Problems With A Jeremy Scenario

[Erik Narramore]

Regrettably, I'm not convinced by the prosecution scenario.  There are a number of flaws, in my view, due to the ballistic and forensic evidence.

For now, I'll pull out one, which is the manner in which the twins were shot.  The casing pattern I think can be relied on because it is discrete to that room - a factor that pretty much precludes professional error.

The shooting pattern in the twin's bedroom suggests to me one change of position, which means there is something in your suppositions.  Like you, I think the killer must have returned to the twins' bedroom to fire again rather than negate the boys in one fusillade.

If Jeremy was 'going back to make sure' (which I appreciate is plausible), he would have changed position and we see that clearly in the fusillade pattern.

Where I differ is that I surmise two things from the manifest casing pattern:

(i). The killer has shot the twins six times at close range in rapid fire, roughly in an arc pattern: DRH/16, DRH/17, DRH/37, and DRH/18 and DRH/39(double case).

(ii). The killer has shot the twins twice at intermediate range roughly from the door: DRH/38 and DRH/40.

Note: For present purposes, I'm ignoring/disregarding DRH/36.

I conclude from this that the first fusillade was (i) and the second fusillade was (ii).

In other words, at least as far as the twins' bedroom is concerned, I am reversing your scenario and saying that the killer starts by firing at close range six times, then a second fusillade is initiated at intermediate range 'to make sure'.

I believe this makes logical sense.

This has implications.  It means Jeremy does not have sufficient bullets to attack both Nevill and June in the way that the Crown allege.  It also makes sense that he would not at this stage go downstairs to re-load (assuming he does not carry the ammunition with him).  We can also say that it makes sense that Jeremy, if he was the killer, would have the nous to ensure that he launched his assault with a fully-loaded weapon.  We will assume he also had a cartridge in the breech at the outset.

From this, we deduce that after the first assault on the twins, he had five cartridges left.

If the killer was Jeremy, his priority would have been Nevill.  For the purposes of exploring this scenario with you, I am assuming however that he has attacked the twins first - perhaps even to test the gun, but also perhaps because, rightly or wrongly, he perceives them as the line of least resistance and he also wants to preclude the possibility of them running around the house, hiding and even escaping.

I tentatively deduce from all this that he must have then attacked Nevill and June in the master bedroom.

Let's assume, as it's your premise, that the rifle is silent.  But let's err on the side of caution and say that June has heard something - maybe just Jeremy moving about - and she stirs Nevill.  Nevill is now up.  That would help explain things.  Jeremy senses this and reaches the master bedroom.

His assault on his parents is incomplete.  He fires into June but she only receives maybe two bullets, which explains why she could move around. I think we can say it must have been at least two bullets.  If it was only one bullet into June at this stage, then she potentially escapes and blows the gaff.

Thus, there are three bullets left for Nevill.  Probably Nevill is shot before June actually.  As I think we've agreed, maybe the shot to the face comes first, then two more shots into poor Nevill's left side - i.e. arm and neck/shoulder.

From the perspective of time-and-motion consistency, three shots to Nevill is better than four at this stage because we need Nevill to run through the house to the kitchen and we have the embarrassment of a lack of blood evidence to contend with and explain.

Here's the problem I'm left with: the bullet casings are wrong in this scenario.  The only way I think we can make it fit and be consistent with D.I. Cook's findings is if we say that the twins were shot in three sessions, but why would Jeremy do that, it makes little sense, and is it consistent ballistically with what we find and what the pathologist opinionated?