Reason to believe cops shot Sheila, and how her blood ended up inside Silencer!

[Jane]

I'm not telling lies...

When I say that physical evidence existed at the scene strongly implicating Sheila Caffell in the killings. 

Regardless of whether Sheila Caffell had or hadn't been alive when TFG entered farmhouse - any police officers who paid sufficient attention inside the building, would have recognised and understood the significance of the evidence.

The nature of the evidence was/is exculpatory with regard to Jeremy: although he was not a police suspect at that time - he very quickly became a suspect in the eyes of some relatives. 

Relatives were provided with information by police on several occasions - to the point were at least two of them accepted Sheila could have committed the killings. 

Relatives chose to reject this information.  The eventual culmination of the relatives choosing this path - was that the evidence that implicated Sheila and exculpated Jeremy was concealed, in order that Jeremy could be prosecuted for the killings. 

All truth - no lies here I'm afraid. 

When the truth is eventually made public - my prediction is that the relatives will continue to try to manipulate and garner sympathy - by blaming the police for the wrongful conviction.  They will express that the police withheld information from them.  Information that if they had have been made aware of - would have prevented their campaign against Jeremy and the original investigating team. 

But it comes full circle.  Because they were told convincing information that had confirmed Sheila's role to police.  They were told Sheila was the killer.   

I bet they also blame Julie Mugford also.  They will blame anyone but themselves

Of course, when you speak about "the relatives", you're referring to those of 30+ years ago, whose grandchildren may now be those responsible for the day to day running of the business. As parents, whatever it is that YOU insist they've done, I think it highly unlikely that, having seen their children working hard to take the business forward -the Osea site is quite spectacular, I believe- they'll be doing anything soon to put their grandchildren's futures in jeopardy. As for blaming Julie!!!? The poor girl was YEARS younger than the youngest family member who was involved. Apart from which, you haven't given ANY valid or plausible reason as to why the police would want to frame an innocent man when they had a culprit who wasn't going to make noises about an MoJ.

[susan]

Hi Roch myself and many others know you only tell the truth and from reading your posts I know the evidence you refer to will exist and will implicate Sheila I don't have to see it to believe it I hope it does come to light at sometime as I now feel an innocent man is serving life for crimes he did not commit and that is horrendous

[lookout]

I think that the relatives will continue their convincing " war-cry " that they " live in fear of him ever being released ".Much the same as JM had said that " she would fear for her family ".
This " trick " was evident when AE and co. visited/wrote to both EP and their then local MP when JB's category had been reduced to a B. Within no time at all,he was back up to an A.

Because the relative's spokesperson is no longer around they still remain to have various individuals who have enough clout to continue where RWB left off,those who've been befriended who work/worked for EP at the time and also local MP's.

I don't think the relatives will ever accept that Jeremy was/is innocent,no matter what,but I hope that Pam is still around to see Jeremy acquitted.

[David1819]

When the truth is eventually made public - my prediction is that the relatives will continue to try to manipulate and garner sympathy - by blaming the police for the wrongful conviction.  They will express that the police withheld information from them.  Information that if they had have been made aware of - would have prevented their campaign against Jeremy and the original investigating team. 

But it comes full circle.  Because they were told convincing information that had confirmed Sheila's role to police.  They were told Sheila was the killer.   

I bet they also blame Julie Mugford also.  They will blame anyone but themselves

Perverting the course of justice can lead to prison you know. What goes around comes around.

[Adam]

I'm not telling lies...

When I say that physical evidence existed at the scene strongly implicating Sheila Caffell in the killings. 

Regardless of whether Sheila Caffell had or hadn't been alive when TFG entered farmhouse - any police officers who paid sufficient attention inside the building, would have recognised and understood the significance of the evidence.

The nature of the evidence was/is exculpatory with regard to Jeremy: although he was not a police suspect at that time - he very quickly became a suspect in the eyes of some relatives. 

Relatives were provided with information by police on several occasions - to the point were at least two of them accepted Sheila could have committed the killings. 

