You can't have it both ways, the phone calls timed at 3.36 or 3.26am?

[scipio_usmc]

Blood smears which are visible upon Sheila's right forearm and the top part of her right hand /wrist, supports the argument that someone fought or struggle with her prior to her meeting her death upstairs on the bed in the main bedroom...

How did these bloodied smears end up being present upon Sheila's body, and from whom did the blood originate?

The blood on her arms dripped from her neck, you can see how gravity moved it.  The blood found on her clothing and body was tested and determined to have been heres.  That was one of the bog problems in claiming she killed anone.  She should have had high velocity back spatter on her clothing had she shot anyone at close range as claimed and would likely have medium velocity spatter from bludgeoning Nevill.  The lack of any was a major hindrance to the defense.  he lack of any gunshot residue was another problem.  How do you argue on one hand that she wore gloves an dother protective clothing that she disposed of off premises before police could arrive and yet that she intended to commit murder suicede?  Only a person who intended to escape liability and was not in the throes of mental illness would where protective clothing.  That is the quandry the defense found itself in.  Do you go with mental illness or intentional murder and that she only committed suicide afterwards when she realized she had no way out?   

Both are lacking in evidentiary support and would be largely bare bones claims but the latter would conflict with Jeremy's claims about what Nevill told him.

No matter how you slice it Jeremy's allegation that Nevill called him messed up the defense tremendously.  That shut a lot of doors.

If Jeremy let someone else find he bodies and lawyered up so didn't say much to police then where would things stand?

1) They would have no clue how someone could get inside the house.

2) would have came to the conclusion she probably did it all on their own based upon where the gun was

3) when they found the results formt he lab including about the suppressor having group A blood they would suspect that Sheila can't have done it and that someone else did

4) the only one who obviously would benefit would be Jeremy but argubly it could be said Colin Caffell had something to gain as well.

Is having motive enough though? 

Jeremy was sunk by the phone call proving he knew about the murders and Julie's testimony about him stating he had planned it for a long time and called her to announce his plan was being put into effect that night. 

Short of establishing that she did kill everyone and herself there is no way to get his conviction vacated.  That in turn requires either missed evidence like back spatter of the victims on her or proving the suppressor was doctored.  Just alleging such is not enough proof must be submitted to the court.

The defense had their own expert lift and test blood from the suppressor so had the ability to test the blood for anything desired. One common sign of planted blood is for said blood to have a preservative agent in it.  Blood samples usually have preservative agents added.  So if blood from a sample is used this will be a tell-tale sign. With respect to high velocity back spatter it will spray inside leaving tiny droplets.  There also will be more substantial drops but they will not travel as far.  The blood will only travel several inches.  So blood too far in the suppressor would be a sign it was poured in. Likewise a lack of blood sprayed around inside but just a drip in the front or what looks like a drip in 1-2 random locations would suggest a dropper were used or poured from a vial.  The distribtuion fo the blood found is consistent with being sprayed inside like back spatter. Indeed microscop drops were found on the first 8 baffles by the defense expert and such blood tested group A there was no findings of any perservatives or anything that would suggest it had been planted. 

Neither the prosecution nor the defense saved the blood exhibts so neither sample coudl be DNA tested.  That's about the only scientific test that could have been done on appeal that matters.

So scientifically there is nothing at all to estbalish the blood was planted.  The only hope left to proving it would be for someone to come forward cliaming they planted it an dhow or that someone else told them they planted it and how or someone else involved in a conspiracy coming forward.  Short of that or Julie recanting her testimony there is not really anything a defense lawyer can raise to get this conviction vacated.   

Also short of that most people convinced of his guilt will never change their minds.
   

[mike tesko]

Blood smears present upon Sheila's right forearm and the top part of her right hand were never sampled or analysed, there is simply no evidence that this was done at all, so it still remains a mystery as to where and whom this blood originated from.  How did such blood get into these positions if Sheila was laid down on the bed or the bedroom floor, simce her own blood could not have dripped into these locations horizontally? If she was stood up horizontally at the time these drivels of blood landed uoon her right forearm, additional blood which originated frim herself would also have splashed upon the bedroom carpet and easily have been identifiable as hers because according to the blood experts testimony, her blood was unique in that of all the victims who died she was the omly one who had A type, and AK1 type blood. Yet despite a multitude of bloodstained carpet samples being taken from the bedroom carpet, none of her blood was found or identified in the bedroom as belonging to, or originating from her, so none of her blood ended up on the bedroom carpet in the vicinity of where police photographed her body later on.

The blood smears on her right arm might not be drips of blood, but got there as a result of contact with the tips of bloodied fingers, which came about when her hand and right arm were repositioned upon and around the rifle...

blood which came from the fatal bullet entry wound at no stage ran, oozed or poured from this particular wound in a vertical fashion, it appears to have only ever escaped from the wound under the chin in a horizontal fashion. With this in mind then, how was it possible for the blood on her right forearm to drip horizontally onto that part of her right arm, in view of the fact that nlood which emanated from the fatal wound site under the chin ran, oozed or poured from it horizontally at all times?  By contrast, blood from the original non fatal neck shot did run vertically from that part of her neck. This helps to explain why both of the shots received by Sheila were inflicted at different times, since blood ran, oozed, or piured from the non fatal shot across the neck, in a vertical fashion, whereas, blood which oozed, ran or poured from the fatal shot under the chin, ran horizontally from the wound. There is no blood identified as belonging to Sheila fiund anywgere on the bedroom carpet which is really quite astonishing. Even more astonishing is that despite the presence of so much of June Bambers blood all over the bedroom carpet, none of Junes blood found its way onto Sheila's nightdress...

Perhaps even more astonishingly is the fact that no gun powder residue was found anywgere upon the nightdress she was photographed to be wearing, yet no matter who was respinsible for shooting her under the chin, the rifle which fired the fatal shot had to be geld flush against the body at the time the fatal shot was administered...

