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

[lookout]

I think anyone listening to the interview does so with their own biases. He speaks well in the interview and comes across as polite and fairly well educated. On the surface he seems convincing; with his new found 'understanding' of Sheila's illness. However, like I said, we listen with bias and wearing guilty glasses I feel their are undertones of arrogance - especially at the end when Allinson asks what he will do if his submissions are rejected and, his voice changes when he states 'well then, we'll hit them with the other stuff' (or words to that effect). He almost makes it sound like a game.

Ignore the " polite and fairly well educated " bit, it's not what this is about. You're looking at it from a false point of view a very hollow way of going about it.
What he says is very precise without using emphasis ( inflection ) making no matter if the conversation was said in a broad Lancashire or Yorkshire or any other accent. He is speaking ordinarily and without signs of an actor in a Shakespearian play-------which I wouldn't have trusted, dramatizing everything. 

He reduced his tone towards the end because his positivity took a hit,that's all----nothing sinister in that.
A bit like when you think you have 4 numbers on the Lotto and it turns out to be 3. Human nature ?
Like it's human nature to feel for someone's downfall-------called empathy.

[Roch]

I think anyone listening to the interview does so with their own biases. He speaks well in the interview and comes across as polite and fairly well educated. On the surface he seems convincing; with his new found 'understanding' of Sheila's illness. However, like I said, we listen with bias and wearing guilty glasses I feel their are undertones of arrogance - especially at the end when Allinson asks what he will do if his submissions are rejected and, his voice changes when he states 'well then, we'll hit them with the other stuff' (or words to that effect). He almost makes it sound like a game.

I cant disagree with you about individual bias.  The part you mention stands out to me almost as courtesy not arrogance    i.e. they're holding back - to give police / authorities a chance to respond in an even handed, honest and fair manner (which sadly, was never going to happen). 

[lookout]

The polygraph isn't interested how a person speaks or whether they're educated or not.

[lookout]

Arrogance can also be taken as being sure of oneself other than being a brat.

[Steve_uk]

More to the point, upon learning that Sheila had in fact been shot twice, Ann Eaton and the relatives recalled how Stan Jones and Mick Clark had told them at Jeremy's cottage within an hour of them having viewed Sheila's and Junes bodies both laid on top of the bed, with the rifle on the bed in-between the bodies, and a Bible on top of Sheila's chest! More importantly that Sheila had only been shot once by the time Jones and Clark had visited the main bedroom at around 9.05am on that crucial first morning...

Armed with the knowledge that the relatives had been misled and deceived by the police regarding the total number of shots which had been fired, and the total number of shots each victim including Sheila had received the relatives sat down together and realised that Sheila had not killed herself and that Jeremy could not have shot Sheila dead by way of inflicting the second shot which effectively ended her life!

The relatives discussed the possibility of Sheila and Jeremy planning on killing the adoptive parents to get their hands on Neville and June Bambers estates! But when it boiled down to Sheila having had anything whatsoever to do with the killing of her own two children, the relatives could not bring themselves to believing such an awful thing...

It was around this time, that relatives found out about the contents of the timed police radio messages which were passed between the scene and police headquarters, about Sheila's and Neville Bambers bodies being found downstairs in the kitchen (7.35am, 7.37am, 7.38am, 7.42am and 7.45am), and that only three other bodies had been found upstairs by 8.10am..

All in all, the relatives had more than a strong suspicion that the police had something to do with the killing of Sheila, with Jeremy being behind killing the other four victims, intending to pin the blame on his sister (who he had planned to keep alive)...

This was in the mindset of the relatives by the beginning of September 1985 - either way, the relatives had got it into their heads that Jeremy should be barred as a beneficiary at all costs! Without any action on their part Jeremy might stand to inherit not only from Neville Bambers estate, and June Bambers estate, but also the estate of Mabel Speakman!

The plan was for an approach to be made to the ACC Peter Simpson by Robert Woodwis Boutflour, with the intent on trying to get the police on board to prosecute Jeremy as the killer, in return for the relatives keeping their silence regarding what they knew by that stage. In particular, that Sheila Caffell was not shot dead until after Stan Jones and Mick Clark had viewed Sheila's body laid out on the bed with a solitary non fatal neck wound, and they had left the scene, and gone straight to Jeremy's cottage to recount the then known facts - the facts being at that time, and on that occasion, that despite Dr Craig pronouncing Sheila as being dead on the far side of the bed at 8.44am, the simple truth in the matter was that she couldn't have been dead, when Craig had pronounced her as being dead! Sheila had been alive at that time, barely alive, but alive!

She was still alive with Jones and Clark visited the main bedroom, and viewed Sheila laid out on top of the bed, she had still only got that solitary bullet entry wound to her neck, the rifle which would fire the second fatal bullet that finished Sheila off, was resting on the bed in-between the bodies of June and Sheila!

Robert Boutflour told Simpson a few home truths...

He told him...

I lost you from paragraph 5. It's true that Sheila had no knowledge of her actions during a psychotic episode but nigh on impossible that Jeremy would have foreknowledge of when this might occur. Mabel Speakman's estate has been discussed many times but it seems to me Jeremy had very little interest in that domain, being satisfied with the inheritance from his parents.

[Caroline]

Ignore the " polite and fairly well educated " bit, it's not what this is about. You're looking at it from a false point of view a very hollow way of going about it.
What he says is very precise without using emphasis ( inflection ) making no matter if the conversation was said in a broad Lancashire or Yorkshire or any other accent. He is speaking ordinarily and without signs of an actor in a Shakespearian play-------which I wouldn't have trusted, dramatizing everything. 

He reduced his tone towards the end because his positivity took a hit,that's all----nothing sinister in that.
A bit like when you think you have 4 numbers on the Lotto and it turns out to be 3. Human nature ?
Like it's human nature to feel for someone's downfall-------called empathy.

You're looking at it with the same but opposing point of view - you're hearing what you want to hear. Not sure where the Shakespearean actor comes into it? He's hardly likely to give a the "To be or not to be" performance, he's not an idiot.

The ending sounded spiteful - certainly no empathy.

[Caroline]

The polygraph isn't interested how a person speaks or whether they're educated or not.

Eh? Whats that got to do with anything? 

[Caroline]

Arrogance can also be taken as being sure of oneself other than being a brat.

Being sure of yourself is 'confidence' being a brat is arrogance.

[Caroline]

I cant disagree with you about individual bias.  The part you mention stands out to me almost as courtesy not arrogance    i.e. they're holding back - to give police / authorities a chance to respond in an even handed, honest and fair manner (which sadly, was never going to happen).

Or a threat for effect?

[lookout]

You're looking at it with the same but opposing point of view - you're hearing what you want to hear. Not sure where the Shakespearean actor comes into it? He's hardly likely to give a the "To be or not to be" performance, he's not an idiot.

The ending sounded spiteful - certainly no empathy.

I heard what I heard and if you're not used to hearing someone answering questions in a clear and concise manner and without stressing any particular answer nor elaborating in any way then I can't help your perceptions of normal.

As for him being/sounding to be spiteful which I would describe as a feminine trait then your hearing is faulty.

[lookout]

Eh? Whats that got to do with anything? 

Your own description of " well spoken and fairly well educated ". I referred to the polygraph not being bias.

[lookout]

Being sure of yourself is 'confidence' being a brat is arrogance.

Many arrogant people are confident. Professionals in all fields ??

[lookout]

I've met many arrogant surgeons-------confident too !!

[Caroline]

I heard what I heard and if you're not used to hearing someone answering questions in a clear and concise manner and without stressing any particular answer nor elaborating in any way then I can't help your perceptions of normal.

As for him being/sounding to be spiteful which I would describe as a feminine trait then your hearing is faulty.

AND I heard what I heard and where did I say that I'm NOT "used to hearing someone answering questions in a clear and concise manner and without stressing any particular answer nor elaborating in any way"? I can't help your perceptions of normal either!

How on earth is spitefulness a 'feminine trait'?

The problem is, you can't see that you're biased in anyway, shape or form and that your biases affect how you process what you read, see and hear. EVERYONE is prone to do this, me because I believe he's guilty and YOU because you believe he's innocent. We can hear the same thing but come to very different conclusions.

[Caroline]

Your own description of " well spoken and fairly well educated ". I referred to the polygraph not being bias.

The polygraph doesn't measure speech!  - For starters I never said he was 'well spoken' you dreamed that one! I said 'polite and fairly well educated'.