My claims are not distortions it is you who infact distort, I only copy and paste images or texts of the evidence to prove a source, you then cover the evidence I present in a thick layer of BS consisting of your opinions and assumptions hoping people will buy it.
As for Police moving the body, How can I ignore the Raid team testimony when it has never been publicly released? What has been presented as raid team 'testimony' are typed up statements all IDENTICAL to one other the only difference is the name and signature on the paper. The original notebooks and raid testimony will most probably prove the Police messed up the body before taking the crime scene photos, thus they have presented typed testimony identical to one another and refuse to release the originals.
1) By definition originals are never provided to the defense the defense always gets copies
2) They got copies of the handwritten notes not just the typewritten the defense received everything. That is how Mike was able to post some of the handwritten ones. Mike and other supporters lie pretending there is still evidence concealed to pretend the raid team wrote something different than the typed statements say but the defense can't prove it because the police won't reveal them. This is sheer horse crap. Various police testified at trial, were interviewed by Dickinson and also by COLP.
3) COLP had access to everything including personally questioning the raid team. That questioning resulted in them convinced police didn't move her body. You falsely claim there is evidence they were moved on the basis of Adams telling COLP to ask the others if she was moved because he wasn't sure. That is all you produced a single notepage where Adams told COLP to query specific officers as to whether she was moved.
It is indeed dishonest to suggest that Adams telling COLP to query the other officers is proof that she was moved. Worse you keep saying you have statements plural though all you can point to is notes from a single statement- that of Adams. Did you not learn the difference between singular and plural in grade school?
All Adams said is to query others because he was unsure. Of the people Adams asked COLP to query did any of the tell COLP that they moved her body or saw anyone move her body before leaving the scene to the crime scene officers? NO! Did any of the crime scene officers say they moved her body before taking the initial photos? No they told COLP the same thing they testified to at trial- that they took photos and then moved her so they could take photos showing the blood on her gown. Your claim police admitted to COLP they moved her body was a blatant lie. You are little better than Mike and indeed like Mike you keep suggesting that there are hidden statements and that the typewritten statements are vastly different from the ones they handwrote. What a joke!
Before Jeremy got access to those COLP interviews describing the discrepancies in the crime scene photos and the desciptions of those who had first witnessed the body with their own eyes. This was presented to the COA as part of new prosecution evidence.
518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress.
With the notes from the police this can now infact be used as part of defence. And if the original Raid team statements get released then even better.
Once again you demonstrate how clueless you truly are.
1) There are no COLP statements plural that claim police moved Sheila's body.
2) There is not even a COLP statement singular where a cop says Sheila's body was moved. There is a statement singular where Adams said to query others as to whether Sheila was moved before the initial photos were taken because he wasn't sure. These others were queried and the raid team members as well as Jones all said that none of them moved her body and the photos reflect how she was found and the crime scene personnel say they didn't move her until after the initial photos were taken and then after that they moved her and took additional photos.
3) Ismail's evidence absolutely kills Jeremy if offers no value to the defense at all. Ismail asserted that Sheila was moved by the killer very soon after she was killed. Ismail said:
A) Sheila was not lying flat when she died because the way the blood leaked down her gown
B) After dying she was dragged flat and the gun placed on her body
C) After being dragged flat blood leaked down the side of her neck to the floor
D) While the pool of blood referred to in B was still wet the killer placed the Bible in it
Thus he concluded someone else had to be at the scene when Sheila died. The police moving Sheila's body many hours after her blood was dry would not affect any of these assessments. Only someone delusional would claim that the above assessments can be used to aid Jeremy. They prove Sheila didn't kill herself. The notion that police moved her flat then stuck the gun on her and placed the Bible in the pool of blood is absurd. Her blood was already dry by the time police entered. The raid team says she was flat and the gun was already on her body when they entered. That is also how Dr. Craig said he saw her body when he declared her dead. If the raid team had moved her flat then no blood would have leaked down the side of her neck and no blood pool would have formed because her wounds were all dry at that point. None of them say they moved the Bible to the pool of blood and indeed it would have been dry so would not have gotten on the bible had they placed there.
You keep spouting nonsense from Mike and the campaign team who are to this case what the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are to 9/11. In the process you look quite bad.
Again your making assumptions, all I did was post the transcripts of the relevant COLP interview, it speaks for itself
Neither!
Again your ignorance of the evidence shows no limit.
I'm ignorant for facing reality?