[scipio_usmc]

Blood smears present upon Sheila's right forearm and the top part of her right hand were never sampled or analysed, there is simply no evidence that this was done at all, so it still remains a mystery as to where and whom this blood originated from.  How did such blood get into these positions if Sheila was laid down on the bed or the bedroom floor, simce her own blood could not have dripped into these locations horizontally? If she was stood up horizontally at the time these drivels of blood landed uoon her right forearm, additional blood which originated frim herself would also have splashed upon the bedroom carpet and easily have been identifiable as hers because according to the blood experts testimony, her blood was unique in that of all the victims who died she was the omly one who had A type, and AK1 type blood. Yet despite a multitude of bloodstained carpet samples being taken from the bedroom carpet, none of her blood was found or identified in the bedroom as belonging to, or originating from her, so none of her blood ended up on the bedroom carpet in the vicinity of where police photographed her body later on.

The blood on her arms are clearly drips. It is not spatter.  Spatter is what gets on a killer or even someone near a victim being shot or battered.

The most recent interpetation was, 'following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress."

That is what a modern blood interpretation expert stated the blood on her arms and gown demonstrated.

The blood smears on her right arm might not be drips of blood, but got there as a result of contact with the tips of bloodied fingers, which came about when her hand and right arm were repositioned upon and around the rifle...

Blood transfers from fingers look different, this blood dripped and then ran down by gravity

blood which came from the fatal bullet entry wound at no stage ran, oozed or poured from this particular wound in a vertical fashion, it appears to have only ever escaped from the wound under the chin in a horizontal fashion. With this in mind then, how was it possible for the blood on her right forearm to drip horizontally onto that part of her right arm, in view of the fact that nlood which emanated from the fatal wound site under the chin ran, oozed or poured from it horizontally at all times?  By contrast, blood from the original non fatal neck shot did run vertically from that part of her neck. This helps to explain why both of the shots received by Sheila were inflicted at different times, since blood ran, oozed, or piured from the non fatal shot across the neck, in a vertical fashion, whereas, blood which oozed, ran or poured from the fatal shot under the chin, ran horizontally from the wound. There is no blood identified as belonging to Sheila fiund anywgere on the bedroom carpet which is really quite astonishing.

She had her head propped up against the table and her body was pulled down flat after she was dead according to modern blood interpretation.  The blood dripped on her.  After you die your heart stops pumping and you stop bleeding.  Pools of blood can be distrubed when removing a body but not true blood flow from the veins or arteries.

Even more astonishing is that despite the presence of so much of June Bambers blood all over the bedroom carpet, none of Junes blood found its way onto Sheila's nightdress...

That speaks to her not being in the room at the time June was shot.  If she was within a couple of feet of June's body she would most likely have gotten spatter on her nightgown.  This is one of the things that suggests she didn't do it.

Perhaps even more astonishingly is the fact that no gun powder residue was found anywgere upon the nightdress she was photographed to be wearing, yet no matter who was respinsible for shooting her under the chin, the rifle which fired the fatal shot had to be geld flush against the body at the time the fatal shot was administered...

That speaks to the gun being aimed at her by someone else as opposed to her holding the gun and firing it. If she hugged the gun and fired herself then as you say she would have gotten at least some GSR on her clothing and hands in the process.  You are identifying some of the reasons that prosecutors said she can't have been the killer.

[mike tesko]

Sheila did not kill herself, but she almost certainly played a signifiicant role in the shootings of the other four victims...

[grahameb]

The blood on her arms dripped from her neck, you can see how gravity moved it.  The blood found on her clothing and body was tested and determined to have been heres.  That was one of the bog problems in claiming she killed anone.  She should have had high velocity back spatter on her clothing had she shot anyone at close range as claimed and would likely have medium velocity spatter from bludgeoning Nevill.  The lack of any was a major hindrance to the defense.  he lack of any gunshot residue was another problem.  How do you argue on one hand that she wore gloves an dother protective clothing that she disposed of off premises before police could arrive and yet that she intended to commit murder suicede?  Only a person who intended to escape liability and was not in the throes of mental illness would where protective clothing.  That is the quandry the defense found itself in.  Do you go with mental illness or intentional murder and that she only committed suicide afterwards when she realized she had no way out?   

Both are lacking in evidentiary support and would be largely bare bones claims but the latter would conflict with Jeremy's claims about what Nevill told him.

No matter how you slice it Jeremy's allegation that Nevill called him messed up the defense tremendously.  That shut a lot of doors.

If Jeremy let someone else find he bodies and lawyered up so didn't say much to police then where would things stand?

1) They would have no clue how someone could get inside the house.

2) would have came to the conclusion she probably did it all on their own based upon where the gun was

3) when they found the results formt he lab including about the suppressor having group A blood they would suspect that Sheila can't have done it and that someone else did

4) the only one who obviously would benefit would be Jeremy but argubly it could be said Colin Caffell had something to gain as well.

Is having motive enough though? 

Jeremy was sunk by the phone call proving he knew about the murders and Julie's testimony about him stating he had planned it for a long time and called her to announce his plan was being put into effect that night. 

Short of establishing that she did kill everyone and herself there is no way to get his conviction vacated.  That in turn requires either missed evidence like back spatter of the victims on her or proving the suppressor was doctored.  Just alleging such is not enough proof must be submitted to the court.

The defense had their own expert lift and test blood from the suppressor so had the ability to test the blood for anything desired. One common sign of planted blood is for said blood to have a preservative agent in it.  Blood samples usually have preservative agents added.  So if blood from a sample is used this will be a tell-tale sign. With respect to high velocity back spatter it will spray inside leaving tiny droplets.  There also will be more substantial drops but they will not travel as far.  The blood will only travel several inches.  So blood too far in the suppressor would be a sign it was poured in. Likewise a lack of blood sprayed around inside but just a drip in the front or what looks like a drip in 1-2 random locations would suggest a dropper were used or poured from a vial.  The distribtuion fo the blood found is consistent with being sprayed inside like back spatter. Indeed microscop drops were found on the first 8 baffles by the defense expert and such blood tested group A there was no findings of any perservatives or anything that would suggest it had been planted. 

Neither the prosecution nor the defense saved the blood exhibts so neither sample coudl be DNA tested.  That's about the only scientific test that could have been done on appeal that matters.

So scientifically there is nothing at all to estbalish the blood was planted.  The only hope left to proving it would be for someone to come forward cliaming they planted it an dhow or that someone else told them they planted it and how or someone else involved in a conspiracy coming forward.  Short of that or Julie recanting her testimony there is not really anything a defense lawyer can raise to get this conviction vacated.   

