Brief Thoughts On The Case

[Erik Narramore]

I lean towards 'Guilty', based on a mix of reason, suspicion and intuition, but I'm struggling.

One thing that puzzles me is how he did it.  Honestly, I just can't figure it out and I'm not sure that if I was on a jury hearing this evidence I could even convict him.  It's not enough to say 'Sheila didn't do it, ergo Jeremy did'.  That's not proof.  There can still be doubt.

The questions about the scenario are numerous.

How does he move Sheila into the master bedroom without leaving any forensic trace in the second bedroom or the landing?

If Sheila was already in the master bedroom, how come she isn't covered in June's blood?  How come she wasn't accidentally shot by Jeremy in the arm or torso or between the eyes?  Assuming Sheila somehow dodges that bullet while Jeremy is firing at June, what does Sheila do while Jeremy is downstairs struggling with Nevill?  Does she just sit and wait for Jeremy?  Does she help June and get covered in June's blood, or does she go to the twins and discover them dead and fight Jeremy?  Or does she find the twins still alive and runs and hides with them somewhere?

And if she ran to June or went and hid with the twins, how come she is so clean?

Ironically, isn't the fact she is clean actually a possible indicator of suicide, per Professor Knight's evidence?

Don't misunderstand me: I think he did it, but I'm trying to get my head round it.

It just doesn't make sense.

One possible answer is that she was heavily sedated, but if she was sedated to that extent, then how does Jeremy coerce her to the master bedroom?  And wouldn't Jeremy be wary of such a plan, knowing that other people – including Sheila's own doctors – would know she was sedated and (as some claim) lacking in motor skills?

But was she sedated, really?  And what exactly does 'sedated' mean?  I always think it's a bit glib to rely on pseudo-terminology like that.  We need to know what it means precisely.

I'm curious to know what Dr Vanezis thought about all this, as I view him as quite competent.  Which is why I've asked for the missing page in Dr. Vanezis' trial transcript because Jeremy's lawyers are asking him to comment on Sheila's medication and he says words to the effect: 'OK, I'll give the court an opinion, but I'm not a specialist in that area of medicine so take this with a pinch of salt'.  Unfortunately, the next bit is missing.

[Erik Narramore]

While I think the ballistics (especially the silencer) are at the core of this case, I actually take the view that the Crown's case against Jeremy hinges on the whole 'sedation' issue.  If it can be shown that Sheila could (I only say could) have been alert within the range of norm, then that would make the prosecution's scenario look much less plausible because you have to explain what Sheila was doing and - ironically - the fact she was found clean works in Jeremy's favour.

To be clear: I am not suggesting it would be impossible for Jeremy to do this, and I am not suggesting Jeremy is innocent or that Sheila did clean herself.  It doesn't really matter what I think or believe in terms of hypotheticals.  I only say that if Sheila was alert, then it would be difficult for Jeremy to have done this, perhaps so difficult that there is reasonable doubt.

[Erik Narramore]

For now, my interest is in the plausibility of Sheila as a basis for overcoming the convictions separate to attacking the silencer evidence.

The major points against Sheila as the killer seem to be [I don't pretend this is exhaustive and ignore certain evidence like the Bible as I think the police messed around with the crime scene]:

1. Sheila had no meaningful experience with guns.

2. Sheila was not normally violent against people.

3. Sheila was uncoordinated or her motor skills were impaired or she was drowsy or totally sedated, or some variation on this theme, hence it's unlikely she did it.

4. A suicide shot would normally be intra-oral, but her two gunshot wounds are to the neck-throat region, suggesting staging.  It was difficult enough for Jeremy to shoot her as it is, but much easier to shoot her in the neck/throat than intra-orally.  Conversely, it is easier for Sheila to shoot herself intra-orally than in the neck/throat.  Therefore, the wound locations point to Jeremy as the killer.

5. She had only very small traces of incriminating residues on her that could have got there through normal activities.

6. Nothing incriminating was found under her nails, despite a belief among the SOCO team at the time that she had committed suicide after struggling with Nevill, then killing him and the rest.

7. Only one recorded fingerprint on the rifle, despite a belief among the SOCO team at the time that she had committed suicide and killed the rest by using the rifle, including maybe two or three reloads.

Probably there are more points you can come up with, but that'll do us for now.

Can these points be assailed?  Points 2 and 3 are of most interest because there is scope for fresh evidence on these.

I don't believe Jeremy can overcome point 4.  The only reply I can think of is that maybe Sheila wanted to preserve her face and perhaps she had a mistaken belief that she could do so by shooting herself in the neck/throat rather than in the mouth, or maybe she didn't know how to kill herself by shooting in the mouth, but I'm not very convinced.  Sorry to be morbid.

