Deus Ex Machina: the innocent camp's theory that the police shot Sheila

[Erik Narramore]

If the police shot Sheila, why would Stan and the relatives have been allowed to drive the investigation?  I really doubt it and, without intending any disrespect towards Mike Teskowitz, I think his explanation that the police shot Sheila and covered it up is more of a deus ex machina or post facto rationalisation.  If the police had really shot Sheila, then the entire case would have been different because the police would have had no qualms about admitting what they had done.  They would have simply stated that she was an armed suspect pointing a gun at officers and she could not be reasoned with.  Case closed.

[Erik Narramore]

DCI Jones held his position against relatives because he thought Sheila had shot herself, and to be fair, he had a reasonable basis for this conclusion.  The alternatives are that Jeremy is guilty or the police did shoot Sheila and don't want to admit it, or perhaps both those things.

First, there is no reason for the police to cover up shooting Sheila during the raid operation itself.  In my view, to suppose they would engage in a cover-up on that basis is close to irrational.

Second, the only circumstance in which they may cover up the fact of shooting Sheila is if she was conscious when they found her and they accidentally shot her while moving the rifle.  But even if this had occurred, the cover-up wouldn't last long because, generally-speaking, the police would not knowingly allow an entirely innocent man to be condemned.  They would have to come clean or their conduct would be discovered forensically.

I suggest that it must be very rare for a police officer to [note my careful choice of words] knowingly condemn an innocent man.  It will happen, but it must be very rare indeed.  I asked for an example, and only one poster could come forward with one, and even then, it was an officer who was thought to be mentally-ill.

But let's say the raid officers did shoot Sheila accidentally.  Let's consider this.  In that scenario, you would be dealing with a mistake in which perhaps only one, or at most two, raid officers know the truth and, fearing a prosecution for manslaughter and the end of their police careers, decided to say nothing.  This will not have started out as malicious because the investigation dovetailed with the actual scenario anyway; it only became malicious when the investigation shifted gear.

One problem with this is that the raid officers themselves were calling attention to Jeremy.  Why would they do that if they knew that Taff Jones suspected nothing and wanted it all wrapped up neatly?  That doesn't make sense, unless as I say only one or two raid officers were in the know.

Regarding Keneally, I'm not sure there was a 'report' as such.  He carried out a review and may have sent a simple memorandum to the relevant senior officer.

I can't explain why the coroner's report is not available, but again, it could be that there was no 'coroner's report', as such.  The coroner just accepted what he was told, and that was that, and there is nothing of value to disclose.

[Erik Narramore]

There are some points to be made in favour of this particular conspiracy theory.

Look again at photos of Sheila's body.  But just to be clear on something, I am not saying this did happen.  I am just thinking through a scenario that assumes it did.

I haven't really considered the technical feasibility of an accidental or unintentional discharge in any depth.
Let's briefly consider it now.

First, as strange as it sounds, it may be possible for a rifle to go off spontaneously without any operator intervention if the trigger is primed and jams.  That seems to me unlikely to happen, but I would imagine it is possible and perhaps worth further consideration.

Second, and related to the above, I can also imagine a scenario in which the weapon could go off if moved following an earlier malfunction that, again, jams the trigger mechanism.

Third, another possible scenario would be where an officer is simply moving the rifle and accidentally triggers it.  I think this is one of the possibilities that Mike Teskowitz enunciates.

Some argue that the officers' hands would not go near the trigger, but if you look at photos of Sheila's body, you will see her right hand is clearly on the action and close to the trigger itself.  On one photo, her fingers look to be touching the trigger guard.

I would think the very first priority for the raid group officers - even before ABC checks to casualties and possible first aid to Sheila - would be to 'safe' the rifle, which would not necessarily involve first removing the rifle from the immediacy of her body.  If Sheila's fingers were on the trigger or very close to it, there is the possibility that an unintended discharge occurred, either due to Sheila's fingers striking the trigger as the officer perhaps clumsily attempted to move her hand (the force coming from the officer rather than Sheila), or even due to the officer's own finger(s) inadvertently coming into contact with the trigger.

I will need to re-look at the rifle manual, but I assume there is a safety lock somewhere.  Yet the raid group officers would not necessarily immediately know where that is located.

On the face of it, an accidental discharge of the rifle due to police negligence is very possible - in my view.  That is not to say I think it happened, though.  However, I do suspect the police moved the body from the bed and I can think of at least one legitimate and wholly innocent operational reason why they would do so: to effectively carry out ABC checks and attempt resuscitation on a hard, flat surface.

[Erik Narramore]

It is possible for a gun to go off spontaneously, due to a malfunction.  I agree that it must be considered at the lesser end of all the scenarios available.  I only say that it is possible.

I agree that the police shooting Sheila's already dead body accidentally does not make Jeremy innocent, but if they shot her while trying to revive her, that could point to further reasonable doubt as it would mean that Sheila was still alive around a time that dovetails with Jeremy's version of events.

[Erik Narramore]

But what motive would they have for concealing Sheila's involvement in the shootings?  And what motive would they have to frame a man they knew to be innocent?  These theories are entertaining, they don't make a lot of practical sense.

If Robert Boutflour was threatening to embarrass the police due to a sloppy investigation or horseplay at the scene, or whatever, surely the cover-up would be of Boutflour's revelations?  The police would not also, in addition to this, try to frame an innocent man.  A double cover-up isn't necessary.

If Robert Boutflour suspected that the police had shot Sheila, how did he come by this information?  And why is it that the same information is not in the public domain via the other hands that came by the same information at the time?

There is a narrow possibility that one or two officers were involved in an accidental discharge of the firearm while attempting to 'safe' the rifle and/or while moving the body.  In that scenario, the one officer, or maybe two officers, might keep it a secret for fear of disciplinary proceedings or even a manslaughter charge.  That sort of cover-up can and does occur because of the problem that 'one thing leads to another' and events take on their own momentum and, as the minutes tick by, it becomes more and more difficult for an officer to admit what has happened.  This may, in turn, have led to a distorted picture of the crime that then led police down the road of, rightly or wrongly, pursuing Jeremy.  The person or people involved may then have convinced themselves that Jeremy is guilty anyway, so it doesn't matter.  I am flying a kite here, though.

I think some things indeed were covered-up.  I am of the view that the body was probably moved and Essex Police have, in effect, lied about this.  It's staring us all in the face, though I'm not sure it can be proved in the legal sense.  I think the body was moved probably for perfectly innocent and legitimate reasons, but due to a mix-up of communication, the urgency of the situation, and later, a need to minimise police mistakes, the fact has been concealed and 'forgotten'.  If it can be shown that the body was very likely moved in a way that Essex Police did not disclose, then that ought to topple the convictions.