Key feature - did police move body, before and during taking of photographs?

[mike tesko]

The jury were duped into believing that the position of  Shiela's body, as shown in the limited number of crime scene pictures they were provided with, was exactly as the body had been found by members of the raid team - but, as we shall now see, this was not the case...

[mike tesko]

At the time of the trial in October 1985, the inference was clear - nobody had moved or touched the body of Shiela Caffell, other than the prosecutions claim that Jeremy shot and killed her, and that he had stage managed the body himself, to make it look like she had taken her own life...

[mike tesko]

By the time of the 2002 appeal, DI Cook had conceded that he had moved Shiela's hand from the gun, to allow PC Bird to photograph a bloodied mark on Shiela's nightdress - he also admitted to removing the gun and leaning it against the bedroom window...

[mike tesko]

If, DI Cook removed the rifle from Shiela's body, as alleged, how could PI Montgomery, have also removed it?  Worse still , PS Woodcock, also claims to have removed the gun from Shiela's body. As if that wasn't bad enough, if all these different police officers removed the gun, back and forth, off the body, back onto the body, and off the body, and so on, and so forth, why does DC Hammersley lay claim to the honor of having seized it? Does the movement of the gun support the contention, that police stage managed Shiela's body, not that Jeremy did?

[mike tesko]

These contradicting features, about at least three different police officers having all been responsible, at one stage or another, of removing the gun from Shiela's body, were not facts that were collectively available at the time of trial (1986), or at the time of the last appeal (2002), otherwise, it would have become apparent from a much earlier stage, that police were responsible for doing more than just moving Shìela's hand...

[smiffy]

All 3 could be telling the truth about removing the rifle from the body. However before that can be accepted we need to hear from the police about the 2 or 3 occasions in which a police officer has placed the rifle on the body.

[mike tesko]

All 3 could be telling the truth about removing the rifle from the body. However before that can be accepted we need to hear from the police about the 2 or 3 occasions in which a police officer has placed the rifle on the body.

... Of course - what we now know, is that (1) DI Cook removed the gun, between 10 and 11am, and that (2) PS Woodcock moved it off the body at 11.10am...

[mike tesko]

The police had to put the gun back onto Shiela,s body at jeast twice by the time PS Woodcock removed it...

[mike tesko]

The barrel of the gun was photographed in at least two different positions, against Shiela's neck - a feature which appears to corroborate the fact that the gun was put back onto Shiela's body twice by the police during the occasion they took pictures of Shiela's body in-sit-u?

[mike tesko]

At the 2002 appeal, it was indicated that if it could be shown that the police had moved Shiela's body, that they would have no hesitation but to quash the convictions...

[Hartley]

At the 2002 appeal, it was indicated that if it could be shown that the police had moved Shiela's body, that they would have no hesitation but to quash the convictions...

Where is that indicated?

[mike tesko]

At the 2002 appeal, it was indicated that if it could be shown that the police had moved Shiela's body, that they would have no hesitation but to quash the convictions...

Where is that indicated?

... I will post the relevant extract shortly, but rest assured that this was part of the revised judgement from the 2002 appeal. Also, it should not be overlooked, that at the time of the failed appeal (2002), the court accepted that any disturbance of Shiela's hand / gun, was because of DI Cooks actions (alone) - but we now know that this is / was untrue, false...

[Hartley]

Okay I'll wait until you post the relevant extract.

I was under the impression that the prosecution made an application to call fresh evidence at the 2002 appeal showing that Sheila had been moved. Expert witness Martyn Ismail gave evidence which showed the body had been moved due to the fact that the nightdress was rucked up at the back, which would be consistent with her body being moved due to the difference in friction between her skin and the nightdress and the carpet and the nightdress. However the front of the nightdress was not rucked up so must have been pulled back down following the movement. It was concluded that if this evidence was put to the jury it would be compelling and likely strengthen the prosecutions case.

However the application to call fresh prosecution evidence was refused.

I haven't seen any mention of police officers moving her body and the implications of such an act on the verdict. Although I also don't think I've seen a revised 2002 Judgement, the only one I've seen is dated 12/12/2002.

The only reference to police misconduct and the various allegations given in Ground 16 of the 2002 appeal is as follows:

Ground 16 – police misconduct

509.
The final ground of appeal is a generalised allegation that as a result of “the activities of Detective Superintendent Ainsley, DS Jones and DCI Wright as detailed in grounds 1 to 13, the prosecution case is tainted and the convictions therefore unsafe. We have already recorded our conclusions on the individual grounds and have made clear that we find none of the allegations of serious misconduct made out. Before reaching final conclusions about the individual allegations, we have deliberately reconsidered the matter to see whether looking at the wider picture gives rise to any concern that in looking at matters of detail, we might have missed evidence of the kind that only is capable of being perceived by having regard to a number of smaller matters. We can see no reason to revise our view on any of the matters and we have found no evidence at all to support the allegations of serious wrongdoing by the police that is suggested.

510.
As Mr Temple observed in his closing address to us, one of the striking features of this case was the difference between Mr Turner’s opening address and the speech that he felt able to make once the evidence had been examined. In the former, suggestions of a widespread conspiracy to present a false case and to deprive the defence of material that would assist them in answering the case were made. By the close of the case, many of those allegations had been abandoned because they were patently obviously unjustified once the evidence was scrutinised.

511.
This case has been scrutinised since conviction with as much care as probably any comparable case. In our judgment nothing has emerged to cause us to believe that there was any improper conduct by the investigating officers that threatened the integrity of the trial process, such as is alleged in this ground.

[bob]

Okay I'll wait until you post the relevant extract.

I was under the impression that the prosecution made an application to call fresh evidence at the 2002 appeal showing that Sheila had been moved. Expert witness Martyn Ismail gave evidence which showed the body had been moved due to the fact that the nightdress was rucked up at the back, which would be consistent with her body being moved due to the difference in friction between her skin and the nightdress and the carpet and the nightdress. However the front of the nightdress was not rucked up so must have been pulled back down following the movement. It was concluded that if this evidence was put to the jury it would be compelling and likely strengthen the prosecutions case.

However the application to call fresh prosecution evidence was refused.

I haven't seen any mention of police officers moving her body and the implications of such an act on the verdict. Although I also don't think I've seen a revised 2002 Judgement, the only one I've seen is dated 12/12/2002.

The only reference to police misconduct and the various allegations given in Ground 16 of the 2002 appeal is as follows:

Ground 16 – police misconduct

509.
The final ground of appeal is a generalised allegation that as a result of “the activities of Detective Superintendent Ainsley, DS Jones and DCI Wright as detailed in grounds 1 to 13, the prosecution case is tainted and the convictions therefore unsafe. We have already recorded our conclusions on the individual grounds and have made clear that we find none of the allegations of serious misconduct made out. Before reaching final conclusions about the individual allegations, we have deliberately reconsidered the matter to see whether looking at the wider picture gives rise to any concern that in looking at matters of detail, we might have missed evidence of the kind that only is capable of being perceived by having regard to a number of smaller matters. We can see no reason to revise our view on any of the matters and we have found no evidence at all to support the allegations of serious wrongdoing by the police that is suggested.

510.
As Mr Temple observed in his closing address to us, one of the striking features of this case was the difference between Mr Turner’s opening address and the speech that he felt able to make once the evidence had been examined. In the former, suggestions of a widespread conspiracy to present a false case and to deprive the defence of material that would assist them in answering the case were made. By the close of the case, many of those allegations had been abandoned because they were patently obviously unjustified once the evidence was scrutinised.

511.
This case has been scrutinised since conviction with as much care as probably any comparable case. In our judgment nothing has emerged to cause us to believe that there was any improper conduct by the investigating officers that threatened the integrity of the trial process, such as is alleged in this ground.

That's a pretty damning judgement of the appeal given that most of the grounds people raise on this forum imply police corruption 

[mike tesko]

The recent CCRC decision not to refer Jeremy's case back to the court of appeal, by claiming that the content of police officers witness statements, are more powerfull and reliable, than photographs which purport to show that Shiela's arm and right hand were moved, and that for this reason, the ground that formed part of Jeremy's application, had to be rejected - such words of wisdom, will almost certainly come back to haunt the CCRC, as a result of the witness statements made to COLP, by three members of the raid team, who whilst attending a debrief on the evening of the shootings, complained about Shiela's body having been moved after they left the scene, by reference to a crime scene video which contained photographs of Shiela's body, showing it in a different position...