Kitchen telephone

[mike tesko]

At least one of the supposedly two dead bodies, as asserted as being dead by 7.45am at the very latest, was in fact, undead, still alive, still capable of moving around, and presumably still capable of making a nuisance of herself, capable of upsetting the apple cart of the police mindset, it would seem...

[mike tesko]

At least one of the supposedly two dead bodies, as asserted as being dead by 7.45am at the very latest, was in fact, undead, still alive, still capable of moving around, and presumably still capable of making a nuisance of herself, capable of upsetting the apple cart of the police mindset, it would seem...

What we know, because the devil is in the detail of these message logs, as opposed to the fraudulent contents of police officers witness statements, was that Sheila was not in fact dead, she had not been killed as a result of the shooting incident in the kitchen (please, subject of an officers report 1612), Sheila was still alive long after 7.45am, she was alive long after a further three bodies (making five dead in total) had been found by 8.10am upstairs! She was still alive at 8.44am when the police surgeon, Craig, pronounced her as being dead with what appeared to be a wound on her neck! She was still live after PS Adams viewed her body at around 9am with no rifle in sight of her body by that stage, Sheila Caffell was still alive when after 9am, senior officers set about performing 'informatives' upstairs in that bedroom..

Still, no ambulance crews had viewed or attended the bodies of any of the five victims, and these two ambulances and their crews had already been present at the scene for two hours, 50 minutes after police had originally called all five dead by 8.10am, two bodies downstairs, three bodies upstairs...

[mike tesko]

The shot across Sheila Caffells neck is problematic to the prosecutions case at trial!

[mike tesko]

The shot across Sheila Caffells neck is problematic to the prosecutions case at trial!

Somebody swapped the original badly fragmented PV/20 bullet removed by the pathologist from Sheila's neck during autopsy performed on 7 August 1985, and replaced it with 'A WHOLE BULLET' so that when the prosecutions ballistic expert, Malcom Fletcher received it on the 20th September 1985, and he performed a comparison test of it against a test round fired via the anshuzt rifle, he was able to 'strongly suggest' that it had been loaded and fired via the same rifle at the time Sheila was shot in the neck!

Of course, anyone with a degree of common sense knows that pieces of a badly fragmented bullet cannot and doesn't grow back into, and become a whole bullet once more just because for it to have done so, favours any conclusion a prosecution ballistic expert might want to, and in fact does present to the court trying the matter!

This bullet (PV/20) has clearly been interfered with by somebody intent upon trying to make this into a one gun crime, when clearly at least two different weapons were used, and had been used!

[mike tesko]

Somebody swapped the original badly fragmented PV/20 bullet removed by the pathologist from Sheila's neck during autopsy performed on 7 August 1985, and replaced it with 'A WHOLE BULLET' so that when the prosecutions ballistic expert, Malcom Fletcher received it on the 20th September 1985, and he performed a comparison test of it against a test round fired via the anshuzt rifle, he was able to 'strongly suggest' that it had been loaded and fired via the same rifle at the time Sheila was shot in the neck!

Of course, anyone with a degree of common sense knows that pieces of a badly fragmented bullet cannot and doesn't grow back into, and become a whole bullet once more just because for it to have done so, favours any conclusion a prosecution ballistic expert might want to, and in fact does present to the court trying the matter!

This bullet (PV/20) has clearly been interfered with by somebody intent upon trying to make this into a one gun crime, when clearly at least two different weapons were used, and had been used!

Sheila was the subject of the shooting incident downstairs in the kitchen in accordance with the officers report (1612), and is capable of supporting the fact that somebody was still very much alive inside the farmhouse after 5.47am when the kitchen phone mysteriously became engaged, after previously (3.42am, and 3.56am)being described by an operator to 'be off the hook'!In an entry of a police log, it states that firearm officers are 'engaged in a conversation' with a person from inside the farm! Everything points to somebody still being very much alive inside the farmhouse, whilst Jeremy was outside with police, or even not present at the scene at all..

