Do we know of a letter written by CC to EP explaining CC's reason for Sheila having killed the family ?
Of course not-----------it was hushed up. It's no wonder that CC wasn't allowed to change his statement !
As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. CC's letter was a letter addressed to Nevill which he never mailed or handed to him. This letter stated he wanted full time custody of the kids. He didn't give it to Nevill because he wasn't yet prepared to demand full time custody and risk fighting them for it he was still mulling it over if he wanted to do such.
During the appeal process Jeremy's lawyers took this letter to Ferguson and told him that Nevill received this letter and as a result Nevill went to her supporting she give up custody to Collin. He said she would view this as betrayal and this could have given her motive to act.
He never gave the letter to Nevill or spoke with him verbally about obtaining full time custody so it is impossible Nevill could have told her that he supported her giving up custody to Nevill. This nonsense was rejected by the Court of Appeals. Eveyrthing you raise has either been soundly rejected already or is simply made up like your claim June and Nevill had marks in their arms from Sheila digging into them.
Pertinent points form the Court of Appeal Decision:
"He was seeking Nevill Bamber's support in convincing Sheila that the boys should continue to stay with him most of the time, and that he should have full control over their well-being. It is to be noted that he and Sheila had joint custody of the children.
This letter was referred to in a disclosed statement made by Mr Caffell on 11 September 1985. He actually produced the letter to the police officer who took the statement, and it was given an exhibit number (ARD/1) although technically it could never have been an exhibit. In such circumstances, the suggestion that this letter was never disclosed to the defence is, we have to say, manifestly unsustainable. So also is the assertion, implicit in the appellant's skeleton argument on this ground that the police at least in breach of their duty to ensure that all relevant material was disclosed failed, deliberately or inadvertently, to ensure that this material was drawn to the attention of the defence team. The reference to the document in the disclosed statement alerted the defence to its existence and it was for the defence to satisfy themselves as to whether or not it was relevant to the case that they wished to present to the court.
That conclusion is enough to dispose of this particular ground of appeal, but in deference to Mr Turner's submissions on the point we go further and express our view that this draft letter, even though it may have reflected Mr Caffell's views, was of minimal if any relevance to the issues that the jury had to consider. The letter was never sent; and there is no evidence that Mr Caffell's views, or his request was ever conveyed to Nevill Bamber, Sheila Caffell or any other member of the family. Mr Caffell himself was not present on the evening of 6 August when the discussion described by the trial judge took place.
The most relevant evidence of Sheila's reaction to the suggestion that the boys should be fostered was that given by the appellant himself and related to a point in time only a matter of hours before the killing took place."
"However, Mr Turner sought permission to call before us further psychiatric evidence, primarily from Dr Ferguson. In the statement tendered to this court in support of this application Dr Ferguson suggests that if he had been aware of the letter from Colin Caffell with the possible scenario that he might take over full time care of the children from Sheila coupled with the possibility that Nevill Bamber might have pleaded Colin Caffell's case, he would have suggested that this could have had a potentially catastrophic effect on Sheila Caffell. This would have been partly because she would have been resistant to the suggestion of having her children removed from her care and partly because it might have transformed her image of her father from a support and mentor into that of a hostile figure.
However, it is clear that Dr Ferguson had already dealt with a broadly similar scenario in his evidence in chief. ... It appears to us that when Dr Ferguson provided his most recent statement in support of this application
he overlooked the fact that the letter written by Colin Caffell was never sent and there is no evidence that it ever came to Nevill Bamber's knowledge. He also does not appear to be aware of the very considerable extent to which Colin Caffell was, at the material time, already responsible for the day to day care of the two boys. In the circumstances it does not seem to us that Dr Ferguson is in any position to add significantly to the evidence that he gave to the jury in October of 1986. No new issue is raised which was not already fully before the jury, and in the circumstances it did not seem to us necessary or expedient in the interests of justice that further evidence on this topic should now be admitted before this court and we declined to hear such evidence. There is thus nothing of any substance in this ground and we reject it."
