Author Topic: One bark for 'YES', two barks for 'NO'..  (Read 18013 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline frankie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: One bark for 'YES', two barks for 'NO'..
« Reply #15 on: April 17, 2018, 09:16:PM »
How can you tell that? I cant see a date anywhere? Not sure I understand how this all works.

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17579
Re: One bark for 'YES', two barks for 'NO'..
« Reply #16 on: April 17, 2018, 09:26:PM »
How can you tell that? I cant see a date anywhere? Not sure I understand how this all works.

Where are you looking for a date?  Do you mean the thread from 2012 via the link I posted?

Offline frankie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: One bark for 'YES', two barks for 'NO'..
« Reply #17 on: April 17, 2018, 09:33:PM »
Sorry, yes I see the link now. I still think it's a ludicrous suggestion and probably a wind up.

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17579
Re: One bark for 'YES', two barks for 'NO'..
« Reply #18 on: April 17, 2018, 09:40:PM »
Sorry, yes I see the link now. I still think it's a ludicrous suggestion and probably a wind up.

There are pages missing from Essex Constabulary scene and event logs (i.e. they have been re-written).  Cant comment on the exact reason.  However, Mrs Caffell may have been experiencing a psychotic episode during this incident. 
« Last Edit: April 17, 2018, 09:42:PM by Roch »

Offline frankie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: One bark for 'YES', two barks for 'NO'..
« Reply #19 on: April 17, 2018, 09:44:PM »
Yes I read the suggestion. I personally think that even the best mimicking human still sounds like a human rather than a dog though. Would need to hear a recording (if there was one) to judge the veracity of the sounds and 'responses.'

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17579
Re: One bark for 'YES', two barks for 'NO'..
« Reply #20 on: April 17, 2018, 09:55:PM »
Yes I read the suggestion. I personally think that even the best mimicking human still sounds like a human rather than a dog though. Would need to hear a recording (if there was one) to judge the veracity of the sounds and 'responses.'

Yes, if true, she would have sounded like a human mimicking a dog.  The full audio tapes from the scene are never going to come to light.  Copies were apparently made but will never see the light of day.

Offline frankie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: One bark for 'YES', two barks for 'NO'..
« Reply #21 on: April 17, 2018, 10:07:PM »
Also any tape or transcript could prove whether there was any code of communication at work or just random noises.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: One bark for 'YES', two barks for 'NO'..
« Reply #22 on: April 17, 2018, 10:17:PM »
Any unusual noises would have been Sheila trying to hide/disguise her identity in some way. I know from experience that those who have these "episodes  "have a remarkable aptitude for changing their voices/tones.

Offline frankie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: One bark for 'YES', two barks for 'NO'..
« Reply #23 on: April 17, 2018, 10:30:PM »
Bearing in mind there was a real dog in the house, can anyone confirm what breed or type Crispy was?

Offline Nigel

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: One bark for 'YES', two barks for 'NO'..
« Reply #24 on: April 18, 2018, 12:00:AM »
Bearing in mind there was a real dog in the house, can anyone confirm what breed or type Crispy was?

I believe Crispy was a Shih Tzu
I slow down for a speeding police car, don't you?

6.01pm on Friday 6th September 1985 'Part 2' of the case began.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: One bark for 'YES', two barks for 'NO'..
« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2018, 12:17:AM »
I believe Crispy was a Shih Tzu
Yes he was,  he was also very old.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: One bark for 'YES', two barks for 'NO'..
« Reply #26 on: April 18, 2018, 06:36:AM »
Please be reassured that the police were 'communicating' with Sheila inside the farmhouse, via a truly remarkable example of them challenging her, initially trying to give her instructions on what she must do, to eventually altering their approach and making requests to her, which were all met with barking, howling and whining responses! Sheila was the person from inside the farmhouse who the firearms officers were engaged in a conversation (if you could call it that) with! 'Crispy' the shih Tzu was not responsible for the eerie noises that came from within the farmhouse in response to challenges made by police via the loud hailer, or later after 6.09am when the phone line which had become mysteriously engaged from 5.55am, onwards, was patched through to the control room at Chelmsford by the Operator using the '999' emergency system...