Also short of that most people convinced of his guilt will never change their minds.
 

But of course you have the same problems if you blame Jeremy for the shootings. He too would have had backspatter all over him. It is a rather lame argument that the police didn't examine him til about a week afte the event. (1) The police went over his house with a fine tooth comb and found nothing. (2) He had neighbours who reported nothing unusual eg him burning clothes (or wetsuits). (3) Julie Mugford reported nothing unusual such as bloodspots etc and she was with him constantly, even sleeping with him.
So what do we have in the way of forensic evidence? Nothing. Nothing that can connect Jeremy to the crime. The only evidence that they have is (1) circumstantial evidence ie so and so said this. So and so said that. and (2) The dodgy silencer evidence, again so and so said they found. Oh I almost forgot (3) The telephone call Jeremy said he received from his father. Why this was doubted I do not know? All I can suggest is that it didn't suit the prosecution to believe it because it didn't fit in with their own scenario?
Not much to go on is there? That is the sum and substance the prosecution had. All I can say is that the prosecution counsel must have been one of the best in order to convince he jury (all but 2 off of course) that Jeremy must have done it. I followed the case closely back in 86 and I for one was baffled as to why he was convicted?

[scipio_usmc]

Sheila did not kill herself, but she almost certainly played a signifiicant role in the shootings of the other four victims...

There is no physical evidence of any kind to link her to shooting any of the other victims or beating Nevill.  I realize you suggest this is because police concealed evidence but there is nothing to establish this happened it is just a theory that is unsupported.

Nor is there anything to establish the police killed her as opposed to Jeremy doing so.  There is no reliable evidence that she was alive when police entered and if police had shot her then Jeremy would have heard the shots unless the suppressor were attached at the time and then police put it away.  With all the police on scene if one of them shot her then one would have talked by now and there simply is no reason why any of the would take the murder weapon and shoot her with it instead of shooting her with their own weapon. At best they would shoot her in self-defense with their own weapons.

Why would they conceal shooting her in self-defense and conceal evidece she murdered the rest instead pretending Jeremy killed everyone?  It is a grand conspiracy and hassle to conceal for no reason that she wa skilled in self-defense, and for no reason to frame Jeremy for her death as well as the rest of the family.

This makes less sense than the noble framing theory even.   

[Alias]

But of course you have the same problems if you blame Jeremy for the shootings. He too would have had backspatter all over him. It is a rather lame argument that the police didn't examine him til about a week afte the event. (1) The police went over his house with a fine tooth comb and found nothing. (2) He had neighbours who reported nothing unusual eg him burning clothes (or wetsuits). (3) Julie Mugford reported nothing unusual such as bloodspots etc and she was with him constantly, even sleeping with him.
So what do we have in the way of forensic evidence? Nothing. Nothing that can connect Jeremy to the crime. The only evidence that they have is (1) circumstantial evidence ie so and so said this. So and so said that. and (2) The dodgy silencer evidence, again so and so said they found. Oh I almost forgot (3) The telephone call Jeremy said he received from his father. Why this was doubted I do not know? All I can suggest is that it didn't suit the prosecution to believe it because it didn't fit in with their own scenario?
Not much to go on is there? That is the sum and substance the prosecution had. All I can say is that the prosecution counsel must have been one of the best in order to convince he jury (all but 2 off of course) that Jeremy must have done it. I followed the case closely back in 86 and I for one was baffled as to why he was convicted?

Very good post, Grahame.

__________________

WOULD there neccessarily have been any back-spatter on the shooter? The rifle was long.

[scipio_usmc]

But of course you have the same problems if you blame Jeremy for the shootings. He too would have had backspatter all over him. It is a rather lame argument that the police didn't examine him til about a week afte the event. (1) The police went over his house with a fine tooth comb and found nothing. (2) He had neighbours who reported nothing unusual eg him burning clothes (or wetsuits). (3) Julie Mugford reported nothing unusual such as bloodspots etc and she was with him constantly, even sleeping with him.

Blood can be washed away off a body immediately, can be washed out of clothing though it is wiser to throw clothing worn during a murder and unless a microscope is used fine high vleocity spatter will not be visible to the naked eye.     

Jeremy went home after the murders, waited a while after hanging up before calling Julie and then waited a good amount of time after claling her to finally call police. He had the opportunity to bathe and to change his clothes.

He therfoe had the abiliy to wash away all blood evidence and gusnhot residue before police ever set eyes on him.  Whethe rhe did so we will never know because no one tested him!

Your claim that the blood spatter and other evidence would still be around weeks later on his body is complete nonsense.  At best they could hope to find such evidence on clothing if he kept it and did not wash it adequately.

He had ample time to wash or get rid of his clothese before his house was searched.

Far from being lame my argument is a sound one.

Sheila's body and clothing were inspected with no reason or opportunity for her to wash evidence awya.  his wasn't.  His body and clothing he was wearing at the time of the murders wasn't.

So what do we have in the way of forensic evidence? Nothing. Nothing that can connect Jeremy to the crime. The only evidence that they have is (1) circumstantial evidence ie so and so said this. So and so said that. and (2) The dodgy silencer evidence, again so and so said they found. Oh I almost forgot (3) The telephone call Jeremy said he received from his father. Why this was doubted I do not know? All I can suggest is that it didn't suit the prosecution to believe it because it didn't fit in with their own scenario?
Not much to go on is there? That is the sum and substance the prosecution had. All I can say is that the prosecution counsel must have been one of the best in order to convince he jury (all but 2 off of course) that Jeremy must have done it. I followed the case closely back in 86 and I for one was baffled as to why he was convicted?

Evidence Sheila could not have killed herself isn't dodgy it is extremely devastating.

His claim that he received the clal makes no sense at all and I explained why multiple times here again is the case against him, he's done stick a fork in him:

If Jeremy were innocent then he would not have been aware of the murders.  If he were innocent then someone would have found the bodies in the morning when they went to work and it was discovered the house was still locked up and Nevill was not working.

Most of what came out of Jeremy’s mouth were lies specifically designed to the further the frame job that he undertook.

1) Jeremy made up the phone call from Neville.  Evidence of this is:

A) the telephone company said that the call was terminated by being hung up at Goldhanger and that the phone would not have cleared for 1-2 minutes

B) There is no evidence that Nevill would have been in a position to call Jeremy. 

