Multiple reasons why Sheila Caffell is innocent and Jeremy Bamber is guilty

[John]

The interviewing officer, DS Jones, repeatedly misleads JB by telling him that it had been proven that SC was murdered.  This was not the case at all.  The pathologist makes it quite clear that he was unable to confirm murder or suicide.  It sounds to me very much like the questionable interviewing tactics that were used around that era that resulted in a number of high profile MoJ's.

That was a tactic employed by CID in order to trip up a suspect Holly.

In respect of Dr Vanezis' inability to determine whether it was murder or suicide, that is explained very easily.  The good doctor was never brought out to the farm on the morning of the murders.  He never saw Sheila lying on the floor with the rifle lying on top of her and with a minimum of blood on her face and neck.  He was very critical of Essex Police in regard to this situation. 

What was presented to Dr Vanezis at autopsy was a completely different scenario to that eventually played out at the trial.   He was told that Sheila had shot four members of her family before committing suicide.  When the doctor first saw Sheila her face and neck were covered in blood.  We now know that moving Sheila in the body bag was responsible for the blood transfer and staining on her face and neck.

When Vanezis later saw the photographs of what the scene was really like he was angry.  If you read his last statement you will note that he was extremely concerned that he had effectively been misled to some extent as to the situation the police initially found.  In particular, he noted the absence of blood smearing on Sheila's neck and face evidencing the fact that she had not touched the initial wound with her fingers.  Had she been conscious after the first shot it would have been an automatic response to touch the wound.  The absence of blood on her fingers or on the rifle trigger mechanism bears this out. 

[Lindyhop]

The interviewing officer, DS Jones, repeatedly misleads JB by telling him that it had been proven that SC was murdered.  This was not the case at all.  The pathologist makes it quite clear that he was unable to confirm murder or suicide.  It sounds to me very much like the questionable interviewing tactics that were used around that era that resulted in a number of high profile MoJ's. 

How would an innocent person respond to the knowledge that their sister was not responsible for the 4 murders and didn't kill herself? Why the defensiveness? Any innocent person would have been all ears - to start inventing nonsense like the dog being responsible for the shot just dug him into a deeper hole.

Also most high profile MoJs involve someone being arrested fairly quickly because they look dodgy etc, not the other way round as happened here where the police thought the case was closed until those who knew started to speak up.

JB states all along he was unsure whether NB said "Sheila" or "She has".  Was SC referred to as 'She' in the same way Jeremy was referred to as 'Jems'?

Nope - he threw that one in when he was cornered. If his story was true he'd have stuck with one account, not tried to wriggle out of the corner he felt boxed into.

Anyway this to and fro discussion is academic - he is where he belongs and will never be released. All the conspiracy theories are just that - theories. The facts have been presented in court and he has been found guilty, and that's that really.

[Lindyhop]

That was a tactic employed by CID in order to trip up a suspect Holly.

Indeed. There is only one truth, but several possible lies. If it is confidently stated that the "truth" could not have happened, the suspect who's told the truth would stick to their guns unless under extreme duress e.g. whilst being tortured, which we know wasn't the case here - it was a very civil discussion under caution. A liar would just come up with what they think is a more plausible story.

Reminds me of that murderer who raped and then killed that aspiring model in Croydon. He denied raping and murdering her, but when his DNA was found inside her he claimed he'd raped her corpse which he'd just stumbled upon in his travels.

[lane99]

Does anyone here disagree that the scratches on the mantelpiece were not there just after the murders?

If you do, why?

[scipio_usmc]

The interviewing officer, DS Jones, repeatedly misleads JB by telling him that it had been proven that SC was murdered.  This was not the case at all.  The pathologist makes it quite clear that he was unable to confirm murder or suicide.  It sounds to me very much like the questionable interviewing tactics that were used around that era that resulted in a number of high profile MoJ's. 

