken place.

[grahameb]

That is clearly not true and can not be corroborated with any evidence, it may be a persons opinion or interpretation from looking at a photograph, however that does not constitute to proof or warrant an allegation that the claim, that 'there was lack of evidence of a scuffle' as being untrue.

There is nothing here which detracts from the prosecutions case.

So what you are saying is that she never put up any struggle. Is that right? So actually what you are saying is that she meekly let someone point a gun at her throat and let then shoot her without any kind of fight to save herself.
Hartley. Whatever view you take you must of necessity accept that she had to defend herself in some way. Whether it was a fight with ralph, which you obviously do not hold to. Or a fight for her life with the killer? Conclusion: (1) If she was involved in a fight for her life, then there must have been a struggle. (2) She was involved in a fight with Ralph in one way or another.
Or (3) If there were no marks on her and she was as the report says "perfectly clean" then she must have shot herself and no struggle of any sort ensued.

[Hartley]

So what you are saying is that she never put up any struggle. Is that right? So actually what you are saying is that she meekly let someone point a gun at her throat and let then shoot her without any kind of fight to save herself.
Hartley. Whatever view you take you must of necessity accept that she had to defend herself in some way. Whether it was a fight with ralph, which you obviously do not hold to. Or a fight for her life with the killer? Conclusion: (1) If she was involved in a fight for her life, then there must have been a struggle. (2) She was involved in a fight with Ralph in one way or another.
Or (3) If there were no marks on her and she was as the report says "perfectly clean" then she must have shot herself and no struggle of any sort ensued.

No Grahame that is not true and is most certainly not the case. Stop trying the read between the lines because that's where you enter fantasy land.

Very simply, there is no evidence or indication that Sheila was involved in a fight or struggle with Ralph or anybody else. That is a fact, proven in a court of law, there is no evidence to detract from that, neither the courts, nor I, nor anybody else sound of mind, would accept a poor quality pixelated photograph as evidence to the contrary.

Now the part which you seem to have difficulty in understanding, because there was no evidence that something happened, that doesn't mean that it didn't, it doesn't mean that it did either, but there is nothing to base an argument on. However, the lack of other evidence which may indicate that she fought with Ralph, goes a long to making a much stronger case that Sheila was not involved in a struggle.

With regards to how Sheila was actually killed, we will probably never know, in fact the only way it would ever come to light is if Jeremy was responsible and he confessed. There are however very plausible possibilities as to how she was murdered which does not involve a struggle, for example she could have just seen her murdered children and entered a state of compliant apathetic shock, or she could have been at gun point and in fear of her life complied with commands given by her eventual murderer.

The evidence indicates what it indicates, you can't just make up alternative endings and expect people, or rather a court of law, to accept them when there is compelling evidence to the contrary.

[Hartley]

Mike posted:
If Sheila`s left hand and fingers were clean, how could she have made the bloodied marks on the top part of Sheila`s right hand, and forearm, with the bloodied fingers of her own right hand?

Marks on the top part of her right hand, and on her right forearm were made by another person...

Well the fact remains (and it is a fact) that her palms and finger tips were clean and not contaminated with blood.

The marks on her nightdress have not been confirmed as being made by a hand, let alone Sheilas hand, so they could have been caused by another person, or they could have been caused from blood which had flowed down her arm and onto her forearm, transferred when being staged in a suicide position.

The marks on top of her right arm are in my opinion only consistent with blood flowing and dripping down her arm.

[grahameb]

Mike posted:
If Sheila`s left hand and fingers were clean, how could she have made the bloodied marks on the top part of Sheila`s right hand, and forearm, with the bloodied fingers of her own right hand?

Marks on the top part of her right hand, and on her right forearm were made by another person...

Well the fact remains (and it is a fact) that her palms and finger tips were clean and not contaminated with blood.

The marks on her nightdress have not been confirmed as being made by a hand, let alone Sheilas hand, so they could have been caused by another person, or they could have been caused from blood which had flowed down her arm and onto her forearm, transferred when being staged in a suicide position.

The marks on top of her right arm are in my opinion only consistent with blood flowing and dripping down her arm.

Now it is you who are adding words into the report. The plain facts are that the photograph however pixilated you may claim does in fact show that her hands are not perfectly clean.

[Hartley]

Mike posted:
Yet to be determined, is whose blood was smeared on Sheila`s right forearm?

Was it Sheila`s blood?

Was it Ralphs blood?

Was it. Junes blood?

Personally I haven't seen any identification of the blood stain on Sheilas night dress, however it would be logical to assume that it belonged to Sheila.

This report from Herbert Leon McDonnell is worth a read whilst looking at this aspect of the case.

[grahameb]

No Grahame that is not true and is most certainly not the case. Stop trying the read between the lines because that's where you enter fantasy land.

Very simply, there is no evidence or indication that Sheila was involved in a fight or struggle with Ralph or anybody else. That is a fact, proven in a court of law, there is no evidence to detract from that, neither the courts, nor I, nor anybody else sound of mind, would accept a poor quality pixelated photograph as evidence to the contrary.

Now the part which you seem to have difficulty in understanding, because there was no evidence that something happened, that doesn't mean that it didn't, it doesn't mean that it did either, but there is nothing to base an argument on. However, the lack of other evidence which may indicate that she fought with Ralph, goes a long to making a much stronger case that Sheila was not involved in a struggle.

With regards to how Sheila was actually killed, we will probably never know, in fact the only way it would ever come to light is if Jeremy was responsible and he confessed. There are however very plausible possibilities as to how she was murdered which does not involve a struggle, for example she could have just seen her murdered children and entered a state of compliant apathetic shock, or she could have been at gun point and in fear of her life complied with commands given by her eventual murderer.

The evidence indicates what it indicates, you can't just make up alternative endings and expect people, or rather a court of law, to accept them when there is compelling evidence to the contrary.

So do you expect seeing that Ralph did show marks of a struggle, to see those equivalent marks on whoever struggled with him? In other words, would you expect them to be injured in a similar way seeing that Ralph had what appears to be gouge marks on his arm?

[Hartley]

Now it is you who are adding words into the report. The plain facts are that the photograph however pixilated you may clain does in fact show that her hands are not perfectly clean.

I'm sorry Grahame but if you can show be a picture which shows Sheilas PALMS & FINGERTIPS, to be contaminated, a picture which would be worthy of submitting to the CCRC to prove your claim then please do so.

[Hartley]

So do you expect seeing that Ralph did show marks of a struggle, to see those equivalent marks on whoever struggled with him? In other words, would you expect them to be injured in a similar way seeing that Ralph had what appears to be gouge marks on his arm?

No I would not expect to see anything. What I would do is see something and then form an opinion.

The post mortem report is very clear in describing how the injuries to Ralph are likely to have occurred, the report does not elaborate in any way as to what possible wounds, if any would be caused to Ralphs attacker.