The killer intentionally removed the bedroom phone in advance of the murders so that the victims would not be able to call for help.  The claim that the phone was removed because of  a storm damaged the cordless phone makes no sense.  The cordless phone was damaged but the wired phone was not damaged it worked perfectly so the claim it stopped working and had to be replaced is not credible. If it had actually been broken it might be a credible possibility but it wasn’t.  So clearly this phone was removed in contemplation of the killings and Sheila could not plan a psychotic episode and decide to remove the phone in contemplation of it.   

It is obvious the killer planned to commit the murders in the middle of the night while most victims were in bed.  Everyone was in their own bedroom when shot except Sheila because shooting her in her bedroom too would make it look like she also was murdered.  The evidence establishes that the killer loaded 11 shots in the gun, the maximum load.  To do so the killer had to load a full magazine, chamber a round, release the magazine, load another round in the magazine then reinsert the magazine.  This would leave 1 in the chamber and 10 in the magazine which is the maximum complement.  Sheila would not have the know how to do this nor have a reason to do it if she were in a crazy rage. 

The killer entered the master bedroom and opened fire on June and Nevill firing 11 rounds, 7 of which hit June and 4 of which hit Nevill.  When the gun was empty either Nevill ran down to the kitchen with the killer in pursuit or the killer ran down to the kitchen with Nevill in pursuit.  They struggled over control of the weapon with the suppressor attached breaking the ceiling light shade in the process, scratching the underneath of the aga and knocking things over. Eventually the killer gained sole control of the weapon, bludgeoned Nevill with it knocking him unconscious then reloaded and fired 4 rounds into his head killing him.  There was no opportunity for Nevill to use the phone.

No one has put forth a credible explanation of why Nevill would have been in the kitchen
making this call to Jeremy and that Sheila would push down on the phone button to hang up the call and march Nevill up to the bedroom to shoot him there with June instead of shooting him in the kitchen while he was on the phone.

 C) No one has put forth any rational reason why Nevill would call Jeremy either.  This is a biggie, without any rational reason why he would do so the claim he phoned is not credible, particularly in light of everything else. 

i) Nevill was bigger and stronger than Jeremy so why would he call Jeremy to come disarm her instead of trying himself?  It would take Jeremy 15-20 minutes to arrive and then have to try to find a way in the locked house.  Why would Nevill wait that long hoping that she doesn’t shoot anyone before Jeremy could arrive?  Nevill had a better ability to disarm her than Jeremy did because he was stronger already there so had the opportunity and even necessity.

ii) Nevill had another advantage, he had a calming effect on Sheila and was the most likely person to be able to talk her down.  Jeremy had the opposite effect and would likely cause her to shoot.  So why would he call someone who would make the situation more explosive?  He didn’t even trust Jeremy, he would expect Jeremy to purposely try to get her to shoot Nevill.

iii) If Nevill had enough time to wait for Jeremy to answer the phone then he had plenty of time to arm himself.  If Nevill were too scared to try to disarm her with his bare hands then he would definitely use the time to arm himself.  The kitchen had guns, knifes and other less lethal potential weapons.  Why would Nevill not grab any  but instead use the phone knowing that he would be an easy target if she caught him and that it could very well anger her more and make her start shooting, which she had not yet done.  If she had opened fire already he would have announced that she had done so if he truly made a call and request an ambulance be sent. 

iv) Jeremy had an answering machine hooked up usually.  It only rang a few times before the answering machine would pick up.  The phone was kept on the bottom floor, Jeremy had no bedroom phone.  So Nevill had no way to know if Jeremy would hear the phone, would wake up before the answering machine picked up and wound go down to listen to the answering machine.  It would take him a couple of minutes to walk to the phone so at best he could hope to leave a message and hope Jeremy would listen to it immediately instead of when he got up in the morning which would be too late.  If he truly were scared he would call someone who he would be sure would answer not Jeremy. 

v) If Sheila were with him then he would not try to make a call in front of her and she would have no reason to let him.  Why would she do nothing as he dialed, do nothing the entire time he waited from Jeremy to answer (which would have been a couple of minutes), not do anything as he spoke but rather wait until he got his message through to then hang up?  Moreover, as she put her hand on the phone to hand up she would have had only one hand on the gun and been extremely close to Nevill so in perfect position for him to disarm her.  Why would she let him make the call instead of shooting him, arch him upstairs and shoot him in the bedroom?

There is simply no rational reason why Nevill would make the call that Jeremy alleges he received and there is no objective evidence that things occurred the way Jeremy claims.  The testimony was that he ended the call and could not have immediately redialed as claimed. Why would Sheila leave the phone off the hook anyway, what would she care if it rang no one could answer it anyway.

2) This is hardly the only thing Jeremy made up to support his frame job.  He committed a series of lies all of which were aimed at convincing police his sister did it.

“The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby. Those who saw the appellant at the scene at that time described him as remarkably calm. At some stage during their conversations that morning PC Myall and the appellant spoke about motor cars. The appellant said that the Osea Road Caravan Site company, "would be able to stand him a Porsche" car at some point during the year.”

He knew they were all dead before police even entered the house and found the bodies, he intended to use the money to buy a Porsche.  Why did he lie and claim he took her shooting and that she had fired all guns in the house?  He did it so police would believe she killed them when they found her with the gun and everyone dead.  He also invented the rabbit fairytale to convince police that she did it.  She would never go for the gun herself so he made the story about the gun and bullets being within easy grasp and suggesting that she went crazy and grabbed the gun because it was right in front of her as she flipped out.  If she had taken the gun from the closet herself it would have had the scope and suppressor attached.  So he made up this tale the gun did not fit in the closet with the accessories attached and that they were not attached to pretend they would not have been attached when she picked it up.  This was to conceal that he had removed the scope specifically to carry out the murders and that he had removed the suppressor after the murders.  These lies were carefully calculated.  His story about the rabbits makes no sense for a wide variety of reasons not the least of which is that so many witnesses say he had no interest in guns, didn’t like to shoot vermin and they had not seen him do so ever with the murder weapon.  There was also testimony about how Nevill would not removed the scope because he didn’t like to take the time to re-zero it.  Jeremy originally stated he had not used the gun the week prior to the murders.  But when it turned out that he last known person to use it said that the suppressor and scope had been attached when he found it in the closet and that he returned it the same way Jeremy changed his story.  Jeremy changed his story and lied specifically to challenge these damning claims made by others.  He claimed that he used it multiple times and that sometimes it had been put away with the accessories attached but other times it was put away without them.  He claimed he used it however he found it he didn’t add or remove accessories.  He claimed Nevill had been the one removing and attaching the so indicated Nevill used it many times during the week.  He also claimed that it was his gun but that he stored it at WHF.  He had no interest in guns while Nevill shot competitively, his claim is not credible tha tit was his.  Nor is the claim it was used many times a week credible since it looked brand new right before the murders.  It obviously was not used much.  It is obvious not only that Jeremy lied but that he kept changing his claims and tailored his lies for a specific purpose. 