JB does not suggest the dog pulled the trigger.  He points out it was an automatic gun and that a number of things could have triggered the gun eg nerves, the dog.

"A fairly common problem is the apparently suicide that has fired two shots into the head. Even in the case of instantaneous death and destruction of the basal ganglia, double head shots are possible in suicides. There is a phenomenon called "cadaveric spasm" which is an intense non-specific, uncontrolled contraction of the muscles of the limbs immediately after death. This is quite capable of causing a second pulling of the trigger after death".

JB states all along he was unsure whether NB said "Sheila" or "She has".  Was SC referred to as 'She' in the same way Jeremy was referred to as 'Jems'?

Holly, The author you quoted from is not a trained in medicine and happens to be wrong about what cadaveric spasms are.

A cadaveric spasm is when someone's muscles essentially freeze in the state they are in at death.  Sometimes there is violent contraction of muscles PRIOR to death and at death they freeze in this contracted state.  Cadaveric spasm doesn't feature someone's muscles involuntarily contracting after death.  Cadaveric spasms are rare but in cases where they occur they are useful at providing clues.  With the exception of fully automatic weapons a cadaveric spasm cannot cause a gun to fire.  If you pull a trigger and then die and freeze with the trigger still pulled down it is not going to fire a second time unless it is an automatic weapon.  If the hammer of a weapon is cocked the trigger already is partially back and doesn't require as much force to pull. This is a two-stage trigger.  In such instances it is somewhat common for people to get a shot off before they die though it often is misconstrued as firing after death. Most weapons though have substantial trigger pulls and the rifle in question is one such weapon.  It had a single stage trigger with more than 2 pounds of pressure to fire required.  Especially when trying to fire it backwards with a thumb it takes quite an effort.

If she did have a spasm and hand or hands locked in the same position as when she died then obviously she could not have pulled the trigger ever and must have been killed. Her hands when she was found were not in any position to hold a rifle and pull the trigger. There were no signs of cadaveric spasm though and since it is uncommon this absence alone was not enough evidence to preclude her from firing any shots. In combo with all the other evidence though it does.

Instead of looking at the actual evidence of this case you constantly scour the net for any excuse as to why something could theoretically be possible.  The first order of business should be to see if she had actually had a cadaveric spasm before trying to figure out what it then means.

You are fishing for anything you can use because you don't want to accept the actual facts and evidence related to the case.

There is no way that she involuntarily fired the second wound if the first shot was fatal, especially not in the location where the other shot was. If the first shot was fatal as the medical examiner contends then that is absolute proof that someone else had to have fired the shots. his is why the defense maintained that the fatal shot was fired last even hough there is no blood evidence or other medical evidence that proves it. 

At any rate to complete lack of any gun-shot residue at all is further evidence she didn't fire any shots let alone the 2 that killed her. Your effort to explain that away was in the same vein.  You suggested that she took a bath and changed her clothes after the murders despite no evidence at all to support such and no explanation as to why she would do so. Even in that case she still would have had gunshot residue if she hugged the rifle and fired 2 times because she could not have washed herself again after she died.

Since you like theoretical info so much I will provide something else to you. The favored shooting location of rifle suicides is the mouth, nearly a quarter choose it.  The second most popular is the right temple (if you add the left and right temple together it slightly exceeds the mouth as most popular), followed by the forehead and then chest.  Less than 10 percent choose under the chin.

Another tidbit, in multiple shot suicides the "victim" nearly always chooses a different location to fire the additional shots than near the first location fearing that the second shot in a similar location would also fail. Larger (population wise not in area) US states generally have 1 multiple gunshot suicide every other year so they are rather rare. When you further analyze them you find it virtually unheard of for double shots to the chin from a rifle. The few instances reported were cases where the mouth and tongue were damaged but not the brain so the "victim" had to try again but in most such cases the "victim" chose a new location. In those cases where a throat shot failed the "victims" chose the mouth, forehead, temple or chest as a follow up.  The most surefire way to kill is to damage the brain.  That is why more than 50% of "victims" choose either the mouth, right temple or left temple.  As long as the gun is in the mouth pointed upwards the brain is sure to be damaged. When you add all head locations together you get around 70%, 16% to the chest, 9% to the throat 2% to the abdomen and the remainder to various other locations. So there are not that many throat suicides to look a. How many double throat shots could I find reading through the various examples in medical journals?  None let alone any where the victim managed to fire a second shot after already being killed by the first shot. 







