June's Movements

Started by Erik Narramore, January 29, 2022, 12:44:59 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Erik Narramore

What the evidence states is that June moved after being shot, that she was moving while being shot and moving around while the assailant was elsewhere with Nevill.  I conclude from this that it is likely she was awake and, as you may have noticed, I outlined earlier in the thread a possible Jeremy scenario in which Jeremy enters the master bedroom from the box room - the reason for this being that in order for the prosecution case to stand up, you need to explain how Nevill escapes Jeremy and also why he leaves the others behind to flee downstairs.

The reason I find your idea risible is not because it is impossible.  Clearly, it is possible that she was asleep or half-asleep, or whatever, and the shot woke her and she then reacted.  That can happen.  However, I find it funny that you say this yet you deny that you floated the same idea about Nevill and you make a big song and dance about me reminding you of it, demanding I produce a post of yours to prove it, which is just utterly ridiculous and childish.

Anyway, that's of no consequence.  The point is that I regard it as rather unlikely that Nevill or June were asleep when Jeremy started firing at both or either or them, and I would expect most people will agree with me.  The problems with the idea are fairly obvious - for Nevill, it means he recovers and gets shot three more times, but still makes it past Jeremy.  Why can't Jeremy just kill him?  For June, apart from the obvious physical difficulty, it leaves open the question of why Jeremy is shooting her first, or at all, since at that stage the priority is Nevill.
"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

DCI Jones noted spots of blood on the main landing, which may lend support to the theory that June was shot on the landing.

The only other blood in that general location was on the wallpaper of the main staircase, indicating movement by June or Nevill.

One thing that may be said to point away from the possibility of June being outside the master bedroom after having been shot is that there is blood under the window of the master bedroom, which indicates she was walking around after having been shot during the first fusillade, yet there isn't much blood anywhere else.
"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

June being shot in that way on the main stairs works in Jeremy's favour potentially, as he would hardly then leave Nevill to kill her, but I don't see any evidence that she was shot outside the master bedroom. 

I thought it was on her right-side that she received both shots to the head?  Looking at the transcript, the only part I can see where June is discussed at all is page 26 (Rivlin's cross-examination) and autopsy photograph 19 is referred to.
"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

On the part I've highlighted in bold, my memory here may be faulty but I seem to recall it being widely believed that June was shot in bed.  Am I mistaken?  If she was shot in bed, then I don't see how that's consistent with Sheila having injuries from June.  June would only be strong enough to stagger around and crawl, I should imagine.  A hypothetical Sheila killer would just shoot her again, not start wrestling around on the floor with her.

Just to stress, I am neutral in this case so you shouldn't interpret my question as hostile.
"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

I know June was mobile after the first shot, but would June have been able to tackle Sheila even after being shot while lying down or sitting up in bed?  For somebody of June's age, that seems to me quite remarkable, but I accept that remarkable things occur in these extraordinary situations and it is far from impossible.  Nevertheless, the question arises: Why didn't Sheila just shoot her again and kill her while she was still in the bed?  Why only shoot her once?  It's a semi-automatic rifle.

On the other hand, it has always seemed strange to me that of the two parents, Jeremy would shoot June first and that Nevill would have the chance to get out of bed and run downstairs.  The Jeremy scenario is difficult for a number of reasons, whereas Sheila being the killer does fit the evidence better overall because you can have as your starting point Nevill and Sheila in the kitchen, and you then have the following scenario:

Sheila then runs upstairs towards the children;
Nevill terminates the call with Jeremy and goes after her;
Sheila turns on the stairs or landing and fires on Nevill as he ascends the stairs;
Nevill and Sheila end up back in the kitchen and Nevill is killed;
Sheila goes back upstairs and reaches the bedroom first, instead of the children, and shoots June;
June manages to scramble out of bed, struggles with Sheila, and is shot again;
Sheila kills the children, then kills herself.

During all this Sheila must re-load.  We assume she must wash at the end before killing herself, but the closer I look at the evidence - such as hand samples and what not - the more I question that assumption as well.

As I explained on a different thread, the fingerprint evidence is consistent with Sheila being the killer.  My scenario would be that she wipes clean the main action of the rifle and maybe the butt and barrel and then re-handles it after her hands were clean and dry.  She may have done this for psychological reasons, as the blood was a reminder of what she had just done.

As ever in these comments, I remain neutral and will not come to any conclusion either way as I think this case is touch-and-go.  I don't believe Jeremy should have been convicted, but that does not mean I think he is innocent.
"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