Further evidence that he was lying and staging things was the box of ammunition he staged in the kitchen.  He insisted this box had not been moved and that it had much more ammo in it so was the source of ammunition use din the murders.  He claimed it had been full or near full so 48-50 rounds.  25 rounds were fired so 23-25 should have remained.  Instead 30 remained.  Why would Sheila use 20 rounds from the box and then go to the closet to get 5 more rounds instead of taking them from the box as well?  It makes no sense and is not credible.  This establishes the ammo box was staged.             

Why would he need to lie and frame her unless he were the real killer and how would he have known about the murders before anyone else unless he were the real killer?

3) His actions don’t make sense for someone allegedly receiving the call he claims he received.  That is more evidence he made up the call.

Someone receiving such a call would either go over immediately to check out what is going on even if that entails just spying through the windows which could safely be done, or to call police and then go over for a look

He called Julie instead.  Why would a rational person in his place wake up Julie?  She didn’t care for his family so it is not as if she would want to know so she could go to WHF and sit with him out of concern.  He didn’t know if anything happened or not supposedly.  A rational person would wait to find out if anything happened and at that point if he needs a shoulder to cry on then to call his girlfriend for comfort.  Why did he call her?  He called her as a follow-up to his previous message that tonight was the night he would kill them.  He announced he had not slept and everything was going according to plan and there was trouble at WHF.  At 6AM he called again telling her not to go to work because she would need to speak to police and be a witness for him.  He wanted her to tell police he told her there was trouble at WHF so that there would be a third party witness so he could pretend that he had received a call from Nevill.  The whole thing was clearly contrived and makes no sense other than that it was contrived for the purpose Julie stated in her testimony. 

After speaking to her what did he do?  We don’t know for sure, we just know a good amount of time passed between his call to her and finally calling police.  Presumably he used the opportunity to finish washing up and change his clothes.  He finally calls police and then what/  He asks police to pick him up because he wants them to see he is at his home and was not near the scene.  The tell him to drive and meet them there.  Does he go over and spy around for a while?  No he parks on the side of the road, waits for them to go by and then pulls up later so that they can see him pull up because he wanted them to be able to say he got there after them.  Why would he act this way unless he did it?  Why wa she desperate for them to see he arrived after them and why was this his priority instead of trying to find out how his family was?     

Then instead of prompting police to go inside and find out how his family was, he suggested they be careful because there were so many guns and detailed them to police and claimed Sheila fired them all.  Instead of being upset he was calm and talked about cars and guy stuff.  None of his actions fit someone receiving the call he claimed all his actions were contrived.

The bottom line is that there is no credible evidence to suggest he received a phone call from Nevill as he claims.  This is a huge problem for anyone suggesting he is innocent because unless he did receive such call he is guilty.

4) A whole lot of other evidence suggests Sheila did not do it including evidence she can’t have shot herself. 

A) No credible motive was ever set forth as to why she would do it.  No credible evidence set forth that she would be at risk of delusions at 3A on the night in question because her medication was in fact taken and by all account was working and there is no medical reason why it would have suddenly stopped working- she was not on any narcotic at the time.  The claim that 100MG was too low a dose is not supported by today’s medical evidence.

B) There is no physical evidence to suggest she shot anyone.  No gunshot residue was found on her body or clothing, no abrasions or cuts to her feet or hands as would be expected had she been the one Nevill struggled against, no blood spatter from the victims as would be expected had she fired the shots or bludgeoned Nevill.

C) The suppressor proves that she could not have shot herself

D) The blood stains on her body indicates she died sitting up but then her body was pulled down to the floor by the killer and the gun then planted in her hand and on her.
 
5) Sheila insists that Jeremy had been planning the murders a long time and gave a very detailed account about it.  She also indicated he called her right before the murders to say tonight is the night and called after to let her know it was done.  He told her more details later.  Her account is credible because of the details, how it fits the evidence and also because if she were making it up she would not make up a hitman story and finger a hitman.  She would have said he told her he did it directly if she were going to make up a story. It did not take long for the named hitman to prove he had an alibi.  If she made up a hitman story she would say he did not name the supposed killer.     

Far from there being no evidence to convict Jeremy this is more than enough to convict Jeremy and many people have been convicted with less.

What is the response of people like yourself to this evidence?  You largely ignore it.  People say there is no evidence and when I write a long post detailing the evidence people say it is too long to read and they don’t want to be bothered.  That doesn’t make the evidence go away it just demonstrates you have no ability to rebut it.

We are told that the police, Julie and family all lied and joined together to frame Jeremy.  Why would they do this?  No rational explanation had even been set forth.  We are told the police shot Sheila and framed Jeremy for it as well as the other murders though it makes no sense and all and worse there is no evidence to support such.  We just are supposed to assume that the police concealed gunshot residue and other evidence found on Sheila though there is no proof this happened.  We are to assume that police fabricated the suppressor evidence though there is no evidence to prove it.  We are to assume Julie lied as did everyone else though there is no proof.

Why should we assume it?  Because police in the past have been caught doing bad things so we should assume they did it here, if that is what we assume though no one can be convicted because all evidence must be discounted.  No police lab work is ever trustworthy they can plant blood and evidence.  No need for defendants to prove it they can allege it and go scot free.

No matter what crap you come up with it won’t make the claim that he received a call from Nevill credible and that alone is enough to suggest he killed everyone but in combination with his other lies and the other evidence this is especially the case. 

