Hi there only me. Good to have you on the forum.
Tell me only me....I like to ask new posters why they came to that decision. I have conversed with several dozen people just like you who were drawn into the whole innocent thing by semantics. I know I was exactly the same and in the beginning I couldn't believe that a young farmers son with so much ahead of him could do such a stupid thing. I soon came to learn that it was not all as it seemed at White House farm.
What made you change your mind?
Well...I'm not sure that I did "change my mind" so to speak - I really didn't have an opinion one way or another when I first started looking into it (after the failed CCRC bid). I was wasn't quite nine when the murders happened, so it's not like they were something that had featured heavily in my life.
My reason for believing he's guilty is really simple (probably too simple).
50. Following removal of the bags at the mortuary, Sheila Caffell's hands and forehead were swabbed. Extremely low traces of lead were detected when the swabs were examined. Such levels being consistent with the levels found from the handling of every day things around the house. These results were compared to hand swabs taken from volunteers at the laboratory who were required to load the magazine with eighteen rounds of ammunition. Significantly higher traces of lead were found than those recorded on the hands of Mrs Caffell. The scientist Mr Elliott gave evidence that if Sheila Caffell had loaded eighteen cartridges into a magazine he would have expected the hand swabs to have revealed appreciably higher deposits of lead.
51. Mrs Caffell's nightdress was bloodstained. When tested the blood was consistent with being her own blood. The garment was also examined for the presence of any firearm discharge residues or oil from the rifle. No such traces were found. The scientist gave evidence that there would be a strong chance of finding such residues or markings on the clothing of an individual who had fired a rifle twenty-five times.
I've read the arguments that explain the above - largely, that Sheila showered and changed after committing the murders, prior to killing herself.
This is obviously opinion and not fact, but I find the assertion that Sheila showered and then changed into a nightdress completely bizarre. Why on earth would someone put
night clothes on to commit suicide? I find it far more likely that Sheila had prepared for bed and was subsequently accosted and shot. In fact, why would she shower at all? It's not like she was going to have to worry about a trial if her intention was to kill herself, she didn't have to hide the evidence.
I've also read several comments on here that seem to suggest that Sheila would have to be drugged or in an otherwise altered state in order to stay still enough to be shot, and I have to dispute that. The vast majority of people, when confronted by someone with a weapon while they are unarmed, will do exactly what they're told.
That's about it really. The explanations for the lack of physical evidence on Sheila seem implausible to me.