 

[scipio_usmc]

Does anyone here disagree that the scratches on the mantelpiece were not there just after the murders?

If you do, why?

Your question is ambiguous. It is unclear what you are driving at.

The scratches were definitely made by the suppressor.  There are only 3 possibilities of how this occurred.

1) The scratches were made before the murders

2) The scratches were made during the course of the murders

3) The scratches were intentionally made after the murders

Which is most likely? 

The scratches are not linear, they zig zag around. If the gun fell on the floor and someone simply picked it up and accidentally scratched it at the weapon was raised then there would be a mainly linear scratch. 

If someone intended to intentionally scratch it they would tend to move in a linaear fashion. 

The scratch is consistent with two people moving it back and forth as they fight over control of it.  It just so happens that during the murders Nevill and his killer struggled over control of the weapon by this very mantle.
If not for this struggle then the killer would simply have shot Nevill to death and would not have needed to bludgeon him with the rifle.  But since he was able to grab the rifle the killer first needed to regain sole control and needed to get far enough away to raise the rifle and aim it at Nevill. 

The men wrestled over the gun breaking things in the process and knocking them over. Their bodies knocked over chairs and the like but the gun crashed into the ceiling light fixture and knocked other things on the floor. The killer punched Nevill breaking his nose and giving him black eyes and the killer eventually wrestled the gun away then bludgeoned him with it.  The killer attacked his right side. Nevill blocked the blows with his right arm but the killer eventually got him in the head knocking him out, breaking the rifle stock in the process.  The killer was then able to aim the weapon into his head as he lay passed out

There are no known struggles over the gun prior to the murders so it is most likely the scratches occurred during the murders not in a prior altercation.  Indeed the ceiling lampshade being broken is consistent with the suppressor being attached during the altercation (the rifle probably would not have been high enough to break it otherwise) plus the fact it was used during the shootings further suggests it was attached during the struggle.

Heck the defense at trial suggested it was Nevill and June's blood in the suppressor. What is the likelihood the killer would remove the suppressor before running into the kitchen?

The chance of the marks being made before the murders is too remote to be seriously considered. The chance of occurring during the struggle?  Very probable.  The chance after?  Unlikely to be staged at all let alone correctly staged instead of staging linear scratches and the motivation for staging is specious.

All in all the evidence points to the scratches being made during the known struggle over the weapon.

[lane99]

Thanks very much for detailing your argument.  You say all the evidence points to the scratches being made in the course of the murders.

But a photography expert says the scratches are not present in the photos taken a number of hours after the murders had occurred.  Which would be evidence they were not made in the course of the murders, but rather at some later time.

So do you disagree with Peter Sutherst's conclusion that the scratches aren't present in the photos taken by the police on Aug 7/85?  And if so, why?

[scipio_usmc]

Thanks very much for detailing your argument.  You say all the evidence points to the scratches being made in the course of the murders.

But a photography expert says the scratches are not present in the photos taken a number of hours after the murders had occurred.  Which would be evidence they were not made in the course of the murders, but rather at some later time.

So do you disagree with Peter Sutherst's conclusion that the scratches aren't present in the photos taken by the police on Aug 7/85?  And if so, why?

The photograpy expert had no basis upon which to make his assertions. Had there been photos of the underneath of the mantle taken on the day in question then those photos would be relevant and useful at demonstrating the marks were made subsequently.

