Colin Caffell's impact on Sheila

Started by Erik Narramore, January 29, 2022, 07:37:25 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Erik Narramore

Colin says in the book that he could almost thank Jeremy for killing the family, and for that reason, can't really judge him.  To be fair to Colin, the book needs to be seen as a 'journey' in which Colin comes to a realisation about his place in the moral scheme of things and recognises that he is neither good nor evil.  Personally, I like the book overall.  I think it is, by a long way, the best book written on the case, but it is a work of self-reflective literature, not a factual book, and it is not very accurate (again, in fairness, it doesn't purport to be).

I think there are serious questions to be asked about Colin Caffell.  Steve should have left this topic well alone!  Certainly if I supported Jeremy's guilt to the extent that some people dogmatically do on here, I would be trying to change the subject whenever Colin or Julie get a mention, but some people seem keen to discuss them, and who am I to argue?

I wonder if Colin blaming June is a way for him to minimise his own guilt over the conduct of the relationship and marriage with Sheila?

Three points to consider:

1. June only became mentally-ill during Sheila's marriage to Colin and after the twins were born.  She did have a mental health history involving one or two incidences of chronic depression, but she had not been mentally-ill until, I think, circa 1981/2.

2. Sheila had a fairly normal childhood and adolescence with various adjustment problems that were and are normal for a girl and young woman.  She showed no signs of any mental health issues until her marriage to Colin Caffell.

3. It is noted that Colin left her not long after the twins were born.  She then associated with Freddie Emani - a very suspect character in my view who deserves a thread of his own.

Some questions (among many):

(i). Who is the source for the alleged incident where June finds Sheila with Colin (or a farm hand)? If the source is Colin Caffell, why should we believe it?

(ii). Whose idea was it for Sheila to become a model?

(iii). The drawings by the twins were not disclosed to the police.  Why not?  Are we sure the drawings are even authentic?  They surfaced six months after the trial, if I understand.  Have these drawings ever been independently analysed?

(iv). A letter was found from Colin to Nevill, but it is undated and it's not clear if it was ever sent.  Who disclosed the letter and was it ever sent? Are we sure the letter was even written by Colin?  Is it his handwriting?  If it is his, but it wasn't sent, why wasn't it sent?

(v). Are the anecdotes in Colin's book about robins actually true?  If, as seems likely, they are not true, then why are they in the book?

(vi). Has anybody attempted to track down Betty the medium and interview her?

(vii). Why did Colin lie to the media in the aftermath of the trial about his relationship with Sheila?
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

Based on what I have been reading, Sheila was a pretty normal girl and young woman up to the point that she met Colin Caffell.  (I'm not necessarily implying anything about Colin in that respect, let me emphasise).  I know she had problems with June and there was an incident as a teenager when June caught her with a boy, but I'm not sure if that was in fact Colin or a local (there seems to be some confusion about that).

My point is that I wonder if the difficulties in the relationship with June have been overly-focalised and exaggerated within the corpus of 'true crime' literature on the case, when in reality the relationship was fairly normal, and even June's mental health issues weren't necessarily very impactful.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams