Did Sheila freeze?

Started by Erik Narramore, January 28, 2022, 11:37:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

Erik Narramore

January 28, 2022, 11:37:31 PM Last Edit: February 02, 2022, 07:56:19 PM by Erik Narramore
In A/DCS Ainsley's original submission to the DPP, it is proposed that Jeremy was able to maneouvre Sheila because she 'froze'.

Freezing means immobile, but we know Sheila moved or was moved. Thus, it's implying that Jeremy moved her. It's also implicitly accepting that she was not sedated.

If Jeremy moved her, where was the weapon while he moved her?

Was he carrying the weapon and pushing her? The issue there is I doubt he could have planned it that way. He would surely anticipate resistance.

Also, why would she freeze if she does not know what is happening? Or did Jeremy tell her what he had done? We're assuming here that she is in her own bedroom. If she already realised what was going on then she had time and opportunity to run to her sons or even flee the scene altogether and get help.
"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

#1
January 28, 2022, 11:38:16 PM
June's body is in the main bedroom, so Ainsley seems to be saying Jeremy now carries her two or three feet to the other side of the bed.

The concern here is that Jeremy would not anticipate her going into shock. He has to find a more reliable way to immobilise her.
"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

#2
January 28, 2022, 11:39:05 PM
In fact, the 'freeze' theory is contradictory.

What the prosecution are saying is she wasn't 'frozen' at all.
"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

#3
January 28, 2022, 11:40:22 PM Last Edit: January 28, 2022, 11:49:50 PM by Erik Narramore
The prosecution's own narrative does not have her freeze, or if it does, it is for mere seconds.  If she freezes, she freezes.  The prosecution appear to be having her moving about all over the place.  If she can move, then she can kick, bite, scratch, attempt to flee, even attempt to wrestle the gun from Jeremy.  It's not like Jeremy was Geoff Capes.

The freezing idea is in Ainsley's report to the DPP, but he does not use it to explain how Jeremy subdues Sheila, as you do; instead, he has Sheila freezing when June is shot in front of her.  Jeremy then seizes her.  For reasons I am sure you can figure out, I find that scenario unconvincing - though I accept it is possible.

Coincidentally, I have floated the freezing idea as well, when I was discussing with others the vexing issue of how Sheila is subdued.  The basic reason I dismiss it as an explanation for subduing Sheila is that Jeremy would have had to plan this on some level and he would not have assumed that Sheila would freeze or go into shock.  Obviously, we're all guessing here, but we can use logic and experience to work out probabilities.  My view is that Jeremy probably counted on Sheila not hearing anything and being dazed and confused and so on and he could lie to her and say: 'Sheila, there are armed intruders in the house.  I need to get you to the master bedroom....', etc.

I think the guilt camp should also seriously consider the possibility of Sheila having slept in the master bedroom all along - that would solve a lot of problems for the prosecution case, and there are indications that she did so, including:

- the cuddly bear in the bed;
- the proximity of the twins' room;
- Nevill working late, as it's summer harvest.  He was probably outside until 11 p.m.;
- no blood on Nevill's side of the bed and Sheila found closest to that side;
- the need to explain Jeremy not killing Sheila in the twins' room;
- the absence of any of Nevill's blood upstairs and the need to explain Nevill's movements.
"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

#4
January 28, 2022, 11:41:41 PM
Looking at what the prosecution say logically, I must repeat: if she freezes, she freezes.  The prosecution have Jeremy moving her.  From my perspective, that scenario seems contradictory.  What they're saying is that she freezes when she sees June's body.  OK.  But then the prosecution have Jeremy move her - they say he could have manhandled her anyway he pleased at that point.

So when does she stop freezing?  Is she still 'frozen' and Jeremy carries her?  Or is she no longer 'frozen' and Jeremy is pushing her about and pins her to the floor, then with his rifle in the other hand, pushes the muzzle to her throat?  Which is it?
"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
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions