The last ultimate test of gun, to prove sound moderator was not used in shooting

[scipio_usmc]

It's beyond high time that EP should come clean about this one way or the other. If they've got nothing to hide,then they'll produce the original logs/notes to halt all the speculation surrounding the silencer/s.

I can appreciate the mix-up if there were indeed 5 silencers,as has been stated,but for the sake of an innocent man,who,it is claimed,used A silencer ??! why not admit defeat and say you got it wrong ? If there was blood on the said silencer,then there'd have been prints too,as well as it having been buckled/damaged through misuse.

 Because of this deliberate withholding of evidence,suspicions of malpractice on behalf of EP is highly evident among those officers who knew/know that Jeremy is innocent.They will be exposed at some point in time ( when they've ALL retired and collected their pensions !) Or dead.

The only speculation about multiple moderators is coming form a handful of people who don't matter.  These claims have already been refuted.  Indeed, Mike's claims are not only completely unsupported but seem to be entirely made up which is evidence not only by his lack of evidence but the fact that he changes his claims ever second.  There is zero evidence at all to suggest a moderator was collected on 8/7/85 by anyone let alone Stanley Jones.  There is no evidence at all to suggest any piece of evidence was assigned a prefix of SJ let alone a moderator given that designation and there is no reason why any item would be assigned it. 

Mike seems to have invented the SJ/1 designation out of whole cloth as evidenced by the fact he keeps changign his claims.  One minute SJ/1 is a moderator collected on 8/7/85 while SBJ/1 is the moderator found by Boutflour and the next SJ/1 is the moderator found by Boutflour and SBJ/1 is a moderator collected on 8/7/85. The government has no need to address these claims since they are not being made by the lawyers in the case but rather in informal settings and have no legs at all because they are simply mad eup claims without any evidentiary support at all.

 

[Steve_uk]

Which photo is this?  I have been shown several that claim to dispaly wet blood but the blood could in fact be dry and looked dry on those I saw.  I have not seen a thing to doubt the offiical story at all presented to date.

You must know to which photograph I am alluding,as it has now become infamous in the case. Whilst not conclusive proof in itself that Jeremy is innocent it does raise questions as to the Police account and what their role was in the bedroom that morning.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sheila_Caffell_injuries.jpg

[scipio_usmc]

You must know to which photograph I am alluding,as it has now become infamous in the case. Whilst not conclusive proof in itself that Jeremy is innocent it does raise questions as to the Police account and what their role was in the bedroom that morning.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sheila_Caffell_injuries.jpg

The blood looks dry there.  It is very red before it dries but that blood has been exposed ot oxygen a long time.  Also there are other characteristics I can't explain but can recognize when a wound is bleeding.  They were actually a little tricky with this.  Instead of trying to ask any police if the blood was wet knowing they would say it was dry they tried to pretend 1 cop said he saw her actively bleeding (though he didn't actually say that at best his comments were ambiguous) and tried to say his claim she was bleeding in combination witht he photo that they claim is wet blood demonstrates Jeremy can't have done it and they used this as a basis to request a pardon.

I have not seen any evidence they tried to pull this with the appeal courts though maybe they did.  Supposedly the CCRC was investigating the matter for 6-7 years between 2004 and 2011. Maybe at some point it was broached to them but informally rejected. 

[grahameb]

The blood looks dry there.  It is very red before it dries but that blood has been exposed ot oxygen a long time.  Also there are other characteristics I can't explain but can recognize when a wound is bleeding.  They were actually a little tricky with this.  Instead of trying to ask any police if the blood was wet knowing they would say it was dry they tried to pretend 1 cop said he saw her actively bleeding (though he didn't actually say that at best his comments were ambiguous) and tried to say his claim she was bleeding in combination witht he photo that they claim is wet blood demonstrates Jeremy can't have done it and they used this as a basis to request a pardon.

I have not seen any evidence they tried to pull this with the appeal courts though maybe they did.  Supposedly the CCRC was investigating the matter for 6-7 years between 2004 and 2011. Maybe at some point it was broached to them but informally rejected.

Personally I don't remember any cop saying that he saw her bleeding. I think the questions came from various people on the forum, including myself. All I can say it that to me it looks as if the blood is still flowing? But of course I may be wrong? Unfortunately the pictures that we have here are not the best of quality. It also appears to be a plug of blood that has come loose, possibly from someone moving the body? But again I could be wrong? But if I am honest the blood in the picture does look fresh for use of a better word?

[scipio_usmc]

Personally I don't remember any cop saying that he saw her bleeding.

You are correct in the sense that no cop would have testified she was bleeding when they saw her if asked that quesiton.  However, one wrote in his statement blood was leaking down her mouth to the floor. Because he didn't use past tense in the statement the submission for a pardon argued this meant he saw her actively bleeding.  The statement was relied upon instead of questioning him because if questioned he would clarify no he didn't mean she was bleeding presently.  That is why courts want testimony from live witnesses so that you can cross examine and fully explore things. 

I think they figured they had nothing to lose by trying to be cute with the pardon application.  Unless we are given full access to the CCRC submissions we can't know if they tried the same with the CCRC or not. 

I think the questions came from various people on the forum, including myself. All I can say it that to me it looks as if the blood is still flowing? But of course I may be wrong? Unfortunately the pictures that we have here are not the best of quality. It also appears to be a plug of blood that has come loose, possibly from someone moving the body? But again I could be wrong? But if I am honest the blood in the picture does look fresh for use of a better word?