There were no such photos taken though simply photos of the room as a whole.  The photos he relied on do not show the underneath where the marks actually are.   Even worse though the photos are from so far away that even if the scrathes had been on top of the mantle the scratches still would not have been captured in the photo because of the distance. That means the pictures are worthless in trying to assess whether the marks were there or not at the time the photos were taken.  It would be like taking photos of the front of a car after a fender bender, the owner accusing the driver of the other car of causing a dent on the right side and having a photo expert saying the photos show there is no damage so the dent to must have occurred subsequently.  The obvious response is that the photo doesn't show the area where the damage supposedly occurred so how could it establish anything?

No one thought to look underneath the mantle until paint was found on the suppressor. They looked all around to try to figure out where the paint came from and that was when they found the scratches and actually took photos of the exact area. 

So my response is that there are no photos (or other evidence) that establish the marks were not there at the time of the murders and therefore nothing to disturb the most likely scenario that they were made during the struggle that took place during the course of the murders.

 

 

 

[John]

Attempting suicide with a rifle must be quite a rare occurrence as it is usually a hand gun or pistol which is used.  To then attempt to do so by shooting oneself in the neck must be almost unknown outside of this case.  The other glaringly obvious issue is the question of the targeting of the shot not only once but twice and managing to get the two shots within inches of each other.

[John]

The question I would like answered is how photographic expert Peter Sutherst was able to conclude that the marks under the mantel were not made until a month after the murders. This is a very serious allegation and hints at a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.  It also amounts to a defamation if proved to be untrue.

[Holly Goodhead]

That was a tactic employed by CID in order to trip up a suspect Holly.

In respect of Dr Vanezis' inability to determine whether it was murder or suicide, that is explained very easily.  The good doctor was never brought out to the farm on the morning of the murders.  He never saw Sheila lying on the floor with the rifle lying on top of her and with a minimum of blood on her face and neck.  He was very critical of Essex Police in regard to this situation. 

What was presented to Dr Vanezis at autopsy was a completely different scenario to that eventually played out at the trial.   He was told that Sheila had shot four members of her family before committing suicide.  When the doctor first saw Sheila her face and neck were covered in blood.  We now know that moving Sheila in the body bag was responsible for the blood transfer and staining on her face and neck.

When Vanezis later saw the photographs of what the scene was really like he was angry.  If you read his last statement you will note that he was extremely concerned that he had effectively been misled to some extent as to the situation the police initially found.  In particular, he noted the absence of blood smearing on Sheila's neck and face evidencing the fact that she had not touched the initial wound with her fingers. Had she been conscious after the first shot it would have been an automatic response to touch the wound.  The absence of blood on her fingers or on the rifle trigger mechanism bears this out.

I have no experience/knowledge of police interviews conducted 'under caution' to know what is permissible and what isn't.  It strikes me as somewhat unfair if the interviewee is expected to tell the whole truth and nothing especially when his/her evidence (contents of interview) can be used in court against him/her if it is permissible for the interviewer (police) to knowingly mislead? 

The Soc photos clearly show blood trails from SC's wounds. All victims were bagged and treated as suspicious deaths.  The pathologist would have been aware, trained and experienced in comparing soc photos and the victim in situ at the mortuary.  He would have been able to account for the transfer of blood from any source eg smearing from body bag.  He completed and signed off his autopsy report on 30th Sept 85.

If it was so obvious from the soc why did all the police officers run with 4 murders/1 suicide excl DS Jones?  According to the pathologist there was nothing of evidential value that DS Jones said that impressed the pathologist.  DS Jones felt uneasy about JB as he did not react how he expected someone to react given the situation.

The pathologist also stated that if SC was murdered she would have needed to have been drugged.  Tests show that apart from her prescribed medication and minute traces of cannabis no other drugs were present in her system.   

The highlighted section above are your words not the words of the pathologist.  If she suffered a cadaveric spasm the first shot may have been the fatal shot with the non-fatal shot being as a result of cadaveric spasm.