Relatives chose to reject this information.  The eventual culmination of the relatives choosing this path - was that the evidence that implicated Sheila and exculpated Jeremy was concealed, in order that Jeremy could be prosecuted for the killings. 

All truth - no lies here I'm afraid. 

When the truth is eventually made public - my prediction is that the relatives will continue to try to manipulate and garner sympathy - by blaming the police for the wrongful conviction.  They will express that the police withheld information from them.  Information that if they had have been made aware of - would have prevented their campaign against Jeremy and the original investigating team. 

But it comes full circle.  Because they were told convincing information that had confirmed Sheila's role to police.  They were told Sheila was the killer.   

I bet they also blame Julie Mugford also.  They will blame anyone but themselves

What physical evidence existed at the scene that 'implicated Sheila as the killer' ? How do you know this ?

What evidence were the relatives given that saw two of them 'accept that Sheila could have been the killer' ? How do you know this ?

What two relatives were these ? How do you know this ?

What evidence was concealed that had shown Sheila was the killer ? How do you know this ?

Why did the police conceal evidence to frame an innocent man ?

When do you believe the truth will be made public ? It's been 32 years.

[Roch]

Of course, when you speak about "the relatives", you're referring to those of 30+ years ago, whose grandchildren may now be those responsible for the day to day running of the business. As parents, whatever it is that YOU insist they've done, I think it highly unlikely that, having seen their children working hard to take the business forward -the Osea site is quite spectacular, I believe- they'll be doing anything soon to put their grandchildren's futures in jeopardy. As for blaming Julie!!!? The poor girl was YEARS younger than the youngest family member who was involved. Apart from which, you haven't given ANY valid or plausible reason as to why the police would want to frame an innocent man when they had a culprit who wasn't going to make noises about an MoJ.

With respect - relatives and original, senior police officers involved, would be aware of said reasons.  Why should I have to explain the motivations and/or criminal decisions of others?  Why would I be privy to such information anyway?   You should seek your answers in such matters from people who were at the business end of proceedings in 85/86 etc.

Vic used to post on here that the 'relatives are no fan of Julie Mugford'.  This indicates the alleged level contempt from the relatives towards her.  Yet to me, she seems a pawn caught between Stan Jones / Ainsley / Simpson and the relatives themselves.

If you and others let the relatives off the hook - and allow the blame to be placed upon police and Julie - you and others will be doing the truth a great disservice.   

All relevant components should be apportioned blame.  Relatives - Police - Julie - justice system etc.   

That is my point.

[Jane]

I think that the relatives will continue their convincing " war-cry " that they " live in fear of him ever being released ".Much the same as JM had said that " she would fear for her family ".
This " trick " was evident when AE and co. visited/wrote to both EP and their then local MP when JB's category had been reduced to a B. Within no time at all,he was back up to an A.

Because the relative's spokesperson is no longer around they still remain to have various individuals who have enough clout to continue where RWB left off,those who've been befriended who work/worked for EP at the time and also local MP's.

I don't think the relatives will ever accept that Jeremy was/is innocent,no matter what,but I hope that Pam is still around to see Jeremy acquitted.

I'm really not too surprised that Julie says she will fear for her family. I'm given to understand she has just cause. I don't imagine that the family had any hand, at all, in Jeremy's reinstatement as a CAT A. I can't imagine that there are many lifers who, with no hope of release, are promoted to CAT B.

[Jane]

With respect - relatives and original, senior police officers involved, would be aware of said reasons.  Why should I have to explain the motivations and/or criminal decisions of others?  Why would I be privy to such information anyway?   You should seek your answers in such matters from people who were at the business end of proceedings in 85/86 etc.

Vic used to post on here that the 'relatives are no fan of Julie Mugford'.  This indicates the alleged level contempt from the relatives towards her.  Yet to me, she seems a pawn caught between Stan Jones / Ainsley / Simpson and the relatives themselves.

If you and others let the relatives off the hook - and allow the blame to be placed upon police and Julie - you and others will be doing the truth a great disservice.   