I think he can overcome 1, 5, 6 and 7.  Points 1 and 7 can be waved away.  Points 5 and 6, the problem of a lack of residue and traces under her nails, is easily addressed through Professor Knight's theory.  If she cleaned herself, it would remove the forensic footprint, not totally, but to an extent that it might not be recorded by the police.  As bizarre as it may sound, it is plausible that she would clean herself.  Whether she really did or not doesn't matter for our purposes.  The point is that it is plausible.

That just leaves point 2 and 3, which as I say are the ones where there is scope for fresh evidence.

On point 2, if expert evidence was forthcoming that confirmed she potentially could have had a violent psychotic episode of that magnitude, that would quash the conviction, though it probably wouldn't be sufficient for an acquittal should the Crown proceed to re-try the case.

Point 3 is the stronger of the two.  If it can be shown that the sedation explanation for Sheila's actions is misconceived and she could have been alert, then I think there's reasonable doubt.

[Erik Narramore]

Dr. Bradley's evidence is not good for the Crown.  Not fatal, because Dr Bradley did not treat Sheila, but it doesn't look good for the prosecution when a psychiatrist is less-than-confident about a crucial premise of their entire case.

The problem is that a general psychiatrist, even one who treated Sheila directly, would not necessarily be able to comment expertly on the pharmacological aspects.  Did the Defence consult, even call, pharmacological experts?  Did the Crown?  Did the police even?  I would think you would need two: one at the manufacturing end and another at the academic end to comment on mass effects and experimental studies, assuming research was even done.  Was any research done into the initial development and testing of the psychotropic?

[Erik Narramore]

P. S.

I've noticed that at the end of Bradley's examination, he answers a question from the judge ambiguously.  Is Dr. Bradley saying he would have reduced the dose or wouldn't have done?  It's not clear, but my initial reaction is that he is saying he would not have reduced the dose.  Perhaps doesn't matter terribly one way or the other, since Dr. Bradley wasn't treating her and clinical assessments in psychiatry are quite subjective.

[Erik Narramore]

Having looked into this further, it seems that Haloperidol is not regarded as an optimum sedative.  Sheila's complaint about it, which initiated the reduction in the monthly intramuscular dosage, was that the drug was making her sleepy, which is not quite the same thing; but even so, if that was regarded as the reason for the reduction in dosage, then it's difficult to see how the fact helps the Crown's case.  Whether the drug causes or contributes to violent thoughts, ideations and behaviour is a different question and those contraindications have a different relationship to dosage.  Could halving Sheila's dosage make her violent?

One crucial point in all this is that on reviewing the trial evidence of Dr. Wilkinson and Dr. Angeloglou, it seems that Dr. Ferguson was a continuing guiding influence in Sheila's treatment regimen.  Dr. Angeloglou states that Sheila was supposed to be taking Procyclidene to counteract the sleepiness and he had prescribed her some in April, but I think he assumed that she wasn't taking it.  Yet it seems that the defence psychiatric expert, Dr. Bradley, was sceptical about the decision to reduce Sheila's monthly Haloperidol dosage from 200mg.  Perhaps this is because Dr. Bradley had the benefit of hindsight and Haloperidol has serious interactions with illicit drugs, which can act as contraindications.  Wasn't Sheila involved in drugs?

Furthermore, Dr. Angeloglou states that the dosage should have been reduced to 150mg, not 100mg, implying that his colleague, Dr. Wilkinson, had errored.  It could equally be that Sheila had asked her to reduce the dosage still further, as there is a clinical bias towards conservatism with Haloperidol.  It's not clear, and it's not clear if the overall decision to reduce her dosage was an instruction from Dr. Ferguson or Dr. Angeloglou own's clinical judgement having received advice from Dr. Ferguson.  Dr. Angeloglou also mentions that Sheila was asked whether she was taking illicit drugs and she denied it; the clinical consequences of this are carefully left open but the implication seems to be that her treatment regimen was based on an assumption that she was not involved in drugs.

Dr Ferguson did give evidence at trial because this is referred to in the examination of Dr Bradley, who was present when the evidence was given, yet I don't see a transcript in the archive.  Is there one available?

[Erik Narramore]

For those who maintain they are sure Jeremy is guilty:

If the explanation for Sheila's incident passivity is that she was asleep, can you explain what - if any - toxicological, pharmacological and/or psychiatric factors there were in keeping her asleep?

Can you also explain your evidence for the silencer having been used in the killings?

At what point does Sheila awaken?  She must have woken.  What do you think happened when she woke?

If Jeremy carried her to the master bedroom without having shot her first, where did he leave the rifle while he was doing this?  Was June dead at this point?

And why aren't Jeremy's fibres on Sheila's nightdress?  Do you think the blood hand print on the nightdress is actually Jeremy's?

Do you think he put Sheila on the bed in the master bedroom (and she was then moved by the police) or on the floor?

