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

[Caroline]

Afraid I cant cooperate in a process of elimination with regard to 'what evidence?'.  Therefore I cannot confirm either way on anything suggested.  I understand this is of no use to you but it's the position I am in.  What I know - you will also come to know - but when is out of my hands entirely.

I didn't think you would but there is little about the crime scene that would eliminate one and incriminate the other exclusively. A note by Sheila, proof she was alive, proof of the phone call - that's all I can think of.

[lookout]

It was using my brain to see the cracks in supporters' walls which caused me to change from innocent to guilty. Left to you, the guilty would be 'disposed of' without a backward glance.

Blimey,couldn't you do better than that ?

[Jane]

Blimey,couldn't you do better than that ?

Why would it need to be? It's FACT

[notsure]

Hi Roch you sound elated and that must be a wonderful feeling to have knowing in your heart of hearts you are not wrong in your belief Sheila was the killer.

thanks susan, take no notice of adam.

[Adam]

thanks susan, take no notice of adam.

Hopefully you & Susan realise all posters need to provide sources to back up what is written.

Accepting Roch's major claims just because he wrote a long post is not sufficient.

I will re post my questions to Roch for the 4th time & the forum can debate his answers & sources.

[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.


Please include sources for each answer.

[notsure]

Hopefully you & Susan realise all posters need to provide sources to back up what is written.

Accepting Roch's major claims just because he wrote a long post is not sufficient.

I will re post my questions to Roch for the 4th time & the forum can debate his answers & sources.

adam we don't need to do anything. If we are able to post sources we can but it's not obligatory. I can accept anyone's post if I want to. Roch hasn't actually made any major claims yet but I'll certainly consider them when he does.

[Roch]

I didn't think you would but there is little about the crime scene that would eliminate one and incriminate the other exclusively. A note by Sheila, proof she was alive, proof of the phone call - that's all I can think of.

Well there was something in the crime scene that points away from Jeremy and towards Sheila.  I suppose we'll just have to see what occurs over the coming year.

[Roch]

What physical evidence existed at the scene that 'implicated Sheila as the killer' ? How do you know this ?
 
Evidence that was there for all to discover, inspect and become informed by, regarding what had most likely taken place during that night.

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

It's in Ann Eaton's COLP notes - possibly 14th August?  You cant have a situation where there is apparently no evidence that Sheila Caffell was the killer - yet there is enough evidence available to impart to two protesting relatives; and enable their acceptance that Sheila may have been the killer.

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

See above

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

See my first sentence.

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

Perhaps at least one of the policemen was corrupt to the extent he could be got at?

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

Probably some point later this year - which in Bamber case terms means next April 


Please include sources for each answer.

[Caroline]

Well there was something in the crime scene that points away from Jeremy and towards Sheila.  I suppose we'll just have to see what occurs over the coming year.

It wasn't a big sponge finger was it? 

[gringo]

So your saying PC Collins statement and Woodcocks statements  20th Sept (raid team) wasn't available to the defence both mention seeing a female on the kitchen floor? PC Collins also says he had mentioned this in his original statement as well, so it seems to me that they are not trying to cover this up?

   Where did I mention statements?
      It was crystal clear that I was referring to the message logs, which were withheld for nearly 20 years.
      Why were these withheld, if not to cover up the rather revealing contents?
      Woodcock and Collins statements didn't mention finding two bodies downstairs, nor did they mention finding a further three upstairs. The message logs do refer to this and they were withheld.
      Where are Woodcocks and Collins original statements, seeing as you brought the matter up? Are they also "unavailable".
       Do you, believe that withholding logs and then rewriting statements, after deciding to withhold said logs, is standard practice?

[Jane]

   Where did I mention statements?
      It was crystal clear that I was referring to the message logs, which were withheld for nearly 20 years.
      Why were these withheld, if not to cover up the rather revealing contents?
      Woodcock and Collins statements didn't mention finding two bodies downstairs, nor did they mention finding a further three upstairs. The message logs do refer to this and they were withheld.
      Where are Woodcocks and Collins original statements, seeing as you brought the matter up? Are they also "unavailable".
       Do you, believe that withholding logs and then rewriting statements, after deciding to withhold said logs, is standard practice?

In order to believe "that withholding logs and then rewriting statements, after deciding to withhold said logs, is standard practice" it is necessary to believe that logs were withheld and statements were rewritten, OTHER, that is, than in composite form which is accepted, standard practice ie it would take rather too long to read out the statement of someone with a stutter!!!

[guest7363]

   Where did I mention statements?
      It was crystal clear that I was referring to the message logs, which were withheld for nearly 20 years.
      Why were these withheld, if not to cover up the rather revealing contents?
      Woodcock and Collins statements didn't mention finding two bodies downstairs, nor did they mention finding a further three upstairs. The message logs do refer to this and they were withheld.
      Where are Woodcocks and Collins original statements, seeing as you brought the matter up? Are they also "unavailable".
       Do you, believe that withholding logs and then rewriting statements, after deciding to withhold said logs, is standard practice?

Quite simple really, there wasn't two bodies down stairs. 

[guest2181]

   Where did I mention statements?
      It was crystal clear that I was referring to the message logs, which were withheld for nearly 20 years.
      Why were these withheld, if not to cover up the rather revealing contents?
      Woodcock and Collins statements didn't mention finding two bodies downstairs, nor did they mention finding a further three upstairs. The message logs do refer to this and they were withheld.
      Where are Woodcocks and Collins original statements, seeing as you brought the matter up? Are they also "unavailable".
       Do you, believe that withholding logs and then rewriting statements, after deciding to withhold said logs, is standard practice?

This seems to keep coming up.

The logs simply were NOT withheld!!!

The proof of this is in trial transcripts (available in our library). The logs by Bonnett & West are referred to, read from and even handed out in court back in 1986.

Read them for yourself.

[gringo]

This seems to keep coming up.

The logs simply were NOT withheld!!!

The proof of this is in trial transcripts (available in our library). The logs by Bonnett & West are referred to, read from and even handed out in court back in 1986.

Read them for yourself.

   The message logs were withheld and were only obtained after the second appeal. As I remember they were only obtained by the defence after a mistake by EP. I believe EP released the first page of a fourteen page log, that had previously been withheld, on the reverse side of some other document that they were disclosing.
    Were the message logs read from and discussed in court?
     Had they been so, it is difficult to believe that the pathetic excuses given since for these anomalies, would have been bought by the jury.
     But we all know really that this is the very reason for the withholding of the message logs.