Mystery Solved - left handed Sheila did fire the Anshuzt rifle!

[mike tesko]

What possible answer could police give for ignoring these more obvious signs that Sheila Caffell's body had been moved and that her death scene had been staged with the view of trying to pretend that she had committed suicide?

Blood pooling on the upper right shoulder /arm pit where it had no right to have pooled, blood trails on the face and neck running in all different directions and yet the rifle sat perched in an almost perfect position with Sheila's right hand on the gun close to the trigger and the barrel end of the gun close to the two bullet entry wounds displaying on her neck?

[mike tesko]

Blood pooling on the upper right shoulder /arm pit where it had no right to have pooled, blood trails on the face and neck running in all different directions and yet the rifle sat perched in an almost perfect position with Sheila's right hand on the gun close to the trigger and the barrel end of the gun close to the two bullet entry wounds displaying on her neck?

With no obvious sign that Sheila had struggled with anyone at the time she supposedly took her own life...

[mike tesko]

Oh, and why are both of her eyes closed?

[mike tesko]

Oh, and why are both of her eyes closed?

Who closed Sheila's eyes after the fatal shot had killed her?

[lookout]

Perhaps if your were a guiltier you would see the claim of 'withheld' documents as a convenient bogus claim - smething that can run and run - regardless.

Which,in your case is tantamount to saying that you trust the police 100% ?

[Caroline]

Which,in your case is tantamount to saying that you trust the police 100% ?

Is it? You know nothing about me Lookout so don't tell me what I think! You really couldn't be FURTHER from the truth but this forum isn't about me. Lets stick to the case shall we?

[Caroline]

Oh, and why are both of her eyes closed?

One of her eyes is sightly open.

[Caroline]

I wouldn't see anything else but a continual refusal to hand over documents which would leave me wondering why. If EP publicly announced that there were either no papers or at least gave a valid reason as to their refusal but to totally ignore and say nothing doesn't exactly give you the confidence that the force is altogether truthful.
Do we have proof as to whether there are files withheld ? NO, and it's because of EP's refusal to admit otherwise.
The bottom line is that none of us know for sure,so there's no real point in arguing about that one. Except I believe that there are and you don't----------so fair enough. At this stage NEITHER of us is right

You might also wonder why Bamber said he has almost ALL of the withheld documents now.

I agree with your last comment, we don't know but EP SHOULD make a statement about it once and for all.

[lookout]

You might also wonder why Bamber said he has almost ALL of the withheld documents now.

I agree with your last comment, we don't know but EP SHOULD make a statement about it once and for all.

" Almost all " to me doesn't equate to all or the remainder-of so is not a final count. Which would mean that you do believe that there are still documents that are withheld ?

[lookout]

If Jeremy himself had said that he'd had all the documents then I'd have believed him.

[petey]

If Jeremy himself had said that he'd had all the documents then I'd have believed him.

Out of interest do you trust jb implicitly and always believe him 100% in anything he says?

[Caroline]

" Almost all " to me doesn't equate to all or the remainder-of so is not a final count. Which would mean that you do believe that there are still documents that are withheld ?

I didn't say it did but he has to leave himself some leway to compalin they are still withholing stuff. However, it also doesn't equate to the claims that hundereds of documents are being withheld!

[Caroline]

Out of interest do you trust jb implicitly and always believe him 100% in anything he says?

It certainly seems that way doesn't it?

[lookout]

Out of interest do you trust jb implicitly and always believe him 100% in anything he says?

Yes. I wouldn't have said so otherwise.

[petey]

Yes. I wouldn't have said so otherwise.

Admirably trusting, or unbelievably naive.

Genuine question. Do you usually find it easy to trust people implicitly having a very limited knowledge of them as people and very limited interaction with them? Or is jb a rare exception?