Author Topic: Daniel and Nicholas Caffell: 22 June 1979-7 August 1985  (Read 138818 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Alias

  • Editor
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9435
  • What is in those 200 boxes?
Re: Daniel and Nicholas Caffell: 22 June 1979-7 August 1985
« Reply #720 on: June 24, 2013, 11:43:PM »
Thank you patti,xxxxx

Didn´t know, Maggie - have the BEST holiday!!!

Caroline R

  • Guest
Re: Daniel and Nicholas Caffell: 22 June 1979-7 August 1985
« Reply #721 on: June 25, 2013, 12:55:AM »
Didn´t know, Maggie - have the BEST holiday!!!

Hope you enjoy your holiday too Alias but if you're going to California,  have no doubt that you will!! XX

Offline Alias

  • Editor
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9435
  • What is in those 200 boxes?
Re: Daniel and Nicholas Caffell: 22 June 1979-7 August 1985
« Reply #722 on: June 25, 2013, 06:07:AM »
Hope you enjoy your holiday too Alias but if you're going to California,  have no doubt that you will!! XX

Thanks Patti (forgot to say) and thanks Caroline! I hope so!
Don´t cut your poor fingers to pieces!  ;D

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: Daniel and Nicholas Caffell: 22 June 1979-7 August 1985
« Reply #723 on: June 25, 2013, 08:11:AM »
Well April, I tried it - pricked my finger with a needle and left a blob of blood on the top of a black metal torch. It only stayed red until it dried at which point it started to oxidise and crumble. I left it overnight and when I picked up the torch the next morning, the dried blood just fell off. I will do it again and post some pictures!!
Ouch Caroline only just seen this post. More self harming!!
The results are certainly food for thought. It made me question, amongst other things, why AE states categorically that she didnt see the blood like a 'blob of jam' on the silencer til they were back at Oak Farm?  How could a grey hair stick to a dryed out deoxygenated flake? Her statement doesn't make sense imo.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: Daniel and Nicholas Caffell: 22 June 1979-7 August 1985
« Reply #724 on: June 25, 2013, 08:24:AM »
Morning Maggie  blood only appears like a blob when it is fresh once dried becomes hard and flakey.  Many things about this case don't seem right to me Maggie not just this silencer "evidence" :'(

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33775
Re: Daniel and Nicholas Caffell: 22 June 1979-7 August 1985
« Reply #725 on: June 25, 2013, 08:48:AM »
Ouch Caroline only just seen this post. More self harming!!
The results are certainly food for thought. It made me question, amongst other things, why AE states categorically that she didnt see the blood like a 'blob of jam' on the silencer til they were back at Oak Farm?  How could a grey hair stick to a dryed out deoxygenated flake? Her statement doesn't make sense imo.


Maggie, good morning. One has to assume that she's not talking about apricot jam, but what may originally have resembled raspberry or strawberry, by the time she found it would have looked more like blackcurrant and would certainly have lost its' sticking power. I'm trying to get inside her head to workout what the implication was. If she's trying to say that it was used as a prodder, I imagine there would have been more blood than that which resembled a "blob of jam" and A colourless hair. 

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: Daniel and Nicholas Caffell: 22 June 1979-7 August 1985
« Reply #726 on: June 25, 2013, 09:03:AM »

Maggie, good morning. One has to assume that she's not talking about apricot jam, but what may originally have resembled raspberry or strawberry, by the time she found it would have looked more like blackcurrant and would certainly have lost its' sticking power. I'm trying to get inside her head to workout what the implication was. If she's trying to say that it was used as a prodder, I imagine there would have been more blood than that which resembled a "blob of jam" and A colourless hair.
Good morning April  ;D   more like Marmite I would think  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Caroline R

  • Guest
Re: Daniel and Nicholas Caffell: 22 June 1979-7 August 1985
« Reply #727 on: June 25, 2013, 12:12:PM »

Maggie, good morning. One has to assume that she's not talking about apricot jam, but what may originally have resembled raspberry or strawberry, by the time she found it would have looked more like blackcurrant and would certainly have lost its' sticking power. I'm trying to get inside her head to workout what the implication was. If she's trying to say that it was used as a prodder, I imagine there would have been more blood than that which resembled a "blob of jam" and A colourless hair.

The silencer seemed to hold all the forensics that the crime scene lacked (blood, paint, DNA) this is what makes it suspicious in my opinion. This and the inconsistencies in regard to how it was found and who was present. It's almost too perfect until you consider what happens to blood when it dries and how likely is it that a 'blob' of blood would still be perfectly preserved after being unscrewed from the rifle and then being replaced back in the gun cupboard. Is it likely to still be attached 3 days after the tragedy? 

