What 'evidence' did Taff give to the relatives ?

[Adam]

The relatives went to Peter Simpson after Taff Jones rejected their suggestions.

It's today been suggested that Taff gave the relatives evidence that Sheila was responsible. However the relatives still amazingly went to Peter Simpson.

The simple questions are -

Did Taff give the relatives evidence Sheila was guilty ?

What was the incriminating evidence Taff gave the relatives ?

Did the relatives decide to still go to Peter Simpson after being given evidence Sheila was guilty ?

Why did Peter Simpson remove Taff if Taff's investigation had uncovered evidence Sheila was guilty ?

If Taff only had a 'gut feeling' Sheila was guilty, were the relatives not entitled to go higher ?

[Adam]

Didn't the relatives go to Taff three times ?

If Taff gave them evidence the first time, the relatives were very brave, vindictive & foolish in persisting. Why didn't Taff report them.

The most simple explanation is Taff had nothing to convince the relatives.

[Caroline]

The relatives were told 'something' by Taff Jones, the relatives had 'something' over EP and 'something' happened at WHF for the police to frame Jeremy. Seems like a lot of 'something' and 'nothing' to me!

[lookout]

Well let's see those missing documents and find out then. Not much to ask is it ?

[Roch]

The relatives went to Taff Jones during a period when the police had very strong evidence that Sheila Caffell was the assailant / murderer / suicide victim.  Whether Taff Jones discussed actual evidence (unlikely) or whether he provided opinion based upon the evidence, is not known to anyone but the police and relatives.

Why do people on here insist on posing silly questions to 'supporters'  - when the only people who have the answers are police / relatives?

[Adam]

The relatives went to Taff Jones during a period when the police had very strong evidence that Sheila Caffell was the assailant / murderer / suicide victim.  Whether Taff Jones discussed actual evidence (unlikely) or whether he provided opinion based upon the evidence, is not known to anyone but the police and relatives.

Why do people on here insist on posing silly questions to 'supporters'  - when the only people who have the answers are police / relatives?

You said today the relatives were given evidence that Sheila was the killer -

"That doesn't excuse their actions or behaviour.  The police and pathologist knew Sheila had killed everyone.  The police were so convinced regarding the original evidence, that they expressed disgust towards the relatives' insinuations.   Funny that - since we are constantly told on here that there is no evidence.  So the police at the time were convinced to the extent that they were disgusted at the relatives insinuations - purely based on no evidence??

The relatives were told some of the reasons as to why the police held Sheila responsible, at a time when there was no need for police to conceal certain evidence: as they themselves were not actively pursuing JB as a suspect at that point, there was far less motivation to conceal any known evidence that linked Sheila.  Whatever the relatives were told, it was enough to convince two gun experts among them, that Sheila could have been responsible.

The problem with that scenario - is that it did not resolve the self-serving concerns and fears that the relatives harboured. "

                                    --------------

Are you now saying the relatives were not given evidence that Sheila was the killer ?

[Roch]

You said today the relatives were given evidence that Sheila was the killer -

"That doesn't excuse their actions or behaviour.  The police and pathologist knew Sheila had killed everyone.  The police were so convinced regarding the original evidence, that they expressed disgust towards the relatives' insinuations.   Funny that - since we are constantly told on here that there is no evidence.  So the police at the time were convinced to the extent that they were disgusted at the relatives insinuations - purely based on no evidence??

The relatives were told some of the reasons as to why the police held Sheila responsible, at a time when there was no need for police to conceal certain evidence: as they themselves were not actively pursuing JB as a suspect at that point, there was far less motivation to conceal any known evidence that linked Sheila.  Whatever the relatives were told, it was enough to convince two gun experts among them, that Sheila could have been responsible.

The problem with that scenario - is that it did not resolve the self-serving concerns and fears that the relatives harboured. "

                                    --------------

Are you now saying the relatives were not given evidence that Sheila was the killer ?

