Problems With The Pathological Evidence

[Erik Narramore]

Dr. Vanezis was of the opinion that Sheila immediately fell back after the second shot.

That part from Dr Vanezis doesn't make sense to me if Jeremy is guilty.

I've noticed that, with Mr Ismail's evidence, the Crown is theorising that Sheila's back must have been resting against something when Jeremy shot her and he then pulls her body into position.  This supposition is of course flawed for the simplest of reasons: Mr Ismail is reliant on secondary evidence, and furthermore, it's likely that the police moved the body, for perfectly innocent and legitimate reasons, and this may not have been recorded and may even have been forgotten.

But let us take the Vanezis-Ismail theory at face value.  Thus, we are saying that the police never moved the body prior to forensic photography, she was resting against the bedside cabinet when Jeremy shot her, and she fell back after the second shot; then Jeremy pulled her flat by the legs.

Some observations:

(i). If Jeremy is guilty, then there would have been a period when she was still propped up against whatever she was resting against before he moved her body.  That means she didn't fall back, thus on the face of it Vanezis and Ismail are inconsistent with each other.  I accept they are not in contradiction.  It's just about reconcilable if you interpret Dr Vanezis a certain way, or allow that the blood effect of falling back is analogous to what would have happened if the body was moved; but it is inconsistent and you would think if Jeremy did this that a pathologist would say either that Jeremy shot her when she was sat up and not resting against anything, or Jeremy shot her when she was lying flat.  Yet he says something quite different.  He says she was sat up but neglects to say whether she was sat up aided or unaided, which seems pretty crucial.  It's an omission that can be explained by the failure of the police to ask Dr Vanezis to attend the scene, and it could be significant.

(ii). The two shots are at different angles, but if Jeremy had shot Sheila while she was resting against a bedside cabinet, surely the shots would be at roughly the same angle, since Jeremy would be sitting at the same angle.  Doesn't that suggest either Mr Ismail's evidence is wrong, or Jeremy is innocent, or both?

(iii). If we merely say that Mr Ismail was wrong, the problem then is that we have to say Jeremy shot Sheila while she was sat up unaided, but then there was no need for Jeremy to move the body.  Presumably in that case, the second shot would have been to Sheila while she was lying prone.  To be fair, that would explain the different angles.

(iv). Another question is how the silencer fits into this. If Jeremy has shot Sheila while she was sitting up, is that realistic with a silencer attached to the rifle?

(v). Another question: Why didn't Jeremy make sure to shoot Sheila fatally with the first shot?  Doesn't the position of the gunshot wounds suggest that they may have been self-inflicted?

(vi). If Jeremy is guilty, at one point are pro-guilt posters saying that Jeremy took the silencer off the rifle?  Were both shots with the silencer on?

Going back to my earlier post, if - very much an 'if' - we suppose Jeremy is innocent, then Sheila must have been conscious after the first shot.  There is no other plausible scenario due to the angles of the two shots.  Therefore, we have Sheila shooting herself once and she isn't resting against anything, but she doesn't fall back.  She is desperate to kill herself but the rifle must now be at a different trajectory.  Does this fit more easily with what Dr Vanezis says?  On the face of it, yes, because you don't have the problem of explaining how she falls back when the body was supposed to have been moved - two things that are inconsistent with each other.

I have to say, if you put this [brief] analysis of the Ismail and Vanezis evidence together, then by a process of elimination you have to lean towards reasonable doubt because the different-angled shots seems to me to discount Mr Ismail's evidence (see my points (ii) and (iii) above) and Dr Vanezis says Sheila fell back after the second shot.

[Erik Narramore]

Everybody agrees it is feasible that she could have shot herself twice - at least in the sense of general principle, even the most dogmatic pro-guilt person would have to admit that it is at least feasible.  There are recorded cases of multiple shot suicides.  For various reasons, it is quite common.

For me, that's not the point of issue.  The issue, at least as far as I am concerned, is that she was shot at very different angles.  Could she have done that herself?  The significance of this point is that it only leaves open one possibility:

(i). she must have been conscious after the first shot.

The other two technical possibilities could NOT have logically occurred:

(ii). she shot herself twice-at-once;
(iii). there was a malfunction that caused a second shot.

Only (i) is on the table, if Jeremy is innocent.  If Jeremy is innocent and Sheila did this, then options (ii) and (iii) must be ruled out.

Now let's consider (i) a bit further.  A neutral observer would have to admit that it is possible she could have shot herself once, and was still conscious, and shot herself again with the rifle positioned at a different trajectory.

To do this would have been extremely difficult, but it is possible, and it could have happened quite quickly: with her desperate to kill herself, she grasps at the rifle, the action/butt moves off her legs, and she just reaches for the trigger and fires again.

The question for me is: Does the photographic evidence cohere with that scenario?

I believe I have already shown that the fingerprint evidence does - the fingerprint evidence points to Sheila as the killer.

[Erik Narramore]

She was shot at different angles = A

The shots were very close to each other = B

P(A u B)

Bit of symbolic probability maths for you.

[Erik Narramore]

My suspicion is that Sheila was shot on her parents' bed and the first police officers on the scene moved her off the bed to attempt resuscitation.