You didn't post a single transcript that established police moved Sheila's body before taking the initial photos. You posted notes taken from an interview of Adams. The notes said Adams was unsure whether the photos showed Sheila as he saw her. He suggested they query other officers. To someone who understands English it means he wasn't sure if she was moved or not so suggested they ask other officers. That is not proof they moved her except in your imagination.
As for Davidson no where does he suggest he personally saw a rifle with red paint on it. He said he heard they took samples because a rifle found downstairs had red paint on it. Your claim he said he saw such is false. That means either you intentionally lied or you are incompetent at understanding what you read. Either way you don't look very good. There was no rifle found downstairs period let alone with paint on it. There was only 1 rifle at the scene. Davidson misunderstood what others told him or he had a faulty memory 6 years later. That is all his statement establishes. Pretending he said he saw another rifle with paint on it and can establish such a rifle was collected from the scene and sent to the lab fails miserably.
How dare you ignore Vanezis original autopsy were he claims it appear that Sheilas hand caused the hand print on the dress. instead you go by an autopsy report he makes over a month later after the bodies are cremated and his memory is not fresh
You then continue to go by the very version of his autopsy that he himself contradicts under oath at trial
Rivlin - I am asking you about the staining, and I am asking you whether it occurred to you then, or if it didn't then whether it occurs to you now, that this staining which appears on that nightdress may have been caused by directly pressing blood-stained fingers against the cloth?
Vanezis - Yes, I mean of course it is an obvious position
Rivlin - It is an obvious position and it assumes that obvious appearance doesn't it?
Vanezis. That is right yes.
And if you are still in denial this is also mentioned at the COA paragraph 517.
However, whilst Mr Ismail rightly recorded the evidence of Dr Vanezis, Mr Turner was able to point to a note made by Dr Vanezis at the time of the post-mortem examination that read:
"bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. "
I don't ignore anything. I take everything into account while you cherry pick to pretend things are as you wish them to be instead of how they are.
In his hand written notes he indicated blood was on her outer palm. In his autopsy report and on the witness stand he called this area her wrist. He didn't want to confuse anyone into thinking he meant there was blood on the inside palm of her hand so called it the wrist in his autopsy report. This is the area he stated in his autopsy report and testified at trial caused the stain to her dress.
On the witness stand on cross examination he said it might look to a layman like the stain on her dress was made by fingers but maintained it wasn't, he maintained it was made by her hand meaning her wrist and outer palm.
Your attempt to say he admitted her fingers caused the stain is nonsense. You spend your life distorting and for what reason I have no idea because all it does it make you look foolish.
The evidence from Dr Cavalli and Professor Marco Meloni shows the blood the was still wet when the photographs were taken.
They presented their joke of an opinion that the blood was wet when the photos were taken. Your claim they presented evidence to prove such is false. They had no proof of any kind to back up their claims other than the lie that Woodcock said the blood was still wet. Woodcock said no such thing even though he used leaking he meant leaked. The blood on her face was dry when police entered and still dry when Dr Craig declared her dead and still dry hours later when the photos were taken.
Every lie Mike and the campaign team advance you adopt it is hilarious how gullible you are.
The usual ramblings and insults when you have nothing else to say
There is no proof Jeremy said "tonight is the night" as it comes from Julie alone and is absent from her original statements. For all we know she could have got the Hitman theory from the relatives. The relatives were onto Matthew McDonald after it was discovered that he and Jeremy were cultivating cannabis plants and would often smoke drugs together, Mathew Macdonald was rumoured locally to be a mercenary in North Africa. This is what he said
“this was pure fabrication but I kept it going at times because it made people think I was somebody but it was totally untrue.”
It makes perfect sense. Jeremy's drugs buddy is believed by many to be a mercenary/hitman. Hence its very possible that Robert Boultflour brought Macdonald into his theories.
You are confused as usual.
1) Jeremy's advocate suggested the family and Julie conspired because he was desperate and that was the best he could come up with. That he claimed such crap would only be surprising to someone who is clueless.
2) Julie claimed Jeremy told her many things and these had nothing at all to do with the extended family. He called her shortly before the murders and 2 times shortly after the murders including calling her before police. The family has nothing to do with what they discussed during these calls. Her testimony about what was said is credible while his is not indeed he even lied about calling police before her. But the issue is the family has nothing to do with this.
3) NO ONE EXCEPT JEREMY had any reason to suggest a hitman had been used. Jeremy had no alibi. Had Jeremy not told Julie that a hitman had been used then Julie, police and the extended family would not have thought anything about a hitman they would have simply felt he personally killed everyone himself which is what they believed when he was tried and convicted. Your claim that they would instinctively suspect a hitman is nonsense. Only if he had an alibi would anyone suspect he used a hitman.
