Why didn't Taff Jones tell Bamber & the relatives about Nevill's call ?

[Roch]

I have asked Reader to clarify, he/she didn't (sorry Reader, not sure if you are male or female?). Reader suggested that Jeremy wouldn't have left a body so obviously staged - so who would and why? Really not trying to be difficult and I am willing to take on board any suggestion as long as it's seems rational. Not knowing who Reader thinks staged the body makes this scenario confusing.

I think Reader is female.  I cant post for Reader - but my own opinions are as follows. 

In light of the errors / complications within the TFG operation inside the farmhouse, the police made a decision that the case would be swiftly dealt with by a coroner's inquest; as four murders and one suicide.  It would in-effect be 'done and dusted' (so as to bury the errors etc.).   

Since the police already knew who was culpable for the killings (on account of the events from the 3.55am recce on-wards, up to and including the operation) there was arguably less need to preserve the crime scene.  Due to the errors / complications, it was probably decided there was even less need to preserve the crime scene!

The so called staging of SC was carried out by police - who were to some extent 'governed' by the nature and circumstances of Sheila's second shot. 

This next bit is a real difficult one.  At present, I personally don't think Sheila shot her self a second time.  I think she simply collapsed upstairs and I think one of the .22 weapons was discharged accidentally by police, when it was mishandled while they were trying to figure out what to do (about the fact she had gotten upstairs with the first gunshot wound).  The second discharge caused police to place Sheila in the recovery position - which is why the large blood stain on the carpet exists.  It really couldn't have got much worse for them.

In the crime scene photography (which was never meant to be scrutinised to the extent that it has been) it is clearly noticeable that somebody has tried to cover that bloodstain with the bible.  This can only have been done for the purpose of crime scene photography.   

Jeremy Bamber had no motive to attempt to cover a distinctive bloodstain.

[Caroline]

I think Reader is female.  I cant post for Reader - but my own opinions are as follows. 

In light of the errors / complications within the TFG operation inside the farmhouse, the police made a decision that the case would be swiftly dealt with by a coroner's inquest; as four murders and one suicide.  It would in-effect be 'done and dusted' (so as to bury the errors etc.).   

Since the police already knew who was culpable for the killings (on account of the events from the 3.55am recce on-wards, up to and including the operation) there was arguably less need to preserve the crime scene.  Due to the errors / complications, it was probably decided there was even less need to preserve the crime scene!

The so called staging of SC was carried out by police - who were to some extent 'governed' by the nature and circumstances of Sheila's second shot. 

This next bit is a real difficult one.  At present, I personally don't think Sheila shot her self a second time.  I think she simply collapsed upstairs and I think one of the .22 weapons was discharged accidentally by police, when it was mishandled while they were trying to figure out what to do (about the fact she had gotten upstairs with the first gunshot wound).  The second discharge caused police to place Sheila in the recovery position - which is why the large blood stain on the carpet exists.  It really couldn't have got much worse for them.

In the crime scene photography (which was never meant to be scrutinised to the extent that it has been) it is clearly noticeable that somebody has tried to cover that bloodstain with the bible.  This can only have been done for the purpose of crime scene photography.   

Jeremy Bamber had no motive to attempt to cover a distinctive bloodstain.

What errors? This is something I was never comfortable with. Even if the police had shot Sheila occidentally, so what? She was brandishing a weapon and if she was killed as a result of the incident, that wouldn't be a problem - she had killed 4 people and as such, the police would be entitled to use whatever force necessary.

Reader has already pointed out the the scene looks staged, if the police staged the scene then they would have made a far better job of it than a novice like Jeremy.

If Jeremy had placed Sheila's hand on the bible to form the print and then decided it looked too staged, he would have every reason to try and cover it up.

[Roch]

What errors? This is something I was never comfortable with. Even if the police had shot Sheila occidentally, so what? She was brandishing a weapon and if she was killed as a result of the incident, that wouldn't be a problem - she had killed 4 people and as such, the police would be entitled to use whatever force necessary.