The start of trying to prove he is innocent is proving the phone call occurred which means establishing a rational reason that Nevill would call Jeremy and establish Jeremy’s reaction made sense and fits what someone receiving such a call would do.  You have no ability to do that because the call makes no sense nor does his alleged reaction. 

After that one then needs to take on the physical evidence by producing proof it was doctored and that everyone lied the bare bones claim they could have done so doesn’t create reasonable doubt.  Reasonable doubt requires proof there is a reasonably likelihood it happened.
 
Saying you don’t want to believe the evidence doesn’t make it go away.

[grahameb]

Blood can be washed away off a body immediately, can be washed out of clothing though it is wiser to throw clothing worn during a murder and unless a microscope is used fine high vleocity spatter will not be visible to the naked eye.    

Jeremy went home after the murders, waited a while after hanging up before calling Julie and then waited a good amount of time after claling her to finally call police. He had the opportunity to bathe and to change his clothes.

He therfoe had the abiliy to wash away all blood evidence and gusnhot residue before police ever set eyes on him.  Whethe rhe did so we will never know because no one tested him!

Your claim that the blood spatter and other evidence would still be around weeks later on his body is complete nonsense.  At best they could hope to find such evidence on clothing if he kept it and did not wash it adequately.

He had ample time to wash or get rid of his clothese before his house was searched.

Far from being lame my argument is a sound one.

Sheila's body and clothing were inspected with no reason or opportunity for her to wash evidence awya.  his wasn't.  His body and clothing he was wearing at the time of the murders wasn't.

Evidence Sheila could not have killed herself isn't dodgy it is extremely devastating.

His claim that he received the clal makes no sense at all and I explained why multiple times here again is the case against him, he's done stick a fork in him:

If Jeremy were innocent then he would not have been aware of the murders.  If he were innocent then someone would have found the bodies in the morning when they went to work and it was discovered the house was still locked up and Nevill was not working.

Most of what came out of Jeremy’s mouth were lies specifically designed to the further the frame job that he undertook.

1) Jeremy made up the phone call from Neville.  Evidence of this is:

A) the telephone company said that the call was terminated by being hung up at Goldhanger and that the phone would not have cleared for 1-2 minutes

B) There is no evidence that Nevill would have been in a position to call Jeremy. 

The killer intentionally removed the bedroom phone in advance of the murders so that the victims would not be able to call for help.  The claim that the phone was removed because of  a storm damaged the cordless phone makes no sense.  The cordless phone was damaged but the wired phone was not damaged it worked perfectly so the claim it stopped working and had to be replaced is not credible. If it had actually been broken it might be a credible possibility but it wasn’t.  So clearly this phone was removed in contemplation of the killings and Sheila could not plan a psychotic episode and decide to remove the phone in contemplation of it.   

It is obvious the killer planned to commit the murders in the middle of the night while most victims were in bed.  Everyone was in their own bedroom when shot except Sheila because shooting her in her bedroom too would make it look like she also was murdered.  The evidence establishes that the killer loaded 11 shots in the gun, the maximum load.  To do so the killer had to load a full magazine, chamber a round, release the magazine, load another round in the magazine then reinsert the magazine.  This would leave 1 in the chamber and 10 in the magazine which is the maximum complement.  Sheila would not have the know how to do this nor have a reason to do it if she were in a crazy rage. 

The killer entered the master bedroom and opened fire on June and Nevill firing 11 rounds, 7 of which hit June and 4 of which hit Nevill.  When the gun was empty either Nevill ran down to the kitchen with the killer in pursuit or the killer ran down to the kitchen with Nevill in pursuit.  They struggled over control of the weapon with the suppressor attached breaking the ceiling light shade in the process, scratching the underneath of the aga and knocking things over. Eventually the killer gained sole control of the weapon, bludgeoned Nevill with it knocking him unconscious then reloaded and fired 4 rounds into his head killing him.  There was no opportunity for Nevill to use the phone.

No one has put forth a credible explanation of why Nevill would have been in the kitchen
making this call to Jeremy and that Sheila would push down on the phone button to hang up the call and march Nevill up to the bedroom to shoot him there with June instead of shooting him in the kitchen while he was on the phone.

 C) No one has put forth any rational reason why Nevill would call Jeremy either.  This is a biggie, without any rational reason why he would do so the claim he phoned is not credible, particularly in light of everything else. 

i) Nevill was bigger and stronger than Jeremy so why would he call Jeremy to come disarm her instead of trying himself?  It would take Jeremy 15-20 minutes to arrive and then have to try to find a way in the locked house.  Why would Nevill wait that long hoping that she doesn’t shoot anyone before Jeremy could arrive?  Nevill had a better ability to disarm her than Jeremy did because he was stronger already there so had the opportunity and even necessity.

ii) Nevill had another advantage, he had a calming effect on Sheila and was the most likely person to be able to talk her down.  Jeremy had the opposite effect and would likely cause her to shoot.  So why would he call someone who would make the situation more explosive?  He didn’t even trust Jeremy, he would expect Jeremy to purposely try to get her to shoot Nevill.

iii) If Nevill had enough time to wait for Jeremy to answer the phone then he had plenty of time to arm himself.  If Nevill were too scared to try to disarm her with his bare hands then he would definitely use the time to arm himself.  The kitchen had guns, knifes and other less lethal potential weapons.  Why would Nevill not grab any  but instead use the phone knowing that he would be an easy target if she caught him and that it could very well anger her more and make her start shooting, which she had not yet done.  If she had opened fire already he would have announced that she had done so if he truly made a call and request an ambulance be sent. 

iv) Jeremy had an answering machine hooked up usually.  It only rang a few times before the answering machine would pick up.  The phone was kept on the bottom floor, Jeremy had no bedroom phone.  So Nevill had no way to know if Jeremy would hear the phone, would wake up before the answering machine picked up and wound go down to listen to the answering machine.  It would take him a couple of minutes to walk to the phone so at best he could hope to leave a message and hope Jeremy would listen to it immediately instead of when he got up in the morning which would be too late.  If he truly were scared he would call someone who he would be sure would answer not Jeremy. 

v) If Sheila were with him then he would not try to make a call in front of her and she would have no reason to let him.  Why would she do nothing as he dialed, do nothing the entire time he waited from Jeremy to answer (which would have been a couple of minutes), not do anything as he spoke but rather wait until he got his message through to then hang up?  Moreover, as she put her hand on the phone to hand up she would have had only one hand on the gun and been extremely close to Nevill so in perfect position for him to disarm her.  Why would she let him make the call instead of shooting him, arch him upstairs and shoot him in the bedroom?