One bark, one howl, or one whine, or two of the same were the responses that came from within the house to the initial challenges of the firearms officers, and much later via the open line phone link!

Was there anyone hurt needing medical attention inside the farmhouse?
Response -  one bark /howl / or a whine...

Had someone in the farmhouse been shot?
Response -  one bark /howl / or a whine...

Is an ambulance required?
Response -  one bark /howl / or a whine...
« Last Edit: April 18, 2018, 06:45:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44300
Re: One bark for 'YES', two barks for 'NO'..
« Reply #27 on: April 18, 2018, 06:50:AM »
Please be reassured that the police were 'communicating' with Sheila inside the farmhouse, via a truly remarkable example of them challenging her, initially trying to give her instructions on what she must do, to eventually altering their approach and making requests to her, which were all met with barking, howling and whining responses! Sheila was the person from inside the farmhouse who the firearms officers were engaged in a conversation (if you could call it that) with! 'Crispy' the shih Tzu was not responsible for the eerie noises that came from within the farmhouse in response to challenges made by police via the loud hailer, or later after 6.09am when the phone line which had become mysteriously engaged from 5.55am, onwards, was patched through to the control room at Chelmsford by the Operator using the '999' emergency system...

One bark, one howl, or one whine, or two of the same were the responses that came from within the house to the initial challenges of the firearms officers, and much later via the open line phone link!

Was there anyone hurt needing medical attention inside the farmhouse?
Response -  one bark /howl / or a whine...

Had someone in the farmhouse been shot?
Response -  one bark /howl / or a whine...

Is an ambulance required?
Response -  one bark /howl / or a whine...

Thanks Mike.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44300
Re: One bark for 'YES', two barks for 'NO'..
« Reply #28 on: April 18, 2018, 06:51:AM »
Any unusual noises would have been Sheila trying to hide/disguise her identity in some way. I know from experience that those who have these "episodes  "have a remarkable aptitude for changing their voices/tones.

And thank you Lookout.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: One bark for 'YES', two barks for 'NO'..
« Reply #29 on: April 18, 2018, 07:03:AM »
One of the last requests known to have been requested of Sheila happened as the two ambulances arrived upon the scene at about 7am, the prompting was directed at Sheila via the open telephone link set up by the operator at 6.09am, which was still functioning by then (it got terminated at 8.15am, when Sheila's body was discovered to no longer be downstairs in the kitchen)...

The ambulances are here, do you understand?
No response..

We need the ambulance and paramedics to be able to enter the house safely, do you understand?
No response..

Please show the weapon you have been using at any window of the farmhouse, as a gesture of good will, can you confirm?
No response...

We can't send in the ambulance crew to treat the injured until you show us that you are willing to co-operate with our requests, do you agree?
No response..

Will you allow the paramedics in to treat the injured members of your family?
No response..

Sheila?
No response..

Sheila?
No verbal response..

Then, a truly remarkable turn of events occurred, at about 7.15am, the anshuzt rifle appeared at a first floor window which had not been seen there beforehand, despite a heavy police presence at the scene from 5 am, onward! This development came too late to prevent the firearms team from their objective to get into the farmhouse to try and bring the seige to an end. Communicating with Sheila via the telephone open link after 6.09am, rather than via the loud hailer approach was designed as a distraction so that the firearms officers could get into the farmhouse in a surprising turn of events...

The anshuzt rifle arrived at the first floor box room window just as the six man raid team commenced it's approach to enter the farmhouse - they knew that Sheila was upstairs in 'that' room where the rifle appeared at the window, which provided the opportunity to smash the rear farmhouse door down and enter the premises at about 7.30am...


"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...