Your saying I should interpret the first sentence what Jeapes sais as saying the box room when Jeapes does not even know where the kitchen is or seems to be confused between the what door is which. then I should conveniently ignore the second sentence describing the gun leaning against the window upstairs. Then conveniently ignore the photo showing exactly what Jeapes described as a bizzare coincidence?
I'm not very confident in accepting this 
It is true that WPC Jeapes account is somewhat confusing as to the exact window to which she is referring to when she makes mention of seeing 'the' rifle. One clue which stands out is that she was at the 'corner' of the farmhouse, which she has described as 'White / Red'. She appears to be confused by which side was 'White side', and which was 'Red side'. But she does mention that she was standing at the corner of that part of the building which is cladded in grey brick. So, based on that information, she could have had a view of ' the main bedroom window', on 'Red side', and a view of the 'box room window' on 'White side', from 'that' vantage point. If she was referring to a rifle at the 'box room window' any such rifle would have had to be resting against the 'left hand side' of the 'box room Window', as viewed from her vantage point at the corner of 'White / Red', whereas, from the same vantage point, she could only have seen such a rifle on the 'right hand side' of the 'main bedroom window'...
The fact that 'the rifle' is photographed at 23, leaning against the main bedroom window, before 'it' was later removed and planted onto Sheila's body, and only then was 'it' photographed with Sheila's body, as per the photographs, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33, is more than a simple coincidence. The chief feature, as far as I can tell, is not really 'which' window Jeapes actually saw the rifle leaning against, but rather that 'the rifle in photograph No. 23, was without doubt or question, photographed, there at the ' main bedroom window, before 'it' was photographed, upon Sheila's body, in sequential order'...
That is ' a fact'...
The sequence with which those '9 key photographs' were taken, 'confirms' this to be an absolute truth...
I have already posted up the photographic records which support this matter, and nobody can alter the 'fact' that 'the rifle' was photographed resting near to the main bedroom window, 'before' somebody took 'it' from there and decided to position 'it' on Sheila's body and to photograph it there. This is the true explanation about 'movement of the gun' from the bedroom window onto the body. What this means, is that the sequence of 8 consecutive photographs, these being photograph numbers, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33, 'do not' show the true position of Sheila's body on the bedroom floor, with the rifle in her possession, as could have been found by firearms officers, as per their witness statement versions which set the positions of the bodies at the time of discovery as having been one body downstairs, the other four bodies being found upstairs, of which they claim Sheila's had been one of the four bodies found upstairs. Of course, by a reliance upon the police radio message log account, two bodies were found in the kitchen, and only three bodies found upstairs. By reliance on this account, Sheila's body had to have been the reference to a dead female, who had apparently committed suicide, downstairs in the kitchen, the same room where Ralph Bamber was murdered ('the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found upon entry to the kitchen'). With Sheila being reported as having been found dead downstairs in the kitchen, how then had the rifle at whichever upstairs window been used to shoot her downstairs in the kitchen?
How can she possibly have committed 'suicide' downstairs in the kitchen before 7.45am, with use of 'the rifle which from 7.15am, onward, had been resting against a window upstairs' in another part of the farmhouse?
That 'first' shot, bullet PV/20, was 'badly fragmented' and had broken into at least 15 pieces when part of it was Xrayed, and then recovered from her body during autopsy, performed by pathologist, Peter Venezis, on 7th August 1985. However, by the 20th September a 'different' bullet had been introduced, a bullet described by the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, as ' a whole bullet', which Fletcher was able to state 'had' been fired through the rifle at the time Sheila was shot across the neck. But, as far as I know, bullets don't grow whole again, once they have been shattered into at least 15 separate pieces. Therefore, I say, and it is the absolute truth, there is 'no need' for me to make anything up, there is clearly a huge suspicion that Essex police and its ballistics expert, and the pathologist, have all been involved 'in a joint enterprise' with a view to presenting 'a whole bullet', when the original PV/20 had been a badly fragmented one, and that this was done so that it could be argued that the very same rifle had fired both the shots (bullets PV/20 and PV/19) which wounded and killed Sheila Caffell - but it was all a lie...
