Sheila could not have overcome Nevill

Started by Erik Narramore, January 29, 2022, 09:59:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1 2
User actions

Erik Narramore

January 29, 2022, 09:59:12 PM
A weak person can inflict damage using a weapon.  That is what the weapon is for.  It is a multiplier of force.  Possibly this is how weapons came into use in the very first place.  Homo sapiens sapiens was much physically weaker than his competitor, the Neanderthal, but we somehow prevailed and here we are.

Furthermore, you may be surprised at the damage a physically weak woman can inflict in a rage.  This woman was a schizophrenic, which means (among other things) she would have had periods in which all normal social and moral judgement was suspended and she would have acted purely on her impulses.

Finally, I have been confronted by people armed with weapons - guns, knives, baseball bats, a wood saw on one occasion.  I am quite physically strong and imposing.  Some of these people were far weaker than I, but I did not 'instantly negate' the situation.  Normally the best option is to run like hell.

Nevill has clearly moved through the house, which suggests either he was trying to escape in order to raise the alarm or he was trying to pursue the assailant and was stopped and had to retreat to the kitchen, perhaps with the intention of drawing the assailant's fire away from his family.  All of which is to suggest that he didn't - perhaps couldn't - 'instantly negate' the situation.  You will say this is because the assailant was Jeremy rather than Sheila, but then you have the equivalent problem with Jeremy.  Why didn't Nevill 'instantly negate' the situation when, as you claim, Jeremy ran out of ammunition on the main landing?  Wasn't Nevill physically stronger than Jeremy?

I would suggest in both cases, whether Jeremy or Sheila, there are reasons why Nevill would not have simply taken the rifle off them.  In Sheila's scenario, it may be because Nevill assumed Sheila would not actually fire the weapon.  He may also have assumed she didn't know how to and that she had simply picked up a loaded rifle left around by Jeremy.  Sheila would be quicker on her feet than Nevill.  He may have rung Jeremy as a way of distracting or stalling her, and the ploy back-fired.  He may have seized the rifle off her and then tried to talk her down and she has picked it up again.  I can think of lots of possible reasons and scenarios.
"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

#1
January 29, 2022, 10:00:26 PM
Can the manifestations of struggle be relied on?

Both the smashed ceiling light and the scratch marks on the aga mantel are matters of controversy.  I believe I have shown why the silencer could not have made those scratch marks while attached to the rifle.  The ceiling light could have been smashed by somebody waving the rifle around.  The police may even have done it accidentally.
"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

#2
January 29, 2022, 10:00:43 PM
The butt of a rifle can be used as a bludgeon.  It is a weapon, even for a very weak person. We don't know at what stage it was used in this way.  Nevill may already have been shot and weakened.
"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

#3
January 29, 2022, 10:01:33 PM
There were injuries to Nevill other than the gunshot wounds.

But it could also be consistent with Jeremy bludgeoning his father in a rage (personally I don't believe the killing was premeditated), or it could be consistent with someone simply having to contend with a physically strong farmer putting up a fight.

"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

#4
January 29, 2022, 10:02:00 PM
Sheila didn't need to overpower Nevill.  She could have just shot him.  If he tried to grab the rifle off her before the shooting started, she could have just pushed him away; and she was light on her feet, so probably ran rings round him.  She may also have pointed the rifle at him and threatened to shoot him or June or the twins, and even if he assumed she wouldn't actually fire it, he may still have been concerned enough to try and talk her down, since it's his daughter - and that could have been his fatal mistake.

Sheila may have demanded that Nevill ring Jeremy and/or maybe Nevill decided this was an idea for other reasons.  If Nevill is on the phone, he can't go after Sheila any more unless he ends the call.

She did leave evidence on her of having used the rifle.  She was holding it when the police found her.  Whatever view you take, that looks incriminating.  We also can't be certain that she didn't have other forensic evidence on her because the Essex Police investigation was botched - that is officially admitted - and she may have washed herself, as murder-suiciders sometimes do.
"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

#5
January 29, 2022, 10:02:27 PM
Sheila has the gun.  If Nevill tries to grab the gun off her, it might go off accidentally or she might run away or run upstairs to the twins or run outside into the farm yard, etc., etc., etc., etc.