[Holly Goodhead]

How would an innocent person respond to the knowledge that their sister was not responsible for the 4 murders and didn't kill herself? Why the defensiveness? Any innocent person would have been all ears - to start inventing nonsense like the dog being responsible for the shot just dug him into a deeper hole.

Also most high profile MoJs involve someone being arrested fairly quickly because they look dodgy etc, not the other way round as happened here where the police thought the case was closed until those who knew started to speak up.

Nope - he threw that one in when he was cornered. If his story was true he'd have stuck with one account, not tried to wriggle out of the corner he felt boxed into.

Anyway this to and fro discussion is academic - he is where he belongs and will never be released. All the conspiracy theories are just that - theories. The facts have been presented in court and he has been found guilty, and that's that really.

The pathologist maintained as recently as the CoA 2002 hearing that he was unable to conclude whether SC was murdered or committed suicide.  JB was well aware that he was being accused of murder while being interviewed under caution.  I would say that if you're innocent (and I believe he is) and grieving the loss of your family that's a pretty uncomfortable place to be in.

According to DS Jones he suspected JB from the off simply because he didn't fit with his idea of a grieving relative.  Ask any grief counsellor and I think you will find that there's no norm.  You might recall the Princes William and Harry greeting crowds and seeming quite composed prior to their beloved mother's funeral.  And how many tears did you see on the day of the funeral?  None from the princes.

According to AE's wit stat she was unsure of the exact words JB said he used and the timing of the phone call.  AE makes no ref to 'Sheila'.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3512

I certainly don't agree with your last point "he is where he belongs and will never be released".  I have reason to believe that the so-called WHF murders will once again take centre stage.  This time it will be very different with 24 hour news reporting, twitter, internet etc.  Also a society that is far less deferential than it was back in 1986.  The recent wrongdoing and cover-ups in public office will force the hand of the establishment to leave no stone unturned in getting to the truth whatever that might be 

-High profile MoJ's
-Stephen Lawrence/Macpherson report
-Hillsborough
-Plebgate
-MP's expenses
-Financial Crisis
-NoW phone hacking
-Jimmy Savill
-Child sex abuse in church/amongst clergy

[Holly Goodhead]

Holly, The author you quoted from is not a trained in medicine and happens to be wrong about what cadaveric spasms are.

A cadaveric spasm is when someone's muscles essentially freeze in the state they are in at death.  Sometimes there is violent contraction of muscles PRIOR to death and at death they freeze in this contracted state.  Cadaveric spasm doesn't feature someone's muscles involuntarily contracting after death.  Cadaveric spasms are rare but in cases where they occur they are useful at providing clues.  With the exception of fully automatic weapons a cadaveric spasm cannot cause a gun to fire.  If you pull a trigger and then die and freeze with the trigger still pulled down it is not going to fire a second time unless it is an automatic weapon.  If the hammer of a weapon is cocked the trigger already is partially back and doesn't require as much force to pull. This is a two-stage trigger.  In such instances it is somewhat common for people to get a shot off before they die though it often is misconstrued as firing after death. Most weapons though have substantial trigger pulls and the rifle in question is one such weapon.  It had a single stage trigger with more than 2 pounds of pressure to fire required.  Especially when trying to fire it backwards with a thumb it takes quite an effort.

If she did have a spasm and hand or hands locked in the same position as when she died then obviously she could not have pulled the trigger ever and must have been killed. Her hands when she was found were not in any position to hold a rifle and pull the trigger. There were no signs of cadaveric spasm though and since it is uncommon this absence alone was not enough evidence to preclude her from firing any shots. In combo with all the other evidence though it does.

Instead of looking at the actual evidence of this case you constantly scour the net for any excuse as to why something could theoretically be possible.  The first order of business should be to see if she had actually had a cadaveric spasm before trying to figure out what it then means.

You are fishing for anything you can use because you don't want to accept the actual facts and evidence related to the case.