Well I am personally sceptical about PC Collins 'having made a mistake' when looking through the kitchen window.  I think the reference to this in statements was orchestrated (possibly at an early stage and not in relation to Jeremy later becoming a 'suspect').  Therefore, one of the errors would be the discovery of Sheila upon entry to the farmhouse and failing to properly check for signs of life / failing to secure her 'corpse' at an early stage.  I also am wondering whether Collins did indeed look through the window and see two bodies - but then the forcing-in of the door and resultant toppling of Nevill, was in itself, Sheila's cue to remove her self from the kitchen floor and travel upstairs.  This would render the logs incorrect - as there would no longer be two bodies "found upon entry" - however, it might explain why Police called for "Sheila Bamber" to reveal her whereabouts.  The other error I have suggested above already (relating to the second shot and the recovery position etc).

Reader has already pointed out the the scene looks staged, if the police staged the scene then they would have made a far better job of it than a novice like Jeremy.

Not necessarily.  The police might have found themselves governed by the nature and circs of the second shot - and likewise the stain on the carpet.

If Jeremy had placed Sheila's hand on the bible to form the print and then decided it looked too staged, he would have every reason to try and cover it up.

If Jeremy placed Sheila's hand on the bible, it would be a direct attempt to transfer a unique, identifiable palm print on to that exhibit.  It therefore does not make sense - that he would then lightly place the same exhibit over her arm and the bloodstained carpet, for fear of having exaggerated the staging.  It's not as if this action is going to disguise or remove the palm print is it?

Furthermore, at least two police officers questioned whether the crime scene had been altered - regarding both the bible and rifle.   How could these officers not have initially seen either the bible directly upon Sheila's arm or the rifle directly upon Sheila's body?  They must have studied her location on both the occasions that they witnessed it, in order to call the anomalies in to question in the first place. 

[Reader]

The membername "Reader" is based in part on the name "Mr J.G. Reeder" of a fictional amateur detective (written about by Dorothy L. Sayers) who gave very careful thought to the evidence available to him. It would make no sense for Jeremy to stage Sheila's body in a manner that suggests the scene was changed considerably after her death. It does make sense for the police to have done that if they assumed that nobody would later be making a close scrutiny of their photographs, but obviously their purpose in doing it wouldn't have been to fit up Jeremy.

[Roch]

Dorothy L. Sayers

I get that name mixed up with Doris Lessing 

[Jane]

I get that name mixed up with Doris Lessing 

I get it mixed up with Ralph Reeder!!!

[Roch]

I get it mixed up with Ralph Reeder!!!

Just googled that. Never heard of it before.

[Jane]

Just googled that. Never heard of it before.

You probably won't mind if you never hear it again. Poor Reader being associated!!!!

[Reader]

Dorothy L. Sayers died in 1957... in Witham.

[Caroline]

The membername "Reader" is based in part on the name "Mr J.G. Reeder" of a fictional amateur detective (written about by Dorothy L. Sayers) who gave very careful thought to the evidence available to him. It would make no sense for Jeremy to stage Sheila's body in a manner that suggests the scene was changed considerably after her death. It does make sense for the police to have done that if they assumed that nobody would later be making a close scrutiny of their photographs, but obviously their purpose in doing it wouldn't have been to fit up Jeremy.

I'm sorry Reader, I don't follow your philosophy at all. If the police decided to stage manage the body, they would make damn sure they got it right - BUT the crucial part of this depends on their motive and no one has been able to suggest a credible motive for this.

[Roch]

I'm sorry Reader, I don't follow your philosophy at all. If the police decided to stage manage the body, they would make damn sure they got it right - BUT the crucial part of this depends on their motive and no one has been able to suggest a credible motive for this.

It's not the defence (or members who favour the defence) that should be establishing a motive.  It is the police who should be telling the truth.