[mike tesko]

Sheila was the subject of the shooting incident downstairs in the kitchen in accordance with the officers report (1612), and is capable of supporting the fact that somebody was still very much alive inside the farmhouse after 5.47am when the kitchen phone mysteriously became engaged, after previously (3.42am, and 3.56am)being described by an operator to 'be off the hook'!In an entry of a police log, it states that firearm officers are 'engaged in a conversation' with a person from inside the farm! Everything points to somebody still being very much alive inside the farmhouse, whilst Jeremy was outside with police, or even not present at the scene at all..

Then there is the business of lights being switched off, and then on again, inside the farmhouse, downstairs and upstairs - and Crispy the dog heard so clearly via the kitchen phone, ending up under the bed in the main bedroom! It just doesn't make sense, or add up!

[mike tesko]

What was SOCO's Oakey and Henderson doing at the scene on the first morning of the police investigation?

Why has the role these two played in the matter been suppressed?

[mike tesko]

What was SOCO's Oakey and Henderson doing at the scene on the first morning of the police investigation?

Why has the role these two played in the matter been suppressed?

During the trial I believe PC Bird stated whilst testifying that he did not take photograph 25 which shows the barrel of the anshuzt rifle resting against the left side of Sheila Caffell!

All the other disclosed photographs that were taken of Sheila's body in possession of the anshuzt rifle were taken by PC Bird himself, but in all these different photo's that he took, the muzzle of the rifles barrel was in a different position in relation to her neck!

[mike tesko]

DC Oakey (SOCO) was therefore in the main bedroom and he took photograph number 25 prior to 10am at which stage PC Bird (SOCO) entered the farmhouse and proceeded to take the rest of the photographs! DC Henderson (SOCO) was also present inside the farmhouse, and he took the video footage of the entire crime scene! The authorities have attempted to keep Oakey and Henderson out of the mix by shoving PC Bird forward as the crime scene photographer, but he only became the crime scene photographer after 10am when the gist of the 'informatives' carried out by senior officers was either completed, or near to completion! Oakey and Henderson were the two SOCO present inside the main bedroom during the 'informatives'! The pictures and video footage that they took, included Sheila's body on the bed sporting a wound, not two wounds, no triangular bloodstain on the front of her nightdress - that was created later after senior officers organised the removal of Sheila's body onto the floor and the rifle was brought from the box room window to her body and that's when the second shot was inflicted! Immediately Sheila's body was rolled over onto her right into the recovery position! One officer attempted to stem the blood gushing out of the second wound but they could not save her! This occurred at 9.13am according to the content of an officers report (1612)! Thus they rolled her back onto her back, and plonked the rifle on her body and DC Oakey (SOCO) took photograph number 25 (above), and I understand that DC Henderson (SOCO) took video footage! These duties were performed before 'Ron' Cook (SOCO), and his team, Hammersley, Davidson, and Bird (all SOCO's) took charge of the scene from 10 O'clock, onward! From thereon in, the only people allowed to enter the farmhouse, were PS Woodcock, PI Montgomery, and DS 'Stan' Jones (who had returned back to the scene from Jeremy's cottage to collect the silencer, SBJ/1)!

[mike tesko]

DC Oakey (SOCO) was therefore in the main bedroom and he took photograph number 25 prior to 10am at which stage PC Bird (SOCO) entered the farmhouse and proceeded to take the rest of the photographs! DC Henderson (SOCO) was also present inside the farmhouse, and he took the video footage of the entire crime scene! The authorities have attempted to keep Oakey and Henderson out of the mix by shoving PC Bird forward as the crime scene photographer, but he only became the crime scene photographer after 10am when the gist of the 'informatives' carried out by senior officers was either completed, or near to completion! Oakey and Henderson were the two SOCO present inside the main bedroom during the 'informatives'! The pictures and video footage that they took, included Sheila's body on the bed sporting a wound, not two wounds, no triangular bloodstain on the front of her nightdress - that was created later after senior officers organised the removal of Sheila's body onto the floor and the rifle was brought from the box room window to her body and that's when the second shot was inflicted! Immediately Sheila's body was rolled over onto her right into the recovery position! One officer attempted to stem the blood gushing out of the second wound but they could not save her! This occurred at 9.13am according to the content of an officers report (1612)! Thus they rolled her back onto her back, and plonked the rifle on her body and DC Oakey (SOCO) took photograph number 25 (above), and I understand that DC Henderson (SOCO) took video footage! These duties were performed before 'Ron' Cook (SOCO), and his team, Hammersley, Davidson, and Bird (all SOCO's) took charge of the scene from 10 O'clock, onward! From thereon in, the only people allowed to enter the farmhouse, were PS Woodcock, PI Montgomery, and DS 'Stan' Jones (who had returned back to the scene from Jeremy's cottage to collect the silencer, SBJ/1)!