I thought I said they were given reasons? (at a time when the police were under less pressure to conceal Sheila's involvement - meaning - in comparison to when Ainsley headed the investigation and the police were under huge pressure to conceal Sheila's involvement).

Sometimes you have to join the dots...

[Adam]

I thought I said they were given reasons? (at a time when the police were under less pressure to conceal Sheila's involvement - meaning - in comparison to when Ainsley headed the investigation and the police were under huge pressure to conceal Sheila's involvement).

Sometimes you have to join the dots...

So the relatives were given evidence early on by Taff. On why Sheila was guilty.

Do you find it surprising that the relatives still went to Peter Simpson ? Greedy & heartless or not, they had no chance of convicting Bamber. The evidence was against them. 

Taff with his evidence showing Sheila was the killer would have been all over the relatives & attempted to prosecute them. Instead he was taken off the case. 

[Adam]

My view is Taff gave the relatives no compelling evidence on why Sheila was the killer & Bamber was innocent. Which is why the relatives continued and went higher. And why Taff was taken off the case.

It would be suicide for the relatives to ask Peter Simpson to assist them with a huge frame.

The only other police man I know of who the relatives engaged with early on, was Stan Jones. He was suspicious of Bamber from the start.

[Roch]

So the relatives were given evidence early on by Taff. On why Sheila was guilty.

That's clearly not what I said.  I also know you are more than capable of joining the dots. 

Do you find it surprising that the relatives still went to Peter Simpson ? Greedy & heartless or not, they had no chance of convicting Bamber. The evidence was against them.

 

I find it arrogant and distasteful.  I'm not sure I find it surprising.  If you watch the Window video - you will see that Bobby wasn't going to be deterred by anything.

Taff with his evidence showing Sheila was the killer would have been all over the relatives & attempted to prosecute them.  Instead he was taken off the case.

He probably didn't reckon on the future course of events (i.e. the cosy relationship between relatives and some police).  I could speculate that one of the reasons he was taken off the case is that he didn't feel comfortable in burning a man's life.

[Steve_uk]

I thought I said they were given reasons? (at a time when the police were under less pressure to conceal Sheila's involvement - meaning - in comparison to when Ainsley headed the investigation and the police were under huge pressure to conceal Sheila's involvement).

Sometimes you have to join the dots...

Roch leaving Taff Jones aside for a moment what was the reason for Police concealing a call to them by Nevill?

[Adam]

Agree with what Roch said. The only time the relatives would have been given evidence of Sheila's guilt was early on when engaging with Taff. What this evidence was, only the relatives know.

The first two meetings with Taff no evidence was given to the relatives. Otherwise they would not have re visted Taff. Taff only decided to give the relatives evidence at the third meeting.

I don't agree with Roch that the relatives were arrogant & distasteful enough to go to Peter Simpson and ask him to frame Bamber. Or that Peter Simpson would agree.   Taff had given the relatives evidence of Sheila's guilt so it was game over for them.

[Roch]

Roch leaving Taff Jones aside for a moment what was the reason for Police concealing a call to them by Nevill?

I've thought about this and came to the same conclusion as Bill.  Firstly, they had angry relatives haranguing them.  If they release details of calls, they could be found wanting with regard to response times and the level of response / actions not carried out.  Secondly, it was case evidence under investigation. They had no obligation to share it.

[lookout]

Ah,but because the relatives hadn't been aware of how Sheila's behaviour had been,or the huge on-going problem within the family concerning Sheila's ability to either look after the twins or perform everyday tasks,AE had probably told " Taff " that it had been " impossible for a slip of a girl to have battled with her father ".
If this had been the repetetive argument which had been put to " Taff ",then it's little wonder that he chased AE out of his office.

[Adam]

I've thought about this and came to the same conclusion as Bill.  Firstly, they had angry relatives haranguing them.  If they release details of calls, they could be found wanting with regard to response times and the level of response / actions not carried out.  Secondly, it was case evidence under investigation. They had no obligation to share it.

I'm sure EP were very worried about AE & RB haranguing them and changed stance.