The rifle had little or no blood on it.

[John]

One of the most telling factors for me is the fact that the rifle had little or no blood on it.  Had Sheila indeed used the weapon to shoot herself and then wandered about the house before doing so again, there would have been blood all over the rifle.  Sheila's hands would have been covered in blood as a result of putting her hands on her neck wounds.



Two things are immediately observed.

1. Sheila did not put her hands on her neck since the blood would have been dispersed more around her neck and face.

2. Sheila did not have any blood on her hands.

3. Had Sheila been walking around, blood would have ran down her neck all the way and then onto her nightdress. Notice how there is no such blood runs in front of her and her nightie is unmarked to the front.

As far as I can see it would have been impossible for Sheila to have done what the defence contend she did do and end up remarkably clean thereafter.

I have absolutely no doubt that girl was murdered.

[HMEssex]

One of the most telling factors for me is the fact that the rifle had little or no blood on it.  Had Sheila indeed used the weapon to shoot herself and then wandered about the house before doing so again, there would have been blood all over the rifle.  Sheila's hands would have been covered in blood as a result of putting her hands on her neck wounds.



Two things are immediately observed.

1. Sheila did not put her hands on her neck since the blood would have been dispersed more around her neck and face.

2. Sheila did not have any blood on her hands.

3. Had Sheila been walking around, blood would have ran down her neck all the way and then onto her nightdress. Notice how there is no such blood runs in front of her and her nightie is unmarked to the front.

As far as I can see it would have been impossible for Sheila to have done what the defence contend she did do and end up remarkably clean thereafter.

I have absolutely no doubt that girl was murdered.

I mentioned the following on another thread:

I've just been looking at some older threads at the beginning of this forum and one of them, currently P26, titled "Local Man Hands in Two Guns taken from WHF..." (Dec 29) says that one of the guns was a shotgun and the other was some sort of 'hybrid' in that it had the barrel of a shotgun with the barrel of a .22 rifle beneath it.  Was this the gun that made the circular marks on Ralph?


Another one, currently P27 (Dec 27) "Secrets Kept by Essex Police..." is a report of a statement by a local resident who said he heard a shotgun blast between 9.30pm and 10.15pm on 6th Aug.  Perhaps things were kicking off earlier in the evening after JB had left WHF.

Could the first one fit in with your third party theory?

[HMEssex]

Wasn't Pamela on the phone to June between about 10 and 10.20pm?

Yes and maybe that's why she said she was worried about Sheila, amongst other things.

[John]

I think HMEssex that you will find that any bullets emanating from the other gun would have been completely different.

The shot gun is a non starter in reaction to any of the deaths.

[John]

I have no doubt that the cops despatched to the scene had little experience of such murders and were basically out of their depth.

[HMEssex]

I think HMEssex that you will find that any bullets emanating from the other gun would have been completely different.

The shot gun is a non starter in reaction to any of the deaths.

Still,  it's a bit strange how these guns were handed in, and what made the circular marks on Ralph?

I didn't say the shotgun was used in the deaths but that someone heard one being fired.

Plus Mike has said before that not all of the gunshot wounds matched the bullets found at the scene.

[John]

I am afraid that the photo speaks for itself. Sheila was never upright after being shot so she could not have walked anywhere never mind do the round trip to the kitchen and entertain a conversation with Essex Police's best hostage negotiators.

Looks like Jeremy or a third party are most definitely in the frame.

[clifford]

John, I agree with you on points 1&3.
On point 2 Shiela has blood running up her lower arm, and wrist. It also seems she has blood on the top part of her hand.
Mike is now suggesting that 3 guns may have been used. This would surely rule out Shiela.
I have long thought that more than 1 person was involved in the killings.How could 1 person go into three rooms.
For what it,s worth my theory is 1 killer goes into the twins room the other goes into Ralph and Junes room. The noise wakes Shiela who goes to her parents room. The gun is put under her throat, and fired and she falls to the floor.
Ralph then somehow manages to flee downstairs followed by on of the killers, who batters him with the rifle,he then finishes him off with more shots to the head.
Meanwhile the other killer hears Shiela moaning, and fires the shot that kills her.
What do you think.

[lebaleb]

Seems a bit of a quantum leap from 'Sheila didn't do what the defence team claim' to 'That puts Jeremy in the frame'.  If one accepts that there is doubt about the silencer evidence and that the bodies in the kitchen mixup was just a blunder by police. It doesn't mean that Shiela couldn't have killed her parents and children and then committed suicide.

[Kaldin]

I think that Sheila was probably sitting up when the first shot happened, and she was leaning slightly to the right - the blood went down the right side of her nightdress. She was not lying down IMO because the blood would not have ended up on her nightdress if she had been. She remained sitting long enough for the blood to go down her nightdress, and then she fell back or lay back.

The second shot is a bit of a mystery. Her head is at an awkward angle and it looks like she could not have received that second shot unless her head was slightly raised against the cabinet, in which case it would be difficult for anyone to shoot her under the chin - or for her to shoot herself under the chin.

Re the issue of blood on her hands, I can't see any, but it does look like the fatal shot has been touched and the blood has been smeared. Obviously, she couldn't do that voluntarily because she was dead by then, but it's possible that she was shot and her hand fell back against the wound and the killer then moved her hand down to the gun. The blood on her arm suggests that's what might have happened.

There has been a claim that the pathologist said she had gouges on her arm so that's why there's blood on her arm but so far the evidence of that has not been forthcoming.

It's possible that someone else touched the wound but I'm not sure why they would do that.

[andrea]

peter vanezis recorded this during post mortem:


Bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand.Also bloodstains R hand side of nightdress. moderate stains R hand both hands not contaminated apart from blood.



thepolice said her hands were free from blood? not according to this they werent

[Kaldin]

peter vanezis recorded this during post mortem:


Bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand.Also bloodstains R hand side of nightdress. moderate stains R hand both hands not contaminated apart from blood.



thepolice said her hands were free from blood? not according to this they werent

The issue of the bloodstain from the right hand came up during the appeal but I simply can't make head or tail of it - my eyes glaze over when I try to follow it.  It appears that the defence didn't want to make an issue of it. Perhaps someone else could make sense of it. 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.htm

Para 517 onwards.

[andrea]

hmmm i see what you mean, it doesnt mention the blood hardly though does it.

[Kaldin]

hmmm i see what you mean, it doesnt mention the blood hardly though does it.

I'm not sure. I keep trying to read it but I lose the will to do so after about ten seconds. 

[andrea]

im the same when it comes to reading about the sliencer(s) i just glaze over and go on to something else