If on the floor, why would he do this?

And why do you think he staged Sheila in the master bedroom as opposed to the twins' bedroom?

Why do you think he left her with little or no gunshot residues on her hands, bearing in mind he was staging her killings and you think it was premeditated?  Wouldn't he have given thought to that?

[Erik Narramore]

Sheila's the odd one out.  She slept through it all.  Everybody else has insomnia.

Jeremy can't sleep and he's up killing his family.

Julie wakes up for a 3.15 a.m. phone call.  Must be a light sleeper.  So are Douglas and Susan.

June's a light sleeper too.  So is Nevill.  They somehow heard that silenced rifle.  Or maybe Jeremy woke them up before he shot them?

It's not so much Sheila Alive as Sheila Asleep.

[Erik Narramore]

June is sleep-walking after she's shot.  She's shot four more times and manages to crawl around the bed while asleep.

Nevill is shot in bed but leaves no blood.  Despite being shot twice in the head, once in the neck/shoulder and left arm, he manages to get past Jeremy and make it downstairs while leaving virtually no trace of blood anywhere in the house until he reaches the kitchen.

Somehow Jeremy doesn't catch a sleepy Nevill on the stairs.  Jeremy lets him run to the kitchen instead,

[Erik Narramore]

Nevill was shot in his sleep, as was June - the prosecution say.  Were they awake or not?  If they were awake, then how come?  I thought you said the rifle was near-silent, and you also affect to imply that the rooms of these houses are virtually sound proof.  What woke them?  Be careful with your reply, because remember you're also asking us to believe Sheila slept through it all.

If they were awake and not asleep, then why did they stay in bed?  Or did Nevill get up?  if Nevill got up, what was he doing?  Press-ups?  Flippancy aside, the question matters because you are asking us to believe Nevill only took four shots downstairs, despite the blood and pathological evidence implying otherwise.

I'm not convinced Nevill was shot upstairs at all, but I must acknowledge that the cartridge cases were found there and while the position of the cases cannot be relied on, if we say that Nevill took his shots on the stairs and downstairs, then we have to explain why and how up to four cases have made their way upstairs.

Part of the explanation will be that the projectile cases have ended up on the landing from shots fired on the stairs, more likely with Sheila facing in the direction of upstairs, but possibly with her firing down the stairs towards Nevill - because the cases could have ricocheted off the walls and back on to the landing.

It's still a problem for the defence, though - I must admit that.

[Erik Narramore]

We can look at the evidence and speculate.

If Jeremy is innocent, that means something happened around 3 a.m. or so (we can only go roughly on times).  Would Nevill and June normally still be awake at that sort of time?  Would Nevill be drinking into the early hours of the morning?  He didn't have a drink problem that I'm aware of.  It seems unlikely to me.

However, I don't believe they were asleep.  To that extent, I agree with you.  It does seem more likely that at least June was in bed and something had roused her, and she then sat up, or maybe sat at the edge of the bed.  Nevill was out of bed already.  He must have been.  Look at the bed sheets.

I understand why there is a need for the rifle to have the silencer on it.  Jeremy might have anticipated that the report would alert the adults to his presence.  But to me, it looks like the rifle didn't have the silencer on it.  Otherwise, why are they awake?  How is Nevill downstairs in the kitchen?  Even if we think Jeremy did it, why can't we admit that it is possible that Sheila is the killer and she just went on a rampage?

The struggle in the kitchen also points to Sheila, because Nevill would be hesitant in dealing with his daughter.  Jeremy and Nevill would not enter into a struggle in the kitchen.  Jeremy was armed and would just kill him in the bedroom or, if he ran out of ammunition, he would tackle him on the stairs or upstairs.

People laugh at the idea that Sheila stopped to wash herself, but if we believe the Crown's case, then we must accept that:

(i). Jeremy killed his own family for money.
(ii). Jeremy entered and left the house through a narrow casement window without leaving any blood traces.
(iii). Jeremy carried out the massacre without leaving any direct forensic evidence that he had done so.
(iv). Jeremy nevertheless implicated himself circumstantially by leaving a bloodied and 'sticky' silencer in the gun cupboard.
(v). Jeremy also very kindly stopped during the massacre to scratch the aga surround so that the silencer would have further incriminating forensic traces on it.  Thanks Jeremy.
(vi). It was helpful of Sheila to stay asleep all the way through it all.  Everybody else involved in this case is a light sleeper and some of them get up for 3 a.m. phone calls like rabbits on Duracel, but not Sheila.  That lass slept like a log.
(vii). Former Scotland Yard C11 Branch detective Stan Jones regarded Jeremy as prime suspect from the off.  This same Stan Jones offered Jeremy the keys to the crime scene, and left all the guns in the house for Jeremy to find.  That was nice of Stan Jones, given that Jeremy was a suspected mass murderer.
(viii). Jeremy declined this open goal and was delighted that the relatives were given the keys so that they could find a key piece of evidence that Jeremy had left there.
(ix). Alternatively, Jeremy broke into the house later and left the evidence there for the relatives to find - which was very nice of him.
(x). It was also very considerate of Jeremy not to leave blood in the den, in the gun cupboard or in the cardboard box in which David Boutflour found the silencer.  Leaving the place spick and span shows that Jeremy was not just a mass murderer, but a mature and responsible young man.
(xi). Jeremy tells his girlfriend, Julie, everything.  Jeremy then splits up with her.  I suppose as a former public school boy imbued with the English traditions of amateurism and sportsman-like behaviour, Jeremy was doing his best to help the relatives and the police put him in the frame.  It just wouldn't be cricket otherwise.
(xii). We are to believe that Julie was not an accomplice and was not arrested, instead she went to the police voluntarily, but only after more than a month, during which time she slept with Jeremy, socialised with him, and identified all the bodies because she thought she could talk to the dead.

But let's say Jeremy is the killer.  I think he didn't plan it.  He was psychotic and over-estimated the lethality of the murder weapon.  He assumed it would all be over quick, and instead it got messy and he was left to improvise.  He comes up with the phone call alibi idea after Nevill ends up downstairs.  He recalls a genuine call that I would speculate Nevill made to Jeremy earlier in the evening, which started it all off, in which Nevill berated him and Jeremy thinks that he can fake a call.  He doesn't give much thought to it beyond leaving the rifle on or near Sheila's body and he then ropes in Julie by ringing her in the early hours of the morning.

The difficulty with that theory is the 3 a.m. phone call (or 3.15 a.m. or whatever time it was).  Isn't it quite a coincidence that Julie is there to answer the phone herself?

It's convenient that Jeremy eventually answers the phone for Nevil, but that's not a coincidence.  Jeremy can explain this away by pointing out that he is Nevill's son, Nevill wants to contain problems in the family and not involve the authorities, blah, blah, blah and so on.  Nevill is at a stand-off in the kitchen with Sheila, who is carrying on and has the loaded rifle that Jeremy left out earlier.   Nevill assumes she won't use the rifle, but he doesn't try to tackle her, maybe because he can't catch her or whatever reason.  Nevill waits for Jeremy to answer the phone.  The phone has a loud ring.  Eventually Jeremy wakes and answers, etc., etc., and so on.  Make of that what you will, but it is plausible.

[Erik Narramore]

I'm not convinced by the inheritance motive anyway.  If I understand correctly, Jeremy was not inheriting investment bonds or some other genuine form of passive income.  The value was the goodwill in the farm and the other businesses, and there was cash.  Farms need work.  Jeremy could have spent all the cash, but that wouldn't have lasted long.  At some point, he would have had to either sell the businesses, which isn't simple and can't be done in an instant, or knuckle down to work, or have somebody else run the farm.  Would Peter Eaton have willingly worked under him for very long?

It's not so straight-forward.

[Erik Narramore]

If you favour guilt, do you accept that Nevill:

(i). must have been drowsy [you are saying Nevill was asleep when he was first shot];
(ii). in shock;
(iii). must have bled;
(iv). must have touched his wounds;
(v). must have transferred blood from himself to objects and fixtures around him.

Nevill sounds like a character out of that Jean-Claude Van Damme film, Universal Soldier.  It just seems remarkable that he can be woken by being shot in bed, can leap out of bed, get shot three more times - including twice in the face - but still make it past Jeremy and all the way to the kitchen leaving hardly any blood.

Why didn't Jeremy just kill him?

[Erik Narramore]

I should have added: the bullet cases do not prove that Nevill was shot in the master bedroom.

In fact, there is no evidence that Nevill was shot while he was in the master bedroom.

One minor but important point the prosecution do have going for them here is that, for forensic reasons, Jeremy would be keen not to enter into a direct physical struggle with any of the victims, including Nevill.  This may go some way to explaining why a drowsy/sleepy 61 year old who had already been shot twice in the face, at least once while still asleep, was able to get out of bed and escape the master bedroom without being bludgeoned by Jeremy.

I still find it a stretch, though.  Furthermore, Nevill's blood was not found in the master bedroom or on the stairs or on the landing or in the main foyer - the exception being two isolated spots of blood on the stairway wallpaper and the jamb between the kitchen and the main foyer.

For me, it's just doesn't add up.

Nevill would be in pain and shock, bleeding, sleepy and drowsy.  You're saying he was first shot while still asleep, was shot three more times but still manages to make it all the way to the kitchen in quite a large house.  Sorry Adam, it doesn't work.

There's also the idea that Jeremy shot June five times at this stage.  Why would he spend so much ammunition on June before dealing with Nevill?