Sheila attempted to commit suicide (but failed), and was shot by the police...

[Bridget]

 

Well what would you call it? 

[Roch]

Well what would you call it? 

The last one (I think).  Allegedly received info, that is not substantiated because the alleged givers will never put pen to paper for fear of being scapegoated.  It therefore has no evidential use for JB... but aids the defence in understanding the dynamics in play at the time.  At a guess  :D

[Caroline R]

Robert Boutflour found out about how Sheila had been shot once downstairs, and secondly upstairs by a differently configured gun. He found out that Sheila did not die in the bedroom until long after the police surgeon, Dr Craig, had already pronounced her as being dead at 8:44am? He found out that Sheila was still very much alive for a long while after the ambulance crews were sent away from the scene. He found out that after Sheila was originally discovered downstairs in the kitchen, that police had removed a silencer from one of the guns and that this was the one DS "Stan" Jones seized at / from the scene on 7th August 1985 (SBJ/1), and that the gun which fired the fatal bullet under the chin did not have a silencer fitted to its barrel. He knew about the training exercise which was carried out, and that police stage managed the bodies and exhibits around those bodies and took pictures designed to portray Sheila's suicide?

If there is evidence of this, surely that would be MORE than enough to force an appeal?

[Caroline R]

Bridget, there seems to be a theory going round that EP would have been quite satisfied that Sheila was responsible, until the rellies started to produce their own evidence. It seems, that being satisfied, they allowed AE to go in and do a bit of cleaning and were therefore not in a position to say that what was discovered was either something known to them, or even something which they had missed. As they later admitted, mistakes were made.

Theories and conjecture seem to be what the whole case was originally fought on - it will only ever be facts that allow a new appeal. If there are facts to back-up whats been said here - where are they?

[Bridget]

The last one (I think).  Allegedly received info, that is not substantiated because the alleged givers will never put pen to paper for fear of being scapegoated.  It therefore has no evidential use for JB... but aids the defence in understanding the dynamics in play at the time.  At a guess  :D

Or completely misleads them. Not that they seem to buy into any of this Z stuff.

[Bridget]

Theories and conjecture seem to be what the whole case was originally fought on - it will only ever be facts that allow a new appeal. If there are facts to back-up whats been said here - where are they?

A very good question..

[Jane]

It seems to me that the manner in which the relatives evidence was found would have given the police the perfect excuse to reject it. But instead, they all apparently colluded in order bring in this evidence, so why? The police have never had any trouble telling anyone where stick their theories if they don't like them, and why would they do all of this falsifying of evidence - thus risking their careers at the very least - what was in it for them?

Bridget, I'm going to take the simple route and suggest that initially it was done to save face. Had there not previously been a major cock up with an Essex case that went national? They admitted that mistakes had been made, but on a scale of 1-10, where did the marker fall?

[Caroline R]

So to go back to Caroline's earlier question, why go to all that trouble in order to frame Jeremy when Sheila would have been the perfect scapegoat?

Thank you Bridget, it just seems that the more they try and cover up, the more likely they would be discovered.

[Caroline R]

Bridget, I'm going to take the simple route and suggest that initially it was done to save face. Had there not previously been a major cock up with an Essex case that went national? They admitted that mistakes had been made, but on a scale of 1-10, where did the marker fall?

Hi April - saving face is one thing but going along with this kind of conspiracy needs a much larger scale than 1-10! Obvioulsy something isn't right but unless there are facts or an original scource to back up the theory, it's simply never going to be any use to JB. In fact, wild claims without evidence might even hurt his chances!

[Roch]

Or completely misleads them. Not that they seem to buy into any of this Z stuff.

Point taken.  Though I don't think Mike is a lone seeker... and there have been other sources of info provided to the defence in the past. 

[Bridget]

Thank you Bridget, it just seems that the more they try and cover up, the more likely they would be discovered.

It seems that way to me too. So why frame a living person who would be able to do exactly what he has done, i.e. spend 27 years going through the evidence with a fine tooth comb, when a dead person would have been so much less trouble?

[mertol22]

Hi mertol22 don,t understand your post have you been on the lager

No go for carlsberg at present susan  just opened a orange lucozade chilled can, a figure was spotted walking/ in hurry down either a dirt track or a field  when the police arrived, that figure/person was never been ELIMINATED from the investigation why not ?,and what is someone doing on private land at that time of night clearly knew the existance of the track/field.

[Bridget]

Bridget, I'm going to take the simple route and suggest that initially it was done to save face. Had there not previously been a major cock up with an Essex case that went national? They admitted that mistakes had been made, but on a scale of 1-10, where did the marker fall?

Yes I believe there had been a previous major cock up, my memory is fuzzy, a doctor's wife maybe?

What I don't see is why it would have saved any face to frame JB rather than accept the neat and tidy package that was delivered to them in the form of Sheila.

[susan]

Hi mertol22 I had read about that it seems strange that the police never tried to find the person just for the process of elimination if nothing more I was told on this forum as well that the police found a silencer outside the farm house.  Can,t remember of course who told me.  Hope you are getting better.

[Roch]

It seems that way to me too. So why frame a living person who would be able to do exactly what he has done, i.e. spend 27 years going through the evidence with a fine tooth comb, when a dead person would have been so much less trouble?

We are coming to the crux of the matter now Bridget I think.  I can relate to people trying to solve this puzzle.  One person could ask 'how or why did the case turn?'  Another could ask 'why frame a living person when it would have been easier to frame a dead person'?