There is simply no rational reason why Nevill would make the call that Jeremy alleges he received and there is no objective evidence that things occurred the way Jeremy claims.  The testimony was that he ended the call and could not have immediately redialed as claimed. Why would Sheila leave the phone off the hook anyway, what would she care if it rang no one could answer it anyway.

2) This is hardly the only thing Jeremy made up to support his frame job.  He committed a series of lies all of which were aimed at convincing police his sister did it.

“The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby. Those who saw the appellant at the scene at that time described him as remarkably calm. At some stage during their conversations that morning PC Myall and the appellant spoke about motor cars. The appellant said that the Osea Road Caravan Site company, "would be able to stand him a Porsche" car at some point during the year.”

He knew they were all dead before police even entered the house and found the bodies, he intended to use the money to buy a Porsche.  Why did he lie and claim he took her shooting and that she had fired all guns in the house?  He did it so police would believe she killed them when they found her with the gun and everyone dead.  He also invented the rabbit fairytale to convince police that she did it.  She would never go for the gun herself so he made the story about the gun and bullets being within easy grasp and suggesting that she went crazy and grabbed the gun because it was right in front of her as she flipped out.  If she had taken the gun from the closet herself it would have had the scope and suppressor attached.  So he made up this tale the gun did not fit in the closet with the accessories attached and that they were not attached to pretend they would not have been attached when she picked it up.  This was to conceal that he had removed the scope specifically to carry out the murders and that he had removed the suppressor after the murders.  These lies were carefully calculated.  His story about the rabbits makes no sense for a wide variety of reasons not the least of which is that so many witnesses say he had no interest in guns, didn’t like to shoot vermin and they had not seen him do so ever with the murder weapon.  There was also testimony about how Nevill would not removed the scope because he didn’t like to take the time to re-zero it.  Jeremy originally stated he had not used the gun the week prior to the murders.  But when it turned out that he last known person to use it said that the suppressor and scope had been attached when he found it in the closet and that he returned it the same way Jeremy changed his story.  Jeremy changed his story and lied specifically to challenge these damning claims made by others.  He claimed that he used it multiple times and that sometimes it had been put away with the accessories attached but other times it was put away without them.  He claimed he used it however he found it he didn’t add or remove accessories.  He claimed Nevill had been the one removing and attaching the so indicated Nevill used it many times during the week.  He also claimed that it was his gun but that he stored it at WHF.  He had no interest in guns while Nevill shot competitively, his claim is not credible tha tit was his.  Nor is the claim it was used many times a week credible since it looked brand new right before the murders.  It obviously was not used much.  It is obvious not only that Jeremy lied but that he kept changing his claims and tailored his lies for a specific purpose. 

Further evidence that he was lying and staging things was the box of ammunition he staged in the kitchen.  He insisted this box had not been moved and that it had much more ammo in it so was the source of ammunition use din the murders.  He claimed it had been full or near full so 48-50 rounds.  25 rounds were fired so 23-25 should have remained.  Instead 30 remained.  Why would Sheila use 20 rounds from the box and then go to the closet to get 5 more rounds instead of taking them from the box as well?  It makes no sense and is not credible.  This establishes the ammo box was staged.             

Why would he need to lie and frame her unless he were the real killer and how would he have known about the murders before anyone else unless he were the real killer?

3) His actions don’t make sense for someone allegedly receiving the call he claims he received.  That is more evidence he made up the call.

Someone receiving such a call would either go over immediately to check out what is going on even if that entails just spying through the windows which could safely be done, or to call police and then go over for a look

He called Julie instead.  Why would a rational person in his place wake up Julie?  She didn’t care for his family so it is not as if she would want to know so she could go to WHF and sit with him out of concern.  He didn’t know if anything happened or not supposedly.  A rational person would wait to find out if anything happened and at that point if he needs a shoulder to cry on then to call his girlfriend for comfort.  Why did he call her?  He called her as a follow-up to his previous message that tonight was the night he would kill them.  He announced he had not slept and everything was going according to plan and there was trouble at WHF.  At 6AM he called again telling her not to go to work because she would need to speak to police and be a witness for him.  He wanted her to tell police he told her there was trouble at WHF so that there would be a third party witness so he could pretend that he had received a call from Nevill.  The whole thing was clearly contrived and makes no sense other than that it was contrived for the purpose Julie stated in her testimony. 

After speaking to her what did he do?  We don’t know for sure, we just know a good amount of time passed between his call to her and finally calling police.  Presumably he used the opportunity to finish washing up and change his clothes.  He finally calls police and then what/  He asks police to pick him up because he wants them to see he is at his home and was not near the scene.  The tell him to drive and meet them there.  Does he go over and spy around for a while?  No he parks on the side of the road, waits for them to go by and then pulls up later so that they can see him pull up because he wanted them to be able to say he got there after them.  Why would he act this way unless he did it?  Why wa she desperate for them to see he arrived after them and why was this his priority instead of trying to find out how his family was?     

Then instead of prompting police to go inside and find out how his family was, he suggested they be careful because there were so many guns and detailed them to police and claimed Sheila fired them all.  Instead of being upset he was calm and talked about cars and guy stuff.  None of his actions fit someone receiving the call he claimed all his actions were contrived.

The bottom line is that there is no credible evidence to suggest he received a phone call from Nevill as he claims.  This is a huge problem for anyone suggesting he is innocent because unless he did receive such call he is guilty.

4) A whole lot of other evidence suggests Sheila did not do it including evidence she can’t have shot herself. 

A) No credible motive was ever set forth as to why she would do it.  No credible evidence set forth that she would be at risk of delusions at 3A on the night in question because her medication was in fact taken and by all account was working and there is no medical reason why it would have suddenly stopped working- she was not on any narcotic at the time.  The claim that 100MG was too low a dose is not supported by today’s medical evidence.

B) There is no physical evidence to suggest she shot anyone.  No gunshot residue was found on her body or clothing, no abrasions or cuts to her feet or hands as would be expected had she been the one Nevill struggled against, no blood spatter from the victims as would be expected had she fired the shots or bludgeoned Nevill.

