The Horseplay Allegation

[Erik Narramore]

I doubt they had anything to 'celebrate'.  I assume they were just giddy about the occasion and they liked the novelty of the farmhouse.  Most of them were ordinary rural coppers and it was a once-in-a-career event for them.  Once the investigation appeared to be over, they would have been relieved and a mixture of stress and excitement needed an outlet, which maybe explains all the horseplay and messing about.  Not that I'm condoning it, just trying to explain it.

Police officers must see and bear witness to a lot of disturbing things, including violently-traumatised bodies and victims who are in great distress.  It must have been difficult for some of them to see those bodies, especially those boys, and that can do funny things to people.  Some of them would be cold about it and just go about their work, which I think I would be, but others would not be able to cope.

Bear in mind as well that dark humour was still very much part of English working class culture then.  It wasn't meant maliciously or intended to be insensitive, it was just a coping mechanism for ordinary men in very hard situations.

Probably many of those officers developed mental/emotional problems in the aftermath.  It's a mass murder scene, with two small boys dead.

Apparently Taff Jones spent little time in the farmhouse, did a cursory check of the locks, etc., before waltzing off, whereas Stan Jones and one or two others spent more time looking at things and also spent a lot of time around Jeremy and other family members.

Taff seems to have detached himself from it all, whereas Stan did the opposite.  Does this reflect different styles of working, one efficient, detached and professional, and somewhat arrogant perhaps, the other more involved and thoughtful?

Taff's conclusions were the simplest and reflected what could obviously be seen: Sheila was dead and found with the rifle; Sheila had a possible motive for killing everybody else and herself, albeit the result of an irrational mind; the entrance points and windows all seemed secure.  Conclusion: it must be Sheila.  Case closed.  Thank you.  Next case?

Stan's approach was more intuitive, sceptical, suspicious and thoughtful, and more emotional, and depended on developing a much more complex and convoluted explanation for things.  There is, admittedly some logic in pointing the finger at Jeremy, but a lot of it depends on a selective interpretation of the evidence and not a few imaginative leaps.

Who was right?