Author Topic: Was Sheila shot with a rifle fitted with a silencer?  (Read 13265 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John

Was Sheila shot with a rifle fitted with a silencer?
« on: April 08, 2012, 03:09:26 PM »
This photograph shows the two wounds which were inflicted upon Sheila Caffell. The lower wound was non fatal while the upper caused instant death.

A ring of bruising can be clearly seen surrounding the entry wound.  The  threaded end of the rifle barrel can also be seen in the photograph.

The second and upper fatal wound was made while Sheila's neck was laid back.




« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 04:19:23 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Weety

  • Guest
Re: Sheila was definately shot with a rifle fitted with a silencer
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2012, 03:58:03 PM »
Wasn't it accepted that the lower wound was not a contact shot? Venezis describes bruising around the lower wound and I think that's what you're seeing.


Offline John

Re: Sheila was definately shot with a rifle fitted with a silencer
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2012, 04:16:21 PM »
Wasn't it accepted that the lower wound was not a contact shot? Venezis describes bruising around the lower wound and I think that's what you're seeing.

I have altered the introduction since the issue is still worthy of debate.

Venezis reported contact or near contact for both wounds in his report.  Certainly the lower wound would have immobilised her and I cannot see her having been able to manoeuvre herself to make a second shot.

It is also clear from the pathologists report that the blood on her arm originated from the neck wound which had trickled down her arm as she lay slightly to one side originally before being laid back. 
« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 04:24:07 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Weety

  • Guest
Re: Was Sheila shot with a rifle fitted with a silencer?
« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2012, 04:28:55 PM »
It was Malcolm Fletcher I think, who said that the upper wound was contact, and the lower wound was from within 3 inches.

You're right though, this is still worthy of debate and I have a couple of points to make re the lack of blood in the rifle thing, but it'll have to wait as I'm off out for a family dinner (yum!).

Offline Angelo222

Re: Was Sheila shot with a rifle fitted with a silencer?
« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2012, 06:11:31 PM »
It was Malcolm Fletcher I think, who said that the upper wound was contact, and the lower wound was from within 3 inches.

You're right though, this is still worthy of debate and I have a couple of points to make re the lack of blood in the rifle thing, but it'll have to wait as I'm off out for a family dinner (yum!).

Where did you see that Weety?  I cannot find that comment anywhere unless you mean what John Hayward wrote in his hand written report?
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Weety

  • Guest
Re: Was Sheila shot with a rifle fitted with a silencer?
« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2012, 08:03:14 PM »
Paragraph 62 of the 2002 appeal:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html

I seem to remember seeing it in more details somewhere else but can't remember where.

Offline John

Re: Was Sheila shot with a rifle fitted with a silencer?
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2012, 08:30:52 PM »
Paragraph 62 of the 2002 appeal:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html

I seem to remember seeing it in more details somewhere else but can't remember where.


That's quite interesting guys,  to quote from the appeal decision...

Mr Fletcher also gave evidence of the range at which the shots had been fired. The lower (and not immediately fatal) of the injuries suffered by Sheila Caffell was caused when the muzzle of the gun was within three inches of the throat. The upper injury was a contact shot.

I wonder is he basing that on the fact that there is bruising around the lower wound and not the upper one?  What do you think Weety?

The other thing which this raises is the fact that the rifle was so long that Sheila couldn't reach it any way but if it was a further 3" from her neck doesn't that pose a big problem for the defence?

« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 08:32:55 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline goatboy

Re: Was Sheila shot with a rifle fitted with a silencer?
« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2012, 08:46:20 PM »
Even Tesko admitted recently that the lower shot was from up to 3" away from her body. Surely there is no possible way that shot could have been fired by Sheila-or is that why he is now claiming that June did it?

Offline John

Re: Was Sheila shot with a rifle fitted with a silencer?
« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2012, 09:44:20 PM »
Even Tesko admitted recently that the lower shot was from up to 3" away from her body. Surely there is no possible way that shot could have been fired by Sheila-or is that why he is now claiming that June did it?

It seems that Sheila could not have taken that first shot and she certainly didn't make the second one because she was effectively paralysed from the lacerations to her neck and spine where the bullet lodged.  She would have been in excruciating pain and blood would have splattered everywhere had she still been conscious.  It would also appear that the two shots were made within seconds of each other when her assailant panicked and realised she was not dead.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Claudia

Re: Was Sheila shot with a rifle fitted with a silencer?
« Reply #9 on: April 08, 2012, 10:41:23 PM »
 I personally think it was a non contact shot so there is no way to prove whether a silencer was fitted. Sort of make the whole exercise just a little bit pointless.  If the rifle had been in contact with Sheilas skin there would have been much more black gun residue around the wound.  As it is there only was a little bit around the wound according to the pathologists report.

Weety

  • Guest
Re: Was Sheila shot with a rifle fitted with a silencer?
« Reply #10 on: April 09, 2012, 12:44:46 AM »
Paragraph 62 of the 2002 appeal:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html

I seem to remember seeing it in more details somewhere else but can't remember where.


That's quite interesting guys,  to quote from the appeal decision...

Mr Fletcher also gave evidence of the range at which the shots had been fired. The lower (and not immediately fatal) of the injuries suffered by Sheila Caffell was caused when the muzzle of the gun was within three inches of the throat. The upper injury was a contact shot.

I wonder is he basing that on the fact that there is bruising around the lower wound and not the upper one?  What do you think Weety?

The other thing which this raises is the fact that the rifle was so long that Sheila couldn't reach it any way but if it was a further 3" from her neck doesn't that pose a big problem for the defence?

Off the top of my head I think the bruising was one of the things they used to determine that that wound was not immediately fatal. I haven't read (or at least I don't remember reading) Malcolm Fletcher's full report on how he determined which wounds were contact but I imagine it had to do with residue (among other things), as Claudia has stated.

Weety

  • Guest
Re: Was Sheila shot with a rifle fitted with a silencer?
« Reply #11 on: April 09, 2012, 01:29:44 AM »
One of the problems with the current defence theory that Sheila was shot with a rifle without the silencer fitted is the fact that no blood was found in the barrel. Mike has clearly spotted this and has come up with two theories (so far):

1. "Unofficial firing tests" using the rifle and silencer were undertaken prior to Malcolm Fletcher performing a 'cloth pull through' test and these firings cleaned the blood out of the barrel and may have also deposited it in the silencer - thus the conclusion that there was no blood in the barrel, and there was blood in the silencer.

It seems to be accepted that Malcolm Fletcher did the pull through on the 11th of September, and this is supported by the fact that Hayward received the pull through on the 12th - so it couldn't have been later than the 12th. However, the only evidence that these "unofficial firing tests" took place indicates that they took place on the 13th of September - 2 days after the pull through test.

2. The pull through test might not have detected the blood anyway. The cloth pull through would not have got into the places that blood might have deposited (crevices such as the rifling) and in any case may have just skimmed over the blood since by that time it was dried. This would indicate that if the rifle was indeed used without the silencer fitted there would have been, and still is, blood present in the rifle and new tests might find it.

To me, this one might have legs... IF the cloth pull through was the only test used. In the appeal judgement it is said at least twice that there was no blood on the pull through AND no blood in the barrel, and yet  I haven't seen a report yet which details any other form of testing. If no other form of testing was undertaken and no silencer was used then there may well still be blood in the barrel, and if it's tested maybe the silencer / no silencer question could be laid to rest once and for all.

That's probably the first and last time I'll agree with Mike Tesko.