PC 'David' Bird (SOCO) would much later tell the COLP investigators in 1991, something of vital importance which serves to confirm in the light of the aforementioned that the police staged Sheila Caffells death scene on the bedroom floor, not Jeremy as alluded to during his October 1986 Chelmsford Crown Court trial! PB Bird told COLP in 1991 that as 'Ron' Cook was walking him toward the farmhouse for the first time, Cook said to him, 'make sure you get the position of the gun right on the body', or words to that effect...

As with so many cases of dishonesty and deception, the devil is always in the detail...

Maybe, PC Bird did not know at that time that DC Oakey had taken photographs of Sheila's body on the bed sporting a wound minus any weapin, and again after her body had been moved from the bed to the floor with the rifle which had been brought from the box room which was now upon her body with its barrel against the left side of her neck (photo' 25)?

[Reader]

Or to put it in the simplest way possible, what the officer wrote was correct

That would add the assumption that it was correct, as distinct from thought to be correct by the officer who wrote the log entry.

She did not make her own witness statement about this, it was prepared for her by a police officer who had a mindset to try and conceal the truth

That's mere supposition, but even if correct, it's highly unlikely that the assertion that the operator was not allowed to tie up the 999 system was untrue, as any BT operator would know whether or not such a rule existed. The rule is entirely believable, as the operator had the straightforward alternative of using a normal line unrelated to the 999 system.

. . . changing from being off the hook, into it becoming engaged

There was no report of the status "becoming" engaged. The wording logged was different, that's all.

No, she was asked to check the phone and she reported back that the phone was off the hook

You don't know the exact words that Pc West used. Pc West had dialled the WHF number and heard an engaged tone, which would be the case if the handset was off-hook, even if there was a dial tone on the WHF line. The engaged tone indicates that the line wasn't available when dialled, and only BT can determine the reason why the line isn't available. When Pc West telephoned the operator, it would be natural for him to mention to her that he'd heard the engaged tone (as distinct from an unobtainable tone) when asking the operator to investigate.

Because it was off the hook it wasn't engaged.

That's incorrect. It's always been the case that dialling a BT number results in the engaged tone if there is no fault, but a handset for the number is connected to the line and off-hook. This needn't be true nowadays if you dial a non-BT number, such as a Sky number, but it was true in 1985 for the WHF BT number. The BT operator in 1985 would also get the engaged tone, but could determine the reason for it. I think that the dial tone generated in 1985 would last for several minutes (if no dialling occurred), but not indefinitely.

. . . she would have told PC West that the phone was engaged, and the operator would have been able to obtain the telephone number of the phone it was engaged with, or to.

Had Pc West already mentioned the engaged tone to the operator, the natural response (if the operator had completed her check quickly) would have been to give just the explanation that the handset was off-hook (if no call was in progress). There would have been no dial tone to report unless the handset had only very recently (within a few minutes) been taken off-hook. From Pc West's position, writing "off-hook" was simply the alternative to writing "in use" or "in use" and the type of use, such as "connected to another number".

When the phone is off the hook it is not engaged to an operator, it is simply off the hook with its own dialling tone!

That's incorrect. The operator, unless specifically asked not to dial the number, would start by dialling it, and would receive the engaged tone if it was off-hook, in which case she could then determine the reason for the engaged tone.

If anyone elsewhere tries to phone the phone which has its handset off the hook, of course the caller will receive an engaged tone!

That's true, but the operator would get the engaged tone on dialling the number in the normal way.

