13 bullet cases in m/bedroom, yet no follower plate mark found on them...

[Patti]

Either to let someone in,or else got mixed up with the switches inside if they were two-way.

I must  regarding the lights hahahaha 

[scipio_usmc]

I think the lights and windows were never fully discussed and examined because they had already excepted that Jeremy admitted he could get in and out of the windows.   What the defense should have done is question the statements of Collins and Delgardo to determine which light they referred to, becuase if it was the porch light then this might suggest their was someone in the house that had tuned that light on and off at some point.  One has to consider the possibility maybe?

The only way that police testimony would suggest someone was alive and turning on lights after police arrived would be someone seeing a light being turned on or off. Jeremy could have turned on any lights before leaving.  Only if police actually saw a light being turned on would that be useful to the defense.

[lookout]

I must  regarding the lights hahahaha 

I suppose it makes a change from windows, tee hee hee. Especially those of which have shutters.

[Patti]

The only way that police testimony would suggest someone was alive and turning on lights after police arrived would be someone seeing a light being turned on or off. Jeremy could have turned on any lights before leaving.  Only if police actually saw a light being turned on would that be useful to the defense.

Collins and Delgardo could not see the red side after they had taken position, but if they claim a light was on at 5:30 and Two officers claim it was not on at 4:00 and Mildenhall did not report the light was on when he took position is this not evidence in its self that that lights could have put on and off? Surely this should have been investigated further and I believe the reason it was not investigated was that both sides had excepted what Jeremy had told them and that was there was a way in and out of the windows...but did say that windows could not be locked and made secure from the outside. 

30 years later no one would remember, but the statements are clear enough, but not proof enough to determine that lights went on and off at the front of the house.

[scipio_usmc]

Collins and Delgardo could not see the red side after they had taken position, but if they claim a light was on at 5:30 and Two officers claim it was not on at 4:00 and Mildenhall did not report the light was on when he took position is this not evidence in its self that that lights could have put on and off? Surely this should have been investigated further and I believe the reason it was not investigated was that both sides had excepted what Jeremy had told them and that was there was a way in and out of the windows...but did say that windows could not be locked and made secure from the outside. 

30 years later no one would remember, but the statements are clear enough, but not proof enough to determine that lights went on and off at the front of the house.

Mildinhall only spoke about the lights on in the upper windows.  He wasn't asked to provide any information about the lower portion of the house.  in any event someone was always watching that side of the house from the time the first firearms officers arrived forward.  There were 2 different containment locations facing the front of the house.  If a light turned on while those officers were there they would have noticed it and mentioned it because that would mean someone was alive inside.

[mike tesko]

How utterly bizzare that not one of the 25 cartridge cases recovered from the scene had got a follower plate mark upon them...

Furthermore, since everyone seems to be in agreement that Sheila had died last, and that she had only been shot twice, it becomes something rather unusual for neither of the two cartridge cases linked with her shooting in the bedroom, should not have a follower plate mark at all between them...

[Patti]

Mildinhall only spoke about the lights on in the upper windows. He wasn't asked to provide any information about the lower portion of the house. in any event someone was always watching that side of the house from the time the first firearms officers arrived forward.  There were 2 different containment locations facing the front of the house.  If a light turned on while those officers were there they would have noticed it and mentioned it because that would mean someone was alive inside.

I disagree with that comment Scip.  Mildinhall was asked to give a statement which reflected the events of that morning. He was not told to leave the bit out re the light above the main door, that would be right surely.

[scipio_usmc]

I disagree with that comment Scip.  Mildinhall was asked to give a statement which reflected the events of that morning. He was not told to leave the bit out re the light above the main door, that would be right surely.

The light above the door was immaterial, the whole lower floor was not considered material.  The upper floor windows were all described because in contrast they were not immaterial they were the rooms focused on.

[Patti]

The light above the door was immaterial, the whole lower floor was not considered material.  The upper floor windows were all described because in contrast they were not immaterial they were the rooms focused on.

Surely each piece of someone's statement is to give as much detail as possible about where they were, what they saw ect. Surely every sentence of such a statement becomes relevant. To ignore what was in the statements and fail to ask the relevant questions the moment has been lost I grant you that, but I cannot see that lights on and off are not considered relevant at all.

The kitchen floor was quite relevant was it not which is situated on the same floor as the front door. 

[mike tesko]

I would like to address the question of what 'exactly' the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, stated in his witness statement, dated, 13th November, 1985:-

"I MAKE THIS STATEMENT OF MY OWN FREE WILL, KNOWING THAT IF IT IS TENDED INTO EVIDENCE, I SHALL BE LIABLE TO PROSECUTION IF I HAVE WILFULLY STATED IN IT ANYTHING I KNOW TO BE FALSE, OR DO NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE"...

Well, here are the contents of this / that witness statement:-

[mike tesko]

Fletcher, describes both bullets subject of Sheila Caffells injuries, as being 'WHOLE BULLETS', despite that both, or one another, was clearly not...

[mike tesko]

Fletcher, describes both bullets subject of Sheila Caffells injuries, as being 'WHOLE BULLETS', despite that both, or one another, was clearly not...

[mike tesko]

Now, I don't get how Fletcher arrives at his conclusion that 'both' bullets (PV/19 and PV/20) were WHOLE BULLETS?

[mike tesko]

One thing, is absolutely clear, and this is that neither bullet fired into Sheila's neck, was 'WHOLE' in nature, and because of this, Fletcher produced the contents of a witness statement, knowing that that which he stated had been 'WHOLE' bullets, could not have been, therefore, the question which needs to be asked is, why hasn't Fletcher been charged with making false statements regarding the size of bullets, PV/19, and PV/20, since neither were 'WHOLE' bullets?

[mike tesko]

Why has the CROWN's ballistic expert, been permitted to get away 'SCOT FREE' with making false contents in a witness statement, about the size of bullets, PV/19, and PV/20?