This isn't as simple as the prosecution suggest.
"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

#6
January 29, 2022, 10:03:12 PM
The prosecution say Nevill would simply have grabbed the rifle from Sheila, butbBehind this are lots of assumptions: for instance, you don't know under what circumstances she grabbed the rifle in the first place.  She would have had to load it with the magazine, which suggests she would have been out of Nevill's sight.
"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

#7
January 29, 2022, 10:03:34 PM
Have you ever been in a fight?  A shorter and slighter person can have an edge in that situation.  If she was holding the rifle, and if it was loaded, she could have escaped from Nevill and Nevill would know this and may have tried to reason with her.
"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

#8
January 29, 2022, 10:03:55 PM
Sheila was physically fit, alert and coordinated.  She did her nails.  A witness says she skipped up Pages Lane with the children earlier that day.  If she had used the rifle before, or seen it used, or had its use shown to her, she could have used the rifle on the night.
"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

#9
January 29, 2022, 10:04:28 PM
Nevill would be careful about injuring Sheila.  It's his daughter.  She's a woman.  She's mentally-ill.  These weaknesses perhaps gave her a psychological edge over her father.

The prosecution may also depend on June being asleep.  But we don't know if June was asleep or not.  I thought June was a light sleeper?
"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

#10
January 29, 2022, 10:05:08 PM
Nevill was 61 and Sheila was physically fit and light on her feet, and it's his daughter, so it would not have been as simple as the prosecution think.
"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

#11
January 29, 2022, 10:05:29 PM
First, ringing Jeremy doesn't mean Nevill intended for Jeremy to calm Sheila down or even speak to Sheila at all.  He may have just needed Jeremy there because an extra person was needed to help deal with things - for instance, guard the upstairs rooms and keep Sheila downstairs.

One possible scenario is that Nevill rang Jeremy because he had already got Sheila under control.  He has left the rifle leaning nearby and Sheila is stood there.  As soon as he speaks to Jeremy, Sheila goes for the rifle again, and that's why the call ended.   
"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

#12
January 29, 2022, 10:08:25 PM
Some further points to consider:

Why doesn't Nevill just charge Sheila?  Depends on how Sheila is holding the rifle.  She may have her finger on the trigger and be pointing it him.  Does he charge her then?

The guilt camp will say Nevill would just call the police.  Well does he call them or not? 

It's assumed that Nevill would overcome Sheila easily in a struggle.  Not necessarily.  Sheila would have a tight grip on the rifle and she also has long nails.

If Nevill discovers Jeremy has left the rifle out and it's now in the hands of Sheila, he has the further problem that the gun cupboard is not securely lockable.

A torso or flesh wound to Nevill would certainly hurt and it would be a shock to him.

Nevill may be said to be stronger than Sheila and it may be assumed he would do this and that, but he has to get the rifle off her first.

If he couldn't get the rifle off Sheila, maybe ringing Jeremy was his only option?  It could also be that he it was a psychological tactic that back-fired: he threatened Sheila with calling Jeremy, but this only made her more angry.

"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

#13
January 29, 2022, 10:08:47 PM
By way of analogy and to help understand, let's imagine a young child has a rifle and is pointing it at a grown man.  As it happens, this grown man has military training.  Let's say he was in the Regular SAS and is a crack shot with a rifle, parachutes for fun and would kill you as good as look at you.

Now, is it a simple matter for this hardened SAS man to 'instantly reclaim' the rifle from the child?

Let's complexify the situation and say:

The child is having a violent tantrum.
The former SAS man is 61 and is tired after a day of manual work.
It's the early hours of the morning.
The child has her finger on the trigger.
The rifle is loaded.

What does our SAS hero do?

I do accept that it is possible he does, as you say, instantly just take the rifle from the child.  But equally, you could argue that it's not that simple because if he moves towards the child, there is a chance that the rifle could go off and he gets shot.

Remember also that a child is small and nimble and can run around, maybe quite quickly, and therefore avoid being caught or make herself difficult to catch.

Of course, the SAS man knows all about weapons and let's say this is a small calibre rifle, so he may weigh up the risk and decide he should rush her.  But a small calibre does not mean that the rifle is harmless.  It could inflict death or serious injury, if fired.  It could hit him in a vital area: a shot to the head, chest, groin or thigh could potentially kill him, or if not that, could do immense damage.  A shot to the eye could blind him.  That will be on the SAS man's mind too.

You guilters try to over-simplify the situation - which is not an encouraging sign.  Don't misunderstand me: I am all for the simple approach, but if we're going to keep it simple, we could say, well, Sheila was found with the rifle and all the entry points to the house were secured from the inside. She was mentally-ill with a history of violence.  Etc., etc., etc.  Two can play at that game.

In my posts above, especially the first one, I've given you the alternative possibilities based on a presumption of innocence.  These should be weighed in and considered and we need to ask: Are these reasonable possibilities?  If they are, then potentially (subject to other considerations) the verdict could be Not Guilty.  Personally I think these other possibilities are reasonable, which means there is doubt, which means we don't know and we have no right to keep somebody in prison on that basis, just because we think it more likely he did it.  That's not good enough.  Sorry.
"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

#14
January 29, 2022, 10:09:12 PM
I wonder why the raid group officers needed guns?
"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
Print
Go Up Pages1 2
User actions