She did not hear the dog barking because the phone was not engaged with another line, it was just off the hook with its own dialling tone! . . . the dialling tone would have automatically kicked in after a few minutes, leaving the phone at the farm off its cradle, or off the hook, with a dialling tone sounding in the handset!

That's not what happens. The dial tone commences only when the handset has just been lifted. If a call was in progress and the called party hangs up, the caller never receives a new dial tone by just waiting. If a dial tone ceases for any reason, a new dial tone never just "kicks in". The caller would have to hang up and then lift the handset to get a new dial tone. There's no evidence that it had a dial tone when checked at  3:42am.  Even in 1985, the dial tone was discontinued after a short while (possibly a few minutes) unless dialling occurred.

[lookout]

There wouldn't have been a dialing tone if the phone had been off the hook.Years ago ( 1985 ) if the handset hadn't been on the cradle after a call,you'd hear the operators voice repeating " to replace the handset ". This was so on my phone back then. So in effect,the operator knew if the handset hadn't been replaced,and would possibly have heard background noise.

[Caroline]

There wouldn't have been a dialing tone if the phone had been off the hook.Years ago ( 1985 ) if the handset hadn't been on the cradle after a call,you'd hear the operators voice repeating " to replace the handset ". This was so on my phone back then. So in effect,the operator knew if the handset hadn't been replaced,and would possibly have heard background noise.

That's not how it works lookout. For the operator to know the phone was off the hook, he/she would have to be alerted. This is what happened at WHF - it wasn't until the operator was notified that the phone was engaged, that it was checked and found to be off the hook.

[Reader]

I think you have misinterpreted what is put in that particular statement! She is saying that she could not patch through the line she was eavesdropping on, through to the police because the line she was eavesdropping on was a 999 call, and she could not patch an extension of that line through to the police directly without the connection she had control over becoming disabled

I think you're the one who is misinterpreting it. Can you explain how you derive your interpretation? Below are the exact words used in the relevant portion of the typed version of her statement dated 8th August 1985 and signed at 9.00 a.m.

"I can't be exactly sure of the time but at about 4.00 a.m. on Wednesday the 7th August 1985 I was at the switchboard when I received a call from the Police Headquarters in Chelmsford. I was asked to check the line of a Maldon Telephone Numbered 860209 to see if there was anybody speaking or if the phone was off the hook.
I then checked this line. I could tell that the receiver was off the hook and the line was therefore open. There wasn't any speech but I could hear a dog barking, the noise was loud so it appeared that the dog was near the receiver. I couldn't hear any other noise at all.
I then disconnected myself from the line and informed the caller that the receiver was off.
At about 5.40 a.m. the same caller phoned in again from the Police Headquarters and asked me to check that number again. This I did. The line was still open, the only thing I could hear was a very slight moving sound. I again informed the caller of this and he hung up. At about 5.50 a.m. the same day the same caller came on the phone again and asked if it was possible to put this number through to the Police Headquarters to enable them to monitor it. I am not allowed to engage the Direct Emergency Police line, so I again checked into this Maldon number and then phoned the Police Headquarters and connected the two thus enabling the Police to listen to the line. I didn't listen to the line at all this time as I was engaged in making alarm calls and other British Telecom Services.
I went off duty at 8.00 a.m. on the 7th August 1985 and at that stage the Police were still monitoring the line. I had had no further involvement since I had connected the two. I had no idea what had happened."

The above makes sense in relation to my description, and doesn't seem to justify your suggestions. In particular, the operator wasn't eavesdropping the WHF line when asked by the police to connect it to the Police HQ to let the police monitor it continuously, so there's nothing to suggest the WHF line was already connected to the emergency line.

[lookout]

That's not how it works lookout. For the operator to know the phone was off the hook, he/she would have to be alerted. This is what happened at WHF - it wasn't until the operator was notified that the phone was engaged, that it was checked and found to be off the hook.

I've said this before,that an engaged tone is a different from a tone where the handset is off the cradle. If it was off the hook mid-call,then an engaged tone would be heard by the caller trying to ring.
Therefore,an engaged tone would have proved that someone from within WHF had been trying to ring.