To see if it is flowing you look directly outside the wound itself and if flowing still there will be a glob and it will be very red and shiny.  The blood near the wounds are not only dark but look quite flat.  Gravity took the blood away already. 

Some say she had pockets of blood in her mouth that were disturbed by moving her body and while plausible it is hard ot know if that is the truth or not.  One would need to question the police more thoroughly about that precise aspect. The only statement I am aware of mentioning the blood on the mouth suggests it was there all along not later from moving the body.

   

[mike tesko]

A blood expert from Europe looked at the photograph in question and concluded that because of the appearance of the blood in question, he estimated that Sheila had died between 1 and 2 hours before the photograph in question had been taken. Additionally, the same expert confirmed that once the heart stopped beating that oxygen remained in the blood for up to 15 minutes, but thereafter because there was no more oxygen in the blood, it would start to coagulate and blacken in appearance...

As a result of examining the said photograph, you can see the commencement of the blackening of the blood either side of the trail, distinguishing fresh flowing blood from drying blood coagulating...

[mike tesko]

Sheila had not been dead from as long ago as 3am, she did not die until after the police forced their way into the farmhouse, the introduction of the silencer, blood and paint evidence as relating to a solitary silencer allegedly found at the scene by relatives was designed to distract everyone into believing somebody other than herself and not the police must have been responsible for killing her, because of her blood in the silencer concealed in a cupboard in the downstairs office...

[grahameb]

Sheila had not been dead from as long ago as 3am, she did not die until after the police forced their way into the farmhouse, the introduction of the silencer, blood and paint evidence as relating to a solitary silencer allegedly found at the scene by relatives was designed to distract everyone into believing somebody other than herself and not the police must have been responsible for killing her, because of her blood in the silencer concealed in a cupboard in the downstairs office...

I wonder what Jeremy heard that made him say, "Those men with the guns killed her"? Do you think he heard gunfire?

[mike tesko]

Sheila had not been dead from as long ago as 3am, she did not die until after the police forced their way into the farmhouse, the introduction of the silencer, blood and paint evidence as relating to a solitary silencer allegedly found at the scene by relatives was designed to distract everyone into believing somebody other than herself and not the police must have been responsible for killing her, because of her blood in the silencer concealed in a cupboard in the downstairs office...

According to the prosecutions version of events the person who shot and killed Sheila did so with the silencer (SJ/1 - DRB/1) fitted to its barrel, once Sheila was killed the killer removed the silencer from the gun, took it all the way downstairs to hide it in the gun cupboard, but I have got news for everybody, Sheila's blood was not found inside the silencer found at the scene by relatives on 10th August 1985, her blood was found in the other silencer (SBJ/1 - DB/1) recovered from the scene by the dodgy DS Stan Jones on 7th August 1985...

[mike tesko]

How did the killer remove the silencer with Sheila's blood inside it, managed to get beyond the internal main kitchen door behind or in front of which was sat perched upon a wooden chair, the body of the deceased Ralph Bamber, which caused members of the raid team so much trouble after they smashed thier way into the farmhouse...

Think about it...

[Alias]

Something else about this photo. There is a clear blood-free area under the lower shot where Sheila´s necklace pendance had been. Any suggestions as to how that could have happened? Scipio? I am genuinely interested in what you have to say about this, I know we are NOT best of friends, but push it aside for a minute.



This just to show the shape of the pendant.


I never noticed before that Sheila was wearing earrings (and a watch, had seen that). Would you go to bed to sleep with earrings on?
I know I don´t, would bother the hell out of me, but people are different.

[mike tesko]

If I am the alleged fool you say I am, and who almost everyone agrees to be true - then why do you keep reading my posts...

Whether or not I be the fool you claim I am, did you not know that 'Even a fool may have the audience of a king'...

[scipio_usmc]

A blood expert from Europe looked at the photograph in question and concluded that because of the appearance of the blood in question, he estimated that Sheila had died between 1 and 2 hours before the photograph in question had been taken. Additionally, the same expert confirmed that once the heart stopped beating that oxygen remained in the blood for up to 15 minutes, but thereafter because there was no more oxygen in the blood, it would start to coagulate and blacken in appearance...

As a result of examining the said photograph, you can see the commencement of the blackening of the blood either side of the trail, distinguishing fresh flowing blood from drying blood coagulating...

There is no scientifically accepted principle that one can tell how long someone is dead based on looking at a photo or trying to figure out how long blood took to dry let alone have courts ever considered such analysis valid.  Before such can get before a jury the courts must first decide the principle is sound.  There is no recognized anysis though in this regard.

Moreover the expert who actuall saw the bodies in person prior to 9AM and pronounced them dead saw no evidence Sheila died very recently he stated she died hours earlier.

 
 

[mike tesko]

Since, the pathologist did not carry out the autopsy on the body of Sheila Caffell until after 3pm on 7th August 1985, his specific reference to Sheila having died several hours previously fits in snugly with the ffact that she was not killed until after police entered the farmhouse using force at just after 7.30am...

Pathologists conclusion that Sheila had died several hours previously does not support the argument that she had been dead from as long ago as half a day previously...

[lookout]

 Sheila wasn't even the " right colour " to have been dead for any length of time.