There is no way that she involuntarily fired the second wound if the first shot was fatal, especially not in the location where the other shot was. If the first shot was fatal as the medical examiner contends then that is absolute proof that someone else had to have fired the shots. his is why the defense maintained that the fatal shot was fired last even hough there is no blood evidence or other medical evidence that proves it. 

At any rate to complete lack of any gun-shot residue at all is further evidence she didn't fire any shots let alone the 2 that killed her. Your effort to explain that away was in the same vein.  You suggested that she took a bath and changed her clothes after the murders despite no evidence at all to support such and no explanation as to why she would do so. Even in that case she still would have had gunshot residue if she hugged the rifle and fired 2 times because she could not have washed herself again after she died.

Since you like theoretical info so much I will provide something else to you. The favored shooting location of rifle suicides is the mouth, nearly a quarter choose it.  The second most popular is the right temple (if you add the left and right temple together it slightly exceeds the mouth as most popular), followed by the forehead and then chest.  Less than 10 percent choose under the chin.

Another tidbit, in multiple shot suicides the "victim" nearly always chooses a different location to fire the additional shots than near the first location fearing that the second shot in a similar location would also fail. Larger (population wise not in area) US states generally have 1 multiple gunshot suicide every other year so they are rather rare. When you further analyze them you find it virtually unheard of for double shots to the chin from a rifle. The few instances reported were cases where the mouth and tongue were damaged but not the brain so the "victim" had to try again but in most such cases the "victim" chose a new location. In those cases where a throat shot failed the "victims" chose the mouth, forehead, temple or chest as a follow up.  The most surefire way to kill is to damage the brain.  That is why more than 50% of "victims" choose either the mouth, right temple or left temple.  As long as the gun is in the mouth pointed upwards the brain is sure to be damaged. When you add all head locations together you get around 70%, 16% to the chest, 9% to the throat 2% to the abdomen and the remainder to various other locations. So there are not that many throat suicides to look a. How many double throat shots could I find reading through the various examples in medical journals?  None let alone any where the victim managed to fire a second shot after already being killed by the first shot.

But you are?

[John]

Wasn't the rifle a semi-automatic meaning each shot required the trigger to be pulled or in this case pushed again.  I think you could be stretching the bounds of possibilities a bit too far to expect a second shot to be on target because of cadaveric spasms.

Assuming just for a moment that Sheila did shoot herself in the neck with the rifle, the weapon barrel would drop immediately and if a second shot did occur then it could not have hit her in the neck.  Keeping the trigger depressed does not fire a second round when using a semi automatic rifle.  The operator has to release the trigger before pulling it again.

[Holly Goodhead]

Wasn't the rifle a semi-automatic meaning each shot required the trigger to be pulled or in this case pushed again.  I think you could be stretching the bounds of possibilities a bit too far to expect a second shot to be on target because of cadaveric spasms.

Assuming just for a moment that Sheila did shoot herself in the neck with the rifle, the weapon barrel would drop immediately and if a second shot did occur then it could not have hit her in the neck.  Keeping the trigger depressed does not fire a second round when using a semi automatic rifle.  The operator has to release the trigger before pulling it again.

No idea!  I am not a expert in such matters but I know a man who THINKS he is    From my limited knowledge on cadaveric spasm it would seem possible but then I would say that wouldn't I.

The important thing for me is that the pathologist maintained at CoA 2002 that he was unable to confirm murder or suicide.  Surely he would say if he thought one scenario was more likely over the other stating his reasons and perhaps some statistical probability?

The whole case needs reviewing using up-to-date modern technology and knowledge across a range of specialisms: ballistics, pathology, psychology etc. I think we forget that the trial was nearly 3 decades ago and the whole world has changed.  I have only been paying partial attention to the trial of Oscar Pistorius but when I have there appears to be some parallels with JB's case and the expert evidence appears to have moved on.