All relevant components should be apportioned blame.  Relatives - Police - Julie - justice system etc.   

That is my point.

Roch, I think it highly likely that, for whatever their motive/agenda, not ONE of those involved is snowy, virgin white................however, I'm including Jeremy in the mix. Whatever were their motives it doesn't make Jeremy innocent.

[Adam]

Hopefully Roch will answer my 6 basic questions in reply 484. Which all related to his earlier post.


Bit strange that Roch says the police & relatives framed Bamber. But in the next post says -

'Why should I have to explain their motivations'.

'Why would I be privy to such information'.

[lookout]

I'm really not too surprised that Julie says she will fear for her family. I'm given to understand she has just cause. I don't imagine that the family had any hand, at all, in Jeremy's reinstatement as a CAT A. I can't imagine that there are many lifers who, with no hope of release, are promoted to CAT B.

The family did have input concerning the category because RWB wrote to EP to express his disappointment. Then he contacted the MP John Whittingdale to " bear it in mind " at the next Parliamentary session. Whatever was said,it worked. There is documentation about RWB's contacts re.this particular matter,somewhere on the forum. The MP,after the relatives befriended him,still pays visits to WHF. Priti Patel is also another " friend " of theirs who shares the relatives grievances and is kept informed.

[lookout]

Perverting the course of justice can lead to prison you know. What goes around comes around.

I can't see prison happening.

[lookout]

Maybe the relatives weren't over-friendly with JM,but they did nothing to stop her being the main prosecution witness. It wouldn't have " sat right " if they'd been in her place,would it ??

[lookout]

I'm not telling lies...

When I say that physical evidence existed at the scene strongly implicating Sheila Caffell in the killings. 

Regardless of whether Sheila Caffell had or hadn't been alive when TFG entered farmhouse - any police officers who paid sufficient attention inside the building, would have recognised and understood the significance of the evidence.

The nature of the evidence was/is exculpatory with regard to Jeremy: although he was not a police suspect at that time - he very quickly became a suspect in the eyes of some relatives. 

Relatives were provided with information by police on several occasions - to the point were at least two of them accepted Sheila could have committed the killings. 

Relatives chose to reject this information.  The eventual culmination of the relatives choosing this path - was that the evidence that implicated Sheila and exculpated Jeremy was concealed, in order that Jeremy could be prosecuted for the killings. 

All truth - no lies here I'm afraid. 

When the truth is eventually made public - my prediction is that the relatives will continue to try to manipulate and garner sympathy - by blaming the police for the wrongful conviction.  They will express that the police withheld information from them.  Information that if they had have been made aware of - would have prevented their campaign against Jeremy and the original investigating team. 

But it comes full circle.  Because they were told convincing information that had confirmed Sheila's role to police.  They were told Sheila was the killer.   

I bet they also blame Julie Mugford also.  They will blame anyone but themselves

What I meant by that remark I made was ( in the eyes of the guilters )

[lookout]

Just to keep the record straight.

[Jane]

The family did have input concerning the category because RWB wrote to EP to express his disappointment. Then he contacted the MP John Whittingdale to " bear it in mind " at the next Parliamentary session. Whatever was said,it worked. There is documentation about RWB's contacts re.this particular matter,somewhere on the forum. The MP,after the relatives befriended him,still pays visits to WHF. Priti Patel is also another " friend " of theirs who shares the relatives grievances and is kept informed.

 I wouldn't dream of suggesting he didn't. Since when did it become illegal for any citizen to contact their MP? I've done it myself. You will undoubtedly, also know how little time each MP has to ask questions. If all MP's voiced all of their constituents' concerns it would take them into the next Parliament. There appears to be documentation here about just about anything. It's validity/authenticity, as you're probably aware, is another thing. Priti Patel undoubtedly knows the family. I imagine they contribute/work hard for the Party. It might though, be worth considering that she was hardly born in 1885. She probably does understand their grievances. "Sharing" them, I believe, is hardly likely. I think it has to be remembered that Jeremy Bamber isn't at the forefront of MOST peoples' minds.