C) The suppressor proves that she could not have shot herself

D) The blood stains on her body indicates she died sitting up but then her body was pulled down to the floor by the killer and the gun then planted in her hand and on her.
 
5) Sheila insists that Jeremy had been planning the murders a long time and gave a very detailed account about it.  She also indicated he called her right before the murders to say tonight is the night and called after to let her know it was done.  He told her more details later.  Her account is credible because of the details, how it fits the evidence and also because if she were making it up she would not make up a hitman story and finger a hitman.  She would have said he told her he did it directly if she were going to make up a story. It did not take long for the named hitman to prove he had an alibi.  If she made up a hitman story she would say he did not name the supposed killer.     

Far from there being no evidence to convict Jeremy this is more than enough to convict Jeremy and many people have been convicted with less.

What is the response of people like yourself to this evidence?  You largely ignore it.  People say there is no evidence and when I write a long post detailing the evidence people say it is too long to read and they don’t want to be bothered.  That doesn’t make the evidence go away it just demonstrates you have no ability to rebut it.

We are told that the police, Julie and family all lied and joined together to frame Jeremy.  Why would they do this?  No rational explanation had even been set forth.  We are told the police shot Sheila and framed Jeremy for it as well as the other murders though it makes no sense and all and worse there is no evidence to support such.  We just are supposed to assume that the police concealed gunshot residue and other evidence found on Sheila though there is no proof this happened.  We are to assume that police fabricated the suppressor evidence though there is no evidence to prove it.  We are to assume Julie lied as did everyone else though there is no proof.

Why should we assume it?  Because police in the past have been caught doing bad things so we should assume they did it here, if that is what we assume though no one can be convicted because all evidence must be discounted.  No police lab work is ever trustworthy they can plant blood and evidence.  No need for defendants to prove it they can allege it and go scot free.

No matter what crap you come up with it won’t make the claim that he received a call from Nevill credible and that alone is enough to suggest he killed everyone but in combination with his other lies and the other evidence this is especially the case. 

The start of trying to prove he is innocent is proving the phone call occurred which means establishing a rational reason that Nevill would call Jeremy and establish Jeremy’s reaction made sense and fits what someone receiving such a call would do.  You have no ability to do that because the call makes no sense nor does his alleged reaction. 

After that one then needs to take on the physical evidence by producing proof it was doctored and that everyone lied the bare bones claim they could have done so doesn’t create reasonable doubt.  Reasonable doubt requires proof there is a reasonably likelihood it happened.
 
Saying you don’t want to believe the evidence doesn’t make it go away.

The same could have been said regarding Sheila. In fact Ann  Eaton commented as to why the showerhead was on the floor of the shower room. Police officers testified that the lights of the house were on so it is possible for her to shower and even change her clothes, minus briefs of course.
I have wondered that if she was having her monthly why there was no blood on the inside of her nighty?

[guest154]

Scorpio...... Help a fella out with your posts please. Keep them shorter, they interest me and make sense but only have so much time on my hands. 

[grahameb]

Scorpio...... Help a fella out with your posts please. Keep them shorter, they interest me and make sense but only have so much time on my hands. 

To write short and concise posts is an art mat. But unfortunately scipio hasn't acquired that art yet.

[scipio_usmc]

The same could have been said regarding Sheila. In fact Ann  Eaton commented as to why the showerhead was on the floor of the shower room. Police officers testified that the lights of the house were on so it is possible for her to shower and even change her clothes, minus briefs of course.

Why would she take a shower and change her clothes to kill herself an din that case her clothes would still have to be around to be found.   

I have wondered that if she was having her monthly why there was no blood on the inside of her nighty?

Women seem to bleed on and off not the entire time but you have to ask a woman about that I don't ask, the less I know the better.   I just know before they bleed they are very crabby and best to hide from if possible.    I think I remember reading she had a tampon inside her when autopsied.  After ruining 2 pairs she decided to go that route. There was tampon packaging found lying around.  I am pretty sure it was still inside her when autopsied not in the trash.

[mike tesko]

There is evidence that someone other than Jeremy shot and killed his sister. There is evidence that Sheila did not die until after the police surgeon, Dr Craig pronounced her as being dead at 8.44am. There is evidence that one of the two bullets which wounded or killed her was a badly fragmented bullet on 7th August 1985, before the pathologist, Peter Venezis performed his autopsy upon her corpse, evidence that when he performed the autopsy that he removed a badly fragmented bullet (PV/20) which matched the one which showed up in Xray, yet by 20th September 1985, the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher described bullet PV/20 as "A WHOLE BULLET". You do not tamper with crime scene ammunition if the investigation into someones murder is an honest one...

Did police tamper with, or interfere with one (PV/20) of the two bullets used in Sheila's shooting?

Yes, they did...

Why did they tamper with the original badly fragmented PV/20 bullet, and switch it for a "WHOLE BULLET", which was later matched as having been shot via the Anshulz rifle at the time of the shootings?

They switched the bullet (PV/20) so that they could conceal the identitity of the other weapon used to kill her...

Why would police want to make this into a one gun crime, if two or more different guns had been used during the shootings of all the family?

By making it into a one gun crime, police ensured that the weapon which fired the "ACROSS THE NECK" shot, remained a closely guarded secret, and allowed the police to deceive everyone into thinking that only one gun had been used in the shooting, when all along they knew that three different guns had actually been used, and that a further two weapons found at the scene had been handled by the victims at some stage during the build up to death....

[mike tesko]

Sheila Caffell - bullet (PV/20) "ACROSS THE NECK" shot - fired by GUN (X)

Sheila Caffell - bullet (PV/19) "UNDER THE CHIN" shot - fired by the family owned .22 anshulz rifle (DRH/15)

Police switched the original badly fragmented bullet (PV/20) to conceal the identity of the weapon that fired the "ACROSS THE NECK" shot...

[mike tesko]

There can only be one reason why police took this action, you do not tamper with crime scene bullets unless you have got something to hide. You do not tamper with a bullet if you know or think or believe that the person to whom the bullet in question was murdered by someone who was not a police officer involved in the raid at the scene. You might be tempted to switch such a bullet, in keeping with what did occur, if police shot Sheila...

Did police shoot Sheila?

Yes, they did...