PS, Adams one of the senior firearms officers, told DCI Dickinson in his interview that after the firearms team had left the scene and were later shown photographs of the scene to assist them in making statements, they had queried the position of Sheila’s body. Adam’s Interview notes show below that, like two others of the initial raid team Collins & Delgado, he too had the same concerns that Sheila had been moved after he left the scene:
 
“Photo of Sheila not in same position as when I saw it”
Head too close to bedside table
Not sure about angle of head but something not right
No recollection of gun
Bible shown next to body, was level with waist 12” – 18” away

PC Delgado told DI Dickinson in his interview:

“Looked at video of photographs of scene. As a result PC Collins and I not happy with position of the bible by Sheila’s body. I was happy with the position of the body in relation to furniture. We felt they were real concerns and we spoke to DS Jones, DCI Jones initially reassured us body was as it had been. Later stage further discussion, unhappy as a group. Feelings passed onto inspector Montgomery and interview with Supt Ainsley arranged. Reassured body had not been moved. I’m happy to accept this fact now although in the back of my mind still a shadow of doubt. Were we clouded by what we saw because of the tenseness of the situation or could they have been moved ??”

PC Collins at the end of his Dickinson interview stated that they didn’t doubt it being a murder-suicide and also questioned the movement of Sheila’s body:

“Query photo’s – bible/head Sheila.”

How on earth can there be 'no recollection of a gun' upon Sheila Caffell, by a TFG member who witnessed her original crime scene?  How could a person view Sheila Caffell, as police originally found her (staged by Jeremy Bamber) and not see a gun on top of her body?  They had been scouring the building looking for the very same individual - who was armed and had just killed her whole family! 

Look at where they are saying the bible is - in other words - absolutely nowhere near the bloodstain it is covering in the crime scene photos

[David1819]

This next bit is a real difficult one.  At present, I personally don't think Sheila shot her self a second time. I think she simply collapsed upstairs and I think one of the .22 weapons was discharged accidentally by police, when it was mishandled while they were trying to figure out what to do (about the fact she had gotten upstairs with the first gunshot wound).  The second discharge caused police to place Sheila in the recovery position - which is why the large blood stain on the carpet exists.  It really couldn't have got much worse for them.

In the crime scene photography (which was never meant to be scrutinised to the extent that it has been) it is clearly noticeable that somebody has tried to cover that bloodstain with the bible.  This can only have been done for the purpose of crime scene photography.   

Then how do you explain the bloodstain pattern on Sheila's neck and the position of her fingers?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7805.msg369805.html#msg369805

[Reader]

If the police decided to stage manage the body, they would make damn sure they got it right - BUT the crucial part of this depends on their motive and no one has been able to suggest a credible motive for this.

In a sense, they did "get it right", but they didn't foresee what would happen. They had reasons that you don't think are credible, but others do think are credible.

[Caroline]

It's not the defence (or members who favour the defence) that should be establishing a motive.  It is the police who should be telling the truth.

How on earth can there be 'no recollection of a gun' upon Sheila Caffell, by a TFG member who witnessed her original crime scene?  How could a person view Sheila Caffell, as police originally found her (staged by Jeremy Bamber) and not see a gun on top of her body?  They had been scouring the building looking for the very same individual - who was armed and had just killed her whole family! 

Look at where they are saying the bible is - in other words - absolutely nowhere near the bloodstain it is covering in the crime scene photos

Given that there is no evidence that the police staged managed the body of Sheila Caffell and it IS an accusation by people on this forum then it is only right that they give a reason why such may have occurred? The CT have said there are still many documents being held under PII, however, Jeremy told me he not has almost everything. You can claim 'something' is hidden that 'something' happened and go on doing so but that doesn't make it a fact. the police can't admit to something that didn't occur.

[Caroline]

In a sense, they did "get it right", but they didn't foresee what would happen. They had reasons that you don't think are credible, but others do think are credible.

Which are?