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33775
Re: Daniel and Nicholas Caffell: 22 June 1979-7 August 1985
« Reply #728 on: June 25, 2013, 12:32:PM »
The silencer seemed to hold all the forensics that the crime scene lacked (blood, paint, DNA) this is what makes it suspicious in my opinion. This and the inconsistencies in regard to how it was found and who was present. It's almost too perfect until you consider what happens to blood when it dries and how likely is it that a 'blob' of blood would still be perfectly preserved after being unscrewed from the rifle and then being replaced back in the gun cupboard. Is it likely to still be attached 3 days after the tragedy?


After due consideration, Caroline, I would say most probably NOT :)

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: Daniel and Nicholas Caffell: 22 June 1979-7 August 1985
« Reply #729 on: June 25, 2013, 12:45:PM »
The silencer seemed to hold all the forensics that the crime scene lacked (blood, paint, DNA) this is what makes it suspicious in my opinion. This and the inconsistencies in regard to how it was found and who was present. It's almost too perfect until you consider what happens to blood when it dries and how likely is it that a 'blob' of blood would still be perfectly preserved after being unscrewed from the rifle and then being replaced back in the gun cupboard. Is it likely to still be attached 3 days after the tragedy?
The silencer certainly seems to have filled in all the blanks and lack of evidence to my mind Caroline, without it there was little or no case to be built against Jeremy.
The facts as they stand do not add up the whole event of the discovery of the silencer reads like a farce imo
« Last Edit: June 25, 2013, 12:46:PM by maggie »

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: Daniel and Nicholas Caffell: 22 June 1979-7 August 1985
« Reply #730 on: June 25, 2013, 12:54:PM »
Hello april  I have to agree very obviously NOT ;D

Offline tyler

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2395
Re: Daniel and Nicholas Caffell: 22 June 1979-7 August 1985
« Reply #731 on: June 25, 2013, 01:05:PM »
AE described this "blob" as resembling rabbits blood. Which brings me to tell something really embarrasing but,I feel relevant. Yesterday,I somehow ended up with a "blob" of menstrual blood on top of a wrapper on the side of my bath next to the toilet. I stared at it fascinated for ages as it was the approx the size of a match head and really did resemble a blob of jelly/jam. Anyway,I stored it carefully in my bedroom cupboard and today it is no longer bright red and has almost disintegrated and disappeared. I shall update you with results on day three. I really cannot believe how this "blob" of blood allegedly seen on the silencer was not questioned by blood experts. If it really was indeed seen by the relatives,and was indeed blood,then it had to have been fresh that day and certainly not three days old!

Caroline R

  • Guest
Re: Daniel and Nicholas Caffell: 22 June 1979-7 August 1985
« Reply #732 on: June 25, 2013, 01:18:PM »
AE described this "blob" as resembling rabbits blood. Which brings me to tell something really embarrasing but,I feel relevant. Yesterday,I somehow ended up with a "blob" of menstrual blood on top of a wrapper on the side of my bath next to the toilet. I stared at it fascinated for ages as it was the approx the size of a match head and really did resemble a blob of jelly/jam. Anyway,I stored it carefully in my bedroom cupboard and today it is no longer bright red and has almost disintegrated and disappeared. I shall update you with results on day three. I really cannot believe how this "blob" of blood allegedly seen on the silencer was not questioned by blood experts. If it really was indeed seen by the relatives,and was indeed blood,then it had to have been fresh that day and certainly not three days old!

Hi Tyler, I have mentioned this before but a friend of mine is doing a masters in forensic science and I asked her IF in 1985 menstrual blood could/would be identifiable in a test for blood type. She said 'no' they would only have looked for blood type unless instructed to do so!!

Offline tyler

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2395
Re: Daniel and Nicholas Caffell: 22 June 1979-7 August 1985
« Reply #733 on: June 25, 2013, 01:28:PM »
Hi Caroline. That is interesting,although I don't really believe the so called "blob" AE saw was in fact menstrual blood. Sheilas blood in the buckets would have been diluted? However,my little experiment has now fully convinced me that the so called silencer "evidence" HAS to be bogus.

Offline tyler

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2395
Re: Daniel and Nicholas Caffell: 22 June 1979-7 August 1985
« Reply #734 on: June 25, 2013, 01:32:PM »
Hmmm....in hindsight,perhaps I didn't need to reveal the origin of the blood for my experiment! Am obviously too open and honest for my own good! Sorry if I offended anyone :(