The Plausibility of Sheila as the Killer

Started by Erik Narramore, January 29, 2022, 01:01:32 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Erik Narramore

In my view, the evidence does more closely match Sheila as the killer.

It was quite simple for Sheila to do this.  First, Jeremy left out a loaded magazine.  She just slots the magazine into the rifle and fires.

When she realises the rifle won't fire anymore, it will dawn on her that she needs to re-load it, so she goes back downstairs to the kitchen, where she will have seen boxes of ammunition.  She takes the magazine off the rifle and puts more cartridges in the magazine, then slots the magazine back on rifle.

As to how to operate the rifle, she will have seen her brother and father and relatives use guns and she will have tried them herself.  The relatives initially said that Sheila had never fired a gun in her life, but David Boutflour later reported that she had been on at least one shooting expedition to Scotland and fired a gun there.

As to accuracy, Malcolm Fletcher makes a big deal of this in his recent documentary interview, but I don't see what the fuss is about.  She is shooting at close range.  A child would be accurate in such circumstances.  In any case, Mr Fletcher is not correct: there was at least one spent bullet and it can't be said with certainty that there weren't more that were never found.
"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

Someone must have wiped the gun, but I disagree that it had to be Jeremy.  I see no reason why Jeremy would, since as you say, his prints would be expected on the gun anyway.  Equally, I see no reason why Sheila would not have wiped the gun if she had just used it to kill her own children and parents.  If she also washed her hands, they would be clean and dry, meaning that she would leave no further prints when killing herself with that same gun.  For these reasons, the fingerprint evidence actually fits Sheila as the killer better than Jeremy.
"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

Two crucial facts:

1. Sheila had not been over-medicated, it was just that she reported that she did not like being on the drug and wanted her dosage reduced.
2. She was then accidentally under-medicated.  It is established that doing so abruptly, as happened here, can have adverse and catastrophic consequences.
"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

She could have done those things quite easily, but it does depend on her knowing how to operate the gun, load it, re-load it, etc.
"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