This decision may have been influenced by the context of the situation as much as the appearance of the casualty.  They went in believing she had just shot herself.

[Erik Narramore]

Was it the job of raid group officers to attempt resuscitation?

Yes, I would say it is within the duties of a police officer attending a homicide scene to deliver first aid.  On finding a homicide victim, the officer should carry out the ABC checks and, if a resuscitation attempt is considered viable, the officer should attempt this.

I believe that if it were discovered than an officer attending the scene of a homicide had not done these things in such circumstances, then at the very least he would face criticism.

I also agree that the aim of the police was to negate danger, as part of which they would need to safe the rifle, but the two things are not mutually-exclusive.  They also have an implied duty to casualties who could be revived.

[Erik Narramore]

It's not just logic that contradicts Ismail's evidence, it's also the laws of physics.

If Sheila had her head up against the bedside table after being shot, the blood would run from her mouth down her face like in crime scene images. But it doesn't.

If we accept that Ismail's evidence was wrong, some questions:

(i). Would you accept that the evidence is not inconsistent with Dr. Vanezis' view that Sheila fell back after the second shot?

(ii). Would you also accept that, if Jeremy is guilty, for Sheila to fall back after the second shot would require that Sheila was resting against something when the first shot was delivered?

(iii). Thus, do you accept that, if Jeremy is guilty, then Dr. Vanezis' evidence present us with a paradox because a guilty Jeremy must have shot her while she was resting against something and the second shot must have followed very quickly after the first shot?

(iv). Would you also accept that, given the very different angles of the shots (which can be checked by triangulating the wounds), this is extremely unlikely anyway because it would require Jeremy to shift position quite significantly within a matter of seconds?  Surely he would shoot her at roughly the same or closely-similar angles?

(v). Turning to Sheila, do you accept my logical deduction, explained earlier in the thread, that if she was the real killer, she would have had to be conscious after the first shot and that the second shot had to be delivered by her intentionally rather than as a result of a malfunction or 'fire twice-at-once'?

[Erik Narramore]

The Campaign Team believe that the neck/shoulder gunshot wound was the result of the latter shot because, if I understand them right, they theorise that the police or some other third party shot Sheila.

But if you look carefully at the image, you can see that the muzzle end of the rifle is raised.  It is not in line with the neck/shoulder gunshot wound at all.  It just looks that way due to aspect distortion.

In my view, the lower shot could easily have come first.  I also think it is unlikely the angle of shot was away from the head region.  I think I know why the Campaign Team believe it could be.  You think Sheila was moving around, hence it makes more sense - if you theorise that way - for Sheila to have been shot at an angle away from the head region.  To me, this has to be wrong because Sheila is the only one with a firearm.  It only works if you then theorise that a police officer shot her, but given the theorised angle of shot, that would mean the police shot her while she was perambulating around.  I don't see any evidence to support this conjecture.  Why wouldn't the police report the shot and say she was armed?  What do the police have to gain by lying?  And more importantly, where is the physical evidence?

It must have been towards her head, hence the image attached is - in my view - likely to be wrong.  For me, the photograph has a different significance:

(i). Unless the aspect is misleading, Sheila could not have naturally fallen with her head under the bedside cabinet.  This means somebody has moved the body prior to that photograph having been taken.

(ii). Ismail's evidence about the shot sequence is wrong, but Vanezis' evidence is possibly correct.

(iii). A reasonable person looking at this could form the view that the differing angles of shot support Jeremy's guilt - and initially this was one of my Ten Reasons For Believing Jeremy Is Guilty.  But I have come to the realisation that I was wrong, one reason being that I now believe Ismail's evidence at the 2002 appeal was flawed.  If you factor in Vanezis' evidence and consider everything in the round, the shot angles support reasonable doubt.

But it is a convoluted/concatenated argument. 

[Erik Narramore]

Can we rule out Jeremy moving Sheila's body at any stage (other than moving her prior to shooting her)?

That's a complex question in its own right.  Clearly, he literally could have done because he could have just asked Sheila and she might have agreed, if she was in a mental state that disposed her to agree - especially if Jeremy was pointing a gun at her.

But can't the guilt camp see the problems with that scenario?  They rely on the claim that Sheila was found immaculate.  How can this be?  Wouldn't Sheila have resisted at some point?  They say she was sedated, but do you understand what the expression 'sedated' means in the medical and physio-pharmacological senses, or in reality?  It does not necessarily mean that she would be unable to defend herself.  You may say she would be confused and tired, but wouldn't that make it more difficult for Jeremy, not less?  How is it that Sheila had no blood on her feet when she was walking through a bloodied crime scene?

I could put dozens of questions to the guilt camp.  We could go into a discussion about the Ismail and Vanezis evidence.  I think Ismail's evidence is wrong but Vanezis' evidence was correct.  The angles at which Sheila was shot seemed to indicate to me that the killer must be Jeremy, but on further reflection I realised that I had not taken into account the position Jeremy would need to be in to make the shots.  It's not just where Sheila was but also where Jeremy was, and his posture and so on.

This isn't simple!